Datasets:

nailiamirzakhmedova

/

cmv_op_10k

like 0

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.

t3_2dtwqf

CMV: John Cena Vs. Brock Lesnar tonight at summerslam will NOT be the biggest fight of the summer.

Brock Lesnar v. John Cena (c) has been called the fight of the summer by the WWE ads, but I think this is misleading. Let us look at the facts: - Bork broke the streak, this is true, but that doesn't make him a good WRESTLER it makes him the conqueror of the streak. - Cena V. Lesnar has been done before, Summer Slam 2013. - Lesnar would make a terrible WWEWHC because he is a part timer. What is gonna happen to the belts? Is Paul Heyman gonna come down to the ring with them? Is Seth Rollins gonna cash in on Paul Heyman? - Bork only works well when he is allowed to injure his opponent, I would imagine he would be in the dog house with creative if he injures cena again. - Neither of them have anything to gain. Cena has beat bork before, Bork already broke the streak. Nothing can be gained in this match. EDIT: - The shield vs. Evolution was the biggest fight of the summer in my opinion. _____ > *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: John Cena Vs. Brock Lesnar tonight at summerslam will NOT be the biggest fight of the summer. Brock Lesnar v. John Cena (c) has been called the fight of the summer by the WWE ads, but I think this is misleading. Let us look at the facts: - Bork broke the streak, this is true, but that doesn't make him a good WRESTLER it makes him the conqueror of the streak. - Cena V. Lesnar has been done before, Summer Slam 2013. - Lesnar would make a terrible WWEWHC because he is a part timer. What is gonna happen to the belts? Is Paul Heyman gonna come down to the ring with them? Is Seth Rollins gonna cash in on Paul Heyman? - Bork only works well when he is allowed to injure his opponent, I would imagine he would be in the dog house with creative if he injures cena again. - Neither of them have anything to gain. Cena has beat bork before, Bork already broke the streak. Nothing can be gained in this match. EDIT: - The shield vs. Evolution was the biggest fight of the summer in my opinion.

t3_1kdndo

I believe death sentences to murders are the rightful punishment. CMV

First of all, excuse me for my bad english (this isn't my home language and I'm on a phone so typos). Murderers should be sentenced to death. I believe this mostly because of the aspect of the victim's close people. How can one live in peace while knowing the their loved one's murderer might be released from jail sometime. Why does the murderer get to live and gets a second chance for living and fixing life while the victim doesn't? This is not fair and not right. Please, I'd love if you would change my view or at least give me a different aspect of this.

I believe death sentences to murders are the rightful punishment. CMV. First of all, excuse me for my bad english (this isn't my home language and I'm on a phone so typos). Murderers should be sentenced to death. I believe this mostly because of the aspect of the victim's close people. How can one live in peace while knowing the their loved one's murderer might be released from jail sometime. Why does the murderer get to live and gets a second chance for living and fixing life while the victim doesn't? This is not fair and not right. Please, I'd love if you would change my view or at least give me a different aspect of this.

t3_3axlsr

CMV: Free speech battles in the future will be fought against corporations as well as government, since they will control our methods of speech.

I followed the round of bans on harassment subs pretty closely and fall pretty well on the side of "it is limiting to free speech." A common argument I hear against this is that it is Reddit's right to ban speech they disagree with. That's undeniable. Reddit legally has the right to do that. However, we are in an age where increasingly our speech is online. These discussions that we have online are held on sites that are controlled by corporations. Where as in the past the only people that could ban discussion effectively was the government we now have corporations that control huge swathes of speech. This isn't a society-breaking issue right now, but it seems like in the future, as corporations control more and more of our *methods* of speech, that they will have huge sway over speech in general. Situations can be imagined where corporations that have this type of control (Twitter, Facebook, Google, Reddit, Wikipedia) will have significant stakes in issues and will try to form the speech that exists on their platform about them. Discussions considered unkind to a certain group, or discussions unkind to the platform itself, perhaps discussions about mergers of the companies themselves, or politicians that support breaking them up. If they want to advocate for or against certain issues in this way it would be simple for them to ban speech on a certain topic, hiding it from news feeds, or twitter updates. Shadow-banning the topics from the front page, or shadow-locking wikipedia articles. This kind of corporate control could be effective enough to hugely change people's ability to express their ideas and could sway public opinion. Because of this evolution I think it will be just as crucial to push free speech principles on these giant corporations in the same way that citizens have pushed for free speech against governments in the past (and in the present). CMV.

CMV: Free speech battles in the future will be fought against corporations as well as government, since they will control our methods of speech. I followed the round of bans on harassment subs pretty closely and fall pretty well on the side of "it is limiting to free speech." A common argument I hear against this is that it is Reddit's right to ban speech they disagree with. That's undeniable. Reddit legally has the right to do that. However, we are in an age where increasingly our speech is online. These discussions that we have online are held on sites that are controlled by corporations. Where as in the past the only people that could ban discussion effectively was the government we now have corporations that control huge swathes of speech. This isn't a society-breaking issue right now, but it seems like in the future, as corporations control more and more of our *methods* of speech, that they will have huge sway over speech in general. Situations can be imagined where corporations that have this type of control (Twitter, Facebook, Google, Reddit, Wikipedia) will have significant stakes in issues and will try to form the speech that exists on their platform about them. Discussions considered unkind to a certain group, or discussions unkind to the platform itself, perhaps discussions about mergers of the companies themselves, or politicians that support breaking them up. If they want to advocate for or against certain issues in this way it would be simple for them to ban speech on a certain topic, hiding it from news feeds, or twitter updates. Shadow-banning the topics from the front page, or shadow-locking wikipedia articles. This kind of corporate control could be effective enough to hugely change people's ability to express their ideas and could sway public opinion. Because of this evolution I think it will be just as crucial to push free speech principles on these giant corporations in the same way that citizens have pushed for free speech against governments in the past (and in the present). CMV.

t3_1hkvqp

Catholicism is the best Christian religion. CMV.

- Catholic moral teaching is closest to that of Christ, they teach that true charity is giving *all* of oneself to others. They believe it is not enough to give a homeless man a coat, if he is also in need of shoes - give him your shoes as well and walk home without them. Personal suffering as a consequence of helping others is seen as blessing. - Catholics are open to science. They accept evolution as part of God's plan. The Church is open to change their view (contraception, hell, etc), but do so through a long theological and philosophical process, it will not change a view on account of popularity. - Catholicism is rooted in a long tradition of philosophy. From Saint Francis to Augustine to many respected contemporary philosophers, Catholics are not afraid to challenge their own beliefs in the pursuit of Truth. - Catholics believe in mercy and forgiveness. You will never see a Catholic outside of an abortion clinic, shaming those who go in or out. They are directed to provide comfort and aid to those who have had abortions. - Catholics are politically radical. From the Jesuits, to the Catholic Workers Union, to the defense of the South American people from the negative effects of globalization and neo-colonialism - they are not afraid to fight for social justice, even if it means fighting the Vatican itself. To sum up, the Catholic Church (though man-made and fallible) is more representative of Christ's message than any other.

Catholicism is the best Christian religion. CMV. - Catholic moral teaching is closest to that of Christ, they teach that true charity is giving *all* of oneself to others. They believe it is not enough to give a homeless man a coat, if he is also in need of shoes - give him your shoes as well and walk home without them. Personal suffering as a consequence of helping others is seen as blessing. - Catholics are open to science. They accept evolution as part of God's plan. The Church is open to change their view (contraception, hell, etc), but do so through a long theological and philosophical process, it will not change a view on account of popularity. - Catholicism is rooted in a long tradition of philosophy. From Saint Francis to Augustine to many respected contemporary philosophers, Catholics are not afraid to challenge their own beliefs in the pursuit of Truth. - Catholics believe in mercy and forgiveness. You will never see a Catholic outside of an abortion clinic, shaming those who go in or out. They are directed to provide comfort and aid to those who have had abortions. - Catholics are politically radical. From the Jesuits, to the Catholic Workers Union, to the defense of the South American people from the negative effects of globalization and neo-colonialism - they are not afraid to fight for social justice, even if it means fighting the Vatican itself. To sum up, the Catholic Church (though man-made and fallible) is more representative of Christ's message than any other.

t3_1kvhkw

Bradley/Chelsea Manning has no right to hormone therapy while in prison. CMV.

From this morning's article in the [New York Times](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/23/us/bradley-manning-says-he-is-female.html?hp&_r=0): >Pfc. Bradley Manning, the Army private who pleaded guilty to leaking government files to WikiLeaks and was sentenced on Wednesday to 35 years in military prison, said in a statement Thursday that “I am female” and wants to begin living life that way. and >[Manning's Lawyer] said that his client had not signaled an interest in sex-reassignment surgery, but he is hopeful that Fort Leavenworth will “do the right thing” and provide hormone therapy. Such therapeutic regimens can help people with male physical features turn those features more feminine. >Mr. Coombs said that if the military did not provide hormone therapy willingly, “then I’m going to do everything in my power to make sure they are forced to do so.” First, I have no objection to Manning seeking hormone therapy, or wanting her physical body to correspond more closely to her gender. *But*, when you've been sentenced to 35 years in military prison for leaking state secrets, *that's not the prison's problem*. I understand and agree that prisons have an obligation to provide medical treatment for inmates, and I understand that being a woman living in a male body can be incredibly distressing. But for some reason I find the idea of seeking to compel a military prison to provide hormonal treatment for inmates completely inappropriate. Change my view.

Bradley/Chelsea Manning has no right to hormone therapy while in prison. CMV. From this morning's article in the [New York Times](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/23/us/bradley-manning-says-he-is-female.html?hp&_r=0): >Pfc. Bradley Manning, the Army private who pleaded guilty to leaking government files to WikiLeaks and was sentenced on Wednesday to 35 years in military prison, said in a statement Thursday that “I am female” and wants to begin living life that way. and >[Manning's Lawyer] said that his client had not signaled an interest in sex-reassignment surgery, but he is hopeful that Fort Leavenworth will “do the right thing” and provide hormone therapy. Such therapeutic regimens can help people with male physical features turn those features more feminine. >Mr. Coombs said that if the military did not provide hormone therapy willingly, “then I’m going to do everything in my power to make sure they are forced to do so.” First, I have no objection to Manning seeking hormone therapy, or wanting her physical body to correspond more closely to her gender. *But*, when you've been sentenced to 35 years in military prison for leaking state secrets, *that's not the prison's problem*. I understand and agree that prisons have an obligation to provide medical treatment for inmates, and I understand that being a woman living in a male body can be incredibly distressing. But for some reason I find the idea of seeking to compel a military prison to provide hormonal treatment for inmates completely inappropriate. Change my view.

t3_26uqns

CMV: I believe that Israel are the definitive 'good guys' in the Middle East.

This has everything to do with how I've been raised. My whole life, many people I know have told me how Israel has been besieged by unfriendly neighbours on all sides since the time it became an independent nation. And even though I can find things online to support that or the opposite view, none of it has changed my view since anything could be propaganda. But all I have known is that Israel has never been the cause of conflict, and it is only through their skill, ingenuity, and destiny as God's people that they have been able to withstand being annihilated. I understand this sounds dramatic, but that's how its been related to me, by people I trust, no less. I want this view changed because I objectively know that there is very rarely a good side and an evil side. I want to know both sides of the story. And I want it to stick in my heart, as opposed to just being something else I hear that 'must be anti-Jew propaganda.' I don't necessarily want to see Israel as the bad guys, but I do want to see their conflicts objectively. _____ > *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 Israel are the definitive 'good guys' in the Middle East. This has everything to do with how I've been raised. My whole life, many people I know have told me how Israel has been besieged by unfriendly neighbours on all sides since the time it became an independent nation. And even though I can find things online to support that or the opposite view, none of it has changed my view since anything could be propaganda. But all I have known is that Israel has never been the cause of conflict, and it is only through their skill, ingenuity, and destiny as God's people that they have been able to withstand being annihilated. I understand this sounds dramatic, but that's how its been related to me, by people I trust, no less. I want this view changed because I objectively know that there is very rarely a good side and an evil side. I want to know both sides of the story. And I want it to stick in my heart, as opposed to just being something else I hear that 'must be anti-Jew propaganda.' I don't necessarily want to see Israel as the bad guys, but I do want to see their conflicts objectively.

t3_4v285m

CMV: It is impossible for Russia to "hack" Hillary's emails at this point, so to imply that Trump was calling on them to do so by asking Putin to "find" and release the missing emails is ridiculous.

We know Hillary had her email sever wiped. She admits this, and the FBI has confirmed it. The FBI in turn went over the emails with a fine toothed comb, and was unable to recover the emails in question. The actual server is almost certainly no longer connected to the internet, and stored deep in an FBI evidence locker. The only way that Russia could still hack the emails is if we believe a couple of increasingly improbable scenarios: 1: We believe Hillary had a secret backup copy of the emails somewhere, which she refused to turn over despite a court order telling her to do so (somewhat believable), and that she is dumb enough to keep that evidence around (not believable). 2: We believe the FBI found the missing emails, but decided to ignore the law and collude with Hillary to keep them hidden, and were also dumb enough not to destroy the evidence (not believable). 3: We believe that Russian hackers are capable of [hacking time](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQGbXmkSArs) to travel to before Hillary wiped her server. Alternately, we could accept the hypothetical possibility that Russia already hacked the server in the past (something the FBI explicitly said they could not rule out), has the emails somewhere in the bowels of one of their intelligence/security organizations, in which case, it would be a simple manner or finding and releasing the emails in question.

CMV: It is impossible for Russia to "hack" Hillary's emails at this point, so to imply that Trump was calling on them to do so by asking Putin to "find" and release the missing emails is ridiculous. We know Hillary had her email sever wiped. She admits this, and the FBI has confirmed it. The FBI in turn went over the emails with a fine toothed comb, and was unable to recover the emails in question. The actual server is almost certainly no longer connected to the internet, and stored deep in an FBI evidence locker. The only way that Russia could still hack the emails is if we believe a couple of increasingly improbable scenarios: 1: We believe Hillary had a secret backup copy of the emails somewhere, which she refused to turn over despite a court order telling her to do so (somewhat believable), and that she is dumb enough to keep that evidence around (not believable). 2: We believe the FBI found the missing emails, but decided to ignore the law and collude with Hillary to keep them hidden, and were also dumb enough not to destroy the evidence (not believable). 3: We believe that Russian hackers are capable of [hacking time](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQGbXmkSArs) to travel to before Hillary wiped her server. Alternately, we could accept the hypothetical possibility that Russia already hacked the server in the past (something the FBI explicitly said they could not rule out), has the emails somewhere in the bowels of one of their intelligence/security organizations, in which case, it would be a simple manner or finding and releasing the emails in question.

t3_1kh2je

I think a man should be able to "legally abort" a fetus he does not wish to have but the mother does within the same period the mother has to actually abort the featus. CMV

I think it is radically unfair that a man can be held responsible for an accidental pregnancy without having any way out once his parentage is proven if the mother does not wish to abort the pregnancy. To remedy that I think following amends to the abortion law would be fair: - within the same period that the mother has to decide if she wants to abort the fetus, the father can sign away any and **ALL** rights and responsibilities that come along with being a father. I would maybe support making the period when it can be done slightly shorter (1 or 2 weeks) than mother's abortion period, so that she has the time to consider her options in the light of being a single parent with no support. The only way to regain the parentage would be to jump through all the same legal hoops a genetically unrelated male would have to jump through. - the mother would be informed of this and given a period to make a decision if she wants to continue the pregnancy. - couldn't be done if the couple already share a child which the father accepts. - couldn't be done after the standard abortion period is expired unless it is proven that the mother made no effort to inform him of the fact he might be responsible for the preganancy thus denying him the choice. - couldn't be done if married (maybe a period at the start of the marriage when it could be done) - this would extend to the the rest of the man's family. So grandparents have no claim and so on. - he would be held liable (for rape perhaps) if it was proven that he lied to the woman and led her to believe that the child was wanted by both parties and then reneged on his words. This seems fair to me. Am I missing something? Change my view! EDIT: I am pro-choice. I have no problem with the generally accepted pro-choice legislation. I only have a problem with the fact that there is no equivalent decision to abandon the pregnancy for men (only in legal sense, of course).

I think a man should be able to "legally abort" a fetus he does not wish to have but the mother does within the same period the mother has to actually abort the featus. CMV. I think it is radically unfair that a man can be held responsible for an accidental pregnancy without having any way out once his parentage is proven if the mother does not wish to abort the pregnancy. To remedy that I think following amends to the abortion law would be fair: - within the same period that the mother has to decide if she wants to abort the fetus, the father can sign away any and **ALL** rights and responsibilities that come along with being a father. I would maybe support making the period when it can be done slightly shorter (1 or 2 weeks) than mother's abortion period, so that she has the time to consider her options in the light of being a single parent with no support. The only way to regain the parentage would be to jump through all the same legal hoops a genetically unrelated male would have to jump through. - the mother would be informed of this and given a period to make a decision if she wants to continue the pregnancy. - couldn't be done if the couple already share a child which the father accepts. - couldn't be done after the standard abortion period is expired unless it is proven that the mother made no effort to inform him of the fact he might be responsible for the preganancy thus denying him the choice. - couldn't be done if married (maybe a period at the start of the marriage when it could be done) - this would extend to the the rest of the man's family. So grandparents have no claim and so on. - he would be held liable (for rape perhaps) if it was proven that he lied to the woman and led her to believe that the child was wanted by both parties and then reneged on his words. This seems fair to me. Am I missing something? Change my view! EDIT: I am pro-choice. I have no problem with the generally accepted pro-choice legislation. I only have a problem with the fact that there is no equivalent decision to abandon the pregnancy for men (only in legal sense, of course).

t3_5iqmgo

CMV: The Democratic party will be seriously undermined by increased voter suppression of minority groups under a Trump presidency

The Republican party has been aggressively pursuing a strategy of suppressing voting among Latinos and African Americans. With Scalia being replaced by Trump, Jeff Sessions as the Attorney General, and Republicans controlling both houses of 32 state legislatures, their attempts are likely to be much more successful in the next 4 years. Strict voter ID laws have gotten a lot of attention. But I think the partisan distribution of voter resources (i.e. shutting down urban DMVs and precinct locations, cutting back urban early voting locations, distributing fewer voting booths to urban precincts) is a bigger story. They could enact stricter restrictions on voter rights for felons, engage in more aggressive voter caging and voter roll purges, selectively forbid certain forms of voter ID based on demographics, and require higher fees for the documentation necessary to request a non-license voter ID. This is all stuff they've done in some states but not all. As this stuff gets enacted with virtually no outrage from Republicans, it make me anxious about where it will actually stop. With all three federal branches of government on their side, what else might they do? Restrictions on voting rights for people on unemployment/Section 8/food stamps? Racially-profiled immigration status checks or stop-and-frisk at polling locations? Exorbitant fees for valid photo IDs? I'm worried that our democracy is being fundamentally undermined. But the view I'm here for you to change is simply that the Democratic party will be disadvantaged in 2018 and 2020 by lower minority turnout due to increased suppression. _____ > *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 Democratic party will be seriously undermined by increased voter suppression of minority groups under a Trump presidency. The Republican party has been aggressively pursuing a strategy of suppressing voting among Latinos and African Americans. With Scalia being replaced by Trump, Jeff Sessions as the Attorney General, and Republicans controlling both houses of 32 state legislatures, their attempts are likely to be much more successful in the next 4 years. Strict voter ID laws have gotten a lot of attention. But I think the partisan distribution of voter resources (i.e. shutting down urban DMVs and precinct locations, cutting back urban early voting locations, distributing fewer voting booths to urban precincts) is a bigger story. They could enact stricter restrictions on voter rights for felons, engage in more aggressive voter caging and voter roll purges, selectively forbid certain forms of voter ID based on demographics, and require higher fees for the documentation necessary to request a non-license voter ID. This is all stuff they've done in some states but not all. As this stuff gets enacted with virtually no outrage from Republicans, it make me anxious about where it will actually stop. With all three federal branches of government on their side, what else might they do? Restrictions on voting rights for people on unemployment/Section 8/food stamps? Racially-profiled immigration status checks or stop-and-frisk at polling locations? Exorbitant fees for valid photo IDs? I'm worried that our democracy is being fundamentally undermined. But the view I'm here for you to change is simply that the Democratic party will be disadvantaged in 2018 and 2020 by lower minority turnout due to increased suppression.

t3_1hvn3y

Battlestar Galactica lacks continuity, CMV

In the first season, Starbuck interrogates Leoben, who effortless breaks out of his handcuffs and pins Starbuck to the wall. In seasons 3-4, the cylons are much more human-like; they have neither super strength nor super speed. In the beginning of season 2, when the Galactica loses the fleet, Colonel Tigh says that they can't jump back to where they were because there was no way they could hold off a base star for 12 hours. However, later that season, the Pegasus and the Galactica take out two base stars without using any of their raptors and vipers. This show lacks continuity; the abilities of the cylons and the colonial fleet vary wildly depending on what is best for the story at that time.

Battlestar Galactica lacks continuity, CMV. In the first season, Starbuck interrogates Leoben, who effortless breaks out of his handcuffs and pins Starbuck to the wall. In seasons 3-4, the cylons are much more human-like; they have neither super strength nor super speed. In the beginning of season 2, when the Galactica loses the fleet, Colonel Tigh says that they can't jump back to where they were because there was no way they could hold off a base star for 12 hours. However, later that season, the Pegasus and the Galactica take out two base stars without using any of their raptors and vipers. This show lacks continuity; the abilities of the cylons and the colonial fleet vary wildly depending on what is best for the story at that time.

t3_5njxnn

CMV: A two-tier healthcare system is not only better but should be expanded

For the purposes of this discussion, a two-tier healthcare system is defined as follows: Two-tier healthcare is a situation in which a basic government-provided healthcare system provides basic care, and a secondary tier of care exists for those who can pay for additional, better quality or faster access. Had a professor last term who thought they should be illegal, but I strongly disagree. A two-tier system allows for more space in public hospitals. If a richer citizen can afford to go to a private general clinic or surgical clinic, less people will physically be in hospitals and more beds will be freed. Wait times would also be substantially decreased. By shifting much of the costs of treatment to private citizens rather than government, you lower the overall cost of healthcare. This could in theory lead to better quality of care or better equipment for public hospitals. My professor argued that it becomes costly when private procedures go wrong and patients have to be transported in an emergency situation. However, I'm doubtful that the frequency of botched procedures comes anywhere close to the benefits of fewer people in hospital. Another argument put forth by my professor is that there are still a limited amount of doctors. However, where I'm from in Quebec, many doctors get their education and leave because the pretty much public-only sector gives them an income a third the size of a private practice. If private practice was more common, Quebec would have more doctors. I don't think healthcare is a "right" in the traditional sense, but having a healthy population is beneficial to society. Everyone should at least get an annual check up and emergency care if necessary a few times a year for free. But if we had more private clinics for bigger procedures I know a lot of people who would clear up a lot of space. What would change my view: Data suggesting that a two-tier system leads to higher government spending, lower average quality of care or data showing a huge amount of private procedures require treatment at public hospitals or anything I can't yet conceive of.

CMV: A two-tier healthcare system is not only better but should be expanded. For the purposes of this discussion, a two-tier healthcare system is defined as follows: Two-tier healthcare is a situation in which a basic government-provided healthcare system provides basic care, and a secondary tier of care exists for those who can pay for additional, better quality or faster access. Had a professor last term who thought they should be illegal, but I strongly disagree. A two-tier system allows for more space in public hospitals. If a richer citizen can afford to go to a private general clinic or surgical clinic, less people will physically be in hospitals and more beds will be freed. Wait times would also be substantially decreased. By shifting much of the costs of treatment to private citizens rather than government, you lower the overall cost of healthcare. This could in theory lead to better quality of care or better equipment for public hospitals. My professor argued that it becomes costly when private procedures go wrong and patients have to be transported in an emergency situation. However, I'm doubtful that the frequency of botched procedures comes anywhere close to the benefits of fewer people in hospital. Another argument put forth by my professor is that there are still a limited amount of doctors. However, where I'm from in Quebec, many doctors get their education and leave because the pretty much public-only sector gives them an income a third the size of a private practice. If private practice was more common, Quebec would have more doctors. I don't think healthcare is a "right" in the traditional sense, but having a healthy population is beneficial to society. Everyone should at least get an annual check up and emergency care if necessary a few times a year for free. But if we had more private clinics for bigger procedures I know a lot of people who would clear up a lot of space. What would change my view: Data suggesting that a two-tier system leads to higher government spending, lower average quality of care or data showing a huge amount of private procedures require treatment at public hospitals or anything I can't yet conceive of.

t3_617vfy

CMV: Western Civilisation no longer exists as it's own entity, and hasn't for several decades

When people talk about civilisations in history, they talk about a very segmented world, in which people couldn't easily travel from one place to another, shared few common experiences to the next civilisation, and often didn't even know it existed. The phrase Western Civilisation therefore, is an anachronism, taken from a time when separate civilisations still existed. The Cold War demonstrated that Western countries often found far more in common with South America, African countries and Asian countries than they did with other Western one. Somebody in Hong Kong lives a life more similar to a New Yorker than a New Yorker lives to a rural America. Innovations and culture now spread almost instantly from region to region. The disciplines of science, architecture, writing and filmmaking are international. Western Civilisation has merged to the World Civilisation, more interconnected than any time when Western Civilisation still existed.

CMV: Western Civilisation no longer exists as it's own entity, and hasn't for several decades. When people talk about civilisations in history, they talk about a very segmented world, in which people couldn't easily travel from one place to another, shared few common experiences to the next civilisation, and often didn't even know it existed. The phrase Western Civilisation therefore, is an anachronism, taken from a time when separate civilisations still existed. The Cold War demonstrated that Western countries often found far more in common with South America, African countries and Asian countries than they did with other Western one. Somebody in Hong Kong lives a life more similar to a New Yorker than a New Yorker lives to a rural America. Innovations and culture now spread almost instantly from region to region. The disciplines of science, architecture, writing and filmmaking are international. Western Civilisation has merged to the World Civilisation, more interconnected than any time when Western Civilisation still existed.

t3_385mc8

CMV: I believe in biological determinism.

Given that our brain chemistry is purely a result of genetics and that our impulses are simply a function of chemical reactions, how could I possibly believe that I have free will in making life choices? How can I legitimately think that I have the ability to change on my own intent if everything I do is a result of reactions out of my control? Besides just knowing some logical responses to this argument, I would like to think I have some control over the outcomes of my life or that my accomplishments have had something to do with my own autonomous choices; please CMV! :) _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I believe in biological determinism. Given that our brain chemistry is purely a result of genetics and that our impulses are simply a function of chemical reactions, how could I possibly believe that I have free will in making life choices? How can I legitimately think that I have the ability to change on my own intent if everything I do is a result of reactions out of my control? Besides just knowing some logical responses to this argument, I would like to think I have some control over the outcomes of my life or that my accomplishments have had something to do with my own autonomous choices; please CMV! :)

t3_1l2r9g

I believe that foreign aid paid from our USA tax base builds infrastructure exploited by our owning class, and that the net flow of wealth comes back to the US tax free. CMV about this form of money laundering.

I have this belief as a holdover from when I was younger and more naive about where I was getting my information (before the internet, too). Someone explained it to me this way, and I've never found any information that didn't fit this worldview. On the other hand, I've never researched it to find out if it's actually true. This is my lazy (but hopefully more engaging and more effective) way of researching this topic now that I have higher epistemological standards. Here I offer just a few more words to make sure there are enough for the bot to let this through. You don't have to pay any attention to these extra and totally superfluous words. They are simply a necessary filler so I can get the requisite number of words into the body of this post. Are you still reading this? I'm so very very sorry. Is this 500 characters yet? Let's hope so.

I believe that foreign aid paid from our USA tax base builds infrastructure exploited by our owning class, and that the net flow of wealth comes back to the US tax free. CMV about this form of money laundering. I have this belief as a holdover from when I was younger and more naive about where I was getting my information (before the internet, too). Someone explained it to me this way, and I've never found any information that didn't fit this worldview. On the other hand, I've never researched it to find out if it's actually true. This is my lazy (but hopefully more engaging and more effective) way of researching this topic now that I have higher epistemological standards. Here I offer just a few more words to make sure there are enough for the bot to let this through. You don't have to pay any attention to these extra and totally superfluous words. They are simply a necessary filler so I can get the requisite number of words into the body of this post. Are you still reading this? I'm so very very sorry. Is this 500 characters yet? Let's hope so.

t3_25fjdx

CMV: I believe books should not be banned from public libraries on the basis of content.

I believe that public libraries should provide as wide a range of material as possible and should not discriminate between works on the basis that certain content is offensive. This discrimination became exceptionally visible to me when my public library refused to distribute copies of Neil Gaiman’s Sandman on account of nudity and violence whilst owning and distributing multiple copies of The Game of Thrones. Is this a product of literary prejudice or is there basis to my librarians’ argument? _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I believe books should not be banned from public libraries on the basis of content. I believe that public libraries should provide as wide a range of material as possible and should not discriminate between works on the basis that certain content is offensive. This discrimination became exceptionally visible to me when my public library refused to distribute copies of Neil Gaiman’s Sandman on account of nudity and violence whilst owning and distributing multiple copies of The Game of Thrones. Is this a product of literary prejudice or is there basis to my librarians’ argument?

t3_56ogvy

CMV: It's OK for a minor to have naked pictures of him/herself on his/her phone without any legal repercussions

Oh boy, this one is a mouthful. *** Okay, so I read an article about a boy who got arrested for having naked pictures of himself on his phone. Granted he was sexting a girl when he shouldn't have, but the fact that he got **arrested** for having nudes of **himself** on his phone really fucked me. Why should you get arrested for having pictures of yourself? Not specific to the article now, but I personally believe that, just like how I take a lot of selfies that I don't share on **my phone** (which I worked for by the way, this was not bought by my parents), I should be allowed to have my own dick pics on my phone without the law getting all up in my business since I won't be sharing them anyway. *** So, I think this is quite a controversial opinion I have, and I'm probably going to get downvoted all the way to the top of all-time controversial site-wide. But, I am willing to accept that my view is incorrect.

CMV: It's OK for a minor to have naked pictures of him/herself on his/her phone without any legal repercussions. Oh boy, this one is a mouthful. *** Okay, so I read an article about a boy who got arrested for having naked pictures of himself on his phone. Granted he was sexting a girl when he shouldn't have, but the fact that he got **arrested** for having nudes of **himself** on his phone really fucked me. Why should you get arrested for having pictures of yourself? Not specific to the article now, but I personally believe that, just like how I take a lot of selfies that I don't share on **my phone** (which I worked for by the way, this was not bought by my parents), I should be allowed to have my own dick pics on my phone without the law getting all up in my business since I won't be sharing them anyway. *** So, I think this is quite a controversial opinion I have, and I'm probably going to get downvoted all the way to the top of all-time controversial site-wide. But, I am willing to accept that my view is incorrect.

t3_2w25pp

CMV: I didn't find 50 Shades of Grey to be the abusive/rape-y relationship that everyone depicts it to be.

So firstly, my view on 50 shades is entirely from the first few paragraphs of the novel(I don't read much) and the entire movie. I want to understand why everyone is saying all this bad stuff about 50 shades. Yes, I understand he *pressured* her into the *relationship*, and some see this as *abusive*. The thing is that Christian, in the beginning, wanted Ana for his own sexual submissive thing.. and that's what she was to him, a "thing". But as the story progresses you start to see why he is acting like this, why he treats women like he does, because he was abused at a young age, and has never felt *love* so to speak(and im not saying that this allows him to do what he does in the movie, i admit the things he does to Ana are very *persuasive*, she feels very hesitant, but she never said no to anything). He starts to tell things to Ana that he has never told anyone else, he starts growing this feeling for Ana he has never felt before, he even goes as far in the end to say "fuck the contract". It sounded to me like he had grown feelings for Ana, and not just seeing her as a *thing* anymore. I didn't see once where Ana said "no" or where Christian raped her or abused her. Christian wanted Ana, and Ana wanted Christian. Sure, Christian persuaded her in some aspects pretty creepily, but in all honesty, Ana wanted more and Christian could see this, and acted upon this feeling/emotion (if you thought a girl had liked you would you really just sit back and do nothing?). If she really felt in danger she would've said something to him and put a stop to it. Ana just seemed to be very confused and didn't know how to feel or act in regards to Christian and his darker side, but still fell in love with him, and wanted to change him for the better and start a *normal* relationship, which i think she partially accomplished at the very end, but i'll have to wait until the next movie to see the outcome. Please CMV, i want to understand where everyone else is coming from. _____ > *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 didn't find 50 Shades of Grey to be the abusive/rape-y relationship that everyone depicts it to be. So firstly, my view on 50 shades is entirely from the first few paragraphs of the novel(I don't read much) and the entire movie. I want to understand why everyone is saying all this bad stuff about 50 shades. Yes, I understand he *pressured* her into the *relationship*, and some see this as *abusive*. The thing is that Christian, in the beginning, wanted Ana for his own sexual submissive thing.. and that's what she was to him, a "thing". But as the story progresses you start to see why he is acting like this, why he treats women like he does, because he was abused at a young age, and has never felt *love* so to speak(and im not saying that this allows him to do what he does in the movie, i admit the things he does to Ana are very *persuasive*, she feels very hesitant, but she never said no to anything). He starts to tell things to Ana that he has never told anyone else, he starts growing this feeling for Ana he has never felt before, he even goes as far in the end to say "fuck the contract". It sounded to me like he had grown feelings for Ana, and not just seeing her as a *thing* anymore. I didn't see once where Ana said "no" or where Christian raped her or abused her. Christian wanted Ana, and Ana wanted Christian. Sure, Christian persuaded her in some aspects pretty creepily, but in all honesty, Ana wanted more and Christian could see this, and acted upon this feeling/emotion (if you thought a girl had liked you would you really just sit back and do nothing?). If she really felt in danger she would've said something to him and put a stop to it. Ana just seemed to be very confused and didn't know how to feel or act in regards to Christian and his darker side, but still fell in love with him, and wanted to change him for the better and start a *normal* relationship, which i think she partially accomplished at the very end, but i'll have to wait until the next movie to see the outcome. Please CMV, i want to understand where everyone else is coming from.

t3_1e5tfj

The germline genetic modification of humans should be fully legalized, pursued, and utilized as an option [CMV]

http://www.dnapolicy.org/pdf/geneticModification.pdf (United States) **Slightly relevant information**: The United States has no federal legislation specifically addressing human genetic modification (either germline and somatic). However, the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and the Public Health Service Act have been interpreted as providing sufficient authority for federal health agencies to regulate research on human genetic modification. Federal oversight for human genetic modification is characterized by the existence of numerous and often overlapping regulatory reviews required by local and federal agencies, such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Recombinant In addition to the abovementioned legislation, all institutions receiving federal funds must comply with federal rules regarding the protection of human subjects in medical research. These rules also apply to research conducted pursuant to an investigational new drug application (IND) or to support an application for a new drug or biological product. Following international standards, key aspects of the federal regulations are a review of research protocols by an Institutional Review Board, informed consent by research subjects, and periodic reporting **Relevant information**: that the current ban on federal funding of embryo research seemingly prohibits conducting germline genetic modification interventions. Others argue that the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee (RAC) would have to assert jurisdiction over such research protocols in order for some of this research to be precluded from receiving federal funding. Under the 1996 Dickey-Wicker amendment it is illegal to use federal funds to support research “in which human embryos are created, destroyed, discarded, or knowingly be subjected to risk of injury or death greater than allowed for research on fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 46.204 and 46.207, and subsection 498(b) of the Public Health Service Act.” Moreover, the Dickey-Wicker amendment defines a human embryo as “any organism, not protected as a human subject under 45 CFR 46 as of the date of enactment of the governing appropriations act, that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes or human diploid cells.” **Summary**: It is essentially illegal and improbable to pursue and administer germline genetic modification to embryos. My view is that not only should it be legal, but that it is immoral to not allow it as an option. Furthermore, I may even take it to the extent that humans are morally *obligated* to pursue uses of germline genetic engineering for the betterment of the species as a whole. I believe this because all counterarguments (religion, eugenics, equality, caste system, danger, risk, "designer baby") are based on faulty or irrelevant information, and fall short of justifying the ban of a beneficial practice. The practice is beneficial because it saves lives, creates an improved human species (our goal since the beginning), actually increases equality and levels the playing field, and provides long term benefits for the population in general, as well as begins a process that could potentially make the human species overall better.

The germline genetic modification of humans should be fully legalized, pursued, and utilized as an option [CMV]. http://www.dnapolicy.org/pdf/geneticModification.pdf (United States) **Slightly relevant information**: The United States has no federal legislation specifically addressing human genetic modification (either germline and somatic). However, the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and the Public Health Service Act have been interpreted as providing sufficient authority for federal health agencies to regulate research on human genetic modification. Federal oversight for human genetic modification is characterized by the existence of numerous and often overlapping regulatory reviews required by local and federal agencies, such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Recombinant In addition to the abovementioned legislation, all institutions receiving federal funds must comply with federal rules regarding the protection of human subjects in medical research. These rules also apply to research conducted pursuant to an investigational new drug application (IND) or to support an application for a new drug or biological product. Following international standards, key aspects of the federal regulations are a review of research protocols by an Institutional Review Board, informed consent by research subjects, and periodic reporting **Relevant information**: that the current ban on federal funding of embryo research seemingly prohibits conducting germline genetic modification interventions. Others argue that the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee (RAC) would have to assert jurisdiction over such research protocols in order for some of this research to be precluded from receiving federal funding. Under the 1996 Dickey-Wicker amendment it is illegal to use federal funds to support research “in which human embryos are created, destroyed, discarded, or knowingly be subjected to risk of injury or death greater than allowed for research on fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 46.204 and 46.207, and subsection 498(b) of the Public Health Service Act.” Moreover, the Dickey-Wicker amendment defines a human embryo as “any organism, not protected as a human subject under 45 CFR 46 as of the date of enactment of the governing appropriations act, that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes or human diploid cells.” **Summary**: It is essentially illegal and improbable to pursue and administer germline genetic modification to embryos. My view is that not only should it be legal, but that it is immoral to not allow it as an option. Furthermore, I may even take it to the extent that humans are morally *obligated* to pursue uses of germline genetic engineering for the betterment of the species as a whole. I believe this because all counterarguments (religion, eugenics, equality, caste system, danger, risk, "designer baby") are based on faulty or irrelevant information, and fall short of justifying the ban of a beneficial practice. The practice is beneficial because it saves lives, creates an improved human species (our goal since the beginning), actually increases equality and levels the playing field, and provides long term benefits for the population in general, as well as begins a process that could potentially make the human species overall better.

t3_20twxm

CMV: I loathe the airplane seat's recline feature

I think reclining your airplane seat - short of being on a redeye flight or a long international flight (lets say 6+ hours) - is just downright *rude*. It is my number one pet peeve about flying. I hate it more than delayed flights. It encroaches on other people's space, particularly tall people whose legs barely fit in the 28-30 inch space. Reclining your seat only gives you more headroom (of which there is already plenty) - you don't gain leg room by reclining it. You only take it away from the person behind you. It also totally inhibits the person behind you's ability to do anything short of look at the back of your head for the next hours. They can't use the tray table to eat, they can't use it to work on their laptop, it's hard to even read a book with the face reclined back in your face. And the lame argument defenders of this useless feature offer up is 'well you can recline your seat too'. And yet it doesn't recover any of the lost leg room, I still can't use my tray table, and now I'm encroaching on some other hapless person's space. And not all seats in the airplane recline anyway so it doesn't work out equitably anyway. It's also the source of all sorts of passive aggressions. Seat recliners who shove their seat back, spilling drinks on the person behind them's table. I had a woman recline her seat so hard that my laptop flew off the table, hit the arm rest and slide down the aisle. I was shocked it wasn't broken from the shuddering crack as her seat hit it. And seat recliners frequently complain about the person behind them kicking their seat or squirming. The've even invented small gadget claw things to clamp down and prevent the people in front from reclining their seat. It's a thoroughly divisive issue and just creates unnecessary drama. Personally I don't find the airplane recline comfortable anyway. It is completely without merit to me. [I know I'm not alone. Skyscanner did a survey and 90% of their respondents said seat reclining should be banned or having the set times in which you can recline.](http://www.skyscanner.net/news/calling-time-reclined-airline-seats) I think flying would generally be a better experience if the recline feature had never been bloody invented.

CMV: I loathe the airplane seat's recline feature. I think reclining your airplane seat - short of being on a redeye flight or a long international flight (lets say 6+ hours) - is just downright *rude*. It is my number one pet peeve about flying. I hate it more than delayed flights. It encroaches on other people's space, particularly tall people whose legs barely fit in the 28-30 inch space. Reclining your seat only gives you more headroom (of which there is already plenty) - you don't gain leg room by reclining it. You only take it away from the person behind you. It also totally inhibits the person behind you's ability to do anything short of look at the back of your head for the next hours. They can't use the tray table to eat, they can't use it to work on their laptop, it's hard to even read a book with the face reclined back in your face. And the lame argument defenders of this useless feature offer up is 'well you can recline your seat too'. And yet it doesn't recover any of the lost leg room, I still can't use my tray table, and now I'm encroaching on some other hapless person's space. And not all seats in the airplane recline anyway so it doesn't work out equitably anyway. It's also the source of all sorts of passive aggressions. Seat recliners who shove their seat back, spilling drinks on the person behind them's table. I had a woman recline her seat so hard that my laptop flew off the table, hit the arm rest and slide down the aisle. I was shocked it wasn't broken from the shuddering crack as her seat hit it. And seat recliners frequently complain about the person behind them kicking their seat or squirming. The've even invented small gadget claw things to clamp down and prevent the people in front from reclining their seat. It's a thoroughly divisive issue and just creates unnecessary drama. Personally I don't find the airplane recline comfortable anyway. It is completely without merit to me. [I know I'm not alone. Skyscanner did a survey and 90% of their respondents said seat reclining should be banned or having the set times in which you can recline.](http://www.skyscanner.net/news/calling-time-reclined-airline-seats) I think flying would generally be a better experience if the recline feature had never been bloody invented.

t3_26euw3

CMV: We have recently hit a peak in terms of quality of life. Everything will be downhill from here.

We have advanced in great ways technologically over the past few decades. However, many aspects of this are harmful to overall quality of life, such as a group of friends sitting around a table texting other people instead of making friendly conversation, or spending hours in front of a TV instead of throwing a ball around outside. While many people may claim to prefer these activities, they are limiting human interaction, conditioning us into a lifestyle of laziness, and eliminating essential experiences, all contributing to less fulfillment out of life on average. This will only continue to grow as we become more and more reliant on technology to the point where we will have a robotic environment executing most functions for us and dictating our lives. Suicide rates in the United States have gone up by 30% since 1999 I truly believe that every subsequent generation from here on will have on average a lesser quality of life Please CMV _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: We have recently hit a peak in terms of quality of life. Everything will be downhill from here. We have advanced in great ways technologically over the past few decades. However, many aspects of this are harmful to overall quality of life, such as a group of friends sitting around a table texting other people instead of making friendly conversation, or spending hours in front of a TV instead of throwing a ball around outside. While many people may claim to prefer these activities, they are limiting human interaction, conditioning us into a lifestyle of laziness, and eliminating essential experiences, all contributing to less fulfillment out of life on average. This will only continue to grow as we become more and more reliant on technology to the point where we will have a robotic environment executing most functions for us and dictating our lives. Suicide rates in the United States have gone up by 30% since 1999 I truly believe that every subsequent generation from here on will have on average a lesser quality of life Please CMV

t3_1u8kd9

I think that people who complain of ageism with regards to women in Hollywood are wrong. CMV

Many people say there's a double standard for men and women in Hollywood. They say that men are allowed to age, but women are not. [article](http://www.businessinsider.com/this-movie-poster-shows-an-absurd-double-standard-for-women-2013-12?fb_action_ids=10104592283438991&fb_action_types=og.recommends&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%5B199066796945500%5D&action_type_map=%5B%22og.recommends%22%5D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D). I disagree with this. I think that some actors and actresses get early roles simply because they look good. But when they age, many actresses don't add to their acting skills, and so stop getting roles. Whereas many men do add to their acting skills extensively, and so transition to getting different roles. There are plenty of anecdotes of boy actors (or young male actors) who don't make the transition to being successful men in Hollywood, just as there are women who do make the transition from young girl to mature woman in. I think it's really hard to make it (and keep it) in Hollywood. (First submission, feel free to correct any aspect of this. Just found this subreddit, and I'm liking it.)

I think that people who complain of ageism with regards to women in Hollywood are wrong. CMV. Many people say there's a double standard for men and women in Hollywood. They say that men are allowed to age, but women are not. [article](http://www.businessinsider.com/this-movie-poster-shows-an-absurd-double-standard-for-women-2013-12?fb_action_ids=10104592283438991&fb_action_types=og.recommends&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%5B199066796945500%5D&action_type_map=%5B%22og.recommends%22%5D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D). I disagree with this. I think that some actors and actresses get early roles simply because they look good. But when they age, many actresses don't add to their acting skills, and so stop getting roles. Whereas many men do add to their acting skills extensively, and so transition to getting different roles. There are plenty of anecdotes of boy actors (or young male actors) who don't make the transition to being successful men in Hollywood, just as there are women who do make the transition from young girl to mature woman in. I think it's really hard to make it (and keep it) in Hollywood. (First submission, feel free to correct any aspect of this. Just found this subreddit, and I'm liking it.)

t3_5fr4r4

CMV: Smoking cigarettes is a freely made choice. If selling cigarettes is immoral, it is for other reasons. Cigarettes should be allowed to be sold.

Nicotine is addictive but is available through avenues such as nicotine gum and e-cigarettes. If a person smokes cigarettes, they choose to do so over other types of nicotine suppliers. It is immoral to infringe on a person's free choice. Cigarettes do not infringe on a person's free choice. Selling cigarettes is not immoral for this reason. If it is immoral, it is for other reasons, such as a collective impact on public health costs. These impacts are due to poor choices of smokers to smoke too many cigarettes instead of alternative means of smoking that are less harmful. Because the immoral choice is made by the smoker, the seller is just because they have no imperative to prevent immoral choice. Please CMV. EDIT thanks everyone who replied, I am going to be working through some of this soon when i get some time. EDIT2: I think I have been pretty well convinced that selling cigarettes is immoral. While my ideal of someone who smokes occasionally enough to not harm themselves and can get nicotine in other ways does seem to be an exception to the harms, it is an exception. In reality, addiction is a big deal and it is self delusion to think that the people who buy cigarettes are mostly going to be fine. Also, even if we take limiting choice to be limiting freedom, the freedom that a corner store would limit would be morally insignificant to its usual harm of selling. Thanks to everyone who responded, i tried to delta those who influenced my argument the most.

CMV: Smoking cigarettes is a freely made choice. If selling cigarettes is immoral, it is for other reasons. Cigarettes should be allowed to be sold. Nicotine is addictive but is available through avenues such as nicotine gum and e-cigarettes. If a person smokes cigarettes, they choose to do so over other types of nicotine suppliers. It is immoral to infringe on a person's free choice. Cigarettes do not infringe on a person's free choice. Selling cigarettes is not immoral for this reason. If it is immoral, it is for other reasons, such as a collective impact on public health costs. These impacts are due to poor choices of smokers to smoke too many cigarettes instead of alternative means of smoking that are less harmful. Because the immoral choice is made by the smoker, the seller is just because they have no imperative to prevent immoral choice. Please CMV. EDIT thanks everyone who replied, I am going to be working through some of this soon when i get some time. EDIT2: I think I have been pretty well convinced that selling cigarettes is immoral. While my ideal of someone who smokes occasionally enough to not harm themselves and can get nicotine in other ways does seem to be an exception to the harms, it is an exception. In reality, addiction is a big deal and it is self delusion to think that the people who buy cigarettes are mostly going to be fine. Also, even if we take limiting choice to be limiting freedom, the freedom that a corner store would limit would be morally insignificant to its usual harm of selling. Thanks to everyone who responded, i tried to delta those who influenced my argument the most.

t3_3fy5q7

CMV: Hip-hop songwriting is extremely underrated.

Not here to wax poetic about how great hip-hop is, this is strictly about the writing. Rockstars like Lennon, McCartney & Dylan deservedly get hailed as some of the greatest songwriters ever, but you rarely ever hear the same of a rapper. Not saying a rapper should necessarily be above them or even in the same league, but it's weird that they aren't praised for some of their brilliant lyrics. Lyrics that are often co-opted by the masses, celebrities and even used as slogans for corporations. Now, this is obviously due to a bunch of factors - rappers aren't singing, hip-hop is still young & people still don't really respect it, other genres are more established, etc. However, rappers still compose lyrics and rhythms for songs, which by extension makes them songwriters. Empire State of Mind is a great example because many people have heard it and some could pass it off as just another mainstream song. Much of the song's acclaim was for Alicia Key's singing/hook (which arguably made the song what it is), but the writing on the verses are quite overlooked. Especially the third - >Lights is blinding, girls need blinders/ So they can step out of bounds quick/ The side lines is lined with casualties/ Who sip the life casually, then gradually become worse/ Don’t bite the apple, Eve/ Caught up in the in-crowd, now you're in-style/ And in the winter gets cold en vogue with your skin out/ The city of sin is a pity on a whim/ Good girls gone bad, the city's filled with 'em/ Mommy took a bus trip and now she got her bust out/ Everybody ride her, just like a bus route/ "Hail Mary" to the city, you're a virgin/ And Jesus can’t save you, life starts when the church ends/ Came here for school, graduated to the high life/ Ball players, rap stars, addicted to the limelight/ MDMA got you feeling like a champion/ The city never sleeps, better slip you a Ambien. Excellent use of imagery & wordplay while still being fairly direct and evocative. This isn't much compared to some of the other writing on other hip-hop songs, but it showcases how good the writing is even on some of the biggest hits. I'm pretty sure that if some bands came up with even half of what some of the best hip-hop lyricists come up with, they would be endlessly praised. Might all seem very trivial, but I really feel hip-hop songwriting deserves more praise. _____

CMV: Hip-hop songwriting is extremely underrated. Not here to wax poetic about how great hip-hop is, this is strictly about the writing. Rockstars like Lennon, McCartney & Dylan deservedly get hailed as some of the greatest songwriters ever, but you rarely ever hear the same of a rapper. Not saying a rapper should necessarily be above them or even in the same league, but it's weird that they aren't praised for some of their brilliant lyrics. Lyrics that are often co-opted by the masses, celebrities and even used as slogans for corporations. Now, this is obviously due to a bunch of factors - rappers aren't singing, hip-hop is still young & people still don't really respect it, other genres are more established, etc. However, rappers still compose lyrics and rhythms for songs, which by extension makes them songwriters. Empire State of Mind is a great example because many people have heard it and some could pass it off as just another mainstream song. Much of the song's acclaim was for Alicia Key's singing/hook (which arguably made the song what it is), but the writing on the verses are quite overlooked. Especially the third - >Lights is blinding, girls need blinders/ So they can step out of bounds quick/ The side lines is lined with casualties/ Who sip the life casually, then gradually become worse/ Don’t bite the apple, Eve/ Caught up in the in-crowd, now you're in-style/ And in the winter gets cold en vogue with your skin out/ The city of sin is a pity on a whim/ Good girls gone bad, the city's filled with 'em/ Mommy took a bus trip and now she got her bust out/ Everybody ride her, just like a bus route/ "Hail Mary" to the city, you're a virgin/ And Jesus can’t save you, life starts when the church ends/ Came here for school, graduated to the high life/ Ball players, rap stars, addicted to the limelight/ MDMA got you feeling like a champion/ The city never sleeps, better slip you a Ambien. Excellent use of imagery & wordplay while still being fairly direct and evocative. This isn't much compared to some of the other writing on other hip-hop songs, but it showcases how good the writing is even on some of the biggest hits. I'm pretty sure that if some bands came up with even half of what some of the best hip-hop lyricists come up with, they would be endlessly praised. Might all seem very trivial, but I really feel hip-hop songwriting deserves more praise. _____

t3_312mba

CMV: Janet Jackson, is now known the most vilified artist, all for a mistake that she did not make or intend for to happen

Janet Jackson was and still is, one of the biggest Pop stars to ever grace music, she had 6 No.1 albums, a heap of No.1 singles, and broke worldwide records, from the fastest selling tour to the first and only female artist to get 4 No.1 singles and 3 top 5 singles from one album, all of this stopped when she decided to host 2004's Superbowl halftime show. In 2004's Superbowl halftime show, Janet was asked to perform for the show, she performed 3 old songs from her previous albums, and then she began to perform a new song from her current album at the time, a duet called Rock With You featuring Justin Timberlake, while she was performing with Justin, in the heat of the moment, Justin accidently ripped her outfit, and accidently exposing her breast, the show ended abruptly. Soon after, those involved with the broadcast received massive fines by the FCC, those broadcasters are: Viacom, CBS, MTV, Infinity Broadcasting and Clear Channel Communication, in retaliation to these massive fines that the FCC put on them for the accidental exposure of Janet's breasts, they completely blacklisted Janet from ever again playing her music videos, singles and songs, which massively affected her album in sales and commercial success, although it sold 381k in it's first week, but it fell short to her previous albums and debuted at No.2, meanwhile Justin Timberlake the one responsible for the exposure of her breast, got out of this problem scot free, with nothing on his head, not even one fine or fee. Tl;dr: Justin Timberlake exposed Janet's breast accidently at the Superbow halftime show, yet Janet is the one who got blacklisted and vilified on the radio and TV (which caused her albums to fail), and Justin Timberlake got out of the problem scot free, although he was the one who exposed her. So CMV about how Janet Jackson is the one to blame for her breasts to get exposed, and CMV about why she was the one to be blacklisted and vilified instead of Justin Timberlake? _____ > *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: Janet Jackson, is now known the most vilified artist, all for a mistake that she did not make or intend for to happen. Janet Jackson was and still is, one of the biggest Pop stars to ever grace music, she had 6 No.1 albums, a heap of No.1 singles, and broke worldwide records, from the fastest selling tour to the first and only female artist to get 4 No.1 singles and 3 top 5 singles from one album, all of this stopped when she decided to host 2004's Superbowl halftime show. In 2004's Superbowl halftime show, Janet was asked to perform for the show, she performed 3 old songs from her previous albums, and then she began to perform a new song from her current album at the time, a duet called Rock With You featuring Justin Timberlake, while she was performing with Justin, in the heat of the moment, Justin accidently ripped her outfit, and accidently exposing her breast, the show ended abruptly. Soon after, those involved with the broadcast received massive fines by the FCC, those broadcasters are: Viacom, CBS, MTV, Infinity Broadcasting and Clear Channel Communication, in retaliation to these massive fines that the FCC put on them for the accidental exposure of Janet's breasts, they completely blacklisted Janet from ever again playing her music videos, singles and songs, which massively affected her album in sales and commercial success, although it sold 381k in it's first week, but it fell short to her previous albums and debuted at No.2, meanwhile Justin Timberlake the one responsible for the exposure of her breast, got out of this problem scot free, with nothing on his head, not even one fine or fee. Tl;dr: Justin Timberlake exposed Janet's breast accidently at the Superbow halftime show, yet Janet is the one who got blacklisted and vilified on the radio and TV (which caused her albums to fail), and Justin Timberlake got out of the problem scot free, although he was the one who exposed her. So CMV about how Janet Jackson is the one to blame for her breasts to get exposed, and CMV about why she was the one to be blacklisted and vilified instead of Justin Timberlake?

t3_3v2tc5

CMV:There shouldn't be a minimum wage.

There should not be a minimum wage in America. A long time ago, there was probably a good cause for it, just as there was good cause for Unions to form. Now, most unions are useless and should be done away with as well now that society has changed. The same can be said about the minimum wage. ~~Nearly every economist agrees that there should not be a minimum wage.~~[Economists don't agree](http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-does-increasing-the-minimum-wage-20150922-column.html). Edit: This wasn't intended to be the centerfold of the argument, I was more focused on the merits. There is no need for us to price fix anymore. The market should decide the price. If McDonald's wants to hire a cashier for $4.75 an hour, they will have a rude awakening when they realize that nobody is applying for their jobs, or only the extremely incompetent. Minimum wages hurt small businesses. Many small businesses are already on a tight budget and when people are thinking about the Wal-Marts and McDonalds that should pay more, they forget about the small businesses that are hurt by these wage increases. Additionally, minimum wage hurts employees. If a business has a budget for two employees to make around $7.50 each, and the wage is increased to $15, then the business will simply fire one of the employees and tack on the extra work amongst the other workers or automated systems.This leads to more job loss. Further, the unexperienced are greatly hurt by this increase. As a young person with no experience, how would they compete against an older person with greater experience? "I'll work the same amount of hours, but I'll do it for less." This advantageous technique can get them the experience they need to then move up the chain and get their foot in the door. We all hear about young people not being able to get a job because they don't have experience and being stuck in an endless loop. With this minimum wage, that way to get their foot in the door is lost. Lastly, minimum wage increases will lead to inflation. If wages are increased and everything else remains constant, either employees are fired or prices increase. The minimum wage worker will now have more money in their pocket to pay for more expensive products in turn leaving them back where they started with the rest of the economy facing the inflation. Minimum wage should not be used to support someone's cost of living (not saying that $15 does). This is usually for people to make ends meet as a second job or to get experience. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV:There shouldn't be a minimum wage. There should not be a minimum wage in America. A long time ago, there was probably a good cause for it, just as there was good cause for Unions to form. Now, most unions are useless and should be done away with as well now that society has changed. The same can be said about the minimum wage. ~~Nearly every economist agrees that there should not be a minimum wage.~~[Economists don't agree](http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-does-increasing-the-minimum-wage-20150922-column.html). Edit: This wasn't intended to be the centerfold of the argument, I was more focused on the merits. There is no need for us to price fix anymore. The market should decide the price. If McDonald's wants to hire a cashier for $4.75 an hour, they will have a rude awakening when they realize that nobody is applying for their jobs, or only the extremely incompetent. Minimum wages hurt small businesses. Many small businesses are already on a tight budget and when people are thinking about the Wal-Marts and McDonalds that should pay more, they forget about the small businesses that are hurt by these wage increases. Additionally, minimum wage hurts employees. If a business has a budget for two employees to make around $7.50 each, and the wage is increased to $15, then the business will simply fire one of the employees and tack on the extra work amongst the other workers or automated systems.This leads to more job loss. Further, the unexperienced are greatly hurt by this increase. As a young person with no experience, how would they compete against an older person with greater experience? "I'll work the same amount of hours, but I'll do it for less." This advantageous technique can get them the experience they need to then move up the chain and get their foot in the door. We all hear about young people not being able to get a job because they don't have experience and being stuck in an endless loop. With this minimum wage, that way to get their foot in the door is lost. Lastly, minimum wage increases will lead to inflation. If wages are increased and everything else remains constant, either employees are fired or prices increase. The minimum wage worker will now have more money in their pocket to pay for more expensive products in turn leaving them back where they started with the rest of the economy facing the inflation. Minimum wage should not be used to support someone's cost of living (not saying that $15 does). This is usually for people to make ends meet as a second job or to get experience.

t3_1nq5ar

I believe America should go default on its loans, go through another Great Depression and a massive national change of values if it truly wants to solve it's major problems. CMV.

If the last five years since the GFC haven't been enough proof, then it's not going to be obvious to you that "business as usual" is absolutely getting America NOWHERE. The current government shutdown is just the logical result of that. I feel like America really, really needs to get her shit in order. Her political system is a joke, her parties are worryingly similar at best, and by this point it almost seems like an impossibility that she will do anything to reverse this voluntarily. And don't count on a heroic leader to come and breathe fresh life into a stagnant nation either; the byzantine political system and bitter hatred on both sides has all but ensured that. It might be bit of an extremist view, but I'm looking at this long-term. It just feels as though people don't realise that prosperity can't last forever, and in fact periods of great social upheaval are needed from time to time in order to remind us as a society what we truly value and that what we DO have is worth cherishing. Look at the last Great Depression; it might have lasted a decade, it might have been very worrying for people living through it, but when it was finally over with and we'd recovered, America was a world superpower and enjoying prosperity like never before. And the EXPERIENCES of the Great Depression helped instill a national idea of "things getting better" and renewed optimism for the future. (Yes, there was a World War to help the process along as well, but let's hope for us that we're not going to need another world war to do the same.)

I believe America should go default on its loans, go through another Great Depression and a massive national change of values if it truly wants to solve it's major problems. CMV. If the last five years since the GFC haven't been enough proof, then it's not going to be obvious to you that "business as usual" is absolutely getting America NOWHERE. The current government shutdown is just the logical result of that. I feel like America really, really needs to get her shit in order. Her political system is a joke, her parties are worryingly similar at best, and by this point it almost seems like an impossibility that she will do anything to reverse this voluntarily. And don't count on a heroic leader to come and breathe fresh life into a stagnant nation either; the byzantine political system and bitter hatred on both sides has all but ensured that. It might be bit of an extremist view, but I'm looking at this long-term. It just feels as though people don't realise that prosperity can't last forever, and in fact periods of great social upheaval are needed from time to time in order to remind us as a society what we truly value and that what we DO have is worth cherishing. Look at the last Great Depression; it might have lasted a decade, it might have been very worrying for people living through it, but when it was finally over with and we'd recovered, America was a world superpower and enjoying prosperity like never before. And the EXPERIENCES of the Great Depression helped instill a national idea of "things getting better" and renewed optimism for the future. (Yes, there was a World War to help the process along as well, but let's hope for us that we're not going to need another world war to do the same.)

t3_6fj3hw

CMV: In not voting for Hillary Clinton, I had nothing to do with Trump's win and had every right to be angry about it.

I live in a true blue state (Maryland) that hasn't gone Republican since 1988, and rarely before that. No polls showed any significant chance of the state going red in 2016, and Hillary did indeed easily carry the state. In my district, she won by an even larger margin. I have and have had a strong dislike for Hillary for many years, but they're not the point here. I've been called sexist and worse for not voting for her, but that's not the point, either. At no point did I try to dissuade any other voter from voting for her. At no point did I encourage third party votes. I did spend a lot of time speaking against Trump. To say that I could have campaigned for her is also not the point, because I often vote for candidates without participating in their campaigns. My view here is that my vote had no significant weight on the election, and because of that, I had the privilege to abstain from selecting either major player on my ballot. (I voted on every other office and question on my ballot.) In another state (say, Pennsylvania), I would not have had that privilege and I would have felt an obligation to vote Clinton. But I don't live in another state, so it doesn't matter. **TL;DR**: My abstention from the presidential vote was not pragmatically wrong, had no impact on the outcome of the election, and I still get to be angry that our country elected Trump. _____ > *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: In not voting for Hillary Clinton, I had nothing to do with Trump's win and had every right to be angry about it. I live in a true blue state (Maryland) that hasn't gone Republican since 1988, and rarely before that. No polls showed any significant chance of the state going red in 2016, and Hillary did indeed easily carry the state. In my district, she won by an even larger margin. I have and have had a strong dislike for Hillary for many years, but they're not the point here. I've been called sexist and worse for not voting for her, but that's not the point, either. At no point did I try to dissuade any other voter from voting for her. At no point did I encourage third party votes. I did spend a lot of time speaking against Trump. To say that I could have campaigned for her is also not the point, because I often vote for candidates without participating in their campaigns. My view here is that my vote had no significant weight on the election, and because of that, I had the privilege to abstain from selecting either major player on my ballot. (I voted on every other office and question on my ballot.) In another state (say, Pennsylvania), I would not have had that privilege and I would have felt an obligation to vote Clinton. But I don't live in another state, so it doesn't matter. **TL;DR**: My abstention from the presidential vote was not pragmatically wrong, had no impact on the outcome of the election, and I still get to be angry that our country elected Trump.

t3_1h1951

I believe that anybody who holds the rights & welfare of animals above those of humans is a species traitor who can never be trusted. CMV.

This view was crystalised by a question which is offered on OKCupid. It reads: Which is worse - starving children or abused animals? Many people I came across picked abused animals as their answer. This view of mine extends to the people who want us to stop eating meat because it is cruel to animals thereby depriving the human race of a much needed food source. It also covers people who want animal testing stopped despite the fact many of the drugs tested have huge benefits to humankind. In summation; I have encountered a fair number of people in my life who genuinely believe that animals matter more than humans. I find it very hard to trust anybody who would choose another species over their own. **EDIT - Thank you for the discussion so far. I now understand that meat is not a much needed food source as there are more efficient ways of feeding the human population that doesn't involve animals. However I still believe animal welfare should never be the driving force behind such a change which could have possible negative consequences for humans. Instead make the change simply because different food production would benefit and improve the welfare of humans.** **I will make sure to reply to the rest tomorrow.**

I believe that anybody who holds the rights & welfare of animals above those of humans is a species traitor who can never be trusted. CMV. This view was crystalised by a question which is offered on OKCupid. It reads: Which is worse - starving children or abused animals? Many people I came across picked abused animals as their answer. This view of mine extends to the people who want us to stop eating meat because it is cruel to animals thereby depriving the human race of a much needed food source. It also covers people who want animal testing stopped despite the fact many of the drugs tested have huge benefits to humankind. In summation; I have encountered a fair number of people in my life who genuinely believe that animals matter more than humans. I find it very hard to trust anybody who would choose another species over their own. **EDIT - Thank you for the discussion so far. I now understand that meat is not a much needed food source as there are more efficient ways of feeding the human population that doesn't involve animals. However I still believe animal welfare should never be the driving force behind such a change which could have possible negative consequences for humans. Instead make the change simply because different food production would benefit and improve the welfare of humans.** **I will make sure to reply to the rest tomorrow.**

t3_6u5ptx

CMV: Communism is a good system if it is moderate. All practical examples of a communist regime are bad because they were applied by dictators not because communism is bad

Communism is about the organization of communities to achieve a greater good for everyone. In communism, nobody will prevent you from being wealthy but if you are born and raised with a strong sense of community you will feel bad if your wealth was achieved at the expenses of those you grew up with. In a communist world you learn how to accept everyone and don't look down on anyone. However all practical example we had of regimes that applied communism are awful because politicians used the communist party to move up in ranks and get power and after that they stopped being communists and started being dictators just as much as a facist dictator who started in the extreme right. They lose touch with the people, start waging wars spending tons of money that, according to communist principles, should be used to the greater good and instead is used to harm the people. So you can't say communist is bad based on the fact that those regimes were bad because the leaders of those regimes were not applying communism. Another proof that those regimes were not communist is that usually leaders would accumulate a lot of wealth for themselves and their families while the rest of the people would be in bad living conditions. That's actually anti-communist. Nationalization of resources in those regimes would turn out to be a bad thing because they were corrupted regimes and eventually those in power would accumulate the wealth and don't use it to the greater good. So that's more close to capitalism than communist. To sum up if you analyze the so called communist regimes you reach the conclusion they were not communist at all. The closest to a communist country you find is not Latin America countries its Nordic countries and nobody can argue they aren't great countries to live in. _____ > *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: Communism is a good system if it is moderate. All practical examples of a communist regime are bad because they were applied by dictators not because communism is bad. Communism is about the organization of communities to achieve a greater good for everyone. In communism, nobody will prevent you from being wealthy but if you are born and raised with a strong sense of community you will feel bad if your wealth was achieved at the expenses of those you grew up with. In a communist world you learn how to accept everyone and don't look down on anyone. However all practical example we had of regimes that applied communism are awful because politicians used the communist party to move up in ranks and get power and after that they stopped being communists and started being dictators just as much as a facist dictator who started in the extreme right. They lose touch with the people, start waging wars spending tons of money that, according to communist principles, should be used to the greater good and instead is used to harm the people. So you can't say communist is bad based on the fact that those regimes were bad because the leaders of those regimes were not applying communism. Another proof that those regimes were not communist is that usually leaders would accumulate a lot of wealth for themselves and their families while the rest of the people would be in bad living conditions. That's actually anti-communist. Nationalization of resources in those regimes would turn out to be a bad thing because they were corrupted regimes and eventually those in power would accumulate the wealth and don't use it to the greater good. So that's more close to capitalism than communist. To sum up if you analyze the so called communist regimes you reach the conclusion they were not communist at all. The closest to a communist country you find is not Latin America countries its Nordic countries and nobody can argue they aren't great countries to live in.

t3_2edner

CMV: Criminal justice systems could be improved if legal fees had to be reported and equal for both sides.

I was trying to think of a way to improve the criminal justice system. Originally, I was pondering a way to make it truly blind (i.e. those involved in making decisions do not know what the plaintiff/defendant look like, or something to that affect). However, too many pertinent details would have to be left out for that to be effective. Then I thought, though biases like racism seem to play some role, the single biggest determining factor seems to be who has more money. So consider this: For every dollar that side A wants to spend beyond the costs of side B, they must also contribute that dollar to side B's legal fund. Some stipulations I would add: 1) any money not spent on the disadvantaged side is returned at conclusion (meaning side B can't just pocket unused money). 2) you can still sue for legal fees in the same way you could at present (if one party is vindicated, or the lawsuit was frivolous etc). I realize this is a simple solution to a complex problem, so I'll set the bar low. To change my view, simply convince me that my approach would lead to worse consequences than the current situation (that is, that the side with more resources almost always wins). Edit: I'm interested to hear more opinions, but so far I most like the single-payer alternative proposed here by ProfessorHeartcraft. He explains: "Neither the plaintiff nor defendant are asked to pay for the judge, bailiff or courtroom, so it baffles me that they would be expected to pay for the lawyers." Touché! Cacheflow also convinced me that the economies of scale would prevent my scheme from working for criminal cases, so delta to him. Perhaps two agencies with the same budget for prosecution and defence to handle all criminal cases (a CMV for another day?). _____ > *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: Criminal justice systems could be improved if legal fees had to be reported and equal for both sides. I was trying to think of a way to improve the criminal justice system. Originally, I was pondering a way to make it truly blind (i.e. those involved in making decisions do not know what the plaintiff/defendant look like, or something to that affect). However, too many pertinent details would have to be left out for that to be effective. Then I thought, though biases like racism seem to play some role, the single biggest determining factor seems to be who has more money. So consider this: For every dollar that side A wants to spend beyond the costs of side B, they must also contribute that dollar to side B's legal fund. Some stipulations I would add: 1) any money not spent on the disadvantaged side is returned at conclusion (meaning side B can't just pocket unused money). 2) you can still sue for legal fees in the same way you could at present (if one party is vindicated, or the lawsuit was frivolous etc). I realize this is a simple solution to a complex problem, so I'll set the bar low. To change my view, simply convince me that my approach would lead to worse consequences than the current situation (that is, that the side with more resources almost always wins). Edit: I'm interested to hear more opinions, but so far I most like the single-payer alternative proposed here by ProfessorHeartcraft. He explains: "Neither the plaintiff nor defendant are asked to pay for the judge, bailiff or courtroom, so it baffles me that they would be expected to pay for the lawyers." Touché! Cacheflow also convinced me that the economies of scale would prevent my scheme from working for criminal cases, so delta to him. Perhaps two agencies with the same budget for prosecution and defence to handle all criminal cases (a CMV for another day?).

t3_43zsrc

CMV:Chances of humanity for survival would be far better if state sovereignty always had priority over human rights.

Human rights became popular after WWII and it's not coincidence. The world was horrified by deeds of the Third Reich. The problem was, what from purely legalistic point of view although the Third Reich could be held guilty for some violations of international laws, it was impossible to hold it legally guilty for such atrocities as Holocaust. Only introduction of such conception as human rights allowed the world to judge the Third Reich for all its atrocities. But it made a dangerous precedent. It meant there was introduced a conception what has priority over sovereignty of a state. So, for example if any state is about to start or already doing genocide, then there are good excuses to invade it. On the other hand, if there was no such thing as human rights, or following or not following human rights was decided to be part of internal affairs of a state, then there would be NO excuse for invasion. And now we must take in account wide spreading of weapons of mutually assured destruction (MAD). Not only bloody dictatorships like North Korea want MAD, but other countries too want to have MAD. Why? Because in the world where state sovereignty isn't respected, there is always risk what your sovereignty will be neglected due to human rights violations or just accusations of such violations. For example, Russia justified (at the least within its population and population of exUSSR) annexation of Crimea due to severe violations of right of russian-speaking population. Some Ukrainian citizens believe what if Ukraine had MAD, then Russia wouldn't dare to annex its territory. As the result the world become more and more unpredictable and dangerous, because lack of respect of state sovereignty make states to rely on brute force more in order to defend their sovereignty. For example, maybe the North Korea and Iran would even never try to get MAD if they were allowed to live their own lives. Just imagine world where even tinies countries have MAD (and it's possible, because due to technical progress it became easier and easier for countries to get it). Do you think it's possible to effectively prevent global or even "just" local nuclear war in such world? I doubt it. So, it seems for me what in order to significantly lower risks of global/local nuclear conflict(s) (although we must remember about existence of another types of MAD, like biological ones) and increase survival of humankind, we must maintain the highest level of respect of state sovereignty and abandon conception of human rights or make it totally voluntary. Even if it means we must tolerate bloody dictatorships, even if it means we must tolerate new hitlers and new holocausts. Because otherwise we're doomed to accidentally exterminate ourselves completely. **P.S. The Doomsday clock says it's 3 minutes to midnight now** (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock)

CMV:Chances of humanity for survival would be far better if state sovereignty always had priority over human rights. Human rights became popular after WWII and it's not coincidence. The world was horrified by deeds of the Third Reich. The problem was, what from purely legalistic point of view although the Third Reich could be held guilty for some violations of international laws, it was impossible to hold it legally guilty for such atrocities as Holocaust. Only introduction of such conception as human rights allowed the world to judge the Third Reich for all its atrocities. But it made a dangerous precedent. It meant there was introduced a conception what has priority over sovereignty of a state. So, for example if any state is about to start or already doing genocide, then there are good excuses to invade it. On the other hand, if there was no such thing as human rights, or following or not following human rights was decided to be part of internal affairs of a state, then there would be NO excuse for invasion. And now we must take in account wide spreading of weapons of mutually assured destruction (MAD). Not only bloody dictatorships like North Korea want MAD, but other countries too want to have MAD. Why? Because in the world where state sovereignty isn't respected, there is always risk what your sovereignty will be neglected due to human rights violations or just accusations of such violations. For example, Russia justified (at the least within its population and population of exUSSR) annexation of Crimea due to severe violations of right of russian-speaking population. Some Ukrainian citizens believe what if Ukraine had MAD, then Russia wouldn't dare to annex its territory. As the result the world become more and more unpredictable and dangerous, because lack of respect of state sovereignty make states to rely on brute force more in order to defend their sovereignty. For example, maybe the North Korea and Iran would even never try to get MAD if they were allowed to live their own lives. Just imagine world where even tinies countries have MAD (and it's possible, because due to technical progress it became easier and easier for countries to get it). Do you think it's possible to effectively prevent global or even "just" local nuclear war in such world? I doubt it. So, it seems for me what in order to significantly lower risks of global/local nuclear conflict(s) (although we must remember about existence of another types of MAD, like biological ones) and increase survival of humankind, we must maintain the highest level of respect of state sovereignty and abandon conception of human rights or make it totally voluntary. Even if it means we must tolerate bloody dictatorships, even if it means we must tolerate new hitlers and new holocausts. Because otherwise we're doomed to accidentally exterminate ourselves completely. **P.S. The Doomsday clock says it's 3 minutes to midnight now** (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock)

t3_1nhfj0

Cartoon porn containing minors should be legal, cmv?

I want to begin asserting that I am defiantly not a pedophile, nor do I endorse or encourage the exploitation of children. I hold this view as I believe that this is an alternative for actually exploiting children. For example, if a pedophile was really horny, he could find pornographic material containing minors instead of abusing children and facing jail time, taking up taxpayer money.

Cartoon porn containing minors should be legal, cmv?. I want to begin asserting that I am defiantly not a pedophile, nor do I endorse or encourage the exploitation of children. I hold this view as I believe that this is an alternative for actually exploiting children. For example, if a pedophile was really horny, he could find pornographic material containing minors instead of abusing children and facing jail time, taking up taxpayer money.

t3_1g3oes

I think US is screwed. We are becoming a banana republic, and the process is irreversible. CMV

A democracy requires an educated, engaged demos. Our population, on the other hand, is at the bottom of the stack compared to Western nations: literacy, math, and basic science are very low, we have more people who believe in virgin birth than in evolution, and we are pretty much the last developed nation where basic scientific facts - such as global warming or evolution - are still controversial. Against this background we have a political class that figured out the way to manipulate the illiterate population to extract the maximum benefits for themselves. they feed the electorate a steady stream of fake issues (God, Guns, Gays) to keep them passionately engaged in issues that don't matter, while ensuring that the status quo is perfectly maintained. Both parties are exactly identical - they serve different red meat, but when in power, they govern the same way. The electoral process is corrupted by money through and through, which makes it impossible for the candidates that might not play by the rules (Kucinich, Paul, etc) to be elected to an office of any significance. Political unrest is pointless, because what would you be protesting? That US public elects corrupt and incompetent idiots who only care about the interests of their sponsors?

I think US is screwed. We are becoming a banana republic, and the process is irreversible. CMV. A democracy requires an educated, engaged demos. Our population, on the other hand, is at the bottom of the stack compared to Western nations: literacy, math, and basic science are very low, we have more people who believe in virgin birth than in evolution, and we are pretty much the last developed nation where basic scientific facts - such as global warming or evolution - are still controversial. Against this background we have a political class that figured out the way to manipulate the illiterate population to extract the maximum benefits for themselves. they feed the electorate a steady stream of fake issues (God, Guns, Gays) to keep them passionately engaged in issues that don't matter, while ensuring that the status quo is perfectly maintained. Both parties are exactly identical - they serve different red meat, but when in power, they govern the same way. The electoral process is corrupted by money through and through, which makes it impossible for the candidates that might not play by the rules (Kucinich, Paul, etc) to be elected to an office of any significance. Political unrest is pointless, because what would you be protesting? That US public elects corrupt and incompetent idiots who only care about the interests of their sponsors?

t3_6k281w

CMV: cultural appropriation is not a legitimate issue at all

Basically I do not understand why some people, specifically African Americans, seem to get so offended by other races (generally white people) copying or using ideas from the culture. I have never understand why this is such a big deal. Now obviously if it's done with racist intent, like black face, that's a problem, but I don't get why a white woman getting dreadlocks or an afro offends people at all. It seems to be such a weird thing to latch onto and get angry about to me. Like, police brutality with biases towards black people? Actual legit issue that deserves attention. A white woman changed the way her hair looks? Who cares honestly. Also, isn't copying or using ideas from another culture actually saying that you LIKE the way that culture does things or that you LIKE the way they do things? How is that malicious or racist? It seems to be promoting division instead of unity to me if we don't let people use ideas and styles from other cultures...

CMV: cultural appropriation is not a legitimate issue at all. Basically I do not understand why some people, specifically African Americans, seem to get so offended by other races (generally white people) copying or using ideas from the culture. I have never understand why this is such a big deal. Now obviously if it's done with racist intent, like black face, that's a problem, but I don't get why a white woman getting dreadlocks or an afro offends people at all. It seems to be such a weird thing to latch onto and get angry about to me. Like, police brutality with biases towards black people? Actual legit issue that deserves attention. A white woman changed the way her hair looks? Who cares honestly. Also, isn't copying or using ideas from another culture actually saying that you LIKE the way that culture does things or that you LIKE the way they do things? How is that malicious or racist? It seems to be promoting division instead of unity to me if we don't let people use ideas and styles from other cultures...

t3_4mxhav

CMV:"Good" Grades in highschool is useless and I should just only care about going to (Example.)trade school

The more I get through highschool and the more I talk to teachers, adults and/or family members, life after highschool is usually brought up some point of time then I ask them, if they did well in highschool after that I ask them if they've been rewarded for their efforts(With success or failure) or if they've been punished for not trying. And for both answers I got a No. Even from my current teachers. I ask them if jobs really care about highschool G.P.A. and/or college G.P.A. and the few who would answer me said 'they only care if you graduated'. So what's stopping me from just slacking off getting D's/C's/B's and getting the same treatment as the person who studies every night and has A's/B's. _____

CMV:"Good" Grades in highschool is useless and I should just only care about going to (Example.)trade school. The more I get through highschool and the more I talk to teachers, adults and/or family members, life after highschool is usually brought up some point of time then I ask them, if they did well in highschool after that I ask them if they've been rewarded for their efforts(With success or failure) or if they've been punished for not trying. And for both answers I got a No. Even from my current teachers. I ask them if jobs really care about highschool G.P.A. and/or college G.P.A. and the few who would answer me said 'they only care if you graduated'. So what's stopping me from just slacking off getting D's/C's/B's and getting the same treatment as the person who studies every night and has A's/B's. _____

t3_1zygp1

CMV: I believe foreign aid to countries such as Uganda and Kenya should be entirely stopped and put towards helping the homeless in our own countries.

I don't understand what sort of country sends money and aid to countries who do not care about basic human rights for women, gays or minorities, but refuses to help our own that are suffering. I live in AUstralia, and every night there are over 18,000 homeless children, and it angers me knowing that instead of helping these children that we choose to support a country that passes bills that allows the murder of homosexuals(Uganda). We help these people, but we refuse to help our own. I have been to the Northern Territory and have seen the aboriginal tribes and the land that they live, some of which have the conditions of third world countries. But we do nothing. In fact we actually go as far to cut their legal aid under the new government that promised improvements locally. I believe that Western countries should work on purely helping each other, and the homeless in our own countries. We value ourselves in the West as progressive and supportive of minorities, more than any other area in the world. But we continue to fund money to countries that actively oppress minorities while ignoring our own minorities(lower-class homeless men, women and children). How is that progressive? I truly believe that every Western country must leave Africa, Arab Countries such as Pakistan and Afghanistan and South-East Asia to themselves, as they with their oppressive views on women, gays and minorities are a threat to Democracy and Western Freedom, and we must work purely on helping our own, and work to create an egalitarian society for those lucky enough to be born here. I also believe this will help future generations of people in countries such as Saudi Arabia and Uganda, to actively overthrow their oppressive governments and work to create the utopia that the West will have created.

CMV: I believe foreign aid to countries such as Uganda and Kenya should be entirely stopped and put towards helping the homeless in our own countries. I don't understand what sort of country sends money and aid to countries who do not care about basic human rights for women, gays or minorities, but refuses to help our own that are suffering. I live in AUstralia, and every night there are over 18,000 homeless children, and it angers me knowing that instead of helping these children that we choose to support a country that passes bills that allows the murder of homosexuals(Uganda). We help these people, but we refuse to help our own. I have been to the Northern Territory and have seen the aboriginal tribes and the land that they live, some of which have the conditions of third world countries. But we do nothing. In fact we actually go as far to cut their legal aid under the new government that promised improvements locally. I believe that Western countries should work on purely helping each other, and the homeless in our own countries. We value ourselves in the West as progressive and supportive of minorities, more than any other area in the world. But we continue to fund money to countries that actively oppress minorities while ignoring our own minorities(lower-class homeless men, women and children). How is that progressive? I truly believe that every Western country must leave Africa, Arab Countries such as Pakistan and Afghanistan and South-East Asia to themselves, as they with their oppressive views on women, gays and minorities are a threat to Democracy and Western Freedom, and we must work purely on helping our own, and work to create an egalitarian society for those lucky enough to be born here. I also believe this will help future generations of people in countries such as Saudi Arabia and Uganda, to actively overthrow their oppressive governments and work to create the utopia that the West will have created.

t3_21dk0h

I believe government is force. CMV.

I believe that government is a geographical monopoly over the use of force. Governments function off gaining revenue through means of violence, and therefore are immoral *under my compass of morality*. I do not want to argue the "practicality" of government or lack of government (so please no "Anarchy will never work!" comments, because I am not looking to debate this in this thread), simply just the idea of "morality", and whether or not government is force. This is important because I see force as the antithesis of liberty, and liberty as the most crucial part of human life. Thanks to all who comment! Change my view. EDIT: updated a few things to make it more clear what my position is. _____ > *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!*

I believe government is force. CMV. I believe that government is a geographical monopoly over the use of force. Governments function off gaining revenue through means of violence, and therefore are immoral *under my compass of morality*. I do not want to argue the "practicality" of government or lack of government (so please no "Anarchy will never work!" comments, because I am not looking to debate this in this thread), simply just the idea of "morality", and whether or not government is force. This is important because I see force as the antithesis of liberty, and liberty as the most crucial part of human life. Thanks to all who comment! Change my view. EDIT: updated a few things to make it more clear what my position is.

t3_19geid

CMV: I believe that working on my own consciousness is the most important thing I can be doing at the age of 21

Basically, I believe that I should adjust/fine tune myself and find where my values really lie. By meditating daily and attempting to remain as mindful as possible at all times, I am increasing my capabilities and molding myself into a better person before I enter the "real world" as a college graduate working at something for a living. I frequently question my own beliefs and viewpoints, and I pay close attention to anything during my day that irritates me - my reaction to such an event exposes me to something more about my sense of self and therefore it allows me to function more properly in daily life from then on. I find this work to be more important than any work I do for the classes I'm taking at college. I am still getting by, and I will earn my degree, but it's totally peripheral to my "inner work." I believe that this is the best possible use of my time currently.

CMV: I believe that working on my own consciousness is the most important thing I can be doing at the age of 21. Basically, I believe that I should adjust/fine tune myself and find where my values really lie. By meditating daily and attempting to remain as mindful as possible at all times, I am increasing my capabilities and molding myself into a better person before I enter the "real world" as a college graduate working at something for a living. I frequently question my own beliefs and viewpoints, and I pay close attention to anything during my day that irritates me - my reaction to such an event exposes me to something more about my sense of self and therefore it allows me to function more properly in daily life from then on. I find this work to be more important than any work I do for the classes I'm taking at college. I am still getting by, and I will earn my degree, but it's totally peripheral to my "inner work." I believe that this is the best possible use of my time currently.

t3_1lja8v

I believe it is hard to go on without a significant other. CMV

At some point in time before high school, I could say all the way back to fifth grade I just always wanted a girl in my life. (This thread is not for heterosexuals only though) I liked a girl in fifth grade and had a short term girlfriend in sixth grade. I was Always was keeping my eyes out and thinking about girls, until 10th grade I actually found a girl and we dated till a couple days before we left for college, because some part of her thought we couldn't have dated through college. Regardless that ended, I had 3 more girls I tried to recreate that relationship with (unsuccessfully) after that. I still talk to my ex from high school, and her and another friend said I need to be ok with being by myself. I have been single for almost a month now because I got broken up with by my last girlfriend for stupid reasons; I saw the breakup coming anyways. I don't know how to be content lying in a bed alone most nights and waking up to a phone usually without any messages or anything. Its nice to be single and have the ability to go out with my guys friends and all, but I never stopped missing having someone around since I had someone for so long and so early in my life. I guess to put it simply or Change my view on thinking I need someone in my life.

I believe it is hard to go on without a significant other. CMV. At some point in time before high school, I could say all the way back to fifth grade I just always wanted a girl in my life. (This thread is not for heterosexuals only though) I liked a girl in fifth grade and had a short term girlfriend in sixth grade. I was Always was keeping my eyes out and thinking about girls, until 10th grade I actually found a girl and we dated till a couple days before we left for college, because some part of her thought we couldn't have dated through college. Regardless that ended, I had 3 more girls I tried to recreate that relationship with (unsuccessfully) after that. I still talk to my ex from high school, and her and another friend said I need to be ok with being by myself. I have been single for almost a month now because I got broken up with by my last girlfriend for stupid reasons; I saw the breakup coming anyways. I don't know how to be content lying in a bed alone most nights and waking up to a phone usually without any messages or anything. Its nice to be single and have the ability to go out with my guys friends and all, but I never stopped missing having someone around since I had someone for so long and so early in my life. I guess to put it simply or Change my view on thinking I need someone in my life.

t3_28a5fu

CMV: Sexual jealousy is manmade.

Why is sex with someone else a cheating standard? The answer I get from people is "because you're breaking the trust". And I understand that, but why is sexual exclusivity part of the general trust agreeement? Other people tell me "because its better when you love the person". But that doesn't make it wrong, does it? Other people say "because it is the only thing that separates a friend from a lover". Well if your difference between a friend and a lover is the sex, you either have the most awesome friendships ever or very crappy relationships. I looked up if there was any psychological research to back sexual jealousy as innate and could not find anything. If any, I found [this TED talk](http://www.ted.com/talks/christopher_ryan_are_we_designed_to_be_sexual_omnivores) from a guy who claims, to sum it up quickly, that humans used sex as a bonding tool and there was no sexual jealousy before, and that only with the invention of agriculture we started to treat women as property and forced monogamy to ensure that our kids would be in fact our kids. So it seems to me that men invented sexual jealousy to be sure who your kids are, and since then we've hung on to this manmade "principle". 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: Sexual jealousy is manmade. Why is sex with someone else a cheating standard? The answer I get from people is "because you're breaking the trust". And I understand that, but why is sexual exclusivity part of the general trust agreeement? Other people tell me "because its better when you love the person". But that doesn't make it wrong, does it? Other people say "because it is the only thing that separates a friend from a lover". Well if your difference between a friend and a lover is the sex, you either have the most awesome friendships ever or very crappy relationships. I looked up if there was any psychological research to back sexual jealousy as innate and could not find anything. If any, I found [this TED talk](http://www.ted.com/talks/christopher_ryan_are_we_designed_to_be_sexual_omnivores) from a guy who claims, to sum it up quickly, that humans used sex as a bonding tool and there was no sexual jealousy before, and that only with the invention of agriculture we started to treat women as property and forced monogamy to ensure that our kids would be in fact our kids. So it seems to me that men invented sexual jealousy to be sure who your kids are, and since then we've hung on to this manmade "principle". CMV!