id
stringlengths 9
9
| title
stringlengths 9
300
| selftext
stringlengths 9
9.73k
| text
stringlengths 53
9.81k
|
|---|---|---|---|
t3_26q635 | CMV:Richard Martinez, the father of recent shooting victim is a tool. | Okay, so I feel terrible hearing about the horror and atrocity recently carried out by the psycho virgin in Santa Barbara. That is first and foremost and my views about the father's rants don't change that.
But here's the thing... Within hours of learning that his child had been murdered, Richard Martinez was holding a press conference and calling for more gun control. He has not stopped yet and keeps ranting about how poor gun control led to this killing.
I feel bad for him for his loss, but he hasn't shown any real sadness himself; just a lot of political pandering to push a liberal cause. He doesn't seem to register that 3 of the victims were stabbed (not shot) and the last "victim" was the killer committing suicide. So... less than half the victims were murdered by gun (not counting the suicide)... but gun control could have fixed this? I am NOT an advocate for gun control which is probably why this guy bugs me so much. I believe that psycho killers will always find a way to kill, regardless of laws, and the only way to really stop this would have been for other people to have been allowed by the government to be sufficiently armed to stop this loony before he got far.
_____
> *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:Richard Martinez, the father of recent shooting victim is a tool. Okay, so I feel terrible hearing about the horror and atrocity recently carried out by the psycho virgin in Santa Barbara. That is first and foremost and my views about the father's rants don't change that.
But here's the thing... Within hours of learning that his child had been murdered, Richard Martinez was holding a press conference and calling for more gun control. He has not stopped yet and keeps ranting about how poor gun control led to this killing.
I feel bad for him for his loss, but he hasn't shown any real sadness himself; just a lot of political pandering to push a liberal cause. He doesn't seem to register that 3 of the victims were stabbed (not shot) and the last "victim" was the killer committing suicide. So... less than half the victims were murdered by gun (not counting the suicide)... but gun control could have fixed this? I am NOT an advocate for gun control which is probably why this guy bugs me so much. I believe that psycho killers will always find a way to kill, regardless of laws, and the only way to really stop this would have been for other people to have been allowed by the government to be sufficiently armed to stop this loony before he got far.
|
t3_2cwals | CMV: PC is the master race of gaming. | There surely has to be a reason to ditch my old PC because of all the Console craze.... So why should I switch? PC is able to achieve 1080p, 60 fps (or more, if you wish.) with YOUR own choice of hardware parts. PCs are not made by a single company, so those companies can't restrict games they don't want you to play. You can have steam, origin, gog.com, and uplay ^^^^^...ugh games. PC games can be streamed to an NVidia shield with little or no lag. PC can be hooked up to a TV, and can be used with a controller. Then you can open big picture and browse the Web, open all of your steam games, (surprise, no disc!) and play them. Plus many more.
But yes, please, CMV. | CMV: PC is the master race of gaming. There surely has to be a reason to ditch my old PC because of all the Console craze.... So why should I switch? PC is able to achieve 1080p, 60 fps (or more, if you wish.) with YOUR own choice of hardware parts. PCs are not made by a single company, so those companies can't restrict games they don't want you to play. You can have steam, origin, gog.com, and uplay ^^^^^...ugh games. PC games can be streamed to an NVidia shield with little or no lag. PC can be hooked up to a TV, and can be used with a controller. Then you can open big picture and browse the Web, open all of your steam games, (surprise, no disc!) and play them. Plus many more.
But yes, please, CMV. |
t3_3csnry | CMV: Video games offer the greatest potential for story telling | Hello CMV. I truly believe that the platform that has the greatest potential for story telling is video games compared with other methods (books, tv, movies,theatre)
Allow me to explain; with video games, unlike every other method of story telling, you are in control of your character (besides cut scenes). You control where they go, how they fight, even the camera.
Also some games give you choices, sometimes big, other times small, for instance think of mass effect, you choose to save or destroy entire races and more importantly whether to allow your friends to die to do this. Compare this to choices in say Arrow (tv show, if you have seen it you know what I am referencing). While the choice is made there you have no input on it, it is filmed as that so will always be the same result.
Moving away from story driven games to player created stories. There is an fps that I play called planetside 2, hundreds of players fighting over enormous maps. Here you get stories forming naturally, someone takes command, you might be fighting, surrounded on all sides desperately trying to hold a base until back up can arrive. Let me tell you, there is real tension created there and a connection to the people you are fighting beside (hard to explain unless you have played the game) | CMV: Video games offer the greatest potential for story telling. Hello CMV. I truly believe that the platform that has the greatest potential for story telling is video games compared with other methods (books, tv, movies,theatre)
Allow me to explain; with video games, unlike every other method of story telling, you are in control of your character (besides cut scenes). You control where they go, how they fight, even the camera.
Also some games give you choices, sometimes big, other times small, for instance think of mass effect, you choose to save or destroy entire races and more importantly whether to allow your friends to die to do this. Compare this to choices in say Arrow (tv show, if you have seen it you know what I am referencing). While the choice is made there you have no input on it, it is filmed as that so will always be the same result.
Moving away from story driven games to player created stories. There is an fps that I play called planetside 2, hundreds of players fighting over enormous maps. Here you get stories forming naturally, someone takes command, you might be fighting, surrounded on all sides desperately trying to hold a base until back up can arrive. Let me tell you, there is real tension created there and a connection to the people you are fighting beside (hard to explain unless you have played the game) |
t3_25shwx | CMV: I don't think that Frank Underwood from "House of Cards" is that bad. | I'm not saying that he is a good person. I think most of the things he actually does are morally reprehensible. I just don't think that he's anything incredibly out of the ordinary. I mean, his habit of murdering people is bad, but honestly, he's just a guy who is climbing his way up to the top, and in order to do so, he has to step on some fingers and push some people down, and honestly, people do that all the time in the real world.
And on the note of him climbing to the top, as a politician, he is very effective and his policies are pretty good. I mean, as Democratic Whip, he gets his education policies passed. He starts passing military anti-rape legislation in season two, and he diffuses a foreign crisis between China and Japan as President. His means may be questionable, but as a leader, he isn't incompetent or actively screwing up the country. I don't care whether or not he is brutal in his ascent to power. If he isn't a bad leader, I don't see the problem.
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: I don't think that Frank Underwood from "House of Cards" is that bad. I'm not saying that he is a good person. I think most of the things he actually does are morally reprehensible. I just don't think that he's anything incredibly out of the ordinary. I mean, his habit of murdering people is bad, but honestly, he's just a guy who is climbing his way up to the top, and in order to do so, he has to step on some fingers and push some people down, and honestly, people do that all the time in the real world.
And on the note of him climbing to the top, as a politician, he is very effective and his policies are pretty good. I mean, as Democratic Whip, he gets his education policies passed. He starts passing military anti-rape legislation in season two, and he diffuses a foreign crisis between China and Japan as President. His means may be questionable, but as a leader, he isn't incompetent or actively screwing up the country. I don't care whether or not he is brutal in his ascent to power. If he isn't a bad leader, I don't see the problem.
|
t3_1s3rfd | I believe that colleges and universities should only offer degrees in classic fields, and that everything else should be taught through on-the-job training. CMV | It's time for all of those who majored in business, communications, engineering, marketing, and all that other nonsense to justify their decision.
There was a time when colleges and universities were for people who wanted to study literature, philosophy, mathematics, history, chemistry, and biology. This gave people with an interest in these subjects the time to work on furthering these important fields. Someone studying philosophy would be expected to come up with philosophies of their own based on the knowledge presented by those who came before. Someone studying biology would be expected to create their own hypotheses and to experiment on them. Someone studying literature would be expected to read books carefully and to extrapolate theories based on what they read. This was considered important work in society. I feel that it still is important work in society.
The problem is that other majors have turned colleges and universities into diploma mills for people who are hoping to get middle management positions. They are no longer places for education, and now just places for people to complete one more step on the way to the real world. How much about actual business does a business major learn without working at an actual business? What does an engineer really learn that cannot be taught in a two-year degree and a lot of time working at an actual engineering job? What do communications majors actually learn in their classes?
Schools are so focused on making sure that everyone gets their super special degree, that they have lost their focus regarding the other (in my opinion, more important) majors. Now English and history majors are taught with an eye towards teaching middle or high school. Chemistry and biology students are busy learning about everyone else's experiments without doing any of their own. Philosophy students are fortunate in that their professors are mostly of the old school, and therefore do allow them some freedom of thought, but they still have to deal with mass memorization, and the fact that their department is being slowly but surely eliminated from many universities.
If we reverted to treating colleges and universities as places where people were actually expected to study and come up with new ideas, then we would have a stronger society. The memorization of what is past is wonderful, in some regards, but it is better to constantly be innovating. I feel that innovation goes far beyond simply creating a new technology. We have to be innovative in thought and feeling. We have to be able to come up with new ideas surrounding old problems.
The best way to do this would be to allow colleges and universities to nurture the minds that are naturally inclined towards critical thought. They can't do this if they are focused on pumping out diplomas for people who would be better educated in the field. | I believe that colleges and universities should only offer degrees in classic fields, and that everything else should be taught through on-the-job training. CMV. It's time for all of those who majored in business, communications, engineering, marketing, and all that other nonsense to justify their decision.
There was a time when colleges and universities were for people who wanted to study literature, philosophy, mathematics, history, chemistry, and biology. This gave people with an interest in these subjects the time to work on furthering these important fields. Someone studying philosophy would be expected to come up with philosophies of their own based on the knowledge presented by those who came before. Someone studying biology would be expected to create their own hypotheses and to experiment on them. Someone studying literature would be expected to read books carefully and to extrapolate theories based on what they read. This was considered important work in society. I feel that it still is important work in society.
The problem is that other majors have turned colleges and universities into diploma mills for people who are hoping to get middle management positions. They are no longer places for education, and now just places for people to complete one more step on the way to the real world. How much about actual business does a business major learn without working at an actual business? What does an engineer really learn that cannot be taught in a two-year degree and a lot of time working at an actual engineering job? What do communications majors actually learn in their classes?
Schools are so focused on making sure that everyone gets their super special degree, that they have lost their focus regarding the other (in my opinion, more important) majors. Now English and history majors are taught with an eye towards teaching middle or high school. Chemistry and biology students are busy learning about everyone else's experiments without doing any of their own. Philosophy students are fortunate in that their professors are mostly of the old school, and therefore do allow them some freedom of thought, but they still have to deal with mass memorization, and the fact that their department is being slowly but surely eliminated from many universities.
If we reverted to treating colleges and universities as places where people were actually expected to study and come up with new ideas, then we would have a stronger society. The memorization of what is past is wonderful, in some regards, but it is better to constantly be innovating. I feel that innovation goes far beyond simply creating a new technology. We have to be innovative in thought and feeling. We have to be able to come up with new ideas surrounding old problems.
The best way to do this would be to allow colleges and universities to nurture the minds that are naturally inclined towards critical thought. They can't do this if they are focused on pumping out diplomas for people who would be better educated in the field. |
t3_4hprsb | CMV: Telling someone to watch what they drink/wear (to avoid getting raped) is no different than telling someone to lock their door (to avoid getting robbed) | edit: It has been pointed out that I'm including two entirely different things in this analogy (wearing revealing clothing vs. drinking) and the "wearing" analogy doesn't really hold up. So in this example, I'm solely referring to drinking, and I apologize for indicating otherwise.
-----------
If I get robbed because I left my doors unlocked, that is not my fault. The police might ask if I locked up, and people might wonder why I was being careless, but the indisputable fact is that the person who robbed my house is the only one to blame for the situation.
I don't see how this is any different than suggesting women be careful what they drink while in mixed company. Women shouldn't HAVE to do this (any more than I should HAVE to lock my door) but we don't live in a world where everyone does exactly what they're supposed to. Therefore, it's not a victim-blaming or misguided idea to protect myself against those people. There are bad people out there. Some of them want to rob me, some of them want to rape me. These people KNOW they're bad, they just don't care.
I, as a rational adult, know that it's not realistic to go around demanding people stop suggesting I lock my doors, because they're engaging in victim blaming. We have locks on our doors, and have had them pretty much since doors were invented, because it's simply a logical protection to have against bad people.
Again, if I get robbed, it is NOT my fault. If they catch the robber, he's not going to be able to use "well he had his doors unlocked!" as any kind of excuse. But, having said that, there are proactive steps I can take to lessen the danger of someone taking advantage of me. That isn't changing anything about what the potential robber might attempt to do, it's just a way I can prevent myself from being put in a position to be robbed in the first place.
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: Telling someone to watch what they drink/wear (to avoid getting raped) is no different than telling someone to lock their door (to avoid getting robbed). edit: It has been pointed out that I'm including two entirely different things in this analogy (wearing revealing clothing vs. drinking) and the "wearing" analogy doesn't really hold up. So in this example, I'm solely referring to drinking, and I apologize for indicating otherwise.
-----------
If I get robbed because I left my doors unlocked, that is not my fault. The police might ask if I locked up, and people might wonder why I was being careless, but the indisputable fact is that the person who robbed my house is the only one to blame for the situation.
I don't see how this is any different than suggesting women be careful what they drink while in mixed company. Women shouldn't HAVE to do this (any more than I should HAVE to lock my door) but we don't live in a world where everyone does exactly what they're supposed to. Therefore, it's not a victim-blaming or misguided idea to protect myself against those people. There are bad people out there. Some of them want to rob me, some of them want to rape me. These people KNOW they're bad, they just don't care.
I, as a rational adult, know that it's not realistic to go around demanding people stop suggesting I lock my doors, because they're engaging in victim blaming. We have locks on our doors, and have had them pretty much since doors were invented, because it's simply a logical protection to have against bad people.
Again, if I get robbed, it is NOT my fault. If they catch the robber, he's not going to be able to use "well he had his doors unlocked!" as any kind of excuse. But, having said that, there are proactive steps I can take to lessen the danger of someone taking advantage of me. That isn't changing anything about what the potential robber might attempt to do, it's just a way I can prevent myself from being put in a position to be robbed in the first place.
|
t3_1z4owq | I believe that the as long as a person is sexually mature, there should be no "child pornography" penalty, even if said person is not yet 18 years of age. CMV | I believe that the completion of puberty, rather than age 18, should be the requirement for somebody to legally act in/distribute pornography. There is too much doubt and gray area to judge whether a person is at least 18 years old, whereas seeing whether or not somebody is sexually mature is just of matter of visual cues. In addition, why should somebody who is fully blossomed have to wait a few more years to show themselves off, when they are already primed and ready? But don't get me wrong: prepubescent/pubescent child pornography is clearly immoral, and should remain illegal. | I believe that the as long as a person is sexually mature, there should be no "child pornography" penalty, even if said person is not yet 18 years of age. CMV. I believe that the completion of puberty, rather than age 18, should be the requirement for somebody to legally act in/distribute pornography. There is too much doubt and gray area to judge whether a person is at least 18 years old, whereas seeing whether or not somebody is sexually mature is just of matter of visual cues. In addition, why should somebody who is fully blossomed have to wait a few more years to show themselves off, when they are already primed and ready? But don't get me wrong: prepubescent/pubescent child pornography is clearly immoral, and should remain illegal. |
t3_22e53o | CMV: I think everyone on earth should speak the same language. | I think this would create a greater unity among all humankind by making communication with different people much easier.
I understand that, to an extent, culture is tied to language, but many people of other cultures still practice those cultures while speaking english. It doesn't seem like other cultures would disappear if all people spoke one language.
In fact, the fact that language is a part of culture seems to provide even greater evidence that speaking one language would bring the world closer together, by making all cultures that much more able to understand/empathize with each other.
Edit: I am not arguing for one particular language over any other. Also, this is regardless of how everyone comes to speak the same language (maybe starting with everyone speaking it as a second language would work best?), I'm just arguing that if they did, it would have a positive effect overall. | CMV: I think everyone on earth should speak the same language. I think this would create a greater unity among all humankind by making communication with different people much easier.
I understand that, to an extent, culture is tied to language, but many people of other cultures still practice those cultures while speaking english. It doesn't seem like other cultures would disappear if all people spoke one language.
In fact, the fact that language is a part of culture seems to provide even greater evidence that speaking one language would bring the world closer together, by making all cultures that much more able to understand/empathize with each other.
Edit: I am not arguing for one particular language over any other. Also, this is regardless of how everyone comes to speak the same language (maybe starting with everyone speaking it as a second language would work best?), I'm just arguing that if they did, it would have a positive effect overall. |
t3_225hft | I believe that people put too much of their confidence, happiness, and self worth in finding a career CMV | While getting a career is something you need to do to survive and really enjoy your time for what you're going to be working for everyone around me makes it seem like it's the only source of self-esteem and happiness. It seems like it is one of the only ways people *judge* your drive and ambition when in reality many other things can measure each individual's drive and ambition.
Another reason it is frustrating is because you have many people with lots of motivation and drive that cannot find the job they want right now because of the current economy and therefore lost their self confidence when in reality they almost did nothing wrong.
Does a career always define people who are "doing well" with their life? What does this say about "losers" or "lazy" people who can't get a decent career because of many different reasons? | I believe that people put too much of their confidence, happiness, and self worth in finding a career CMV. While getting a career is something you need to do to survive and really enjoy your time for what you're going to be working for everyone around me makes it seem like it's the only source of self-esteem and happiness. It seems like it is one of the only ways people *judge* your drive and ambition when in reality many other things can measure each individual's drive and ambition.
Another reason it is frustrating is because you have many people with lots of motivation and drive that cannot find the job they want right now because of the current economy and therefore lost their self confidence when in reality they almost did nothing wrong.
Does a career always define people who are "doing well" with their life? What does this say about "losers" or "lazy" people who can't get a decent career because of many different reasons? |
t3_1i3oiq | I believe "judging a book by its cover" is a correct philosophy, and i actively use it day to day, CMV. | Now, i know i'm bordering on what most people would call a snob, but hear me out;
We all make snap judgments about the people we meet, like it or not, and that affects how we interact with them and think of them. All i do is embrace that and become conscious of it. To use the book analogy, in the bookshop, the cover is worn, tatty, has fowl language all over it and no redeeming qualities as far as i can see. I would not pick up that book. Yes, maybe there is a good story inside, and maybe i would enjoy it if i tried, but why?
Why invest my time and effort in something that the author (the person in question) didn't deem fit for a good cover (outside appearance and initial interaction)? Am i supposed to read through a book before i buy it? every book? no. Same with people, if they don't seem like my kind of person on the outset, i will not peruse a relationship with them and depending on the situation, actively avoid that.
The likelyhood that the tatty book with the bad cover being the worst choice is far greater than the well presented cover.
I like to surround myself with people that increase my quality of life in the same way i would expect to do for them. I'm proud of the company i keep, even though it means i don't engage with a lot of the population
The amount i hear people going on about not judging a book by its cover and that people deserve second chances etc, i'm worried that i'm just becoming the classic snob and am missing out on whatever the other people might bring to the table. Am i doing the right thing? CMV | I believe "judging a book by its cover" is a correct philosophy, and i actively use it day to day, CMV. Now, i know i'm bordering on what most people would call a snob, but hear me out;
We all make snap judgments about the people we meet, like it or not, and that affects how we interact with them and think of them. All i do is embrace that and become conscious of it. To use the book analogy, in the bookshop, the cover is worn, tatty, has fowl language all over it and no redeeming qualities as far as i can see. I would not pick up that book. Yes, maybe there is a good story inside, and maybe i would enjoy it if i tried, but why?
Why invest my time and effort in something that the author (the person in question) didn't deem fit for a good cover (outside appearance and initial interaction)? Am i supposed to read through a book before i buy it? every book? no. Same with people, if they don't seem like my kind of person on the outset, i will not peruse a relationship with them and depending on the situation, actively avoid that.
The likelyhood that the tatty book with the bad cover being the worst choice is far greater than the well presented cover.
I like to surround myself with people that increase my quality of life in the same way i would expect to do for them. I'm proud of the company i keep, even though it means i don't engage with a lot of the population
The amount i hear people going on about not judging a book by its cover and that people deserve second chances etc, i'm worried that i'm just becoming the classic snob and am missing out on whatever the other people might bring to the table. Am i doing the right thing? CMV |
t3_2bmc2p | CMV Isreal is commiting genocide | I think the killing of the palestinians in Isreal is taking the shapes of genocide.
By simply looking at the numbers of casualties on both sides, the casualties on the side of the palistinians massively outnumber the ones on the Isrealian side.
They don't seem to care if the people they kill are Hamas, it starts to look like they kill purely based on one criterium and that is if the person is from palistina.
If Hamas is using their own people as human shield like they say, it doesn't justify just wrecklessly kill them.
CMV | CMV Isreal is commiting genocide. I think the killing of the palestinians in Isreal is taking the shapes of genocide.
By simply looking at the numbers of casualties on both sides, the casualties on the side of the palistinians massively outnumber the ones on the Isrealian side.
They don't seem to care if the people they kill are Hamas, it starts to look like they kill purely based on one criterium and that is if the person is from palistina.
If Hamas is using their own people as human shield like they say, it doesn't justify just wrecklessly kill them.
CMV |
t3_5f1ohi | CMV: The_Donald should not be banned | I don't think they should be banned. It would set a bad precedent, and make it easier for malicious people to get other good subreddits banned through infiltration and posting of racist/sexist posts. In other words, banning them is not a final solution to the T_D problem. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Instead, I think it's extremely important, and I feel like this should have happened months ago, that T_D mods should not be allowed to ban comments from non-Trump supporters.
This will allow other users to naturally counter the lies they spread and call them out on their sexism/racism. Right now it is a massive echo chamber with no sane comments to be found, which gives the illusion that the things they say there are valid.
The instant someone posts a valid rebuttal, that user is banned from posting in T_D which is just ridiculous. Reddit is supposed to be self moderating in a sense, because of upvotes/downvotes and once they started botting votes, the only filter would have been actual users responding to their lies, which can't happen anymore either considering how ban-happy the mods there are.
Ps. I think no political subreddits should be allowed to ban dissenting opinions, only ban spam or non-serious comments. Self created echo chambers was one of the reasons the trump victory was such a surprise, and reddit should not aid the existence of bubbles. | CMV: The_Donald should not be banned. I don't think they should be banned. It would set a bad precedent, and make it easier for malicious people to get other good subreddits banned through infiltration and posting of racist/sexist posts. In other words, banning them is not a final solution to the T_D problem. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Instead, I think it's extremely important, and I feel like this should have happened months ago, that T_D mods should not be allowed to ban comments from non-Trump supporters.
This will allow other users to naturally counter the lies they spread and call them out on their sexism/racism. Right now it is a massive echo chamber with no sane comments to be found, which gives the illusion that the things they say there are valid.
The instant someone posts a valid rebuttal, that user is banned from posting in T_D which is just ridiculous. Reddit is supposed to be self moderating in a sense, because of upvotes/downvotes and once they started botting votes, the only filter would have been actual users responding to their lies, which can't happen anymore either considering how ban-happy the mods there are.
Ps. I think no political subreddits should be allowed to ban dissenting opinions, only ban spam or non-serious comments. Self created echo chambers was one of the reasons the trump victory was such a surprise, and reddit should not aid the existence of bubbles. |
t3_1o194l | I think that MLB teams should have 12 pitchers who each pitches for a few innings as needed, rather than a 5-man rotation and 7 relievers. CMV. | I'm watching the Tampa-Boston game, and the Rays have pitched 4 guys despite giving up no runs over the first few innings. this got me thinking--what if teams did this for every game, not just the playoffs? It has several advantages I can think of:
1. It allows more flexibility for selecting different pitchers for the best situations
* Great pitchers could be put in in the most important situations, rather than for the first several innings of mostly-random games
* An injury to a pitcher would allow the rest of the pitchers to fill in, rather than creating a hole in the rotation that needs to be filled
* There'd be no issue with weak pitchers coming up in the rotation--no "Spahn then Sain then pray for rain".
* Pitchers could have their endurance tailored to specifically. Maybe a young pitcher can't start every 5 days, but he could have the number of innings tailored to his abilities
* Most of the game would be pitched by a relatively fresh pitcher
* Hitters would find it tougher to get used to a pitcher, making it tougher for them to adapt
12 people pitching every games gives 121.5 innings per pitcher plus extra innings, which is a little much for most relievers, but still reasonable. current starters could pitch more innings, it'd just be a couple innings every couple games instead of several innings every 5 days. this would compensate for relievers who would pitch somewhat fewer innings.
this could also be customized further. maybe a pitcher is really good at pitching 7 innings every 5 days, but is crap for a couple innings every couple days--he could start every 5 days, but the other games would be covered by the other 11 pitchers. this might make sense for current aces and other great pitchers, while good/average/poor starters are replaced by a platooning system.
CMV baseball fans!
edit: An additional note: personally, I prefer starters. as a fan, there's not much I love more than a pitcher throwing a great 7-9 innings (close plays at the plate and great defensive plays are my favorite parts). But I think this'd be a more effective setup for most teams. | I think that MLB teams should have 12 pitchers who each pitches for a few innings as needed, rather than a 5-man rotation and 7 relievers. CMV. I'm watching the Tampa-Boston game, and the Rays have pitched 4 guys despite giving up no runs over the first few innings. this got me thinking--what if teams did this for every game, not just the playoffs? It has several advantages I can think of:
1. It allows more flexibility for selecting different pitchers for the best situations
* Great pitchers could be put in in the most important situations, rather than for the first several innings of mostly-random games
* An injury to a pitcher would allow the rest of the pitchers to fill in, rather than creating a hole in the rotation that needs to be filled
* There'd be no issue with weak pitchers coming up in the rotation--no "Spahn then Sain then pray for rain".
* Pitchers could have their endurance tailored to specifically. Maybe a young pitcher can't start every 5 days, but he could have the number of innings tailored to his abilities
* Most of the game would be pitched by a relatively fresh pitcher
* Hitters would find it tougher to get used to a pitcher, making it tougher for them to adapt
12 people pitching every games gives 121.5 innings per pitcher plus extra innings, which is a little much for most relievers, but still reasonable. current starters could pitch more innings, it'd just be a couple innings every couple games instead of several innings every 5 days. this would compensate for relievers who would pitch somewhat fewer innings.
this could also be customized further. maybe a pitcher is really good at pitching 7 innings every 5 days, but is crap for a couple innings every couple days--he could start every 5 days, but the other games would be covered by the other 11 pitchers. this might make sense for current aces and other great pitchers, while good/average/poor starters are replaced by a platooning system.
CMV baseball fans!
edit: An additional note: personally, I prefer starters. as a fan, there's not much I love more than a pitcher throwing a great 7-9 innings (close plays at the plate and great defensive plays are my favorite parts). But I think this'd be a more effective setup for most teams. |
t3_2gog3b | CMV: I already have a job lined up for next summer, but I still have a year of college left. I believe that I should only have to try hard enough to graduate. | I interned at a large, well-known company last summer and they gave me a generous job offer, which I immediately accepted. The job offer states that I must simply graduate with the degree that I told them I'd be graduating with. It doesn't make sense to me that I should have to try very hard in school this year. I have a 3.5 cumulative GPA, and I plan to shoot for A's only in the classes that actually interest me. A few B's and C's won't hurt me that much. I'd rather focus this year on planning for my relocation next summer and having fun with my family and friends while I'm still in town, as well as finally being able to focus on some personal goals that are unrelated to school like losing weight.
Why should I still shoot for that 4.0? What can it do for me now?
_____
> *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 already have a job lined up for next summer, but I still have a year of college left. I believe that I should only have to try hard enough to graduate. I interned at a large, well-known company last summer and they gave me a generous job offer, which I immediately accepted. The job offer states that I must simply graduate with the degree that I told them I'd be graduating with. It doesn't make sense to me that I should have to try very hard in school this year. I have a 3.5 cumulative GPA, and I plan to shoot for A's only in the classes that actually interest me. A few B's and C's won't hurt me that much. I'd rather focus this year on planning for my relocation next summer and having fun with my family and friends while I'm still in town, as well as finally being able to focus on some personal goals that are unrelated to school like losing weight.
Why should I still shoot for that 4.0? What can it do for me now?
|
t3_33fodf | CMV: Guardians of severely mentally-disabled children are caring for pets, not people. | Beginning with the idea that personhood - that which separates us in a meaningful way from non-human animals - is intellectual, not genetic or morphogenic, and considering also that humans with low-functioning autism or Down syndrome will, pet-like, never be able to care for themselves, I arrive at the conclusion that, functionally, they are pets.
Of course there is a difference in function between individuals. I don't want to hear about that guy with Down's who's got a job, and apartment, and a girlfriend; that's not who I'm talking about. Note also that this is distinct from the "waste of everyone's time" posted by someone else. I'm not saying anything about *whether* they are valuable to society, but rather the *nature* of their value.
(I want to clarify that, like with other pets, I'm strongly against abusing the mentally disabled.)
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: Guardians of severely mentally-disabled children are caring for pets, not people. Beginning with the idea that personhood - that which separates us in a meaningful way from non-human animals - is intellectual, not genetic or morphogenic, and considering also that humans with low-functioning autism or Down syndrome will, pet-like, never be able to care for themselves, I arrive at the conclusion that, functionally, they are pets.
Of course there is a difference in function between individuals. I don't want to hear about that guy with Down's who's got a job, and apartment, and a girlfriend; that's not who I'm talking about. Note also that this is distinct from the "waste of everyone's time" posted by someone else. I'm not saying anything about *whether* they are valuable to society, but rather the *nature* of their value.
(I want to clarify that, like with other pets, I'm strongly against abusing the mentally disabled.)
CMV!
|
t3_4p5d01 | CMV: Technology is making us dumber | Between everyone being constantly attached to their phones and robots replacing people's jobs, it seems tech is turning us into dumber and lazier people. People are constantly distracted by their phones they can't even finish a conversation with a real human being without being interrupted by technology.
Moreover, children are growing up a world without books but instead with animated cartoons, iPad games, and battery-powered toys. They don't even need to bother remembering or learning anything since they can just Google it.
Note: I am on the social team for [Point Taken](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/point-taken/is-technology-making-us-smarter-dumber/), a new late night show on PBS that champions spirited and civil debate. Tonight at 11pm ET we are debating this very issue: If technology is making us smarter or dumber. | CMV: Technology is making us dumber. Between everyone being constantly attached to their phones and robots replacing people's jobs, it seems tech is turning us into dumber and lazier people. People are constantly distracted by their phones they can't even finish a conversation with a real human being without being interrupted by technology.
Moreover, children are growing up a world without books but instead with animated cartoons, iPad games, and battery-powered toys. They don't even need to bother remembering or learning anything since they can just Google it.
Note: I am on the social team for [Point Taken](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/point-taken/is-technology-making-us-smarter-dumber/), a new late night show on PBS that champions spirited and civil debate. Tonight at 11pm ET we are debating this very issue: If technology is making us smarter or dumber. |
t3_4d7l1s | CMV: Soccer does not have a big doping problem | I will admit to most sports have huge problems with doping. Cycling, American football, baseball, weight lifting, running of all kinds such as cross-country skiing and such. And nearly all bodybuilders are doped. But I don't think this huge doping problem is found in soccer. I have no doubt some soccer players some of the time use doping for various purposes. But if a lot of players were using it would have at least been found out in some countries. With cycling you have a doping history from day one, you have rumors before anything is revealed. You have questionable doping testing and slightly positive tests. And thereafter you always get big stars taken for doping or former stars making a big book deal and revealing everything. None of this happens in soccer in a big degree, but this happens in all other doping sports. So we should not assume there are many teams being doped in football.
So, football is a technical sport and you can therefore be the best in the world without any doping as just doping to get big muscles won't help your technique that much. Better stamina is not everything as skill is much more important. So it's not crucial to take doping and better on average not too as you can get caught. No big doping problem exists in soccer.
Edit: added explanation of what doping does.
_____
> *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: Soccer does not have a big doping problem. I will admit to most sports have huge problems with doping. Cycling, American football, baseball, weight lifting, running of all kinds such as cross-country skiing and such. And nearly all bodybuilders are doped. But I don't think this huge doping problem is found in soccer. I have no doubt some soccer players some of the time use doping for various purposes. But if a lot of players were using it would have at least been found out in some countries. With cycling you have a doping history from day one, you have rumors before anything is revealed. You have questionable doping testing and slightly positive tests. And thereafter you always get big stars taken for doping or former stars making a big book deal and revealing everything. None of this happens in soccer in a big degree, but this happens in all other doping sports. So we should not assume there are many teams being doped in football.
So, football is a technical sport and you can therefore be the best in the world without any doping as just doping to get big muscles won't help your technique that much. Better stamina is not everything as skill is much more important. So it's not crucial to take doping and better on average not too as you can get caught. No big doping problem exists in soccer.
Edit: added explanation of what doping does. |
t3_4m0480 | CMV: All culture is appropriated. There is nothing wrong with cultural appropriation. | **(1)** There's nothing wrong with a person's attempt to participate in another culture- in fact, were this to be done more often, I think the condition of the world would greatly improve.
Let's push this one step further:
**(2)** There's nothing wrong with incorporating aspects of another culture into your own culture. This is what people do- it is a person's natural response to experiencing something that they like- it is what culture is.
Let's push this one step further:
**(3)** There's nothing morally wrong with incorporating aspects of another culture into your own - even if the original significance of the cultural aspect is completely lost.
As I understand it, this is probably where some people begin to disagree with me. I admit that this situation isn't ideal: it usually implies a degree of cultural ignorance on the part of the Cultural Appropriator (let's name him "C.A."). But even so, there always exists some gap, however small, in understanding between cultures- that is indeed part of what makes them distinct cultures- and it is difficult to find blame in that. Even within one's own culture, there exist disagreements on the significance the culture's own features.
Now, I'm not totally unsympathetic to the other camp here. I do often think that misrepresentations of other cultures are in poor taste. For example, I remember when I first watched Disney's Alladin as a kid, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, but it also came off as phoney. I still feel that way. The movie is American- brazenly so- but it tries to construct an "Arabian" veneer by presenting the semblance of middle-eastern cultures out of context. When I watch it, I feel robbed of experiencing another culture because that is what the movie promises, but not what is actually given. Getting back to my point: this isn't morally wrong- I only think that the film's misrepresentation of culture detracted from the quality of what is otherwise a brilliant work of art.
Ok, finally,
**(4)** The notion that cultural appropriation is wrong only when done by a member of a specific 'race'- is racist! To place an expectation on someone solely on the basis of their 'race' is the very definition of racism. This kind of attitude only succeeds in broadening preexisting divides between groups of people. I think it's completely unacceptable, counterproductive, and needs to stop.
I've got a busy week coming up- so please forgive me if it takes a day or two to make a reply.
**edit:
Thanks for all the discussion, guys! Some really interesting points have been raised. I'll probably be coming back for a few more days yet.**
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: All culture is appropriated. There is nothing wrong with cultural appropriation. **(1)** There's nothing wrong with a person's attempt to participate in another culture- in fact, were this to be done more often, I think the condition of the world would greatly improve.
Let's push this one step further:
**(2)** There's nothing wrong with incorporating aspects of another culture into your own culture. This is what people do- it is a person's natural response to experiencing something that they like- it is what culture is.
Let's push this one step further:
**(3)** There's nothing morally wrong with incorporating aspects of another culture into your own - even if the original significance of the cultural aspect is completely lost.
As I understand it, this is probably where some people begin to disagree with me. I admit that this situation isn't ideal: it usually implies a degree of cultural ignorance on the part of the Cultural Appropriator (let's name him "C.A."). But even so, there always exists some gap, however small, in understanding between cultures- that is indeed part of what makes them distinct cultures- and it is difficult to find blame in that. Even within one's own culture, there exist disagreements on the significance the culture's own features.
Now, I'm not totally unsympathetic to the other camp here. I do often think that misrepresentations of other cultures are in poor taste. For example, I remember when I first watched Disney's Alladin as a kid, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, but it also came off as phoney. I still feel that way. The movie is American- brazenly so- but it tries to construct an "Arabian" veneer by presenting the semblance of middle-eastern cultures out of context. When I watch it, I feel robbed of experiencing another culture because that is what the movie promises, but not what is actually given. Getting back to my point: this isn't morally wrong- I only think that the film's misrepresentation of culture detracted from the quality of what is otherwise a brilliant work of art.
Ok, finally,
**(4)** The notion that cultural appropriation is wrong only when done by a member of a specific 'race'- is racist! To place an expectation on someone solely on the basis of their 'race' is the very definition of racism. This kind of attitude only succeeds in broadening preexisting divides between groups of people. I think it's completely unacceptable, counterproductive, and needs to stop.
I've got a busy week coming up- so please forgive me if it takes a day or two to make a reply.
**edit:
Thanks for all the discussion, guys! Some really interesting points have been raised. I'll probably be coming back for a few more days yet.**
|
t3_22rk2h | CMV: No personal information should be released about the defendant in a court case until they are found guilty. | 'Trial by media' is a serious problem with court cases today. In cases where somebody well known is involved, the reporting of a trial can entirely ruin somebody's reputation before they are found non guilty. The problem is arguably amplified when it is not someone famous involved; it is entirely possible that a news story about your charges or trial that does not mention your non guilty verdict would be the first result on Google for a potential employer looking you up.
I do not believe that nothing about a case should be reported; I simply believe that if news around a case is being reported it should be scrubbed of personal information (ie "A 22 year old male" as opposed to "Jack Smith, 22"). Once the first appeals have been used and the defendant is found guilty information about them would be able to be released. This allows the public to hold the public prosecution service accountable by ensuring that cases are always dealt with correctly but also protects the right of individuals to return to their lives without fear of repercussions if found not guilty.
I know that this does not cover individuals who are found not guilty after being convicted, nor does it cover speculation on a trial by the media but it does a great deal more to protect the individual than the current situation in many countries.
**Edit**: In response to /u/phoenixrawr's comment I have modified my viewpoint slightly to include this compromise:
> By default the media would not be permitted to reveal personal details. If one party asked a judge to provide authorisation for the release of personal details on a case-by-case basis they and the media would be permitted to.
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: No personal information should be released about the defendant in a court case until they are found guilty. 'Trial by media' is a serious problem with court cases today. In cases where somebody well known is involved, the reporting of a trial can entirely ruin somebody's reputation before they are found non guilty. The problem is arguably amplified when it is not someone famous involved; it is entirely possible that a news story about your charges or trial that does not mention your non guilty verdict would be the first result on Google for a potential employer looking you up.
I do not believe that nothing about a case should be reported; I simply believe that if news around a case is being reported it should be scrubbed of personal information (ie "A 22 year old male" as opposed to "Jack Smith, 22"). Once the first appeals have been used and the defendant is found guilty information about them would be able to be released. This allows the public to hold the public prosecution service accountable by ensuring that cases are always dealt with correctly but also protects the right of individuals to return to their lives without fear of repercussions if found not guilty.
I know that this does not cover individuals who are found not guilty after being convicted, nor does it cover speculation on a trial by the media but it does a great deal more to protect the individual than the current situation in many countries.
**Edit**: In response to /u/phoenixrawr's comment I have modified my viewpoint slightly to include this compromise:
> By default the media would not be permitted to reveal personal details. If one party asked a judge to provide authorisation for the release of personal details on a case-by-case basis they and the media would be permitted to.
|
t3_3xqz93 | CMV: In reality, choosing to be a Jedi is far more emotionally damaging than giving in to the Dark Side. | I'm relatively new to the Star Wars Saga, but I've gotten pretty involved in it recently and it throws out some ideas that are really interesting and important discussions to have. Discussions about psychology and philosophy and politics and humanity.
Up until now, I thought that the Jedi were the shit. I was pretty fucking angry about the fact that the I hadn't been trained as a Padawan from a young age because I'm almost certain that the force is strong in me. I can feel it. The Jedi are the coolest, strongest, sexiest, most content, most zen, people in the universe. Aren't they?
There are obviously parallels that can be drawn between the Jedi and Buddhist monks. No sex, no attachments, no possessions, the striving for a life without anger, fear or suffering (cause we all know that leads to the dark side) and driven by selflessness and goodness and light. It's a pathway chosen by specific, special, suited people who don't need the other stuff.
But I'm just not sure it's sustainable. Even for these unique few. As human beings, we need anger and passion and fear to drive us. Fear especially. Part of what growing up teaches you is to feel the fear and do it anyway. The repression and denial of fear is what leads to depression, anxiety and all kinds of other mental disorders. And selflessness and righteousness can only drive us for so long before we run out of steam. We need a personal, emotional investment. There's not enough fire behind goodness and virtue to keep us going, keep us clear, keep us sane. I think it's more likely that most of the Jedi would end up like Anakin eventually. Half robot and mentally ill.
I get it. The Jedi are special and unique and strong. And I'm not saying I know everything about The Force and the way it works and the way it affects people, (as Han Solo says in The Force Awakens, 'that's not how the force works!'), but maybe the Jedi aren't as together as we originally thought. Maybe they're even more fucked up than the Dark Side.
So maybe I wouldn't be a Jedi after all, but a Sith. Because Sith just wanna have fun.
| CMV: In reality, choosing to be a Jedi is far more emotionally damaging than giving in to the Dark Side. I'm relatively new to the Star Wars Saga, but I've gotten pretty involved in it recently and it throws out some ideas that are really interesting and important discussions to have. Discussions about psychology and philosophy and politics and humanity.
Up until now, I thought that the Jedi were the shit. I was pretty fucking angry about the fact that the I hadn't been trained as a Padawan from a young age because I'm almost certain that the force is strong in me. I can feel it. The Jedi are the coolest, strongest, sexiest, most content, most zen, people in the universe. Aren't they?
There are obviously parallels that can be drawn between the Jedi and Buddhist monks. No sex, no attachments, no possessions, the striving for a life without anger, fear or suffering (cause we all know that leads to the dark side) and driven by selflessness and goodness and light. It's a pathway chosen by specific, special, suited people who don't need the other stuff.
But I'm just not sure it's sustainable. Even for these unique few. As human beings, we need anger and passion and fear to drive us. Fear especially. Part of what growing up teaches you is to feel the fear and do it anyway. The repression and denial of fear is what leads to depression, anxiety and all kinds of other mental disorders. And selflessness and righteousness can only drive us for so long before we run out of steam. We need a personal, emotional investment. There's not enough fire behind goodness and virtue to keep us going, keep us clear, keep us sane. I think it's more likely that most of the Jedi would end up like Anakin eventually. Half robot and mentally ill.
I get it. The Jedi are special and unique and strong. And I'm not saying I know everything about The Force and the way it works and the way it affects people, (as Han Solo says in The Force Awakens, 'that's not how the force works!'), but maybe the Jedi aren't as together as we originally thought. Maybe they're even more fucked up than the Dark Side.
So maybe I wouldn't be a Jedi after all, but a Sith. Because Sith just wanna have fun.
|
t3_3woy7c | CMV: The NFL should end the divisional system, and instead let the best six teams from each conference into the playoffs. | I believe the current system allows inferior teams to reach the playoffs, which reduces the overall meaningfulness of the regular season. For instance, in 2008 (of course I have to bring up 2008, I'm a Pats fan) the Patriots did not make the playoffs despite going 11-5, while the Chargers, Vikings, Cardinals, and Eagles all *did* make the playoffs, despite doing worse than 11-5. Things like this happen regularly, with teams being punished for being in a very hard division in the harder conference.
In this season, the winner of the NFC East division is guaranteed to be in the playoffs, despite it being far and away the worst division, with none of the teams currently have a winning record. Whoever wins the NFC East will make the playoffs to the exclusion of a better team, which doesn't really seem fair to me.
I think a better system would be to abolish the divisional system, and instead simply allow the top six teams from each conference to face off.
CMV.
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: The NFL should end the divisional system, and instead let the best six teams from each conference into the playoffs. I believe the current system allows inferior teams to reach the playoffs, which reduces the overall meaningfulness of the regular season. For instance, in 2008 (of course I have to bring up 2008, I'm a Pats fan) the Patriots did not make the playoffs despite going 11-5, while the Chargers, Vikings, Cardinals, and Eagles all *did* make the playoffs, despite doing worse than 11-5. Things like this happen regularly, with teams being punished for being in a very hard division in the harder conference.
In this season, the winner of the NFC East division is guaranteed to be in the playoffs, despite it being far and away the worst division, with none of the teams currently have a winning record. Whoever wins the NFC East will make the playoffs to the exclusion of a better team, which doesn't really seem fair to me.
I think a better system would be to abolish the divisional system, and instead simply allow the top six teams from each conference to face off.
CMV.
|
t3_3s9ncf | CMV: Starbucks isn't saying "Merry Christmas" because they realize that not everybody celebrates Christmas. I don't think they did anything wrong. | I don't say Merry Christmas to people, unless they say it to me. I say "Happy Holidays!" I don't say, "bless you" when someone sneezes, I say "Gesundheit." I do it to not offend people, and because I am literally not religious. Starbucks, I believe did what they did, for the same reason. But people literally still managed to be offended. Why do people have to literally LOOK for reasons to get their jimmies rustled? What can you tell me to make me think otherwise? What can you say to make me see the side where it is wrong to not say Merry Christmas? Because I literally can not wrap my head around why people are taking this as a personal attack, then as acceptance to everything. I feel that it is taking a step back in "equality for all." | CMV: Starbucks isn't saying "Merry Christmas" because they realize that not everybody celebrates Christmas. I don't think they did anything wrong. I don't say Merry Christmas to people, unless they say it to me. I say "Happy Holidays!" I don't say, "bless you" when someone sneezes, I say "Gesundheit." I do it to not offend people, and because I am literally not religious. Starbucks, I believe did what they did, for the same reason. But people literally still managed to be offended. Why do people have to literally LOOK for reasons to get their jimmies rustled? What can you tell me to make me think otherwise? What can you say to make me see the side where it is wrong to not say Merry Christmas? Because I literally can not wrap my head around why people are taking this as a personal attack, then as acceptance to everything. I feel that it is taking a step back in "equality for all." |
t3_60vyuc | CMV: I should not use any dating or hookup apps/websites like Tinder, Plenty of Fish, or OKCupid because I am a public school teacher, and the risks of any of my students or colleagues finding my profile outweigh the potential benefits | The title really says it all. I would like to get out there and meet new people since I moved to a new city (which admittedly, I don't care for) but since I'm a school teacher I am constantly worried about students and my online presence. I can't have any students stumble across my dating profiles. What if they show their parents? What if they show colleagues? I live and teach in the southeast, in a big red conservative state, that has at-will employment. I can be fired at any moment for no reason at all. Therefore, the risks of using online dating outweigh the potential benefits.
CMV please.
_____
> *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 not use any dating or hookup apps/websites like Tinder, Plenty of Fish, or OKCupid because I am a public school teacher, and the risks of any of my students or colleagues finding my profile outweigh the potential benefits. The title really says it all. I would like to get out there and meet new people since I moved to a new city (which admittedly, I don't care for) but since I'm a school teacher I am constantly worried about students and my online presence. I can't have any students stumble across my dating profiles. What if they show their parents? What if they show colleagues? I live and teach in the southeast, in a big red conservative state, that has at-will employment. I can be fired at any moment for no reason at all. Therefore, the risks of using online dating outweigh the potential benefits.
CMV please.
|
t3_1uxw3g | It's not unethical to kill an animal for food, if done humanly. CMV | I believe it's wrong to make animals suffer, and that's why i'm a vegetarian/vegan (money issues), but I don't see why many think it's wrong to kill them even when done humanly. (I don't see anything wrong with hunting for food, as long as you kill the animal quick and use all of it. Same with finding a farm that treats their animals humanly, at the moment I don't have money for this, so I choose not to eat meat)
Here are my reasons:
* They can't fully grasp life and death, if at all.
* They can't do much with their lives, like we can. (In perspective, or at all. They spent most of their lives eating, sleeping and walking)
* If raised and killed humanly, they will die in seconds and not realize anything. | It's not unethical to kill an animal for food, if done humanly. CMV. I believe it's wrong to make animals suffer, and that's why i'm a vegetarian/vegan (money issues), but I don't see why many think it's wrong to kill them even when done humanly. (I don't see anything wrong with hunting for food, as long as you kill the animal quick and use all of it. Same with finding a farm that treats their animals humanly, at the moment I don't have money for this, so I choose not to eat meat)
Here are my reasons:
* They can't fully grasp life and death, if at all.
* They can't do much with their lives, like we can. (In perspective, or at all. They spent most of their lives eating, sleeping and walking)
* If raised and killed humanly, they will die in seconds and not realize anything. |
t3_1rev4o | CMV that NZ asset sales are a bad idea | The NZ govt owns a number of assets including but not limited to several power stations and a cross country rail system. I am of the opinion that a 49% sale of NZ assets is not a smart move. It would seem to open up part ownership by foreign investors which without wanting to sound xenophobic is not in NZ's best interest. We the individual paying for our power would have that money going overseas instead of back into New Zealand's economy.
So the long and short is that to my way of thinking asset sales might leave us with a short term economic boost ("cash" from the initial sale) but ultimately a portion our money will end up in the hands of people who don't live in NZ and may not have the country's best interests at heart.(I am not suggesting that only foreign investors would wish this country ill there are plenty of NZers who would probably see this country down the drain as well) | CMV that NZ asset sales are a bad idea. The NZ govt owns a number of assets including but not limited to several power stations and a cross country rail system. I am of the opinion that a 49% sale of NZ assets is not a smart move. It would seem to open up part ownership by foreign investors which without wanting to sound xenophobic is not in NZ's best interest. We the individual paying for our power would have that money going overseas instead of back into New Zealand's economy.
So the long and short is that to my way of thinking asset sales might leave us with a short term economic boost ("cash" from the initial sale) but ultimately a portion our money will end up in the hands of people who don't live in NZ and may not have the country's best interests at heart.(I am not suggesting that only foreign investors would wish this country ill there are plenty of NZers who would probably see this country down the drain as well) |
t3_1t1xfi | I do not believe that it is possible to change one's gender via surgery or any other method, and that transgender people remain their original sex despite all bodily modifications. CMV | I would like to preface this by saying that I am fully supportive of the LGBT community and have absolutely no qualms with any person of any sexuality. That being said, I can not bring myself to consider someone who has had a sex change anything but the original sex that they were. I feel that if you were born a man then no amount of estrogen injections or plastic surgery can turn you into a woman, and vice versa for females.
I believe that "transwomen" and "transmen" are simply people that have had extensive body modification surgery and that is it. I don't think surgically changing one's genitalia changes one's sex any more than massive amounts of surgery make [this man] (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1052934/Cat-Man--human-tiger-enjoys-climbing-trees-eats-raw-meat-day.html) a tiger.
Transpeople may change genders in the eyes of the government, and they may have their sex changed on official documents, but this doesn't change the fact that if a strand of their DNA was tested they would be classified as their original sex 100% of the time.
Please CMV! | I do not believe that it is possible to change one's gender via surgery or any other method, and that transgender people remain their original sex despite all bodily modifications. CMV. I would like to preface this by saying that I am fully supportive of the LGBT community and have absolutely no qualms with any person of any sexuality. That being said, I can not bring myself to consider someone who has had a sex change anything but the original sex that they were. I feel that if you were born a man then no amount of estrogen injections or plastic surgery can turn you into a woman, and vice versa for females.
I believe that "transwomen" and "transmen" are simply people that have had extensive body modification surgery and that is it. I don't think surgically changing one's genitalia changes one's sex any more than massive amounts of surgery make [this man] (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1052934/Cat-Man--human-tiger-enjoys-climbing-trees-eats-raw-meat-day.html) a tiger.
Transpeople may change genders in the eyes of the government, and they may have their sex changed on official documents, but this doesn't change the fact that if a strand of their DNA was tested they would be classified as their original sex 100% of the time.
Please CMV! |
t3_4s0lal | CMV: If American citizens wish to bear arms, they should only be able to use the guns available when the Second Amendment was drafted. | There is a lot of high tension after the shooting that have taken place across the country recently, and it's making people take a stance on gun control. So many people feel so strongly about their own opinion, whether it be to keep or abolish gun ownership, but I feel like the people who reference the Second Amendment to defend their right to own guns are missing some key details. Back in colonial times, a single person could not commit mass shooting because a rifle would take over 10 seconds to reload and could usually only fire a single crude bullet. If a gun-toting citizen wanted to kill a bar full of people with a gun in 1776, he would only be successful in killing a maximum of one person before being tackled to the ground by the rest of the people near him. The Founding Fathers were okay with everyone having guns because they didn't think about the problems of arming the general populous with firearms which could reload in 2 seconds or less, shot bullets at near 100 times the speed of a standard colonial rifle and had 30 times the clip size. Therefore, citing the Second Amendment as a reason why you should be able to hold onto a semi-automatic handgun does not seem like a valid argument.
So, my view is that anyone who wants to own a gun and take advantage of their Second Amendment rights should be able to, but they should only be able to own a gun with the same capabilities of those used when the amendment was signed into the Bill of Rights. | CMV: If American citizens wish to bear arms, they should only be able to use the guns available when the Second Amendment was drafted. There is a lot of high tension after the shooting that have taken place across the country recently, and it's making people take a stance on gun control. So many people feel so strongly about their own opinion, whether it be to keep or abolish gun ownership, but I feel like the people who reference the Second Amendment to defend their right to own guns are missing some key details. Back in colonial times, a single person could not commit mass shooting because a rifle would take over 10 seconds to reload and could usually only fire a single crude bullet. If a gun-toting citizen wanted to kill a bar full of people with a gun in 1776, he would only be successful in killing a maximum of one person before being tackled to the ground by the rest of the people near him. The Founding Fathers were okay with everyone having guns because they didn't think about the problems of arming the general populous with firearms which could reload in 2 seconds or less, shot bullets at near 100 times the speed of a standard colonial rifle and had 30 times the clip size. Therefore, citing the Second Amendment as a reason why you should be able to hold onto a semi-automatic handgun does not seem like a valid argument.
So, my view is that anyone who wants to own a gun and take advantage of their Second Amendment rights should be able to, but they should only be able to own a gun with the same capabilities of those used when the amendment was signed into the Bill of Rights. |
t3_3cr6m1 | CMV: Marco Rubio is Hillary's most formidable challenger | Hillary's "First Woman President" pitch is going to be pretty undefeatable in the general. We're a shallow populace, people barely pay attention, First Woman President is going to be historic enough to go out to the polls for. With any one of her other Republican challengers, it's "First Woman President vs. another boring white male president like always". Historic vs Status Quo. But at least with Rubio it's "First Woman President vs First Latino President". Historic vs Historic. Of all the Republican candidates, he has the strongest hand to play against her strongest hand.
Also he's young (whether his ideas are or not). Hillary isn't all that old but compared to Rubio she is (versus being compared to Jeb Bush or somebody). And she's from an old time, a celebrity candidate from the 90s, whereas Rubio can try to harness "new" "fresh" and a lamer GOP version of that youth-driven Obamamania from 2008.
In short, assuming the Democrats nominate Hillary as expected, the Republicans' best shot at defeating her is probably to nominate Rubio. CMV? | CMV: Marco Rubio is Hillary's most formidable challenger. Hillary's "First Woman President" pitch is going to be pretty undefeatable in the general. We're a shallow populace, people barely pay attention, First Woman President is going to be historic enough to go out to the polls for. With any one of her other Republican challengers, it's "First Woman President vs. another boring white male president like always". Historic vs Status Quo. But at least with Rubio it's "First Woman President vs First Latino President". Historic vs Historic. Of all the Republican candidates, he has the strongest hand to play against her strongest hand.
Also he's young (whether his ideas are or not). Hillary isn't all that old but compared to Rubio she is (versus being compared to Jeb Bush or somebody). And she's from an old time, a celebrity candidate from the 90s, whereas Rubio can try to harness "new" "fresh" and a lamer GOP version of that youth-driven Obamamania from 2008.
In short, assuming the Democrats nominate Hillary as expected, the Republicans' best shot at defeating her is probably to nominate Rubio. CMV? |
t3_4yrsip | CMV: Alternative/Runoff Voting should, and hopefully will, be implemented in the US. | Right now we are feeling the effects of the first-past-the-post with this election where no one likes any candidate. Sure, some actually do like Trump and Hilary, but the majority of people I've seen hate them both and are either not voting, voting for Gary Johnson, or voting for the one they hate the least.
The Alternative/Runoff Vote is a system I first heard proposed by [CGP Gray](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE) and I think it might actually be implemented after this election. I think we are getting too polarized and we need to start looking for more moderate views between both sides. I think if it were implemented in this election, Gary might actually win over Trump and Hilary.
I'm hoping that what will happen is that a large enough majority in the US will be fed up with the system after this vote because it's so polarized right now that people will ask for a better system, and given that this system produces better majority rule leaders, we'll see it be put up as a solution.
I think it should be implemented and that it's the most likely outcome if we are going to change how things work. So, Change My View.
Edit: So /u/B0000000BS pointed out that there is a problem with the [Participation Criterion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participation_criterion) that I had over looked. Which means my view has kinda been changed.
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: Alternative/Runoff Voting should, and hopefully will, be implemented in the US. Right now we are feeling the effects of the first-past-the-post with this election where no one likes any candidate. Sure, some actually do like Trump and Hilary, but the majority of people I've seen hate them both and are either not voting, voting for Gary Johnson, or voting for the one they hate the least.
The Alternative/Runoff Vote is a system I first heard proposed by [CGP Gray](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE) and I think it might actually be implemented after this election. I think we are getting too polarized and we need to start looking for more moderate views between both sides. I think if it were implemented in this election, Gary might actually win over Trump and Hilary.
I'm hoping that what will happen is that a large enough majority in the US will be fed up with the system after this vote because it's so polarized right now that people will ask for a better system, and given that this system produces better majority rule leaders, we'll see it be put up as a solution.
I think it should be implemented and that it's the most likely outcome if we are going to change how things work. So, Change My View.
Edit: So /u/B0000000BS pointed out that there is a problem with the [Participation Criterion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participation_criterion) that I had over looked. Which means my view has kinda been changed.
|
t3_1jc3vg | Children are the devil and will ruin my life as I know it, CMVp. | Like the title says, I hate children and don't understand why 90% of the planet insists on pumping them out. If an animal has to many kids you put some of the population down to stabilize it, when a person has 6 kids no one gives a fuck or does anything. I'm not saying kill anyone but limit who can have children. Make it so you have to go to school and get a degree in teaching before you can raise a child. Background checks, drug tests, psych evaluations, the whole works. 99% of the people on this planet are un-fit to be parents, how many people on this earth have never planted a tree? Consume resources and take a shit everyday that will end up in a river somewhere? STOP MAKING IN THE WAY PEOPLE! Stop having kids because that's what everyone else is doing, and telling you to do! If you can't teach in a school then what the fuck makes you think you can teach a kid? Do the world a favor, if your not a genius, leave parenting up to them.
(Note: no intention of ever having children, I can barely take care of myself.)
Name one GOOD reason to have a kid.
CMV | Children are the devil and will ruin my life as I know it, CMVp. Like the title says, I hate children and don't understand why 90% of the planet insists on pumping them out. If an animal has to many kids you put some of the population down to stabilize it, when a person has 6 kids no one gives a fuck or does anything. I'm not saying kill anyone but limit who can have children. Make it so you have to go to school and get a degree in teaching before you can raise a child. Background checks, drug tests, psych evaluations, the whole works. 99% of the people on this planet are un-fit to be parents, how many people on this earth have never planted a tree? Consume resources and take a shit everyday that will end up in a river somewhere? STOP MAKING IN THE WAY PEOPLE! Stop having kids because that's what everyone else is doing, and telling you to do! If you can't teach in a school then what the fuck makes you think you can teach a kid? Do the world a favor, if your not a genius, leave parenting up to them.
(Note: no intention of ever having children, I can barely take care of myself.)
Name one GOOD reason to have a kid.
CMV |
t3_2ojnch | CMV: Prostitution should be legalized in the United States. | I'm not saying this because I would indulge, I'm saying this from a logical, economic perspective.
My first point: just as we've learned over recent years, teen sex will always exist. There is no amount of sex ed classes or rules that will stop teenagers from having sex. So we changed our collective viewpoint a bit and figured 'well, they're going to do it *anyway*, why not give them the things they need to be successful and healthy?' So now, slowly but surely, clinics are offering free condoms and sex ed classes are now taking an educating and preparing approach rather than trying to scare teens into not having sex. [And its working.]( http://m.cdc.gov/en/HealthSafetyTopics/LifeStagesPopulations/TeenPregnancy/about)
The same goes for cannabis which is generating a lot of money at the taxpayer's benefit [source](http://mmjbusinessdaily.com/study-2-denver-cannabis-stores-create-30m-economic-impact-280-jobs/?nomobile=1). Soon, most or all states will be on board when they realize the goldmine that is the cannabis market.
Prostitution, I imagine, would behave the same way if legalized. Prostitution will always be around, despite the copious amounts of arrests and jail time handed out by the police each year. In it's current state, it is the epitome of crime. More and more minors are being forced to become prostitutes [due to the increasing demand for virgins]( http://mmjbusinessdaily.com/study-2-denver-cannabis-stores-create-30m-economic-impact-280-jobs/?nomobile=1) and many are also victims of abuse by both pimp, client, and parents. Lets not forget about STDs, which can spread like a fire though dry brush since the underground market rarely gives a damn I'd they're clean or not. Yet, it generates over [14 billion dollars]( https://www.courses.psu.edu/wmnst/wmnst001_atd1/Prostitution/facts.html) a year. Referring to that same link, we spend over 2 million fighting prostitution, money I believe can be spent elsewhere if it were decriminalized.
I suspect the pros of legalizing prostituon outweigh the cons:
-llegal sex trafficking would decrease since there would be a more legal, safer, healthier alternative for clients.
-it creates jobs. New insurance companies would rise to the occasion to cater to prostitutes. They should offer birth control and hysterectomies for women and [birth control]( http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/09/we-ll-have-male-birth-control-by-2017.html) and vasectomies for men, plus weekly/monthly STD checks. You'll need builders to make the facilities, managers to run the facilities, and let's not forget, workers. Bonus: lessens the chance for STDs to spread!
-it will creates revenue. That $14 billion a year would definitely help out with our multi trillion dollar debt. In addition to that, we'd probably get more tourists than usual ;).
-no education required. This can be both a pro and a con, depending on your view point. But if a college graduate is a part time prostitute, that student debt will be paid off in no time!
-less violence. Workers are in a controlled, safer environment. There would probably be people there getting paid to keep the peace.
There are only a few cons I can think of:
-won't look too good on a resume. People's opinions/beliefs don't change overnight.
-a competitive move by the black market (offering more minors, lowering prices) may lure more clients back in.
Maybe someone else has more cons to add to the list? | CMV: Prostitution should be legalized in the United States. I'm not saying this because I would indulge, I'm saying this from a logical, economic perspective.
My first point: just as we've learned over recent years, teen sex will always exist. There is no amount of sex ed classes or rules that will stop teenagers from having sex. So we changed our collective viewpoint a bit and figured 'well, they're going to do it *anyway*, why not give them the things they need to be successful and healthy?' So now, slowly but surely, clinics are offering free condoms and sex ed classes are now taking an educating and preparing approach rather than trying to scare teens into not having sex. [And its working.]( http://m.cdc.gov/en/HealthSafetyTopics/LifeStagesPopulations/TeenPregnancy/about)
The same goes for cannabis which is generating a lot of money at the taxpayer's benefit [source](http://mmjbusinessdaily.com/study-2-denver-cannabis-stores-create-30m-economic-impact-280-jobs/?nomobile=1). Soon, most or all states will be on board when they realize the goldmine that is the cannabis market.
Prostitution, I imagine, would behave the same way if legalized. Prostitution will always be around, despite the copious amounts of arrests and jail time handed out by the police each year. In it's current state, it is the epitome of crime. More and more minors are being forced to become prostitutes [due to the increasing demand for virgins]( http://mmjbusinessdaily.com/study-2-denver-cannabis-stores-create-30m-economic-impact-280-jobs/?nomobile=1) and many are also victims of abuse by both pimp, client, and parents. Lets not forget about STDs, which can spread like a fire though dry brush since the underground market rarely gives a damn I'd they're clean or not. Yet, it generates over [14 billion dollars]( https://www.courses.psu.edu/wmnst/wmnst001_atd1/Prostitution/facts.html) a year. Referring to that same link, we spend over 2 million fighting prostitution, money I believe can be spent elsewhere if it were decriminalized.
I suspect the pros of legalizing prostituon outweigh the cons:
-llegal sex trafficking would decrease since there would be a more legal, safer, healthier alternative for clients.
-it creates jobs. New insurance companies would rise to the occasion to cater to prostitutes. They should offer birth control and hysterectomies for women and [birth control]( http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/09/we-ll-have-male-birth-control-by-2017.html) and vasectomies for men, plus weekly/monthly STD checks. You'll need builders to make the facilities, managers to run the facilities, and let's not forget, workers. Bonus: lessens the chance for STDs to spread!
-it will creates revenue. That $14 billion a year would definitely help out with our multi trillion dollar debt. In addition to that, we'd probably get more tourists than usual ;).
-no education required. This can be both a pro and a con, depending on your view point. But if a college graduate is a part time prostitute, that student debt will be paid off in no time!
-less violence. Workers are in a controlled, safer environment. There would probably be people there getting paid to keep the peace.
There are only a few cons I can think of:
-won't look too good on a resume. People's opinions/beliefs don't change overnight.
-a competitive move by the black market (offering more minors, lowering prices) may lure more clients back in.
Maybe someone else has more cons to add to the list? |
t3_3pgewu | CMV: It's ridiculous to say "Bush protected America" | http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/19/politics/donald-trump-jeb-george-w-bush-9-11-jeb-bush/
"We have no terrorist attacks under Bush..." That's not true. Bush was in office on September 11, 2001.
I'm not a republican. Wont be voting for Trump or Jeb or any of those assclowns.
I think it makes no sense whatsoever to say Bush protected America when the worst terrorist attack in American history happened while Bush was President. I don't know how I can break it down any further than that.
During the 2008 primaries, I heard some republicans say "After 9/11 bush started the war on terror and there were no more terror attacks"
There are 3 glaring errors here:
* If you're praising Bush for not allowing more attacks, why are you not holding him accountable for the one attack that did happen on his watch?
* George Bush's war in Iraq killed more American soldiers than civilians that died on 9/11. The number of terror attacks that have happened in the middle east as a result of the Iraq war... countless.
* The war in Iraq angered the world and made Al Queida stronger. Furthermore, I find it very curious that while Bush was in office, we kept on fighting al queida. every six months they kept saying "we're almost done destroying al queida" After Obama took office Al Queida was virtually decimated and bin Laden was caught.
**edit:** No i'm not a conspiracy theorist, I'm just accusing Bush of massive and abject incompetence.
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: It's ridiculous to say "Bush protected America". http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/19/politics/donald-trump-jeb-george-w-bush-9-11-jeb-bush/
"We have no terrorist attacks under Bush..." That's not true. Bush was in office on September 11, 2001.
I'm not a republican. Wont be voting for Trump or Jeb or any of those assclowns.
I think it makes no sense whatsoever to say Bush protected America when the worst terrorist attack in American history happened while Bush was President. I don't know how I can break it down any further than that.
During the 2008 primaries, I heard some republicans say "After 9/11 bush started the war on terror and there were no more terror attacks"
There are 3 glaring errors here:
* If you're praising Bush for not allowing more attacks, why are you not holding him accountable for the one attack that did happen on his watch?
* George Bush's war in Iraq killed more American soldiers than civilians that died on 9/11. The number of terror attacks that have happened in the middle east as a result of the Iraq war... countless.
* The war in Iraq angered the world and made Al Queida stronger. Furthermore, I find it very curious that while Bush was in office, we kept on fighting al queida. every six months they kept saying "we're almost done destroying al queida" After Obama took office Al Queida was virtually decimated and bin Laden was caught.
**edit:** No i'm not a conspiracy theorist, I'm just accusing Bush of massive and abject incompetence.
|
t3_1eb0fg | I believe that some sort of traumatic event/troubled youth is necessary to achieve "greatness" | MANY of the "successful" revered people today come from troubled beginnings ie. the death of a parent, neglect/abuse, terrible/overly-pushing parenting. Of a few, Steve Jobs, Oprah Winfrey, countless celebrities: Kate Beckinsale, Jim Carrey, Charlize Theron, countless musicians: John Lennon, Michael Jackson, Kurt Cobain, Eminem, Eddie Vedder, and even more countless professional athletes.
As someone who has lived a very peaceful, non-trauma filled life, I have noticed a very large portion of the successful (as measured by the traditional qualities wealth, celebrity, power, etc) 1% of the 1% come from the complete opposite background, far moreso than children with good parents proportionally speaking.
Hopefully, no one thinks that I take my great upbringing for granted. But does having some sort of extreme childhood hardship motivate someone far more than having a "normal" childhood (survival + do whatever it takes to live VS. education + find your way, son)? **EDIT** is it better in the long term that a child be deprived of these "fortunes" and taught to understand first-hand how tough and precious life is?
Please CMV | I believe that some sort of traumatic event/troubled youth is necessary to achieve "greatness". MANY of the "successful" revered people today come from troubled beginnings ie. the death of a parent, neglect/abuse, terrible/overly-pushing parenting. Of a few, Steve Jobs, Oprah Winfrey, countless celebrities: Kate Beckinsale, Jim Carrey, Charlize Theron, countless musicians: John Lennon, Michael Jackson, Kurt Cobain, Eminem, Eddie Vedder, and even more countless professional athletes.
As someone who has lived a very peaceful, non-trauma filled life, I have noticed a very large portion of the successful (as measured by the traditional qualities wealth, celebrity, power, etc) 1% of the 1% come from the complete opposite background, far moreso than children with good parents proportionally speaking.
Hopefully, no one thinks that I take my great upbringing for granted. But does having some sort of extreme childhood hardship motivate someone far more than having a "normal" childhood (survival + do whatever it takes to live VS. education + find your way, son)? **EDIT** is it better in the long term that a child be deprived of these "fortunes" and taught to understand first-hand how tough and precious life is?
Please CMV |
t3_73i7io | CMV: I don't see any reason to feel worried about TheRedPill, considering their demographic. In any case, I'd worry about teaching women how to recognize shitty behaviors and stay away from them | Considering how many other subreddits and communities are built around "how to stop TRP", I don't see why they should be so alarmed. There doesn't seem to be a spike in domestic violence or sexual violence that one can link back to TheRedPill. Sure, there have been people who have browsed it and ended up committing crimes against women, but to assume they did it *because* they browse TheRedPill rings as true as those who say that school shooters who played FPS did so *because* they played FPS, or that Muslims who committed terrorist attacks did so *because* they were Muslims. That is: these people would have committed those crimes anyway; they were driven to these communities because they were already convinced, and they only tangentially encouraged them.
As for those who worry about "kids" or men who would go into TRP and "become lost there forever"... so what? It's not like those guys are the kind that women would welcome their advances anyway. Most seem like they are social outcasts, old virgins, men with seriously unattractive traits that can't be corrected (short height, small penises, balding... that's why they have a pretty good overlap with those subreddits). It's not like woman-kind is going to be losing anything worthwhile.
Among those who "fight TRP", a common argument is that TRP doesn't work, so technically they are saying that women aren't really in danger of being manipulated by a redpiller, either. And women have got better at picking up creepy behavior, calling it out and not fearing the repercussions (the NPM debacle comes to mind, or [this thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrollXChromosomes/comments/71iw2e/after_about_a_month_of_complaining_to_hr_with/dncr0i6)). If anything, I think that's a more sensible strategy: just teach women to stay away from creepy men. Getting rid of creeps is impossible (there will always be outcasts: short dudes, dudes with small penises, dudes who were too socially-awkward in their youth to get sexual experience), so short of teaching men to respect women in school, there isn't much you can do to eliminate them. I'd think they will simply be culled from the gene pool by the same mechanisms that made them outcasts in the first place. And it's time better spent than trying to make lost causes well-adjusted members of society.
_____
> *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 don't see any reason to feel worried about TheRedPill, considering their demographic. In any case, I'd worry about teaching women how to recognize shitty behaviors and stay away from them. Considering how many other subreddits and communities are built around "how to stop TRP", I don't see why they should be so alarmed. There doesn't seem to be a spike in domestic violence or sexual violence that one can link back to TheRedPill. Sure, there have been people who have browsed it and ended up committing crimes against women, but to assume they did it *because* they browse TheRedPill rings as true as those who say that school shooters who played FPS did so *because* they played FPS, or that Muslims who committed terrorist attacks did so *because* they were Muslims. That is: these people would have committed those crimes anyway; they were driven to these communities because they were already convinced, and they only tangentially encouraged them.
As for those who worry about "kids" or men who would go into TRP and "become lost there forever"... so what? It's not like those guys are the kind that women would welcome their advances anyway. Most seem like they are social outcasts, old virgins, men with seriously unattractive traits that can't be corrected (short height, small penises, balding... that's why they have a pretty good overlap with those subreddits). It's not like woman-kind is going to be losing anything worthwhile.
Among those who "fight TRP", a common argument is that TRP doesn't work, so technically they are saying that women aren't really in danger of being manipulated by a redpiller, either. And women have got better at picking up creepy behavior, calling it out and not fearing the repercussions (the NPM debacle comes to mind, or [this thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrollXChromosomes/comments/71iw2e/after_about_a_month_of_complaining_to_hr_with/dncr0i6)). If anything, I think that's a more sensible strategy: just teach women to stay away from creepy men. Getting rid of creeps is impossible (there will always be outcasts: short dudes, dudes with small penises, dudes who were too socially-awkward in their youth to get sexual experience), so short of teaching men to respect women in school, there isn't much you can do to eliminate them. I'd think they will simply be culled from the gene pool by the same mechanisms that made them outcasts in the first place. And it's time better spent than trying to make lost causes well-adjusted members of society.
|
t3_2q6n4a | CMV: The Grandfather Paradox in time-travel thought experiments is an irrelevant concept; a successful trip backwards in time should remove any fear of a massive universe-ending paradox. | NOTE: I posted something similar a couple of weeks ago, but the answers in that CMV made me realize that my argument wasn’t specific enough. I’ll use some text from that last post to refine here.
The [Grandfather Paradox](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandfather_paradox) states that you can’t go back and kill your grandfather, because logically you would never be born to kill your grandfather in the first place. However, I believe that simply going back in time at all creates a paradox on the atomic level. Logical grandfather paradoxes were made up for drama and to relate people to the story. The universe doesn't care if you kill your grandfather, or try to do things precisely the same (you can't), it's already different the moment you take a breath. This leads to reason that if your trip backwards in time is successful, you can safely assume that a universe-ending paradox will not occur, at least not instantaneously. Some implementations in movies (Primer, Butterfly Effect) show that paradoxes create only local or restricted disruptions in space-time, or that the changes “ripple-through” to the rest of the universe; this could also be valid in this thought experiment. However, considering the following conditions:
1. A trip backwards in time has occurred and was successful
2. The traveler is safe and the universe is intact
Then it stands to reason that simply by existing in the previous timeline, a grand-scale paradox couldn’t occur. We shouldn’t consider that killing your grandfather might cause the destruction of the universe and can basically do what we want in any timeline because most likely (with the available information), it would either create or enter a different timeline, or be self-consistent in the first place.
CMV | CMV: The Grandfather Paradox in time-travel thought experiments is an irrelevant concept; a successful trip backwards in time should remove any fear of a massive universe-ending paradox. NOTE: I posted something similar a couple of weeks ago, but the answers in that CMV made me realize that my argument wasn’t specific enough. I’ll use some text from that last post to refine here.
The [Grandfather Paradox](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandfather_paradox) states that you can’t go back and kill your grandfather, because logically you would never be born to kill your grandfather in the first place. However, I believe that simply going back in time at all creates a paradox on the atomic level. Logical grandfather paradoxes were made up for drama and to relate people to the story. The universe doesn't care if you kill your grandfather, or try to do things precisely the same (you can't), it's already different the moment you take a breath. This leads to reason that if your trip backwards in time is successful, you can safely assume that a universe-ending paradox will not occur, at least not instantaneously. Some implementations in movies (Primer, Butterfly Effect) show that paradoxes create only local or restricted disruptions in space-time, or that the changes “ripple-through” to the rest of the universe; this could also be valid in this thought experiment. However, considering the following conditions:
1. A trip backwards in time has occurred and was successful
2. The traveler is safe and the universe is intact
Then it stands to reason that simply by existing in the previous timeline, a grand-scale paradox couldn’t occur. We shouldn’t consider that killing your grandfather might cause the destruction of the universe and can basically do what we want in any timeline because most likely (with the available information), it would either create or enter a different timeline, or be self-consistent in the first place.
CMV |
t3_1fi67g | CMV that Gun Ownership is not a bulwark against tyranny and that tyranny is not much of a problem in the USA anyway. | There is no reasonable way for an armed population to resist tyranny in the current era. Police and Government agencies not to mention the millitary would destroy even the most organized militia.
Secondly aren't there far more accessible mechanisms to resist tyranny such as the political and legal process?
Thirdly isn't the fear of tyranny wholly out of proportion with the levels of actual tyranny in the USA?
Isn't this all just some huge rationalization for gun nuts to resist having their toys taken from them? | CMV that Gun Ownership is not a bulwark against tyranny and that tyranny is not much of a problem in the USA anyway. There is no reasonable way for an armed population to resist tyranny in the current era. Police and Government agencies not to mention the millitary would destroy even the most organized militia.
Secondly aren't there far more accessible mechanisms to resist tyranny such as the political and legal process?
Thirdly isn't the fear of tyranny wholly out of proportion with the levels of actual tyranny in the USA?
Isn't this all just some huge rationalization for gun nuts to resist having their toys taken from them? |
t3_1mbqhy | The Koch Brothers seem like decent guys who want to make the world a better place. CMV. | **The facts as I understand them**
The "Koch Brothers" are two people who both have a net-worth in the neighborhood of $30 billion each, which was made in the chemicals business. They've made headlines for spending a lot on political donations, and their political views are basically libertarian. There's a lot of criticism that they're some of the primary culprits of right-wing corruption of politics.
I've read most of this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers
**Why I don't buy it**
They're obviously some of the richest people on the planet. Basically everybody at that stratum is going to be spending a huge amount of money on philanthropic stuff. Politics is a component of that, but it's not like they've given *billions* to that cause. Plus, it's really just a component of a larger philosophy. From a recent article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/13/us/politics/tax-filings-hint-at-extent-of-koch-brothers-reach.html?_r=0
> Freedom Partners’ principal goal is to educate the public about the critical role played by free markets in achieving economic prosperity, societal well-being, and personal happiness.
So this could be good or bad. But the only thing of real substance that *I* know is getting funding from this network is the Learn Liberty organization. Their youtube channel is fantastic! I don't consider myself politically libertarian, but almost all of what they say is very moderate and reasonable.
http://www.youtube.com/user/LearnLiberty
This is just one example of things that get funded by the Koch spending, but there are a lot of university professors connected with them. Just to throw out a name, Duke's Michael Munger for instance. This kind of person does real honest-to-god research, and is a far cry from a political shill. Learn Liberty features these very people in their videos.
Let's get to the real point - isn't using your fortune to make the world a better place a good thing in general? The Koch brothers didn't have to get involved in promoting economic freedom issues. These guys are filthy rich, and I don't see how their advocacy has anything to do with self-interest. It seems obvious that they fund this stuff because they believe in it. I admit, eradicating Malaria (like Bill Gates) seems *more* positive, but that's ridiculous. In both cases, these are people giving away their own fortune with the best interests of humanity (as perceived by themselves) in mind.
If it were my money, I would have a lot of opinions about how it should be spent to do the most good, but how can I possibly think ill of someone who is making their own decisions about what they think is the best? | The Koch Brothers seem like decent guys who want to make the world a better place. CMV. **The facts as I understand them**
The "Koch Brothers" are two people who both have a net-worth in the neighborhood of $30 billion each, which was made in the chemicals business. They've made headlines for spending a lot on political donations, and their political views are basically libertarian. There's a lot of criticism that they're some of the primary culprits of right-wing corruption of politics.
I've read most of this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers
**Why I don't buy it**
They're obviously some of the richest people on the planet. Basically everybody at that stratum is going to be spending a huge amount of money on philanthropic stuff. Politics is a component of that, but it's not like they've given *billions* to that cause. Plus, it's really just a component of a larger philosophy. From a recent article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/13/us/politics/tax-filings-hint-at-extent-of-koch-brothers-reach.html?_r=0
> Freedom Partners’ principal goal is to educate the public about the critical role played by free markets in achieving economic prosperity, societal well-being, and personal happiness.
So this could be good or bad. But the only thing of real substance that *I* know is getting funding from this network is the Learn Liberty organization. Their youtube channel is fantastic! I don't consider myself politically libertarian, but almost all of what they say is very moderate and reasonable.
http://www.youtube.com/user/LearnLiberty
This is just one example of things that get funded by the Koch spending, but there are a lot of university professors connected with them. Just to throw out a name, Duke's Michael Munger for instance. This kind of person does real honest-to-god research, and is a far cry from a political shill. Learn Liberty features these very people in their videos.
Let's get to the real point - isn't using your fortune to make the world a better place a good thing in general? The Koch brothers didn't have to get involved in promoting economic freedom issues. These guys are filthy rich, and I don't see how their advocacy has anything to do with self-interest. It seems obvious that they fund this stuff because they believe in it. I admit, eradicating Malaria (like Bill Gates) seems *more* positive, but that's ridiculous. In both cases, these are people giving away their own fortune with the best interests of humanity (as perceived by themselves) in mind.
If it were my money, I would have a lot of opinions about how it should be spent to do the most good, but how can I possibly think ill of someone who is making their own decisions about what they think is the best? |
t3_3xwsya | CMV: Home Births Are Dangerous | I was just watching a TV show and the lady had a home birth and things went wrong. I just can't for the life of me understand why in this day in age people would choose to have a home birth. In my opinion why wouldn't you want to be at a hospital where "if" something goes wrong you have the tools and doctors to save your child or yourself? I honestly feel like if I chose to have a home birth and something happened to my child I would never forgive myself. So what are the reasons that people choose to do this? | CMV: Home Births Are Dangerous. I was just watching a TV show and the lady had a home birth and things went wrong. I just can't for the life of me understand why in this day in age people would choose to have a home birth. In my opinion why wouldn't you want to be at a hospital where "if" something goes wrong you have the tools and doctors to save your child or yourself? I honestly feel like if I chose to have a home birth and something happened to my child I would never forgive myself. So what are the reasons that people choose to do this? |
t3_2cmap9 | CMV: In 50 years from now: 9/11, the JFK assassination, and the Vietnam War won't matter so much to us. | People simply lack a historical perspective. We emphasize events that happened over the past 50 or so years, while paying less attention to events that happened 100 or more years ago.
Even younger people tend to have attachment to things that happened 50 years ago because their parents and grandparents lived it.
**JFK Assassination**
James Garfield (late 1800's) and William McKinley (1901) were both widely loved presidents who were assassinated in public. They were loved by many and mourned by many. Also when president Warren Harding died of a heart attack in 1923, the nation mourned him as well. Yet all three of these presidents are forgotten by the public.
Nowadays, John F. Kennedy's assassination is a widely remembered event. This could be the combination of the fact that he was a televised president, the assassinated was recorded and he was a goodlooking charismatic leader, but still, since the younger generations never experienced it, we won't tell our kids a lot about it.
**Vietnam War**
Simply put, millions of Vietnam veterans are alive, as are family members of Vietnam veterans. You'll hear lots of horror stories. 50 years from now, when Vietnam veterans are no longer alive, and even I'm old-as-****, there will be less people telling these stories, less cultural significance and less events geared toward helping Vietnam veterans.
I'll put it this was. We aren't exactly thinking of War of 1812 veterans or World War 1 veterans, so much, are we?
**9/11**
Pearl Harbor is a memorable event. Most people know what it is, and probably 20% of people on Facebook will write a status on December 7th. But it's just for that day we observe it. Its not a long-standing event that remains in America's blood, like 9/11 currently is perceived to be.
Once the "war on terror" is done, and new generations of people who weren't in anyway affected by the tragedy are born, its safe to say, we'll never forget. But we won't feel it.
**In conclusion**
Tragedies that happened 100 years ago, we ignore them as we sleep through history class.
Tragedies that happened to our parents generation, or ours, we attach cultural significance to.
_____
> *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 50 years from now: 9/11, the JFK assassination, and the Vietnam War won't matter so much to us. People simply lack a historical perspective. We emphasize events that happened over the past 50 or so years, while paying less attention to events that happened 100 or more years ago.
Even younger people tend to have attachment to things that happened 50 years ago because their parents and grandparents lived it.
**JFK Assassination**
James Garfield (late 1800's) and William McKinley (1901) were both widely loved presidents who were assassinated in public. They were loved by many and mourned by many. Also when president Warren Harding died of a heart attack in 1923, the nation mourned him as well. Yet all three of these presidents are forgotten by the public.
Nowadays, John F. Kennedy's assassination is a widely remembered event. This could be the combination of the fact that he was a televised president, the assassinated was recorded and he was a goodlooking charismatic leader, but still, since the younger generations never experienced it, we won't tell our kids a lot about it.
**Vietnam War**
Simply put, millions of Vietnam veterans are alive, as are family members of Vietnam veterans. You'll hear lots of horror stories. 50 years from now, when Vietnam veterans are no longer alive, and even I'm old-as-****, there will be less people telling these stories, less cultural significance and less events geared toward helping Vietnam veterans.
I'll put it this was. We aren't exactly thinking of War of 1812 veterans or World War 1 veterans, so much, are we?
**9/11**
Pearl Harbor is a memorable event. Most people know what it is, and probably 20% of people on Facebook will write a status on December 7th. But it's just for that day we observe it. Its not a long-standing event that remains in America's blood, like 9/11 currently is perceived to be.
Once the "war on terror" is done, and new generations of people who weren't in anyway affected by the tragedy are born, its safe to say, we'll never forget. But we won't feel it.
**In conclusion**
Tragedies that happened 100 years ago, we ignore them as we sleep through history class.
Tragedies that happened to our parents generation, or ours, we attach cultural significance to.
|
t3_51ravz | CMV: The criticism that people are throwing at Apple for removing the headphone jack on the iPhone 7 is unjustified. | The headphone jack is antiquated technology that only serves one purpose and takes up space in a device that otherwise has predominant multi-functional components. For Apple to continue innovating they will need to develop components that are even more powerful and smaller. So it makes sense to combine audio into the lightning cable that also doubles as a USB connector and power supply. Furthermore Apple is already including new headphones with the lightning connector as well as an aux adapter right in the box so people can continue using their current headphones anyway. Some people have complained that you can't charge your device and use the headphones at the same time, but 1. How often does that really happen? And 2. They have increased the battery life by up to two additional hours. So why all the hate? All the negativity seems anti-progressive to me. | CMV: The criticism that people are throwing at Apple for removing the headphone jack on the iPhone 7 is unjustified. The headphone jack is antiquated technology that only serves one purpose and takes up space in a device that otherwise has predominant multi-functional components. For Apple to continue innovating they will need to develop components that are even more powerful and smaller. So it makes sense to combine audio into the lightning cable that also doubles as a USB connector and power supply. Furthermore Apple is already including new headphones with the lightning connector as well as an aux adapter right in the box so people can continue using their current headphones anyway. Some people have complained that you can't charge your device and use the headphones at the same time, but 1. How often does that really happen? And 2. They have increased the battery life by up to two additional hours. So why all the hate? All the negativity seems anti-progressive to me. |
t3_1l4di1 | I seriously think that people in the Western world really have no right to complain about "corruption" and the like in their countries, and doing so is extremly inconsiderate of real problems in the world. CMV | I want to start with a bit of a backstory. My mother's birth family (she was adopted at birth) live in the Dominican Republic as what many people here would consider gypsies. They have a single caravan (which four people share) and live in absolute poverty (hence why they put my mom up for adoption). The travel across the countryside with very few possession to their name. Every now and then my family and I would visit and despite having almost nothing aside from the absolute basics (no electricity, no access to clean water, only access to a few local growing plants and animals) they're are incredibly happy with their lives. They're extremely humble and refuse help from my mother whenever she offers to give them money. In fact, they're a lot more happy than the majority of people I know both here in Canada and on this website.
The point of that story is I'm absolutely sick and tired of people complaining about "how bad it is over here" when they don't even have the slightest idea of what bad is. A popular sarcastic saying here on Reddit is "Oh well since things are worse in other parts of the world I guess we shouldn't protest or complain about our conditions here". However, unless we one day find ourselves in some "utopia" where everyone lives the exact same standard of life with no disparity whatsoever there's always going to be someone worse off than you. Personally I'd rather live as the poorest person in a place like Norway, Canada, or even the US as an average person in a place like East Timor, Bangladesh, or Angola. I'm extremely grateful of everything I had, and stories like my grandmother's humble me because I realize how grateful I should be that I can eat and drink clean water.
All this demonizing of the 1% is, in my opinion, just a subconscious jealousy of middle class Westerners who want to absolve their guilt for having an easier life than others. This opinion doesn't just go for income disparity either. I'm infuriated when people complain about "how corrupt the US government is" because of the NSA and the Manning prosecution, or of how "corrupt the Canadian government is" because the conservative Prime Minister paid off a senator around $90,000 (while the country conveniently ignores a $500 million wasted by the liberal provincial government in Ontario.. but that's for another rant).
In short, I don't think the majority of Westerners realize how GREAT they have it here, and it's insulting to me (both to myself and those living in third world countries) when these people don't realize this. I was raised to be grateful for what I have, and to not "bitch and moan" (my parent's words not mine) if I didn't get what I wanted, but instead to work for it. So Reddit, please CMV. | I seriously think that people in the Western world really have no right to complain about "corruption" and the like in their countries, and doing so is extremly inconsiderate of real problems in the world. CMV. I want to start with a bit of a backstory. My mother's birth family (she was adopted at birth) live in the Dominican Republic as what many people here would consider gypsies. They have a single caravan (which four people share) and live in absolute poverty (hence why they put my mom up for adoption). The travel across the countryside with very few possession to their name. Every now and then my family and I would visit and despite having almost nothing aside from the absolute basics (no electricity, no access to clean water, only access to a few local growing plants and animals) they're are incredibly happy with their lives. They're extremely humble and refuse help from my mother whenever she offers to give them money. In fact, they're a lot more happy than the majority of people I know both here in Canada and on this website.
The point of that story is I'm absolutely sick and tired of people complaining about "how bad it is over here" when they don't even have the slightest idea of what bad is. A popular sarcastic saying here on Reddit is "Oh well since things are worse in other parts of the world I guess we shouldn't protest or complain about our conditions here". However, unless we one day find ourselves in some "utopia" where everyone lives the exact same standard of life with no disparity whatsoever there's always going to be someone worse off than you. Personally I'd rather live as the poorest person in a place like Norway, Canada, or even the US as an average person in a place like East Timor, Bangladesh, or Angola. I'm extremely grateful of everything I had, and stories like my grandmother's humble me because I realize how grateful I should be that I can eat and drink clean water.
All this demonizing of the 1% is, in my opinion, just a subconscious jealousy of middle class Westerners who want to absolve their guilt for having an easier life than others. This opinion doesn't just go for income disparity either. I'm infuriated when people complain about "how corrupt the US government is" because of the NSA and the Manning prosecution, or of how "corrupt the Canadian government is" because the conservative Prime Minister paid off a senator around $90,000 (while the country conveniently ignores a $500 million wasted by the liberal provincial government in Ontario.. but that's for another rant).
In short, I don't think the majority of Westerners realize how GREAT they have it here, and it's insulting to me (both to myself and those living in third world countries) when these people don't realize this. I was raised to be grateful for what I have, and to not "bitch and moan" (my parent's words not mine) if I didn't get what I wanted, but instead to work for it. So Reddit, please CMV. |
t3_2r4agj | CMV: I don't believe illegal immigrants in America deserve citizenship more than those who go through the legal process | If you desire to become a legal immigrant in any country, you should respect the rules of the government, which includes respecting the requirement of going through the citizenship process. This process isn't supposed to allow EVERYONE to be approved, and it's not supposed to be easy either. This allows citizenship be granted to the immigrants that deserve it—those who had the patience, strength, and will of heart to go through the entire arduous process. In addition, the process is a good way of controlling the flow of immigrants here in America. If the process is too easy and too quick, there will be too fast of an influx that the country can't handle.
Why should those trying to bypass this line deserve the reward over those that actually earned it? It's like, being on line for an ice cream cone for hundreds and thousands of people and seeing people just steal straight from the vendor.
I understand that there are a lot of law-abiding, tax-paying illegal immigrants, and some of them don't have anything to return to in their home country. There's a good percentage that have built lives here in America and worked hard to achieve that life. Many have had children, and so deporting the illegal parents may break families apart. However, I believe that is just the price to pay for what they've done. Yes, the children don't deserve it, but they only have their parents to blame. | CMV: I don't believe illegal immigrants in America deserve citizenship more than those who go through the legal process. If you desire to become a legal immigrant in any country, you should respect the rules of the government, which includes respecting the requirement of going through the citizenship process. This process isn't supposed to allow EVERYONE to be approved, and it's not supposed to be easy either. This allows citizenship be granted to the immigrants that deserve it—those who had the patience, strength, and will of heart to go through the entire arduous process. In addition, the process is a good way of controlling the flow of immigrants here in America. If the process is too easy and too quick, there will be too fast of an influx that the country can't handle.
Why should those trying to bypass this line deserve the reward over those that actually earned it? It's like, being on line for an ice cream cone for hundreds and thousands of people and seeing people just steal straight from the vendor.
I understand that there are a lot of law-abiding, tax-paying illegal immigrants, and some of them don't have anything to return to in their home country. There's a good percentage that have built lives here in America and worked hard to achieve that life. Many have had children, and so deporting the illegal parents may break families apart. However, I believe that is just the price to pay for what they've done. Yes, the children don't deserve it, but they only have their parents to blame. |
t3_5kj3z7 | CMV: The wildlife population dropping by 60% is totally fine. | There is a post in r/news that says that wildlife has dropped 60 % in 40 years due to human activities. I think that's not surprising, and not really a problem.
We humans have developed at an incredible rate, and in doing so we've taken a lot of the world's land, fresh water, minerals, and other resources. Because the earth has limited resources, everything we took is something wildlife doesn't have, so the wildlife population started dwindling.
This reduction of the wildlife population has had 2 nasty consequences. First, a massive ecological disaster is threatening us. We are damaging the global ecosystem, which we need to live.
Second, the disappearance of species and ecosystem. An animal specie is a unique design which nature has spent millions of years developing, and it's loss is a tragic loss of memory and information, not to mention the beauty of the natural world that we are destroying.
However, I believe that if we are careful and environment friendly, we can reduce the wildlife population without hurting either of these systems. We can make every ecosystem smaller, but without destroying any ecosystem or any individual specie. And we can rebalance the global ecosystem so that it works with us. In fact, we have to, because the human population is so [big](https://xkcd.com/1338/) that we simply cannot not massively impact the ecosystem, no matter how we live. So we should just accept that we'll have reduced the wildlife population, and try to make it healthy even though it's smaller.
_____
> *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 wildlife population dropping by 60% is totally fine. There is a post in r/news that says that wildlife has dropped 60 % in 40 years due to human activities. I think that's not surprising, and not really a problem.
We humans have developed at an incredible rate, and in doing so we've taken a lot of the world's land, fresh water, minerals, and other resources. Because the earth has limited resources, everything we took is something wildlife doesn't have, so the wildlife population started dwindling.
This reduction of the wildlife population has had 2 nasty consequences. First, a massive ecological disaster is threatening us. We are damaging the global ecosystem, which we need to live.
Second, the disappearance of species and ecosystem. An animal specie is a unique design which nature has spent millions of years developing, and it's loss is a tragic loss of memory and information, not to mention the beauty of the natural world that we are destroying.
However, I believe that if we are careful and environment friendly, we can reduce the wildlife population without hurting either of these systems. We can make every ecosystem smaller, but without destroying any ecosystem or any individual specie. And we can rebalance the global ecosystem so that it works with us. In fact, we have to, because the human population is so [big](https://xkcd.com/1338/) that we simply cannot not massively impact the ecosystem, no matter how we live. So we should just accept that we'll have reduced the wildlife population, and try to make it healthy even though it's smaller. |
t3_3nwo5r | CMV: Part time employment should be at the discretion of the employee, not the employer | Over the past 20 years it has become increasingly more popular for employers to employ 20 part time employees where traditionally they would have employed 10 full time employees. The single largest reason for this is because in a lot of places they are not required to provide employee benefits for part time employees.
Part time employment should exist for the people who choose, for whatever reason, to work part time, but employers should not be allowed to game the system by shorting their employee's benefits/pay by hiring only part time people. | CMV: Part time employment should be at the discretion of the employee, not the employer. Over the past 20 years it has become increasingly more popular for employers to employ 20 part time employees where traditionally they would have employed 10 full time employees. The single largest reason for this is because in a lot of places they are not required to provide employee benefits for part time employees.
Part time employment should exist for the people who choose, for whatever reason, to work part time, but employers should not be allowed to game the system by shorting their employee's benefits/pay by hiring only part time people. |
t3_2gsjkx | CMV: There is no longer a need for traditional drummers. | With the advancement of drum machines and the possibility for them to have thousands of different authentic drum sounds, there's no need for a drummer with a drum set to be on stage during performances anymore. Drummer's can be replaced with producers who can control a drum machine and a laptop that can add other synthetic sounds and effects. Drumming is still a nice hobby and an impressive skill to master, but as far as live performances go, there's no need for an actual drum set anymore.
Change my view! I'm having trouble thinking of arguments so I'm interested to see what you guys come up with. | CMV: There is no longer a need for traditional drummers. With the advancement of drum machines and the possibility for them to have thousands of different authentic drum sounds, there's no need for a drummer with a drum set to be on stage during performances anymore. Drummer's can be replaced with producers who can control a drum machine and a laptop that can add other synthetic sounds and effects. Drumming is still a nice hobby and an impressive skill to master, but as far as live performances go, there's no need for an actual drum set anymore.
Change my view! I'm having trouble thinking of arguments so I'm interested to see what you guys come up with. |
t3_1n026v | I believe dictators like Kim Jong-Un should be put to death. CMV | Imagine that we could capture dictators like Kim Jong-Un without causing chaos that just ends up killing a bunch of people. If that were possible, then dictators such as him should be put to death.
So, I'm not saying that practically we should go in and kill dictators such as him, just that they deserve to be killed or put to death.
What makes Kim Jong-Un so bad? The people of NK have no human rights and the economic policies of NK lead to mass poverty. Not US style poverty, but true abject poverty. | I believe dictators like Kim Jong-Un should be put to death. CMV. Imagine that we could capture dictators like Kim Jong-Un without causing chaos that just ends up killing a bunch of people. If that were possible, then dictators such as him should be put to death.
So, I'm not saying that practically we should go in and kill dictators such as him, just that they deserve to be killed or put to death.
What makes Kim Jong-Un so bad? The people of NK have no human rights and the economic policies of NK lead to mass poverty. Not US style poverty, but true abject poverty. |
t3_1z5q54 | I believe that cars should have the capacity to go the speed limit on highways as a maximum. CMV. | I'd like to lead with an example:
Today I was driving and pulled out in front of another car. I was at a stop sign on a curved road and this person came flying down the road at at least 15 mph above the speed limit. He rode right up my ass and I could see him swearing at me in my rear-view mirror.
These type of idiots have a narcissistic view of speed limits. It's not all about you. Speed limits exist not only to prevent people from driving fast enough to kill themselves, *but to ensure that other drivers have the right amount of time to make decisions at intersections*. If you're going 40 in a 25 and then freak out at someone for pulling out in front of you, the fault is YOURS. This is where most people forget that they have a responsibility to other drivers on the road. Those speed limits exist for a reason.
Driving the speed limit ensures safety for you and the people around you. Speed is a major factor in many serious accidents, as it reduces reaction time. Going 30 mph is equivalent to going 150 feet per second, which is a challenge for the human brain when reacting to what we see on the road.
Let's say you find yourself speeding because you've left for work late. Cars with speed limits of 65-75 mph here in the US would, in my hypothesis, decrease fatal accidents and lead to better car safety overall. If you leave late for work, then you show up late. You shouldn't put others in danger because you slept in.
EDIT: By "speed limit on highways" I meant 65 mph or 55 mph depending on where you live. I live in MA where the speed limit on most major highways is 65 mph. The point is that cars should be designed to only as fast as the speed limit, not 160+ mph.
EDIT 2: People seem to think I believe all cars should travel at the same speed and that I would eliminate the ability to accelerate, potentially preventing drivers from avoiding trouble on the road. This is NOT my stance, and the title of the post, in retrospect, is a little misleading.
I would ideally make cars with a maximum speed of 75 mph. The speed limit would remain at 65 mph. Those traveling at 75 would still be at risk for speeding tickets. The point is that drivers would be prevented from going 85, 90, or 100 mph. Drivers would still be able to accelerate in situations like passing, avoiding accidents, etc. | I believe that cars should have the capacity to go the speed limit on highways as a maximum. CMV. I'd like to lead with an example:
Today I was driving and pulled out in front of another car. I was at a stop sign on a curved road and this person came flying down the road at at least 15 mph above the speed limit. He rode right up my ass and I could see him swearing at me in my rear-view mirror.
These type of idiots have a narcissistic view of speed limits. It's not all about you. Speed limits exist not only to prevent people from driving fast enough to kill themselves, *but to ensure that other drivers have the right amount of time to make decisions at intersections*. If you're going 40 in a 25 and then freak out at someone for pulling out in front of you, the fault is YOURS. This is where most people forget that they have a responsibility to other drivers on the road. Those speed limits exist for a reason.
Driving the speed limit ensures safety for you and the people around you. Speed is a major factor in many serious accidents, as it reduces reaction time. Going 30 mph is equivalent to going 150 feet per second, which is a challenge for the human brain when reacting to what we see on the road.
Let's say you find yourself speeding because you've left for work late. Cars with speed limits of 65-75 mph here in the US would, in my hypothesis, decrease fatal accidents and lead to better car safety overall. If you leave late for work, then you show up late. You shouldn't put others in danger because you slept in.
EDIT: By "speed limit on highways" I meant 65 mph or 55 mph depending on where you live. I live in MA where the speed limit on most major highways is 65 mph. The point is that cars should be designed to only as fast as the speed limit, not 160+ mph.
EDIT 2: People seem to think I believe all cars should travel at the same speed and that I would eliminate the ability to accelerate, potentially preventing drivers from avoiding trouble on the road. This is NOT my stance, and the title of the post, in retrospect, is a little misleading.
I would ideally make cars with a maximum speed of 75 mph. The speed limit would remain at 65 mph. Those traveling at 75 would still be at risk for speeding tickets. The point is that drivers would be prevented from going 85, 90, or 100 mph. Drivers would still be able to accelerate in situations like passing, avoiding accidents, etc. |
t3_1p16et | I believe that the age limit on voting should be removed, but you should be tested on your knowledge of the candidates you are voting on before being allowed to vote. CMV | I'm 18, so legally, I can vote in elections. However, I know very little about politics, so I don't believe that I should be able to have a part in choosing how the country is ran, when I don't even know what I'm choosing. I certainly don't want Jim over here voting for Bob simply because he belongs to a party that Jim's parents identify with, and I don't want Jan voting for Terry because he's hotter than Bob. It's damaging to the country to have uninformed people put in control of everything, and something needs to be done about it. CMV
EDIT: Some of you are saying that this would basically make the lower class unable to vote. Well, maybe we could have free classes on basic current politics offered, or significantly reduced price classes. | I believe that the age limit on voting should be removed, but you should be tested on your knowledge of the candidates you are voting on before being allowed to vote. CMV. I'm 18, so legally, I can vote in elections. However, I know very little about politics, so I don't believe that I should be able to have a part in choosing how the country is ran, when I don't even know what I'm choosing. I certainly don't want Jim over here voting for Bob simply because he belongs to a party that Jim's parents identify with, and I don't want Jan voting for Terry because he's hotter than Bob. It's damaging to the country to have uninformed people put in control of everything, and something needs to be done about it. CMV
EDIT: Some of you are saying that this would basically make the lower class unable to vote. Well, maybe we could have free classes on basic current politics offered, or significantly reduced price classes. |
t3_267ots | CMV: I believe that anyone who graduates from a four-year college/university in the United States should be offered permanent residence. | Hi, everyone. I'd like to start with the anecdote that brought this issue to my mind.
I attend a small college in New England, one of the "Little Ivy" NESCAC schools. A student in my dorm is an intelligent, driven foreign national from a middle-eastern country who speaks impeccable English, wants to immigrate to America, and is interested in a career in journalism/charity work. He is currently mucking through immigration paperwork, and may well be forced to move back "home" to a country where he does not want to live and that does not particularly want him, unless hew is able to secure a long-term visa by the time his student visa expires.
This strikes me as about the **DUMBEST THING IMAGINABLE.**
If a person has attended a college in the United States, this heavily implies/guarantees several things about him/her:
>He/she has lived in the U.S. for several years and is familiar with American culture.
>He/She speaks good/excellent English.
>He/She carries a valuable degree and is therefore better educated than most of the world's people and most prospective immigrants.
This may be a simplistic way to look at it, but it seems foolish to send away driven, well-educated, thoroughly Americanized people who would happily become permanent residents/citizens. I have trouble imagining a more desirable immigrant than a 20-something college-educated English-speaker who has gone out of his/her way to come to the United States.
If I may preemptively address some criticisms:
>"People would game this system."
People will game any system. Of course there would need to be oversight to prevent abuse, but the basic principle stands.
>"Attending an American college is no guarantee of being inducted into American culture."
Even if a college's courses alone would not accomplish this, its community would. Since coming to college, the person I mentioned earlier has met Jews, Hispanics, and Native Americans for the first time. He's eaten calzones, attended a Thanksgiving, and played skee-ball. Spending 24 hours a day with American young people is probably the most effective way to become a part of the culture.
>"It is possible to obtain a degree while speaking mediocre English."
Well, yes. It is possible to obtain a degree (particularly in STEMM fields) without speaking adequate English. This could easily be corrected for by requiring a minimum standard of achievement in English/Literature courses.
I'llbe interested to hear some opposing viewpoints, so do your best to CMV. I'll check back to read responses regularly.
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: I believe that anyone who graduates from a four-year college/university in the United States should be offered permanent residence. Hi, everyone. I'd like to start with the anecdote that brought this issue to my mind.
I attend a small college in New England, one of the "Little Ivy" NESCAC schools. A student in my dorm is an intelligent, driven foreign national from a middle-eastern country who speaks impeccable English, wants to immigrate to America, and is interested in a career in journalism/charity work. He is currently mucking through immigration paperwork, and may well be forced to move back "home" to a country where he does not want to live and that does not particularly want him, unless hew is able to secure a long-term visa by the time his student visa expires.
This strikes me as about the **DUMBEST THING IMAGINABLE.**
If a person has attended a college in the United States, this heavily implies/guarantees several things about him/her:
>He/she has lived in the U.S. for several years and is familiar with American culture.
>He/She speaks good/excellent English.
>He/She carries a valuable degree and is therefore better educated than most of the world's people and most prospective immigrants.
This may be a simplistic way to look at it, but it seems foolish to send away driven, well-educated, thoroughly Americanized people who would happily become permanent residents/citizens. I have trouble imagining a more desirable immigrant than a 20-something college-educated English-speaker who has gone out of his/her way to come to the United States.
If I may preemptively address some criticisms:
>"People would game this system."
People will game any system. Of course there would need to be oversight to prevent abuse, but the basic principle stands.
>"Attending an American college is no guarantee of being inducted into American culture."
Even if a college's courses alone would not accomplish this, its community would. Since coming to college, the person I mentioned earlier has met Jews, Hispanics, and Native Americans for the first time. He's eaten calzones, attended a Thanksgiving, and played skee-ball. Spending 24 hours a day with American young people is probably the most effective way to become a part of the culture.
>"It is possible to obtain a degree while speaking mediocre English."
Well, yes. It is possible to obtain a degree (particularly in STEMM fields) without speaking adequate English. This could easily be corrected for by requiring a minimum standard of achievement in English/Literature courses.
I'llbe interested to hear some opposing viewpoints, so do your best to CMV. I'll check back to read responses regularly.
|
t3_3km9dd | CMV: Why shouldn't you be allowed to bring a knife onto a plane? | Before 9/11, you could bring a pocket knife onto a plane. But now since then you cannot bring a knife onboard a plane. I mean you can bring a knife onto a bus or in a shopping mall. If we are going to ban them from planes because they could be used to attack people, then we should ban them from everywhere else. They are no less dangerous on a bus. We went for years with people carrying all sorts of shit onto airplanes and had **very few incidents**, so with that last part being said, so shouldn't we still be allowed to bring it onto a plane?
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: Why shouldn't you be allowed to bring a knife onto a plane?. Before 9/11, you could bring a pocket knife onto a plane. But now since then you cannot bring a knife onboard a plane. I mean you can bring a knife onto a bus or in a shopping mall. If we are going to ban them from planes because they could be used to attack people, then we should ban them from everywhere else. They are no less dangerous on a bus. We went for years with people carrying all sorts of shit onto airplanes and had **very few incidents**, so with that last part being said, so shouldn't we still be allowed to bring it onto a plane?
|
t3_1ua0vw | I believe that if the US is justified in placing an excise tax on cigarettes, then there should be an excise tax on high-calorie foods like chocolate cake. CMV | The way I understand it, complications due to obesity are much bigger health problem in the United States than complications due to smoking. The RAND corporation, a group dedicated to researching issues like this one, conclude that obesity is a larger health risk than smoking, heavy drinking, or obesity (http://m.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB4549/index1.html).
I cannot understand, then, why it is considered acceptable to tax companies like Phillip Morris and, by extension, American smokers, but it is not acceptable to give the same treatment to companies like Pillsbury and Little Debbie and their customers. This is a belief that I've held for a long time and, I've always been interested in hearing the other side. Change my view. | I believe that if the US is justified in placing an excise tax on cigarettes, then there should be an excise tax on high-calorie foods like chocolate cake. CMV. The way I understand it, complications due to obesity are much bigger health problem in the United States than complications due to smoking. The RAND corporation, a group dedicated to researching issues like this one, conclude that obesity is a larger health risk than smoking, heavy drinking, or obesity (http://m.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB4549/index1.html).
I cannot understand, then, why it is considered acceptable to tax companies like Phillip Morris and, by extension, American smokers, but it is not acceptable to give the same treatment to companies like Pillsbury and Little Debbie and their customers. This is a belief that I've held for a long time and, I've always been interested in hearing the other side. Change my view. |
t3_1mf02k | I believe the Westboro Baptist Church should be stripped of it's 501(c)(3) status. CMV. | First off, i want to clarify that this is by no means an anti-religion CMV. I mean this to ONLY have secular talk.
The WBC is, to me, absolutely despicable and has no place in this world. But, unfortunately it appears it is not going anywhere as long as it has it's tax-exempt status, and their 501(c)(3) status is a slap in the face to people who agree with me.
I also firmly believe that the WBC is the definition of a Hate group. It is already labeled as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, however, the US government does not officially recognize hate groups, so a national label isn't possible, at least with current laws.
The UK has already forbidden the WBC from passing their borders, and i believe that if the IRS removed it's 501(c)(3) status it would show that the US is truly a progressive nation. CMV.
P.S.
I also very firmly believe 501(c) groups have destroyed american politics, but that is for another time.
Thank you for your time.
| I believe the Westboro Baptist Church should be stripped of it's 501(c)(3) status. CMV. First off, i want to clarify that this is by no means an anti-religion CMV. I mean this to ONLY have secular talk.
The WBC is, to me, absolutely despicable and has no place in this world. But, unfortunately it appears it is not going anywhere as long as it has it's tax-exempt status, and their 501(c)(3) status is a slap in the face to people who agree with me.
I also firmly believe that the WBC is the definition of a Hate group. It is already labeled as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, however, the US government does not officially recognize hate groups, so a national label isn't possible, at least with current laws.
The UK has already forbidden the WBC from passing their borders, and i believe that if the IRS removed it's 501(c)(3) status it would show that the US is truly a progressive nation. CMV.
P.S.
I also very firmly believe 501(c) groups have destroyed american politics, but that is for another time.
Thank you for your time.
|
t3_1k8cyf | I believe in land appropriation theory (mixing of labor). CMV | I believe that if someone enters an unclaimed piece of land and builds shelter or farms it or uses it regularly enough for whatever purpose, that person can legitimately claim ownership of it.
This belief is grounded (from what I can come up with right now) on the following assumption: taking a substantial part of someone's property which he worked to earn/create, or which was inherited from someone who earned/created it, will harm him emotionally or physically, or will lead to hostility. Harming innocents and hostility should be avoided.
CMV | I believe in land appropriation theory (mixing of labor). CMV. I believe that if someone enters an unclaimed piece of land and builds shelter or farms it or uses it regularly enough for whatever purpose, that person can legitimately claim ownership of it.
This belief is grounded (from what I can come up with right now) on the following assumption: taking a substantial part of someone's property which he worked to earn/create, or which was inherited from someone who earned/created it, will harm him emotionally or physically, or will lead to hostility. Harming innocents and hostility should be avoided.
CMV |
t3_1o7dxq | I believe falsification is an inadequate demarcation criterion. CMV | For the uninitiated, in the philosophy of science the demarcation problem considers how to distinguish science from non-science. Karl Popper, a 20th century philosopher, suggested that the line separating a scientific theory from a non-scientific theory is whether or not a theory is falsifiable. He also suggested that falsified theories be rejected for newer, unfalsified but falsifiable theories. I think this is inadequate, and that a theory should be measured by its successes rather than its failures.
I believe this for two reasons. First, I believe that the way science is actually practiced should be taken into consideration when discussing the demarcation problem. I believe that this is by evaluating the successes of the theory rather than judging it based on a falsification criterion. Secondly, I believe that the falsificationism principle cannot keep up with where science is taking us.
Consider the first point. When factual evidence is uncovered that undermines a well-established theory it is often rejected outright. If it is not rejected, the theory is modified slightly to accommodate the new facts. Therefore, the theory stands on its previous successes rather than succumbs to falsification attempts. This is not to say an established theory is never replaced or superseded, but I do think this demonstrates that too much import is placed on falsification, when in reality science is hardly ever practiced this way. Most science is done within the scope of a theory. I would argue that a really well established theory is in practice unfalsifiable. It can only be amended or superseded.
So how is a scientific theory established anyhow? By its successes! You can argue that this is semantic -- that any success of a scientific theory is its passing a falsification test, but in practice I think that scientists pay a lot more attention to how successful predictions of a theory have been rather than to what degree it has failed falsification tests. These are not one and the same! Consider how general relativity was established. It predicted a few major things that distinguished it from competing theories such as the precessing perihelion of mercury and the deflection of starlight during an eclipse. When Arthur Eddington established that starlight did indeed bend during an eclipse, the theory gained widespread support. Forget the fact that there was much that remained to be tested. It was the successes that gained it support.
Finally, I think that falsificationism leaves little to no room for inductive reasoning. I think that this has historically been very important in science, such as in the discovery of relativity, and I think that it's importance is only growing. There is plenty of science that can't pragmatically be falsified because of technological or temporal constraints. Consider the question of quantum gravity. Because of technological limitations, theories of quantum gravity will be untestable for the foreseeable future. If falsificationism had its way, those studying the quatum gravity problem from a theoretical perspective would be on par with priests and mystics. So what separates String theory (a theory of quantum gravity) from religion? Its success, of course! It is the only theory, per my knowledge, that can definitely combine quantum mechanics and general relativity in a logically consistent way. Whether or not the theory is correct remains to be seen, but because of its success its status should be squarely in the domain of science.
These are my views, anyway. CMV | I believe falsification is an inadequate demarcation criterion. CMV. For the uninitiated, in the philosophy of science the demarcation problem considers how to distinguish science from non-science. Karl Popper, a 20th century philosopher, suggested that the line separating a scientific theory from a non-scientific theory is whether or not a theory is falsifiable. He also suggested that falsified theories be rejected for newer, unfalsified but falsifiable theories. I think this is inadequate, and that a theory should be measured by its successes rather than its failures.
I believe this for two reasons. First, I believe that the way science is actually practiced should be taken into consideration when discussing the demarcation problem. I believe that this is by evaluating the successes of the theory rather than judging it based on a falsification criterion. Secondly, I believe that the falsificationism principle cannot keep up with where science is taking us.
Consider the first point. When factual evidence is uncovered that undermines a well-established theory it is often rejected outright. If it is not rejected, the theory is modified slightly to accommodate the new facts. Therefore, the theory stands on its previous successes rather than succumbs to falsification attempts. This is not to say an established theory is never replaced or superseded, but I do think this demonstrates that too much import is placed on falsification, when in reality science is hardly ever practiced this way. Most science is done within the scope of a theory. I would argue that a really well established theory is in practice unfalsifiable. It can only be amended or superseded.
So how is a scientific theory established anyhow? By its successes! You can argue that this is semantic -- that any success of a scientific theory is its passing a falsification test, but in practice I think that scientists pay a lot more attention to how successful predictions of a theory have been rather than to what degree it has failed falsification tests. These are not one and the same! Consider how general relativity was established. It predicted a few major things that distinguished it from competing theories such as the precessing perihelion of mercury and the deflection of starlight during an eclipse. When Arthur Eddington established that starlight did indeed bend during an eclipse, the theory gained widespread support. Forget the fact that there was much that remained to be tested. It was the successes that gained it support.
Finally, I think that falsificationism leaves little to no room for inductive reasoning. I think that this has historically been very important in science, such as in the discovery of relativity, and I think that it's importance is only growing. There is plenty of science that can't pragmatically be falsified because of technological or temporal constraints. Consider the question of quantum gravity. Because of technological limitations, theories of quantum gravity will be untestable for the foreseeable future. If falsificationism had its way, those studying the quatum gravity problem from a theoretical perspective would be on par with priests and mystics. So what separates String theory (a theory of quantum gravity) from religion? Its success, of course! It is the only theory, per my knowledge, that can definitely combine quantum mechanics and general relativity in a logically consistent way. Whether or not the theory is correct remains to be seen, but because of its success its status should be squarely in the domain of science.
These are my views, anyway. CMV |
t3_28c0xt | CMV: The "marriage equality movement" is dangerous and should be stopped because it destroys Queer Culture and represents the end of Queer History via assimilation. | The fight for same-sex marriage often invokes imagery that attempts to assimilate same-sex couples with opposite-sex couples. For example: studies evaluating the happiness of a child between the two parent sets, the portrayal of same-sex couples in media (think: Modern Family).
I think that focusing on equating same-sex and opposite-sex couples effectively destroys a unique culture that cannot be compared to the cultures of cisgendered heterosexuals. By fighting for "marriage equality" people are truly fighting for the destruction of a culture.
Such culture has its own unique jargons, histories, familial structures, and belief systems. This culture exists within the bounds of other cultures and should be celebrated and certainly not shunned. However, if Queer people are equated with the heterosexual and cisgendered populations, this culture is lost.
For example, one can observe the history of Native Americans. While these tribes potentially benefited from being assimilated (being able to communicate with a now dominant population) and without even going into all the terrible things that happened for this to come to be.. their cultures are effectively lost. Their histories have slowed significantly, some even halting. Their native languages are lost, and those that still have speakers today are approaching moribundity as children refuse to learn them in favor of the dominant languages around them. (Note: I am not attempting to equate these assimilations, but rather point out that they are similar in their causes and effects)
**I do not wish to debate the nuances of marriage advantages vs. disadvantages** because this has been argued time and time again.
Rather I want to be convinced that in having marriage equality mankind would not be losing the rich and unique culture that is Queer Culture.
_____
> *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 "marriage equality movement" is dangerous and should be stopped because it destroys Queer Culture and represents the end of Queer History via assimilation. The fight for same-sex marriage often invokes imagery that attempts to assimilate same-sex couples with opposite-sex couples. For example: studies evaluating the happiness of a child between the two parent sets, the portrayal of same-sex couples in media (think: Modern Family).
I think that focusing on equating same-sex and opposite-sex couples effectively destroys a unique culture that cannot be compared to the cultures of cisgendered heterosexuals. By fighting for "marriage equality" people are truly fighting for the destruction of a culture.
Such culture has its own unique jargons, histories, familial structures, and belief systems. This culture exists within the bounds of other cultures and should be celebrated and certainly not shunned. However, if Queer people are equated with the heterosexual and cisgendered populations, this culture is lost.
For example, one can observe the history of Native Americans. While these tribes potentially benefited from being assimilated (being able to communicate with a now dominant population) and without even going into all the terrible things that happened for this to come to be.. their cultures are effectively lost. Their histories have slowed significantly, some even halting. Their native languages are lost, and those that still have speakers today are approaching moribundity as children refuse to learn them in favor of the dominant languages around them. (Note: I am not attempting to equate these assimilations, but rather point out that they are similar in their causes and effects)
**I do not wish to debate the nuances of marriage advantages vs. disadvantages** because this has been argued time and time again.
Rather I want to be convinced that in having marriage equality mankind would not be losing the rich and unique culture that is Queer Culture. |
t3_31090y | CMV: /r/AskHistorians April Fools' Day prank demonstrates the kind of wit /r/circlejerk SHOULD have | Once upon a time, /r/circlejerk used to have some semblance of intelligent satire of the front page of reddit. One could think it almost served a purpose - whenever the inanity and shortsightedness of reddit got to be too much, one could retire to the satire sub and 'vent' - and feel a bit better with the posts' cleverness.
Now, it's all tired memetics. Not to use the "bring circlejerk back to its roots" cliche, but yeah... it really could be a lot better than it is now. There's plenty to work with from a satirical perspective, but low-effort posts continue to abound.
**Edit:** [Added an example](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/31090y/cmv_raskhistorians_april_fools_day_prank/cpxfhpe) below.
**Edit:** If you can point out a subreddit that does this well, you will successfully change my view that /r/circlejerk should demonstrate more wit. (It can't just be "kinda similar" though - SRD and SRS are very different from what I mean.)
_____
> *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: /r/AskHistorians April Fools' Day prank demonstrates the kind of wit /r/circlejerk SHOULD have. Once upon a time, /r/circlejerk used to have some semblance of intelligent satire of the front page of reddit. One could think it almost served a purpose - whenever the inanity and shortsightedness of reddit got to be too much, one could retire to the satire sub and 'vent' - and feel a bit better with the posts' cleverness.
Now, it's all tired memetics. Not to use the "bring circlejerk back to its roots" cliche, but yeah... it really could be a lot better than it is now. There's plenty to work with from a satirical perspective, but low-effort posts continue to abound.
**Edit:** [Added an example](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/31090y/cmv_raskhistorians_april_fools_day_prank/cpxfhpe) below.
**Edit:** If you can point out a subreddit that does this well, you will successfully change my view that /r/circlejerk should demonstrate more wit. (It can't just be "kinda similar" though - SRD and SRS are very different from what I mean.)
|
t3_1grk13 | I think everything about country music is terrible; CMV | By country music, i mean the country music that is popular and mainstream now. Bluegrass is good, and so is genuine country. I don't even have a problem with pop-country like Taylor Swift (I actually would respect her more if she didn't sell out and primarily made country music, though I'd hate her music a lot more if she was more country). I'm talking about twangy country and basically what's popular now.
The singing is terrible. Always.
The lyrics are meaningless for the most part. I'm not saying all are, but definitely the upbeat ones are. The majority of those songs are about beer and country life which the singer probably never encountered.
The fact that country music is popular in new england (where I am) doesn't make sense to me. The message doesn't apply to the majority of the people, and, in my opinion, it doesn't make up for that by sounding good.
The melodies are pretty generic and not catchy in the slightest.
Red Solo Cup? She Thinks My Tractor's Sexy? Come on people.
- I'm not the type of person who listens to just one type of music. I'm a musician and writer, and i have respect for most genres. i listen to and enjoy essentially every other genre of music except screamo (which is even good in the parts that don't have screaming.)
- please go into detail and even put links to songs which oppose my view. it would by great if my view were changed because country music seems to be everywhere and it's intolerable for me at the moment. | I think everything about country music is terrible; CMV. By country music, i mean the country music that is popular and mainstream now. Bluegrass is good, and so is genuine country. I don't even have a problem with pop-country like Taylor Swift (I actually would respect her more if she didn't sell out and primarily made country music, though I'd hate her music a lot more if she was more country). I'm talking about twangy country and basically what's popular now.
The singing is terrible. Always.
The lyrics are meaningless for the most part. I'm not saying all are, but definitely the upbeat ones are. The majority of those songs are about beer and country life which the singer probably never encountered.
The fact that country music is popular in new england (where I am) doesn't make sense to me. The message doesn't apply to the majority of the people, and, in my opinion, it doesn't make up for that by sounding good.
The melodies are pretty generic and not catchy in the slightest.
Red Solo Cup? She Thinks My Tractor's Sexy? Come on people.
- I'm not the type of person who listens to just one type of music. I'm a musician and writer, and i have respect for most genres. i listen to and enjoy essentially every other genre of music except screamo (which is even good in the parts that don't have screaming.)
- please go into detail and even put links to songs which oppose my view. it would by great if my view were changed because country music seems to be everywhere and it's intolerable for me at the moment. |
t3_1xmy1c | Sex Addiction is a Real Disorder -- CMV | A lot of people say that sex addiction is not real, and is simply an excuse used by certain people to engage in conduct that harms others. While I don't deny that some people might attempt to use the term as an excuse, I think sex addiction is real. Isn't the definition of an addiction engaging in behavior compulsively despite it having negative consequences on your life? Thus, isn't someone who seeks out sexual activity despite it harming their relationships, their health, their psychological well-being a sex addict? Yes, everyone likes sex. But some people are able to stop themselves from engaging in sexual behavior where that behavior would be harmful. Others are not. I honestly don't even understand why there is controversy over whether this is a real disorder. Change my view. | Sex Addiction is a Real Disorder -- CMV. A lot of people say that sex addiction is not real, and is simply an excuse used by certain people to engage in conduct that harms others. While I don't deny that some people might attempt to use the term as an excuse, I think sex addiction is real. Isn't the definition of an addiction engaging in behavior compulsively despite it having negative consequences on your life? Thus, isn't someone who seeks out sexual activity despite it harming their relationships, their health, their psychological well-being a sex addict? Yes, everyone likes sex. But some people are able to stop themselves from engaging in sexual behavior where that behavior would be harmful. Others are not. I honestly don't even understand why there is controversy over whether this is a real disorder. Change my view. |
t3_1tgici | I believe that psychological effects of childhood trauma in both victim and perpetrator are a much greater factor than the effects of the media's portrayal of women in the incidence of rape. CMV | Let me preface this by saying that I am not very familiar at all with feminist positions on things. Most of my exposure to feminism has come from a few feminist acquaintances and random stuff I've seen on the internet. I'm well aware that my sampling of feminist thought is probably not representative of most feminists.
With that said: I have often heard it said that the major factors in the incidence of rape are something along these lines:
* The media portrays women as sexualized objects, thus discouraging boys and young men from seeing women as fully human. This leads men to think that it is okay for them to rape women.
* We do not teach our males what consent is. Alternatively, we don't teach them that it is not okay to rape women.
Now, I don't think that the first reason is a totally invalid point. I agree that the media sexualizes women to an obscene degree, and I'm sure that that has deleterious effects on the psyche of both males an females.
The second point seems totally absurd to me, though. I believe that rapists know that what they're doing is wrong, but they choose to do it anyway. This goes for all kinds of rape, too. I think that both the violent rapist and the frat guy who pressures a girl into getting wasted at a party and then has sex with her while she's semi-/unconscious know that what they're doing is wrong.
Rather than these two points, I think that the main contributing factors to rape are psychological issues that occur as a result of trauma in childhood. I don't have any statistics to back this up, so please lambast me if this is wrong: I believe that the majority of rape victims were the victim of some sort of major abuse in childhood, most likely sexual. I also believe that the same goes for the perpetrators of abuse. People who were abused in childhood almost always reflect the repercussions of their abuse in their demeanor, and abusers can sense that. I'm not talking about anything magical, either. In my experience, victims of abuse carry themselves differently and can have personality traits that indicate that they were abused. Abusers recognize that and seek those people out as victims.
In summary, I think that the main contributing factor in the incidence of rape is childhood abuse of both future victim and perpetrator. I believe that dehumanization of women through sexualization in media is a much smaller factor, and that media influence alone cannot take a boy who grew up in a healthy and supportive family and turn him into a rapist. I think that if media does have any significant effect in the incidence of rape, it is only because it reinforces the already sick foundation of someone who was abused. | I believe that psychological effects of childhood trauma in both victim and perpetrator are a much greater factor than the effects of the media's portrayal of women in the incidence of rape. CMV. Let me preface this by saying that I am not very familiar at all with feminist positions on things. Most of my exposure to feminism has come from a few feminist acquaintances and random stuff I've seen on the internet. I'm well aware that my sampling of feminist thought is probably not representative of most feminists.
With that said: I have often heard it said that the major factors in the incidence of rape are something along these lines:
* The media portrays women as sexualized objects, thus discouraging boys and young men from seeing women as fully human. This leads men to think that it is okay for them to rape women.
* We do not teach our males what consent is. Alternatively, we don't teach them that it is not okay to rape women.
Now, I don't think that the first reason is a totally invalid point. I agree that the media sexualizes women to an obscene degree, and I'm sure that that has deleterious effects on the psyche of both males an females.
The second point seems totally absurd to me, though. I believe that rapists know that what they're doing is wrong, but they choose to do it anyway. This goes for all kinds of rape, too. I think that both the violent rapist and the frat guy who pressures a girl into getting wasted at a party and then has sex with her while she's semi-/unconscious know that what they're doing is wrong.
Rather than these two points, I think that the main contributing factors to rape are psychological issues that occur as a result of trauma in childhood. I don't have any statistics to back this up, so please lambast me if this is wrong: I believe that the majority of rape victims were the victim of some sort of major abuse in childhood, most likely sexual. I also believe that the same goes for the perpetrators of abuse. People who were abused in childhood almost always reflect the repercussions of their abuse in their demeanor, and abusers can sense that. I'm not talking about anything magical, either. In my experience, victims of abuse carry themselves differently and can have personality traits that indicate that they were abused. Abusers recognize that and seek those people out as victims.
In summary, I think that the main contributing factor in the incidence of rape is childhood abuse of both future victim and perpetrator. I believe that dehumanization of women through sexualization in media is a much smaller factor, and that media influence alone cannot take a boy who grew up in a healthy and supportive family and turn him into a rapist. I think that if media does have any significant effect in the incidence of rape, it is only because it reinforces the already sick foundation of someone who was abused. |
t3_2h6cyh | CMV: Voting for a third party candidate is not a waste of my vote | I believe that voting for a third party candidate whom I agree with most is not a waste of my vote. As an American citizen, I have been given the right to vote. But this right is also a responsibility. I believe that I have an obligation to vote for the candidate whom I believe is the most capable of being a leader. By voting for someone I don't believe will do as good a job as a different (read: third party) candidate is not only a waste of my vote, but also a failure to fulfill my responsibility as an American citizen.
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: Voting for a third party candidate is not a waste of my vote. I believe that voting for a third party candidate whom I agree with most is not a waste of my vote. As an American citizen, I have been given the right to vote. But this right is also a responsibility. I believe that I have an obligation to vote for the candidate whom I believe is the most capable of being a leader. By voting for someone I don't believe will do as good a job as a different (read: third party) candidate is not only a waste of my vote, but also a failure to fulfill my responsibility as an American citizen.
|
End of preview. Expand
in Dataset Viewer.
- Downloads last month
- 37