Datasets:

nailiamirzakhmedova

/

cmv_op_10k

like 0

t3_3xcxlp

CMV: Movie makers should stop using the Wilhelm Scream

The famous Wilhelm Scream has been used in countless movies for decades. If you've watched an action movie in the past year, [you've probably heard it](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YDpuA90KEY). Wikipedia claims the scream has [been used in more than 500 movies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_scream) and that some directors like George Lucas, Peter Jackson and Quentin Tarantino try to get it into every movie they make. Originally, including the scream was a little nod the sound editors and an inside joke between movie industry insiders. The problem is, the Wilhelm Scream isn't an inside joke anymore. It's well recognized by audiences. As such, including it is conspicuous, drawing attention to itself. Movie effects work best when they aren't *noticed* so the inclusion of a sound effect that breaks the spell of the film by drawing attention to the production of the film does both the audience and the movie makers a disservice. It pulls the audience out of the fantasy - a fantasy the director, actors and entire team have worked really hard to establish - and reminds them they are watching a movie. To that end, I think that the Wilhelm Scream should be retired. To be clear, I'm not suggesting a ban or anything; just that movie makers should stop using it. One important exception. In situations where directors want to break the fourth wall to remind audiences they are watching a movie, or in certain specific applications - satire, parody, etc.- the Wilhelm Scream can serve a powerful purpose. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Movie makers should stop using the Wilhelm Scream. The famous Wilhelm Scream has been used in countless movies for decades. If you've watched an action movie in the past year, [you've probably heard it](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YDpuA90KEY). Wikipedia claims the scream has [been used in more than 500 movies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_scream) and that some directors like George Lucas, Peter Jackson and Quentin Tarantino try to get it into every movie they make. Originally, including the scream was a little nod the sound editors and an inside joke between movie industry insiders. The problem is, the Wilhelm Scream isn't an inside joke anymore. It's well recognized by audiences. As such, including it is conspicuous, drawing attention to itself. Movie effects work best when they aren't *noticed* so the inclusion of a sound effect that breaks the spell of the film by drawing attention to the production of the film does both the audience and the movie makers a disservice. It pulls the audience out of the fantasy - a fantasy the director, actors and entire team have worked really hard to establish - and reminds them they are watching a movie. To that end, I think that the Wilhelm Scream should be retired. To be clear, I'm not suggesting a ban or anything; just that movie makers should stop using it. One important exception. In situations where directors want to break the fourth wall to remind audiences they are watching a movie, or in certain specific applications - satire, parody, etc.- the Wilhelm Scream can serve a powerful purpose.

t3_3fp987

CMV: Dirty plates should not be stacked, in a household.

I believe that stacking plates is a silly way to get the perfectly clean undersides of plates dirty, by making them come in contact with the dirty side of the plate below. I do believe plates should be washed on both sides, but if you don't stack the plates then you won't require to do as much scrubbing and cleaning of the underside. I myself have washed plates with greasy Mexican food bathed in salsa, which IMHO is some of the worst mess to clean, and in my experience keeping the underside clean makes my life easier. I specify at the post title that this view applies to households, because in restaurants or places with many plates to wash, it may make sense to stack plates to save space. _____ > *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: Dirty plates should not be stacked, in a household. I believe that stacking plates is a silly way to get the perfectly clean undersides of plates dirty, by making them come in contact with the dirty side of the plate below. I do believe plates should be washed on both sides, but if you don't stack the plates then you won't require to do as much scrubbing and cleaning of the underside. I myself have washed plates with greasy Mexican food bathed in salsa, which IMHO is some of the worst mess to clean, and in my experience keeping the underside clean makes my life easier. I specify at the post title that this view applies to households, because in restaurants or places with many plates to wash, it may make sense to stack plates to save space.

t3_3nupzp

CMV: The only difference between skill and talent is that one is earned and the other is not.

I might be using these words incorrectly, so I'm going to list how I define them, so that if I am in fact misusing these words, I can stop. People generally use the word "talent" when they really mean "aptitude." If someone can do something really well, the general vernacular is "they are talented at that thing." But I feel like that leaves no room for the possibility that the person actually worked to achieve that level of aptitude. This is because of the way I define skill and talent:   * Skill: Earned aptitude. Meaning, the person wasn't born being any better at it than anyone else, but worked at it and gained a heightened ability to perform the act, through practice and training. * Talent: Unearned aptitude. Meaning, they don't have to try to be better at it than others, it's just naturally easier, always has, and probably always will be. They're good at it without having to try.   The two examples I use are drawing, and comic books.   * Drawing: In grade school, I was always able to render an image using pencil and paper better than any of my classmates. I wanted to draw a horse, so I drew a horse and it looked like a horse. I couldn't fathom how others couldn't figure it out, just as they couldn't fathom how I could. By high school, I was average at drawing. People several grades younger than I were producing work I had no idea how to create. In this analogy, I had talent, but my peers had skill. I had aptitude just because I did. They had aptitude because they worked for it. * Comic books: Batman didn't have anything we didn't have the day he was born. You could argue he was born into money, but money doesn't buy martial arts ability, intellectual prowess, peak physical condition, etc. And that's beside the point. The point is that everything Batman can *do*, he can only do because he worked to be able to do it. Contrast that against Superman, who's only "super" to humans because he belongs to a species that gains super abilities under a yellow sun. All of his abilities, he had from day one, just because he's who he is. So in this analogy, Batman represents skill, and Superman represents talent.   Now I don't want to start a Batman/Superman debate - I really don't. I'm just using these as examples so that I can be perfectly clear in my explanation of what I mean when I use the words "talent" and "skill." Critique my examples if you must, but please try to see through to the point I'm actually making: simply that one is *by definition* earned, and the other is *by definition* unearned.   I'm not saying one is any better than the other. I'm just saying that when someone says "that person is talented," what I hear is "that person didn't work to earn their abilities." I feel like if that's what they wanted to say, they'd say "that person is skilled." Friends of Reddit, change my view. Please and thank you. _____ > *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 only difference between skill and talent is that one is earned and the other is not. I might be using these words incorrectly, so I'm going to list how I define them, so that if I am in fact misusing these words, I can stop. People generally use the word "talent" when they really mean "aptitude." If someone can do something really well, the general vernacular is "they are talented at that thing." But I feel like that leaves no room for the possibility that the person actually worked to achieve that level of aptitude. This is because of the way I define skill and talent:   * Skill: Earned aptitude. Meaning, the person wasn't born being any better at it than anyone else, but worked at it and gained a heightened ability to perform the act, through practice and training. * Talent: Unearned aptitude. Meaning, they don't have to try to be better at it than others, it's just naturally easier, always has, and probably always will be. They're good at it without having to try.   The two examples I use are drawing, and comic books.   * Drawing: In grade school, I was always able to render an image using pencil and paper better than any of my classmates. I wanted to draw a horse, so I drew a horse and it looked like a horse. I couldn't fathom how others couldn't figure it out, just as they couldn't fathom how I could. By high school, I was average at drawing. People several grades younger than I were producing work I had no idea how to create. In this analogy, I had talent, but my peers had skill. I had aptitude just because I did. They had aptitude because they worked for it. * Comic books: Batman didn't have anything we didn't have the day he was born. You could argue he was born into money, but money doesn't buy martial arts ability, intellectual prowess, peak physical condition, etc. And that's beside the point. The point is that everything Batman can *do*, he can only do because he worked to be able to do it. Contrast that against Superman, who's only "super" to humans because he belongs to a species that gains super abilities under a yellow sun. All of his abilities, he had from day one, just because he's who he is. So in this analogy, Batman represents skill, and Superman represents talent.   Now I don't want to start a Batman/Superman debate - I really don't. I'm just using these as examples so that I can be perfectly clear in my explanation of what I mean when I use the words "talent" and "skill." Critique my examples if you must, but please try to see through to the point I'm actually making: simply that one is *by definition* earned, and the other is *by definition* unearned.   I'm not saying one is any better than the other. I'm just saying that when someone says "that person is talented," what I hear is "that person didn't work to earn their abilities." I feel like if that's what they wanted to say, they'd say "that person is skilled." Friends of Reddit, change my view. Please and thank you.

t3_1ln8up

I believe that dental and vision care should be covered by social healthcare in Canada. CMV.

Teeth and eyes are important parts of the human body and can strongly influence quality of life. Dental problems can cause a person to not eat properly, which can then cause other problems that would need to be taken care of by the health care system. Vision problems can impair a students ability to learn and can limit the ability and efficiency of workers. Teeth and eyes are pretty crucial aspects of our human anatomy, why does our (Canada) health care system treat them as non-essential ? Gender reassignment is covered by the system in Alberta, yet extraction of a broken or infected tooth is not. My teeth and eyes are as important as any other body part and thus should be covered by social health care. CMV.

I believe that dental and vision care should be covered by social healthcare in Canada. CMV. Teeth and eyes are important parts of the human body and can strongly influence quality of life. Dental problems can cause a person to not eat properly, which can then cause other problems that would need to be taken care of by the health care system. Vision problems can impair a students ability to learn and can limit the ability and efficiency of workers. Teeth and eyes are pretty crucial aspects of our human anatomy, why does our (Canada) health care system treat them as non-essential ? Gender reassignment is covered by the system in Alberta, yet extraction of a broken or infected tooth is not. My teeth and eyes are as important as any other body part and thus should be covered by social health care. CMV.

t3_2t84tp

CMV: No major legislation/reforms in the US will be pass in the next 50+ years and we are going to enter a very long period of "stagnation"

And by major legislation I mean any major nation wide issue such as immigration, climate change, automation, minimum wage/living wage, tax reform, health care, wall street reform, education reform, civil rights, etc etc. You can almost replace "no major legislation" with "no legislation" but I'm sure minor things such as continuing resolutions will keep passing as a stopgap to fund the government and a few trade deals will get passed. But that's pretty much it, no matter which democrat wins the white house. Here is the reasoning I have this view. 1. It is impossible for a Republican to ever win the white house, and will continue to be less likely into the future due to urbanization and minority demographics. 2. It is impossible for democrats to ever control 60% of the senate and the majority of the house ever again due to demographics and geography of districts and rural states. 3. It is impossible for the Republican base and Republican politicians to moderate over time due to the prevalence of media/internet and the continuous feedback loop of propaganda. For example, the recent "no go zones" debacle. This is still being repeated in right wing circles. 4. Because of items 1 to 3, it is impossible to amend the constitution to get money out of politics. Ok there is is, lay it on me. CMV. And just saying something like "well, you're right but i'll be 40 years instead of 50 years" does not really challenge my view.

CMV: No major legislation/reforms in the US will be pass in the next 50+ years and we are going to enter a very long period of "stagnation". And by major legislation I mean any major nation wide issue such as immigration, climate change, automation, minimum wage/living wage, tax reform, health care, wall street reform, education reform, civil rights, etc etc. You can almost replace "no major legislation" with "no legislation" but I'm sure minor things such as continuing resolutions will keep passing as a stopgap to fund the government and a few trade deals will get passed. But that's pretty much it, no matter which democrat wins the white house. Here is the reasoning I have this view. 1. It is impossible for a Republican to ever win the white house, and will continue to be less likely into the future due to urbanization and minority demographics. 2. It is impossible for democrats to ever control 60% of the senate and the majority of the house ever again due to demographics and geography of districts and rural states. 3. It is impossible for the Republican base and Republican politicians to moderate over time due to the prevalence of media/internet and the continuous feedback loop of propaganda. For example, the recent "no go zones" debacle. This is still being repeated in right wing circles. 4. Because of items 1 to 3, it is impossible to amend the constitution to get money out of politics. Ok there is is, lay it on me. CMV. And just saying something like "well, you're right but i'll be 40 years instead of 50 years" does not really challenge my view.

t3_1zo2hn

Prostitution should be legalized because it would significantly reduce human trafficking by competition. Is my thinking flawed? CMV

I have heard many arguments against making prostitution illegal, but I have heard every few that are for, and I am wondering why. I have heard people say that prostitution is not a victimless crime, yet it is still the prostitute's choice to do his/her work. But when I hear about big human trafficking operations in countries where prostitution is illegal, kidnapping women and forcing them to get raped just sounds so horrible. It seems that if prostitution was legalized virtually all potential customers of human sex traffickers would just go prostitutes who consensually have sex instead, thus wouldn't this effectively eliminate human trafficking?

Prostitution should be legalized because it would significantly reduce human trafficking by competition. Is my thinking flawed? CMV. I have heard many arguments against making prostitution illegal, but I have heard every few that are for, and I am wondering why. I have heard people say that prostitution is not a victimless crime, yet it is still the prostitute's choice to do his/her work. But when I hear about big human trafficking operations in countries where prostitution is illegal, kidnapping women and forcing them to get raped just sounds so horrible. It seems that if prostitution was legalized virtually all potential customers of human sex traffickers would just go prostitutes who consensually have sex instead, thus wouldn't this effectively eliminate human trafficking?

t3_6b08ml

CMV: Bigotry is not predicated on power structure or oppression.

Bigotry may certainly be a symptom of it, but bigotry is independent of oppression. Who is oppressing and who is oppressed can shift and change over time. When person A hates person B based on their skin color or sexual orientation or religion they are being a bigot - whether they were above or below person B on a particular hierarchy. The very idea that someone can't experience bigotry until they are oppressed is an flawed presupposition because the hierarchy can and always will be in flux, but the principle of bigotry is never in flux... it is unjustified hatred based on irrational reasoning. That does not change. _____ > *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: Bigotry is not predicated on power structure or oppression. Bigotry may certainly be a symptom of it, but bigotry is independent of oppression. Who is oppressing and who is oppressed can shift and change over time. When person A hates person B based on their skin color or sexual orientation or religion they are being a bigot - whether they were above or below person B on a particular hierarchy. The very idea that someone can't experience bigotry until they are oppressed is an flawed presupposition because the hierarchy can and always will be in flux, but the principle of bigotry is never in flux... it is unjustified hatred based on irrational reasoning. That does not change.

t3_52zlxe

CMV: We should not have a right to privacy from the government.

I know that we currently have a right to privacy from the government. I'm arguing that, normatively, we should not have the right to privacy from the government. In other words, what I'm trying to get at is an argument against the following statement: ***If the government knew everything about you but only used that information against you in the event that you were harming yourself or others, then on what grounds would that violation of your privacy be bad?*** ---Definitions--- (1) I define the right to privacy as a person's right to control information about himself. Information includes basically everything not readily apparent or explicitly made public by the person. For example, information would include the items inside a person's backpack, what the person looks like naked, a person's medical records, computer searches, reading list, etc. Information made available to a limited public, for example a post on social media to friends or a statement made in a group mental health meeting, would still count as private to those outside the group of people intended to receive the information. (2) I define government as a tolerant liberal democracy. That means this government tolerates differences so long as those differences are not harmful to oneself or others. I would like to keep this discussion limited to privacy rights within a liberal democracy that tolerates differences. This definition does not mean that the government is perfect, benevolent, or incapable of violating other rights. It simply means that the government is indifferent to differences among its citizens except in cases where those differences are harmful to oneself or others. So the government would tolerate atypical but consensual sex practices but would not tolerate arson. The government would tolerate communists but would not tolerate murder. ---Justification--- People have a right to control information about themselves in order to prevent harms that may result from public knowledge of that information. For example, information about a person's sexuality might be used by an employer to fire a person or by a family to shun a person. A corporation might use information gained through privacy violations to exploit a person's interests for revenue. On the other hand, the government has a compelling reason to violate privacy, namely safety, but a government that tolerates differences does not have a compelling reason to use that information in a way that would harm its citizens. I hope I've been clear. I know privacy is a hot topic on this subreddit, but hopefully my particular twist--specifying a liberal, tolerant government rather than a general society--offers an interesting perspective. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: We should not have a right to privacy from the government. I know that we currently have a right to privacy from the government. I'm arguing that, normatively, we should not have the right to privacy from the government. In other words, what I'm trying to get at is an argument against the following statement: ***If the government knew everything about you but only used that information against you in the event that you were harming yourself or others, then on what grounds would that violation of your privacy be bad?*** ---Definitions--- (1) I define the right to privacy as a person's right to control information about himself. Information includes basically everything not readily apparent or explicitly made public by the person. For example, information would include the items inside a person's backpack, what the person looks like naked, a person's medical records, computer searches, reading list, etc. Information made available to a limited public, for example a post on social media to friends or a statement made in a group mental health meeting, would still count as private to those outside the group of people intended to receive the information. (2) I define government as a tolerant liberal democracy. That means this government tolerates differences so long as those differences are not harmful to oneself or others. I would like to keep this discussion limited to privacy rights within a liberal democracy that tolerates differences. This definition does not mean that the government is perfect, benevolent, or incapable of violating other rights. It simply means that the government is indifferent to differences among its citizens except in cases where those differences are harmful to oneself or others. So the government would tolerate atypical but consensual sex practices but would not tolerate arson. The government would tolerate communists but would not tolerate murder. ---Justification--- People have a right to control information about themselves in order to prevent harms that may result from public knowledge of that information. For example, information about a person's sexuality might be used by an employer to fire a person or by a family to shun a person. A corporation might use information gained through privacy violations to exploit a person's interests for revenue. On the other hand, the government has a compelling reason to violate privacy, namely safety, but a government that tolerates differences does not have a compelling reason to use that information in a way that would harm its citizens. I hope I've been clear. I know privacy is a hot topic on this subreddit, but hopefully my particular twist--specifying a liberal, tolerant government rather than a general society--offers an interesting perspective.

t3_1u7re8

I believe that the Christian concept of faith or damnation is ignorant and hateful. CMV

A little background. I am a 21 year old female. I spent the first 20 years of my life dedicating my life to being a good Christian, a disciple of Christ. I even enrolled at a very conservative private Christian college. I still attend there now. My undergraduate experience is what turned it all around for me. I spent three years meeting people who -truly- lived their lives according to scripture. While I admire them for their dedication, I developed a strong aversion to Christian doctrine. I went on two mission trips--those are what finalized it for me. I hated going to another culture with the intention of changing people. I loved their way of life, their culture, their religion--I wanted to learn and grow from it, not try to "improve" it. I have come across a few milestones that I simply can't stomach anymore, and they have separated me from my previous beliefs: 1. The Christian God is the ONLY God. All other religions contain only idols. (I believe other religions to be beautiful and worthy of just as much praise. Most of these religions are built on similar concepts--I find them to be equal, all are attempts at creating meaning and discovering purpose) 2. Those who don't believe in the Christian God burn in eternal hellfire. 3. Homosexuality is sinful. 4. Sex with your partner before marriage is sinful. I spent a long time telling myself that the bible didn't -really- speak out against any of those things. I told myself that scripture interpretation was unclear. I finally realized that I was just changing scripture to what I wanted it to say, and that wasn't right. I believe that Christians look down on those of other religions and lifestyles with the basic idea that they know the absolute truth. I know they don't mean to condescend--they are trying to help others. However, I feel that this doctrine does more harm than good, as it fills people with fear--fear of different religions and lifestyles that deserve respect. It destroys the modern world's chance at coexisting. I understand that other world religions have similar issues. However, I want to discuss Christianity because it is closest to home for me. I am looking for answers. Please CMV. EDIT: A lot of people are pointing out 2 things: scripture is open to interpretation, and many church sects present different doctrines. Please know that I am aware of both of these things. However, I have found that--in order to be comfortable with Christianity--I have to outright ignore very clear meanings in certain passages of scripture. I do not think this is right. I also have never found a church sect I am completely comfortable with.

I believe that the Christian concept of faith or damnation is ignorant and hateful. CMV. A little background. I am a 21 year old female. I spent the first 20 years of my life dedicating my life to being a good Christian, a disciple of Christ. I even enrolled at a very conservative private Christian college. I still attend there now. My undergraduate experience is what turned it all around for me. I spent three years meeting people who -truly- lived their lives according to scripture. While I admire them for their dedication, I developed a strong aversion to Christian doctrine. I went on two mission trips--those are what finalized it for me. I hated going to another culture with the intention of changing people. I loved their way of life, their culture, their religion--I wanted to learn and grow from it, not try to "improve" it. I have come across a few milestones that I simply can't stomach anymore, and they have separated me from my previous beliefs: 1. The Christian God is the ONLY God. All other religions contain only idols. (I believe other religions to be beautiful and worthy of just as much praise. Most of these religions are built on similar concepts--I find them to be equal, all are attempts at creating meaning and discovering purpose) 2. Those who don't believe in the Christian God burn in eternal hellfire. 3. Homosexuality is sinful. 4. Sex with your partner before marriage is sinful. I spent a long time telling myself that the bible didn't -really- speak out against any of those things. I told myself that scripture interpretation was unclear. I finally realized that I was just changing scripture to what I wanted it to say, and that wasn't right. I believe that Christians look down on those of other religions and lifestyles with the basic idea that they know the absolute truth. I know they don't mean to condescend--they are trying to help others. However, I feel that this doctrine does more harm than good, as it fills people with fear--fear of different religions and lifestyles that deserve respect. It destroys the modern world's chance at coexisting. I understand that other world religions have similar issues. However, I want to discuss Christianity because it is closest to home for me. I am looking for answers. Please CMV. EDIT: A lot of people are pointing out 2 things: scripture is open to interpretation, and many church sects present different doctrines. Please know that I am aware of both of these things. However, I have found that--in order to be comfortable with Christianity--I have to outright ignore very clear meanings in certain passages of scripture. I do not think this is right. I also have never found a church sect I am completely comfortable with.

t3_3lap8z

CMV: Ahmed Mohamed's (Texas student arrested for bringing a homemade suitcase clock to school) arrest was 100% justified. Moreover, Mohamed maliciously baited authorities and anyone who believes he honestly thought it looked like a clock is a fool, including the president.

For those who haven't seen it, [this is the clock](http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/10BF6/production/_85589586_16e23342-6ce7-4c4f-b176-88d94cf667b3.jpg). No teacher, law enforcement officer or school administrator in their right mind, would allow a student, regardless of the student's race, creed or colour, to bring something like that into a crowded school environment. It is completely ridiculous that school officials who are trying their best to protect the youth under their care are being undermined and mocked for having legitimate concerns about the welfare of their students. If this sets a precedent, why could students not bring something [like this](http://media.komonews.com/images/090911_fake_gun.jpg) to school? "It's for my kinetic energy physics project." What's worse is that a large percentage of the US population seems to have somehow bought into this ruse by Mohamed and his family. There is no possible way that the boy did not foresee getting arrested as a possible outcome of bringing a suitcase full of live wires to school. The kid's bewildered expression upon getting arrested and announcement after being released that he'd like to attend MIT goes to show how much of a manipulative prick he is. The suitcase has been passed off by the media as "robotics" and "science", neither of which are very true (wiring a quartz clock is quite simple, I did it with a DIY science kit in about third grade). The entire situation is high quality, self-serving bullshit, and you have all bought a ton of it. What's worse is the president and business leaders have pandered to the situation in order to appeal to a progressive voter base. At least his family had pizza prepared to serve before they fuck you over. What nice people.

CMV: Ahmed Mohamed's (Texas student arrested for bringing a homemade suitcase clock to school) arrest was 100% justified. Moreover, Mohamed maliciously baited authorities and anyone who believes he honestly thought it looked like a clock is a fool, including the president. For those who haven't seen it, [this is the clock](http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/10BF6/production/_85589586_16e23342-6ce7-4c4f-b176-88d94cf667b3.jpg). No teacher, law enforcement officer or school administrator in their right mind, would allow a student, regardless of the student's race, creed or colour, to bring something like that into a crowded school environment. It is completely ridiculous that school officials who are trying their best to protect the youth under their care are being undermined and mocked for having legitimate concerns about the welfare of their students. If this sets a precedent, why could students not bring something [like this](http://media.komonews.com/images/090911_fake_gun.jpg) to school? "It's for my kinetic energy physics project." What's worse is that a large percentage of the US population seems to have somehow bought into this ruse by Mohamed and his family. There is no possible way that the boy did not foresee getting arrested as a possible outcome of bringing a suitcase full of live wires to school. The kid's bewildered expression upon getting arrested and announcement after being released that he'd like to attend MIT goes to show how much of a manipulative prick he is. The suitcase has been passed off by the media as "robotics" and "science", neither of which are very true (wiring a quartz clock is quite simple, I did it with a DIY science kit in about third grade). The entire situation is high quality, self-serving bullshit, and you have all bought a ton of it. What's worse is the president and business leaders have pandered to the situation in order to appeal to a progressive voter base. At least his family had pizza prepared to serve before they fuck you over. What nice people.

t3_2seil9

CMV: Middle Easterners Are Not White

Inspired by a recent AskReddit post (I would link, but I'm on mobile). In the United States, Arabs, Turks, and Persians are legally white. In the US Census, we must check the "white" box. I don't believe we are white. First of all, we are not treated as white. There are more assumptions made based on the way we look than any other group within "white". Second, our culture is not similar to European culture. Middle Eastern culture is vastly different in all aspects: food, music, religiosity, acceptable public behavior, etc. Third, we don't look "white" -- we range from very dark to brown (most commonly) to olive. In the current system, we are considered white without having any of the benefits of being white. We aren't treated "white" by police, we aren't treated "white" by the community at large, and we certainly aren't treated "white" by employers. In order to be on a level playing field with whites, we must be better groomed, must present ourselves better, must be very mindful of our language & body language, and must (by and large) try harder. We are not eligible for minority scholarships because we are not a valid minority. Some may argue that this is due to wealth, but in reality, most of us are escaping extreme poverty in the Middle East (and are overshadowed by the influx of rich Saudi students attending US universities on government scholarship). Reddit, make me believe that we should be classified as white.

CMV: Middle Easterners Are Not White. Inspired by a recent AskReddit post (I would link, but I'm on mobile). In the United States, Arabs, Turks, and Persians are legally white. In the US Census, we must check the "white" box. I don't believe we are white. First of all, we are not treated as white. There are more assumptions made based on the way we look than any other group within "white". Second, our culture is not similar to European culture. Middle Eastern culture is vastly different in all aspects: food, music, religiosity, acceptable public behavior, etc. Third, we don't look "white" -- we range from very dark to brown (most commonly) to olive. In the current system, we are considered white without having any of the benefits of being white. We aren't treated "white" by police, we aren't treated "white" by the community at large, and we certainly aren't treated "white" by employers. In order to be on a level playing field with whites, we must be better groomed, must present ourselves better, must be very mindful of our language & body language, and must (by and large) try harder. We are not eligible for minority scholarships because we are not a valid minority. Some may argue that this is due to wealth, but in reality, most of us are escaping extreme poverty in the Middle East (and are overshadowed by the influx of rich Saudi students attending US universities on government scholarship). Reddit, make me believe that we should be classified as white.

t3_1j55q6

I don't think the Hindenburg Disaster was that bad because it was a Nazi airship. CMV.

I've always know about what happened to the Hindenburg, but I never knew that it was a Nazi airship until today. If it were a different group of people on the airship then I would have more compassion for the victims of the crash but since the Nazis did such horrible things to millions of innocent people, why should I feel bad if they die? Wouldn't this be kind of good for the Allies anyways? And also, I understand that the ship was supposed to touchdown in new Jersey. Why would the US- a member of the Allies who are against the Nazis and the Axis- allow one of their blimps to land in the United States? So to summarize: * The Nazis were cruel, why should we feel sorry for them? (Main Question) * Why did the US allow them to land in our country anyways? Edit: Good points. I didn't realize that the nazis were just the government at the time. Thanks!

I don't think the Hindenburg Disaster was that bad because it was a Nazi airship. CMV. I've always know about what happened to the Hindenburg, but I never knew that it was a Nazi airship until today. If it were a different group of people on the airship then I would have more compassion for the victims of the crash but since the Nazis did such horrible things to millions of innocent people, why should I feel bad if they die? Wouldn't this be kind of good for the Allies anyways? And also, I understand that the ship was supposed to touchdown in new Jersey. Why would the US- a member of the Allies who are against the Nazis and the Axis- allow one of their blimps to land in the United States? So to summarize: * The Nazis were cruel, why should we feel sorry for them? (Main Question) * Why did the US allow them to land in our country anyways? Edit: Good points. I didn't realize that the nazis were just the government at the time. Thanks!

t3_1wipyz

I think it's unreasonable to believe that prayer can change or help anyone other than the person doing the praying.CMV.

Unless, of course, in the indirect way that praying for someone helps strengthen the resolve of the person doing the praying to actually help the person they are praying for, when the opportunity to do so arises. Or that praying makes the person doing the praying a better person, which in a broad/general sense makes the world a better place which is beneficial for other people living in it. But I'm thinking about prayers for specific people or specific groups of beings/people. Can anyone offer a good reason to think that such prayers have an effect on their subjects? Are there any studies or statistics about this? Thanks for taking your time to cmv.

I think it's unreasonable to believe that prayer can change or help anyone other than the person doing the praying.CMV. Unless, of course, in the indirect way that praying for someone helps strengthen the resolve of the person doing the praying to actually help the person they are praying for, when the opportunity to do so arises. Or that praying makes the person doing the praying a better person, which in a broad/general sense makes the world a better place which is beneficial for other people living in it. But I'm thinking about prayers for specific people or specific groups of beings/people. Can anyone offer a good reason to think that such prayers have an effect on their subjects? Are there any studies or statistics about this? Thanks for taking your time to cmv.

t3_262gsx

CMV: All Human Problems are Man-Made

CMV: I maintain that all human problems, without exception, are created by human beings. In addition, I believe that the universe is perfectly orderly and that disorder exists exclusively in the minds of human beings. Technological progress is driven by sustained human discontent with the way things are. Attempts to improve on "what is" to turn it into "what should be" is the motive behind innovation. Note: In case it isn't clear, I'm not a luddite and I'm immensely grateful for indoor plumbing and many other fruits of technological innovation. I'm only commenting on what I believe to be the origins of all human problems, without making any judgements. 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. 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! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing! _____ > *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 Human Problems are Man-Made. CMV: I maintain that all human problems, without exception, are created by human beings. In addition, I believe that the universe is perfectly orderly and that disorder exists exclusively in the minds of human beings. Technological progress is driven by sustained human discontent with the way things are. Attempts to improve on "what is" to turn it into "what should be" is the motive behind innovation. Note: In case it isn't clear, I'm not a luddite and I'm immensely grateful for indoor plumbing and many other fruits of technological innovation. I'm only commenting on what I believe to be the origins of all human problems, without making any judgements. 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. 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! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

t3_2vslxd

CMV: Some people in life, such as myself, are born to be losers with no motivation to do anything except the basics.

I feel strongly that there are the emotionally strong and the emotionally weak. I also believe some of us are born weak and will always be weak. I am a firm believer that those of us weak and pathetic ones can never change because we were born too weak to overcome our adversities and too emotionally and mentally weak to do the things we actually want to do. I also believe that there are people who are born emotionally and mentally strong and can overcome anything and do anything they put their mind to. I am saying that this is an intrinsic thing and that my view is that this pre-determined personality trait is out of all of our controls. CMV.

CMV: Some people in life, such as myself, are born to be losers with no motivation to do anything except the basics. I feel strongly that there are the emotionally strong and the emotionally weak. I also believe some of us are born weak and will always be weak. I am a firm believer that those of us weak and pathetic ones can never change because we were born too weak to overcome our adversities and too emotionally and mentally weak to do the things we actually want to do. I also believe that there are people who are born emotionally and mentally strong and can overcome anything and do anything they put their mind to. I am saying that this is an intrinsic thing and that my view is that this pre-determined personality trait is out of all of our controls. CMV.

t3_72otpo

CMV: It would be safer to bring a shotgun camping than to not bring one.

I live in Alberta Canada, in a fairly remote town, and go camping often. I also go off roading once in a while. When we go camping it if often places that are not national parks nor are they official camp grounds that you pay for and park rangers patrolling to make sure your music is down after 11pm. I talked to my cousin and mentioned getting a shotgun for general target shooting, and to bring camping just in case. I know a lot of people who do this. Anyways, she said that she would feel unsafe knowing a gun was around people who were drinking. I said I would keep it in a case, unloaded but have the shells handy and be responsible with it. I probably would not even tell anybody it was in the truck. She says if a moose or a bear came close to us we could just go to the cars and be safe in there. I personally think that I would do everything possible to avoid using the gun in the first place. She says we could bring bear mace instead. Also it is legal to have a gun in a case, unloaded while camping as long as it is not in a national park. This all legal. I personally somewhat agree with her, but I can't account for every possible scenario that could happen in the woods. I think it wouldn't hurt to have a gun close by, and nobody would be in danger because of it. CMV.

CMV: It would be safer to bring a shotgun camping than to not bring one. I live in Alberta Canada, in a fairly remote town, and go camping often. I also go off roading once in a while. When we go camping it if often places that are not national parks nor are they official camp grounds that you pay for and park rangers patrolling to make sure your music is down after 11pm. I talked to my cousin and mentioned getting a shotgun for general target shooting, and to bring camping just in case. I know a lot of people who do this. Anyways, she said that she would feel unsafe knowing a gun was around people who were drinking. I said I would keep it in a case, unloaded but have the shells handy and be responsible with it. I probably would not even tell anybody it was in the truck. She says if a moose or a bear came close to us we could just go to the cars and be safe in there. I personally think that I would do everything possible to avoid using the gun in the first place. She says we could bring bear mace instead. Also it is legal to have a gun in a case, unloaded while camping as long as it is not in a national park. This all legal. I personally somewhat agree with her, but I can't account for every possible scenario that could happen in the woods. I think it wouldn't hurt to have a gun close by, and nobody would be in danger because of it. CMV.

t3_1xfvdw

I believe that women do deserve some of the blame for being raped. It is unrealistic to think otherwise. CMV.

I frequently see people people saying that it's absolutely not the female's fault for being raped at all, and that obviously men shouldn't rape. I agree entirely that men shouldn't rape but there are additional subtleties to the issue. It's not as simple as most people seem to want to paint it. When a women goes to a college party and gets violently drunk and someone has sex with her this is partially her fault for several reasons. College parties are a place where people hook up and have sex with other people, this is something that happens frequently. Everyone knows that, really. Also people get very drunk at these parties. Everyone knows this too. The female knows that shes going to a place with dozens of men there that are inebriated and possibly on other drugs as well. These are people that will not make the correct decisions, they can be dangerous to others and themselves. Additionally she goes there and also gets extremely drunk and she is less able to protect herself and also her judgement is severely off too. All of this is known before she goes to the party. She is responsible for getting into an extremely risky situation. If she stayed home or went to a party without drunk people it would be FAR less likely she would be taken advantage of. If you go to india as a women and get raped that's horrible, but women at this point should know that going there will put them in a situation with far greater risk of rape then staying home. I have the right to free speech, but if I go other there saying something extremely controversial in public there's a greater chance of me getting punched in the face (like this opinion for instance). I am definitely responsible partially, I'm not stupid I KNOW THERE IS A RISK. The person who punched me should get punished, but if I didn't go out there I wouldn't have been punched. I had to do something to get punched.

I believe that women do deserve some of the blame for being raped. It is unrealistic to think otherwise. CMV. I frequently see people people saying that it's absolutely not the female's fault for being raped at all, and that obviously men shouldn't rape. I agree entirely that men shouldn't rape but there are additional subtleties to the issue. It's not as simple as most people seem to want to paint it. When a women goes to a college party and gets violently drunk and someone has sex with her this is partially her fault for several reasons. College parties are a place where people hook up and have sex with other people, this is something that happens frequently. Everyone knows that, really. Also people get very drunk at these parties. Everyone knows this too. The female knows that shes going to a place with dozens of men there that are inebriated and possibly on other drugs as well. These are people that will not make the correct decisions, they can be dangerous to others and themselves. Additionally she goes there and also gets extremely drunk and she is less able to protect herself and also her judgement is severely off too. All of this is known before she goes to the party. She is responsible for getting into an extremely risky situation. If she stayed home or went to a party without drunk people it would be FAR less likely she would be taken advantage of. If you go to india as a women and get raped that's horrible, but women at this point should know that going there will put them in a situation with far greater risk of rape then staying home. I have the right to free speech, but if I go other there saying something extremely controversial in public there's a greater chance of me getting punched in the face (like this opinion for instance). I am definitely responsible partially, I'm not stupid I KNOW THERE IS A RISK. The person who punched me should get punished, but if I didn't go out there I wouldn't have been punched. I had to do something to get punched.

t3_5lv1cs

CMV: Bigotry towards bigots is not "just as bad."

I often see this argument come up, particularly in this subreddit. If someone is racist and you call them an asshole, suddenly others start turning against *you* for being "just as bad" or "stooping to their level." I don't think this is right. Tolerance, IMO, is not a static "positive" attribute. Being tolerant is great until the extremes are pushed. If I'm tolerant of my neighbor, that's good because we can coexist. If I'm tolerant of a racist, I'm okay with someone who is impeding the happiness of others. Being tolerant here is not a positive attribute anymore. Now I'm not a moral saint, I'm not saying it's our moral duty to stop bigots. In my opinion, it's not even cowardly to avoid it - if you're a neutral party there is no reason you should be held accountable for not stopping it. However, those that do confront bigots are certainly noble at least in some regard. But being bigoted towards bigots has a cause. You look at a murderer and someone who kills in self-defense in two different ways don't you? But you look at a bigot and someone who hates bigots as being "just the same"? If there's a bigot hating others for no good reason, while someone else hates a person for being hateful and harmful to society, wouldn't you say one of them certainly has the moral high ground here? Motive and reason certainly play a role in where each of these people stand. To say a person who hates bigots is just as bad as a bigot is to completely ignore the context in favor of a simplified view of the situation. 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: Bigotry towards bigots is not "just as bad.". I often see this argument come up, particularly in this subreddit. If someone is racist and you call them an asshole, suddenly others start turning against *you* for being "just as bad" or "stooping to their level." I don't think this is right. Tolerance, IMO, is not a static "positive" attribute. Being tolerant is great until the extremes are pushed. If I'm tolerant of my neighbor, that's good because we can coexist. If I'm tolerant of a racist, I'm okay with someone who is impeding the happiness of others. Being tolerant here is not a positive attribute anymore. Now I'm not a moral saint, I'm not saying it's our moral duty to stop bigots. In my opinion, it's not even cowardly to avoid it - if you're a neutral party there is no reason you should be held accountable for not stopping it. However, those that do confront bigots are certainly noble at least in some regard. But being bigoted towards bigots has a cause. You look at a murderer and someone who kills in self-defense in two different ways don't you? But you look at a bigot and someone who hates bigots as being "just the same"? If there's a bigot hating others for no good reason, while someone else hates a person for being hateful and harmful to society, wouldn't you say one of them certainly has the moral high ground here? Motive and reason certainly play a role in where each of these people stand. To say a person who hates bigots is just as bad as a bigot is to completely ignore the context in favor of a simplified view of the situation. CMV.

t3_6nvwj1

CMV: Africa, economically speaking, is not going to be the next China, at least not in the medium term.

An entrepeneur friend of mine has been investing in Africa, to be specific in the west part of the continent (Senegal, Mauritania, Ivory Coast, Benin Camerun). He has been investing there for about 5 years in the agricultural sector (he's trying to sell farming automation machine and commodities). He is firmly convinced that Africa's economy is going to experience an extensive growth as China's has been doing during the last couple of decades, although he hasn't made a profit yet. He didn't provide me with specific reasons behind his view, he says he "just feels it", which is what bothers me a bit... I don't agree in the slightest with him, here is why: 1) West African countries, with the exception of some places, lack trustworthy infrastructures to do business with: for example, my friend has problems dealing with institutions there, he also experienced loss of track of a simple payment by the very own bank he was working with. People there almost always want to make a company (partenariat, I think, I don't speak that much French, sorry) even before the business idea has been layed out and ask you to pour in all the initial capital. This seems to be too much shady IMHO. 2) West African countries lack the technology and the know how that Europe, China and the US have developed over the last centuries. 3) West African countries lack a strong national identity, they're not countries as we may, for instance, define China, Germany or the UK. There is little sense of unity and national interests. Also compared to China, the government there seems to have little to zero influence. 4) People there, in general, seems to be focused on the quick buck rather than on a long term growing strategy for their business. 5) Last but not least, chinese culture seems (at the best of my current knowledge) very work focused, with a strong desire to succed. Also savings are a strong point of many chinese people I know. None of these traits seems to be reflected in west african countries' culture. Please don't take this as a "West African countries/people are crap", I'm not trying to bully anyone or to be racist or whatever. I know there are exceptions everywhere and the points I made above are just some considerations I've made from my experience and from the experience of my friend over his 5 year adventure and what he told me. I'm also aware of a lot of success stories of such as micro credit. Please CMV if you can, I really hope to be wrong. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Africa, economically speaking, is not going to be the next China, at least not in the medium term. An entrepeneur friend of mine has been investing in Africa, to be specific in the west part of the continent (Senegal, Mauritania, Ivory Coast, Benin Camerun). He has been investing there for about 5 years in the agricultural sector (he's trying to sell farming automation machine and commodities). He is firmly convinced that Africa's economy is going to experience an extensive growth as China's has been doing during the last couple of decades, although he hasn't made a profit yet. He didn't provide me with specific reasons behind his view, he says he "just feels it", which is what bothers me a bit... I don't agree in the slightest with him, here is why: 1) West African countries, with the exception of some places, lack trustworthy infrastructures to do business with: for example, my friend has problems dealing with institutions there, he also experienced loss of track of a simple payment by the very own bank he was working with. People there almost always want to make a company (partenariat, I think, I don't speak that much French, sorry) even before the business idea has been layed out and ask you to pour in all the initial capital. This seems to be too much shady IMHO. 2) West African countries lack the technology and the know how that Europe, China and the US have developed over the last centuries. 3) West African countries lack a strong national identity, they're not countries as we may, for instance, define China, Germany or the UK. There is little sense of unity and national interests. Also compared to China, the government there seems to have little to zero influence. 4) People there, in general, seems to be focused on the quick buck rather than on a long term growing strategy for their business. 5) Last but not least, chinese culture seems (at the best of my current knowledge) very work focused, with a strong desire to succed. Also savings are a strong point of many chinese people I know. None of these traits seems to be reflected in west african countries' culture. Please don't take this as a "West African countries/people are crap", I'm not trying to bully anyone or to be racist or whatever. I know there are exceptions everywhere and the points I made above are just some considerations I've made from my experience and from the experience of my friend over his 5 year adventure and what he told me. I'm also aware of a lot of success stories of such as micro credit. Please CMV if you can, I really hope to be wrong.

t3_1i3d5t

I believe it isn't acceptable for animals to suffer so that we can eat meat. Not unless you have to eat meat to survive. CMV.

I’m currently a vegetarian due to my opposition of factory farming. I used to eat meat and decided to only eat what I killed myself (I was an avid hunter/fisherman) and that eventually lead into eating no meat at all. I find factory farming appalling and I will continue to be unsupportive of these farms. That being said, I’ve lived this lifestyle for the better part of 3 years now and the thought of eating meat makes me feel guilty. I get this guilty feeling regardless of how the animal lived and died. I feel like I over empathize with animal suffering but I think what I’m feeling is justified. I cannot seem to shake that most animals that are killed for food should not have been killed. Humans aren’t at a point in time in which we need to eat meat. Regardless of whether or not it’s a good source of protein it’s definitely an unnecessary source. Also, regardless of whether humans adapted to eating meat it remains unnecessary to do so. People often ask me if I would eat meat if it was test tube grown. I would. It involves zero to little animal suffering. People also ask me if I were stuck on an island if I would kill animals to eat. I may. It may be a situation in which I’d need to kill in order to survive. I’m interested in eating non factory-farmed meat again but I can’t seem to make myself do it without feeling terrible.

I believe it isn't acceptable for animals to suffer so that we can eat meat. Not unless you have to eat meat to survive. CMV. I’m currently a vegetarian due to my opposition of factory farming. I used to eat meat and decided to only eat what I killed myself (I was an avid hunter/fisherman) and that eventually lead into eating no meat at all. I find factory farming appalling and I will continue to be unsupportive of these farms. That being said, I’ve lived this lifestyle for the better part of 3 years now and the thought of eating meat makes me feel guilty. I get this guilty feeling regardless of how the animal lived and died. I feel like I over empathize with animal suffering but I think what I’m feeling is justified. I cannot seem to shake that most animals that are killed for food should not have been killed. Humans aren’t at a point in time in which we need to eat meat. Regardless of whether or not it’s a good source of protein it’s definitely an unnecessary source. Also, regardless of whether humans adapted to eating meat it remains unnecessary to do so. People often ask me if I would eat meat if it was test tube grown. I would. It involves zero to little animal suffering. People also ask me if I were stuck on an island if I would kill animals to eat. I may. It may be a situation in which I’d need to kill in order to survive. I’m interested in eating non factory-farmed meat again but I can’t seem to make myself do it without feeling terrible.

t3_369x8t

CMV: Making ISPs disable internet access to websites which facilitate copyright infringement is okay.

This relates to measures taken in the European Union, and especially the UK, where ISPs such as BT and Sky have been forced by a court to disable access to the pirate bay and h33t. I think that even though it would be preferable to target the actual infringing parties, this has so far proven to be incredibly ineffective. Targeting ISPs, which are limited in numbers (unlike the users) and can actually be forced to comply with a court order (unlike the website operators), seems like the lesser of two evils. Whether online content should be blocked on copyright grounds at all is of course another matter. Regarding that, I believe that copyright does have some value, even if its current time limits are too long. It is therefore worth protecting. Secondly, even if we believe copyright should be changed, it should be done through the legal system, not by breaking the law for personal gain. _____ > *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: Making ISPs disable internet access to websites which facilitate copyright infringement is okay. This relates to measures taken in the European Union, and especially the UK, where ISPs such as BT and Sky have been forced by a court to disable access to the pirate bay and h33t. I think that even though it would be preferable to target the actual infringing parties, this has so far proven to be incredibly ineffective. Targeting ISPs, which are limited in numbers (unlike the users) and can actually be forced to comply with a court order (unlike the website operators), seems like the lesser of two evils. Whether online content should be blocked on copyright grounds at all is of course another matter. Regarding that, I believe that copyright does have some value, even if its current time limits are too long. It is therefore worth protecting. Secondly, even if we believe copyright should be changed, it should be done through the legal system, not by breaking the law for personal gain.

t3_1d73k3

I believe income taxes are immoral and equivalent to theft. CMV

I believe that individuals own themselves and therefore own the product of their labor. The state taking a portion of the money people earn through threat of violence (you can get locked in a cage if you don't pay taxes) is no better than a mugger with a knife threatening to stab you if you don't give him your wallet. To clarify I am also against property taxes and other direct taxation for the same reasons. When I say immoral I am referring to the non-aggression principle view of morality; any initiation of force on individuals is inherently immoral. Feel free to try and CMV on the NAP as well. If it matters I consider myself a libertarian/voluntaryist. Edit: I've talked about sales taxes on luxury goods as being acceptable, but people have pointed out that isn't being consistent. It is still money being taken through threat of violence. I've been on the fence about minarchism vs. anarcho-capitalism. Providing services for society through coercion is undesirable, a minarchist state would still have to do this in some fashion. A free market with individuals interacting voluntarily is the only moral way to solve problems collectively. So I would say at this point I am an anarcho-capitalist. Feel free to CMV on this too. Edit 2: Question for mods, is there a limit on how many deltas I can hand out? Lots of good points being made. Didn't expect this big of a response, I will respond to the rest of you tomorrow.

I believe income taxes are immoral and equivalent to theft. CMV. I believe that individuals own themselves and therefore own the product of their labor. The state taking a portion of the money people earn through threat of violence (you can get locked in a cage if you don't pay taxes) is no better than a mugger with a knife threatening to stab you if you don't give him your wallet. To clarify I am also against property taxes and other direct taxation for the same reasons. When I say immoral I am referring to the non-aggression principle view of morality; any initiation of force on individuals is inherently immoral. Feel free to try and CMV on the NAP as well. If it matters I consider myself a libertarian/voluntaryist. Edit: I've talked about sales taxes on luxury goods as being acceptable, but people have pointed out that isn't being consistent. It is still money being taken through threat of violence. I've been on the fence about minarchism vs. anarcho-capitalism. Providing services for society through coercion is undesirable, a minarchist state would still have to do this in some fashion. A free market with individuals interacting voluntarily is the only moral way to solve problems collectively. So I would say at this point I am an anarcho-capitalist. Feel free to CMV on this too. Edit 2: Question for mods, is there a limit on how many deltas I can hand out? Lots of good points being made. Didn't expect this big of a response, I will respond to the rest of you tomorrow.

t3_1vy5sf

I believe that drag performers are participating in the equivalent of blackface/minstrel shows for transgender individuals. CMV.

A few years ago I went to a drag show at a local gay bar, and an MtF friend of mine got in a huff about it. She explained that, due to the exaggeration of masculinity/femininity that the shows portray, as well as lampooning the idea of cross-dressing/gender bending, it was damaging and offensive to trans individuals. She drew the comparison to blackface and how parallel exaggerations were used to demean people of African heritage at the turn of the 19th century. I countered with the notion that (predominantly) gay male performers were marginalized as well, to which she pointed out that a non-white person in blackface would be equally offensive. I also tried to use the argument that they were also part of the transgender spectrum, and she pointed out that a lot, if not most of the performers were not experiencing any sort of gender dysphoria, but were merely doing it for the "fun". I went to the show that night anyway and saw a drag performer doing a caricature of a geisha girl as well as others also exploiting cultural stereotypes. It was then that I fully understood my friend's point. I've been opposed to the shows ever since. No one I know, including the performers themselves have ever been able to give me a good reason why the shows aren't offensive and why a progressive LGBT community wouldn't oppose their existence. I think Reddit can. CMV.

I believe that drag performers are participating in the equivalent of blackface/minstrel shows for transgender individuals. CMV. A few years ago I went to a drag show at a local gay bar, and an MtF friend of mine got in a huff about it. She explained that, due to the exaggeration of masculinity/femininity that the shows portray, as well as lampooning the idea of cross-dressing/gender bending, it was damaging and offensive to trans individuals. She drew the comparison to blackface and how parallel exaggerations were used to demean people of African heritage at the turn of the 19th century. I countered with the notion that (predominantly) gay male performers were marginalized as well, to which she pointed out that a non-white person in blackface would be equally offensive. I also tried to use the argument that they were also part of the transgender spectrum, and she pointed out that a lot, if not most of the performers were not experiencing any sort of gender dysphoria, but were merely doing it for the "fun". I went to the show that night anyway and saw a drag performer doing a caricature of a geisha girl as well as others also exploiting cultural stereotypes. It was then that I fully understood my friend's point. I've been opposed to the shows ever since. No one I know, including the performers themselves have ever been able to give me a good reason why the shows aren't offensive and why a progressive LGBT community wouldn't oppose their existence. I think Reddit can. CMV.

t3_1xteb6

I believe America's Health Class is useless and teaches to do things that the PTA wants, which is irrelevant for education. CMV!

When I was in 8th Grade they had a police officer tell us how bad drugs were. I wasn't a stoner but my brother is (and was at the time) and he tried to stop me from smoking at every opportunity. He taught me how good marijuana is but how it should never become a habit. The officer taught two things, first he claimed marijuana can cause cancer and the second was how highly addictive it was. I called him out and absolutely protested and I was suspended and I was moved from the class. This showed me that they are using false information to convince kids not to smoke a *plant*. This is absolutely ridiculous. When I was a sophomore we had to go to health class and pass it to graduate. So I was forced to. There they taught abstinence and alcoholism. I have nothing against alcoholism but abstinence is completely unnecessary to be "taught". They make you do these tests to write down inaccurate information and then claim it is a fact. Abstinence is complete bullshit and they should not be involved with who I have sex with. Health Class should be teaching anatomy and how to take care of your body, not how to wear a purity ring and stay away from drugs. Now drugs are bad for your body but they should use accurate information and not support the war on drugs by targeting marijuana. Please try to change my view on this, I am up for debate. Edit: Spelling

I believe America's Health Class is useless and teaches to do things that the PTA wants, which is irrelevant for education. CMV!. When I was in 8th Grade they had a police officer tell us how bad drugs were. I wasn't a stoner but my brother is (and was at the time) and he tried to stop me from smoking at every opportunity. He taught me how good marijuana is but how it should never become a habit. The officer taught two things, first he claimed marijuana can cause cancer and the second was how highly addictive it was. I called him out and absolutely protested and I was suspended and I was moved from the class. This showed me that they are using false information to convince kids not to smoke a *plant*. This is absolutely ridiculous. When I was a sophomore we had to go to health class and pass it to graduate. So I was forced to. There they taught abstinence and alcoholism. I have nothing against alcoholism but abstinence is completely unnecessary to be "taught". They make you do these tests to write down inaccurate information and then claim it is a fact. Abstinence is complete bullshit and they should not be involved with who I have sex with. Health Class should be teaching anatomy and how to take care of your body, not how to wear a purity ring and stay away from drugs. Now drugs are bad for your body but they should use accurate information and not support the war on drugs by targeting marijuana. Please try to change my view on this, I am up for debate. Edit: Spelling

t3_38lt1n

CMV:I no longer believe in supporting digital media publishers because even when I do the right thing, I get fucked.

I bought a lot of games, and I do mean a lot. I bought them even though other people are using bootleg copies because it was the right thing to do and because I didn't want to risk getting in trouble. However, the people who get the bootleg copy do not need to put a disk in the drive to play the game, because the bootleg copies come pre-cracked. This is important today, where a lot of modern computers do not ship with optical drives. Toting around a bunch of DVDs to play in a laptop because I was stupid enough to actually buy the game feels like the developers and publishers are just knifing me in the nuts for supporting them. My other option is to use cracks, which is legally questionable and comes with the risk of malware. I'm not even talking about new games, either. Many of them are PC games from the PS2 generation. If they insist on shoving malware on me for buying the games, why can't they at least take it out when the product is past its prime so I can enjoy what I paid for on fair terms without opening myself to risks? If they expect IP rights to last so long, why are they not forced to support a product for that same length of time? The solution is to never support any of these publishers again, because clearly the objective is to fuck me over and run. _____ > *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 no longer believe in supporting digital media publishers because even when I do the right thing, I get fucked. I bought a lot of games, and I do mean a lot. I bought them even though other people are using bootleg copies because it was the right thing to do and because I didn't want to risk getting in trouble. However, the people who get the bootleg copy do not need to put a disk in the drive to play the game, because the bootleg copies come pre-cracked. This is important today, where a lot of modern computers do not ship with optical drives. Toting around a bunch of DVDs to play in a laptop because I was stupid enough to actually buy the game feels like the developers and publishers are just knifing me in the nuts for supporting them. My other option is to use cracks, which is legally questionable and comes with the risk of malware. I'm not even talking about new games, either. Many of them are PC games from the PS2 generation. If they insist on shoving malware on me for buying the games, why can't they at least take it out when the product is past its prime so I can enjoy what I paid for on fair terms without opening myself to risks? If they expect IP rights to last so long, why are they not forced to support a product for that same length of time? The solution is to never support any of these publishers again, because clearly the objective is to fuck me over and run.

t3_37jfl3

CMV: in the world there's only "the good" and "the bad".

I'm not a native english speaker so excuse me. Alright, it seems like in this world there are only the good things and the bad things, the black and white, and though I believe the world is not black and white and there is a grey area in between, what is that grey area? I haven't been able to figure it out like, for example: a man steals food from a shop because he doesn't have enough money and he needs to feed his kids, then he gets caught and taken to prison. Though he did something "bad" (stealing) for a "good" cause (feed his children), he still did something bad therefore he gets a punishment. Where's the grey in that? I don't know. That's one of my confusions, the grey between the black and white. To be clear, I'm not bigoted or religious and I understand there are diferent types of good and different types of bad depending on your context, where you live. The other thing I'm confused about and that is fairly linked to the first one is if there's something besides "the good" and "the bad". I personaly live by trying to do the good but I also think that the bad is necesary until a certain degree. 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: in the world there's only "the good" and "the bad". I'm not a native english speaker so excuse me. Alright, it seems like in this world there are only the good things and the bad things, the black and white, and though I believe the world is not black and white and there is a grey area in between, what is that grey area? I haven't been able to figure it out like, for example: a man steals food from a shop because he doesn't have enough money and he needs to feed his kids, then he gets caught and taken to prison. Though he did something "bad" (stealing) for a "good" cause (feed his children), he still did something bad therefore he gets a punishment. Where's the grey in that? I don't know. That's one of my confusions, the grey between the black and white. To be clear, I'm not bigoted or religious and I understand there are diferent types of good and different types of bad depending on your context, where you live. The other thing I'm confused about and that is fairly linked to the first one is if there's something besides "the good" and "the bad". I personaly live by trying to do the good but I also think that the bad is necesary until a certain degree. CMV!

t3_1vj3tp

I think the new "P5 Group" is good for college football. CMV

As per this article that came out yesterday: http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaa-poised-to-create-separate-division-for-sec--big-ten--acc--pac-12--big-12-212725211.html?soc_src=mediacontentstory To sum it up, a new voting group of the most powerful 5 conferences (the SEC, B1G, ACC, Big 12, and Pac 12) could shake up the rules in the near future for college football. Essentially, this new deal separates the P5 for the rest of the FBS subdivision as far further changes to NCAA guidelines. With this new voting block, new rules on the value and compensation of players may come into fashion. I think that this is good because in reality, despite a few very competitive outliers, this was already the case (especially after the collapse of the Big East). These conferences are on a different level of ability to compete in college football as is, and separating them from the pack only serves to make each group more competitive among their peers. CMV

I think the new "P5 Group" is good for college football. CMV. As per this article that came out yesterday: http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaa-poised-to-create-separate-division-for-sec--big-ten--acc--pac-12--big-12-212725211.html?soc_src=mediacontentstory To sum it up, a new voting group of the most powerful 5 conferences (the SEC, B1G, ACC, Big 12, and Pac 12) could shake up the rules in the near future for college football. Essentially, this new deal separates the P5 for the rest of the FBS subdivision as far further changes to NCAA guidelines. With this new voting block, new rules on the value and compensation of players may come into fashion. I think that this is good because in reality, despite a few very competitive outliers, this was already the case (especially after the collapse of the Big East). These conferences are on a different level of ability to compete in college football as is, and separating them from the pack only serves to make each group more competitive among their peers. CMV

t3_2dy3mw

CMV: Tupac Shakur was a violent rapist who glorified gang culture in his music and never lived up to the 'peace loving messenger' image he's developed today.

For every song with a positive message like 'Keep ya head up' or 'Changes', he's got 10 more that glorify gang violence and shootings. The idea that he was non-violent is totally at odds with the music he actually made. A brief glance at his [wikipedia page](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupac_Shakur#Personal_life) will also show you that he was an exceptionally violent person: He assaulted another rapper with a baseball bat in 1993, and assaulted a film director in 1994. In both cases he plead guilty. He was also found guilty of gang raping a woman in a hotel, a crime for which he was sent to prison. With anybody else, those three crimes would be enough to judge someone as an extremely violent and unsafe person highly unsuited to be a role model for anybody, but for some reason he's earned a reputation for being some kinda hip-hop gandhi. There are plenty of legendary rappers like Mos Def, Nas and Andre 3000 whose positive messages are overlooked in favour of Tupac, despite managing to avoid assaulting or raping people. The fact that Tupac garners as much respect as he does is symptomatic of massive immaturity in certain parts of the hip-hop community.

CMV: Tupac Shakur was a violent rapist who glorified gang culture in his music and never lived up to the 'peace loving messenger' image he's developed today. For every song with a positive message like 'Keep ya head up' or 'Changes', he's got 10 more that glorify gang violence and shootings. The idea that he was non-violent is totally at odds with the music he actually made. A brief glance at his [wikipedia page](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupac_Shakur#Personal_life) will also show you that he was an exceptionally violent person: He assaulted another rapper with a baseball bat in 1993, and assaulted a film director in 1994. In both cases he plead guilty. He was also found guilty of gang raping a woman in a hotel, a crime for which he was sent to prison. With anybody else, those three crimes would be enough to judge someone as an extremely violent and unsafe person highly unsuited to be a role model for anybody, but for some reason he's earned a reputation for being some kinda hip-hop gandhi. There are plenty of legendary rappers like Mos Def, Nas and Andre 3000 whose positive messages are overlooked in favour of Tupac, despite managing to avoid assaulting or raping people. The fact that Tupac garners as much respect as he does is symptomatic of massive immaturity in certain parts of the hip-hop community.

t3_2yyb1m

CMV: Stove-popped popcorn is the perfect at-home junk food.

Popcorn is the perfect snack food. I can buy 4lbs of popcorn kernels for $12 on Amazon[1] or slightly more expensive in my corner store and it lasts forever because I only pop 2tbsp at a time, maybe three if I want a really big snack, so it's much much cheaper than cookies or potato chips. Since they're raw kernels they aren't seasoned and are low calorie/low fat, they're also a complex carbohydrate[2]. I can eat them with salt or sugar or cheese sprinkled on top depending on what kind of snack I want. It's easy to make, just put 1tbsp oil in a pot with 2tbsp of kernels, takes about three minutes for the oil to heat up and pop the whole lot perfectly, unlike microwave popcorn which almost always ends up either burned or partially popped, and is often covered in butter and incredibly unhealthy. You can cook it in any kind of oil you want, making it as healthy or unhealthy as you want. Eating it with no seasoning is great for hangovers. It doesn't leave crumbs everywhere like cookies, and it doesn't leave your fingers covered in grease or dust like chips (unless you use butter, but I'm assuming for this that buttered popcorn is out because that makes it a lot more hassle and takes away all of the benefits). Buying a huge bag of potato chips or cookies ends with them going stale before you finish them, but since the kernels are unpopped you can buy loads at once and never run out of snacks, because they don't go stale. I have a 30oz jar of kernels in my pantry that, if popped, would make 157.5 cups of popcorn (no source on this, you'll have to trust me that serving size is 3tbsp unpopped -> 7.5 cups popped, 21 servings/jar) which is the equivalent of 17 medium popcorn buckets from the movie theatre[3] If you're too lazy to do it on the stove you can get an air popper that pops it without even needing oil, just put the kernels in and turn it on, you might say that's an extra expense but you can afford it with all the money you're saving buying popcorn kernels for snacks instead of cookies or potato chips which are both more expensive. Other things that people might consider junk food, since I've only really compared to the two 'classic' junk foods, cookies and chips. * Hummus: Expensive, not really junk-food-like, cheap if home made but way more of a hassle up front. * Pretzels: I think pretzels are boring as hell. And they can't be salty or sweet or cheesy, unless you buy three varieties, and they still suffer from going stale. * Dried salted peas: These are good as hell, but they're kind of hard to find. They do last forever though. Never tried making them. Friends would probably balk at the idea of being offered peas as a junk food. * Mixed nuts: Expensive as hell, I'm poor. * Pork rinds: High in fat, gotta eat an animal. * Granola Bars: These do not fill me up at all. * Rasins: Boring, not satiating. * Apples/other fruits: Gotta keep them around and eat them quick enough for them to not spoil. Pretty good otherwise though. * Saltines: What are you, Oliver Twist? I'm not eating plain saltines. That kind of turned into the junk food review, but I can't think of anything else people regularly eat as junk food right now. Change my view! Sources below. [1](http://www.amazon.com/Snappy-Yellow-Popcorn-4-Pounds/dp/B003832GRQ/) [2](http://www.popcorn.org/NutritionRecipes/tabid/56/Default.aspx) [3](http://www.livestrong.com/article/311375-the-calories-in-amc-movie-theater-popcorn/) _____ > *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: Stove-popped popcorn is the perfect at-home junk food. Popcorn is the perfect snack food. I can buy 4lbs of popcorn kernels for $12 on Amazon[1] or slightly more expensive in my corner store and it lasts forever because I only pop 2tbsp at a time, maybe three if I want a really big snack, so it's much much cheaper than cookies or potato chips. Since they're raw kernels they aren't seasoned and are low calorie/low fat, they're also a complex carbohydrate[2]. I can eat them with salt or sugar or cheese sprinkled on top depending on what kind of snack I want. It's easy to make, just put 1tbsp oil in a pot with 2tbsp of kernels, takes about three minutes for the oil to heat up and pop the whole lot perfectly, unlike microwave popcorn which almost always ends up either burned or partially popped, and is often covered in butter and incredibly unhealthy. You can cook it in any kind of oil you want, making it as healthy or unhealthy as you want. Eating it with no seasoning is great for hangovers. It doesn't leave crumbs everywhere like cookies, and it doesn't leave your fingers covered in grease or dust like chips (unless you use butter, but I'm assuming for this that buttered popcorn is out because that makes it a lot more hassle and takes away all of the benefits). Buying a huge bag of potato chips or cookies ends with them going stale before you finish them, but since the kernels are unpopped you can buy loads at once and never run out of snacks, because they don't go stale. I have a 30oz jar of kernels in my pantry that, if popped, would make 157.5 cups of popcorn (no source on this, you'll have to trust me that serving size is 3tbsp unpopped -> 7.5 cups popped, 21 servings/jar) which is the equivalent of 17 medium popcorn buckets from the movie theatre[3] If you're too lazy to do it on the stove you can get an air popper that pops it without even needing oil, just put the kernels in and turn it on, you might say that's an extra expense but you can afford it with all the money you're saving buying popcorn kernels for snacks instead of cookies or potato chips which are both more expensive. Other things that people might consider junk food, since I've only really compared to the two 'classic' junk foods, cookies and chips. * Hummus: Expensive, not really junk-food-like, cheap if home made but way more of a hassle up front. * Pretzels: I think pretzels are boring as hell. And they can't be salty or sweet or cheesy, unless you buy three varieties, and they still suffer from going stale. * Dried salted peas: These are good as hell, but they're kind of hard to find. They do last forever though. Never tried making them. Friends would probably balk at the idea of being offered peas as a junk food. * Mixed nuts: Expensive as hell, I'm poor. * Pork rinds: High in fat, gotta eat an animal. * Granola Bars: These do not fill me up at all. * Rasins: Boring, not satiating. * Apples/other fruits: Gotta keep them around and eat them quick enough for them to not spoil. Pretty good otherwise though. * Saltines: What are you, Oliver Twist? I'm not eating plain saltines. That kind of turned into the junk food review, but I can't think of anything else people regularly eat as junk food right now. Change my view! Sources below. [1](http://www.amazon.com/Snappy-Yellow-Popcorn-4-Pounds/dp/B003832GRQ/) [2](http://www.popcorn.org/NutritionRecipes/tabid/56/Default.aspx) [3](http://www.livestrong.com/article/311375-the-calories-in-amc-movie-theater-popcorn/)

t3_70ph0r

CMV: STL Officer Jason Stockley was rightfully *not* convicted of murder

I'm not a blue lives person or politically on the right and am always skeptical of courts showing way too much lenience and imbalance to cops, but on what evidence could he have been convicted of killing Anthony Lamar Smith? Smith was driving out of control in an urban area and after being forcefully stopped, the only picture evidence is a obfuscated "scuffle." It is within reason that Stockley was threatened and responded with deadly force. Yes, he uttered a "desire" to kill the dude in the patrol car, but that can honestly be dismissed as trash talk. The handgun in the victim's car without the victim's prints is very odd and the officer admitted to sometimes carrying non-authorized weapons, but all that does is establish suspicion. Is there something I'm missing here as a member of the public? Was there evidence to convict or not? Was this a miscarriage of justice? _____ > *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: STL Officer Jason Stockley was rightfully *not* convicted of murder. I'm not a blue lives person or politically on the right and am always skeptical of courts showing way too much lenience and imbalance to cops, but on what evidence could he have been convicted of killing Anthony Lamar Smith? Smith was driving out of control in an urban area and after being forcefully stopped, the only picture evidence is a obfuscated "scuffle." It is within reason that Stockley was threatened and responded with deadly force. Yes, he uttered a "desire" to kill the dude in the patrol car, but that can honestly be dismissed as trash talk. The handgun in the victim's car without the victim's prints is very odd and the officer admitted to sometimes carrying non-authorized weapons, but all that does is establish suspicion. Is there something I'm missing here as a member of the public? Was there evidence to convict or not? Was this a miscarriage of justice?

t3_507t3k

CMV: Gender re-identification supports the notion of fixed gender norms

Let us assume we are only talking about transgender people who originally have a very well-defined biological sex. It's been a lingering opinion of mine that my (relatively sparse) conversation with transgender people or transgender sympathizers has not been able to adequately dispel. As far as I know, there are many transgender people who simultaneously believe 1) the rigidity of societal gender norms is irrational, and 2) they themselves ought to be referred to as having a gender opposite to their biological sex. These two opinions are contradictory to me. If they believe that a cis man ought to be allowed to cry at chick flicks or paint his fingernails (not to reduce all of transgender inclinations to such basic examples) without public scorn, why should any biological male be motivated to say e.g. "I identify as a woman from now on" rather than "I identify as a man who legitimately enjoys chick flicks and painting my nails"? I cannot conceive of any other motivation for the former other than a belief that such things as chick flicks and nail painting have *no place* in the "male identity" (which must exist, even in one's ideal philosophy, if one believes there to be a significant personal difference between identifying as a man versus identifying as a woman), that it is *not possible* to incorporate these aspects of one's personality into a male identity, etc. As I understand it, a transgender person believes that their personality features make it evident that their "true" gender is opposite to their biological sex, and thus it is inaccurate/unjust to refer to them as such: their identity cannot be understood in the male/female context. But that presupposes the existence of very rigid male and female contexts, ones that exist even in their ideal philosophy. What do they make of the above cis man who proudly enjoyed *The Notebook*? Do they claim he's merely in denial about his identity? I do not understand the consistency in any other position. _____ > *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: Gender re-identification supports the notion of fixed gender norms. Let us assume we are only talking about transgender people who originally have a very well-defined biological sex. It's been a lingering opinion of mine that my (relatively sparse) conversation with transgender people or transgender sympathizers has not been able to adequately dispel. As far as I know, there are many transgender people who simultaneously believe 1) the rigidity of societal gender norms is irrational, and 2) they themselves ought to be referred to as having a gender opposite to their biological sex. These two opinions are contradictory to me. If they believe that a cis man ought to be allowed to cry at chick flicks or paint his fingernails (not to reduce all of transgender inclinations to such basic examples) without public scorn, why should any biological male be motivated to say e.g. "I identify as a woman from now on" rather than "I identify as a man who legitimately enjoys chick flicks and painting my nails"? I cannot conceive of any other motivation for the former other than a belief that such things as chick flicks and nail painting have *no place* in the "male identity" (which must exist, even in one's ideal philosophy, if one believes there to be a significant personal difference between identifying as a man versus identifying as a woman), that it is *not possible* to incorporate these aspects of one's personality into a male identity, etc. As I understand it, a transgender person believes that their personality features make it evident that their "true" gender is opposite to their biological sex, and thus it is inaccurate/unjust to refer to them as such: their identity cannot be understood in the male/female context. But that presupposes the existence of very rigid male and female contexts, ones that exist even in their ideal philosophy. What do they make of the above cis man who proudly enjoyed *The Notebook*? Do they claim he's merely in denial about his identity? I do not understand the consistency in any other position.

t3_3ij6zt

CMV: I agree with smacking children as punishment

Basically, me and my girlfriend disagree on whether smacking is ever acceptable, so I'm coming here to see if I can have my view changed. I believe that in a situation where, having attempted to use more reasoned methods of discipline or persuasion, a child is still behaving badly/doing something they shouldn't then there is nothing wrong with smacking them, as long as it's not in a way that causes genuine unreasonable pain. I view it more as a symbolic method of demonstrating that they've done something wrong. I am more than happy to have my view changed on this, and I'd actually probably prefer to change my mind! Thanks. _____ > *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 agree with smacking children as punishment. Basically, me and my girlfriend disagree on whether smacking is ever acceptable, so I'm coming here to see if I can have my view changed. I believe that in a situation where, having attempted to use more reasoned methods of discipline or persuasion, a child is still behaving badly/doing something they shouldn't then there is nothing wrong with smacking them, as long as it's not in a way that causes genuine unreasonable pain. I view it more as a symbolic method of demonstrating that they've done something wrong. I am more than happy to have my view changed on this, and I'd actually probably prefer to change my mind! Thanks.

t3_35ergs

CMV: I think a 25 year old female teacher 'consentually' sleeping with a 15 year old student is basically fine, and a 25 year old male teacher doing the same thing is completely inexcusable

So, this clearly seems to be illogical for someone like myself who believes in equality and most gender differences being societally induced and not innate. Am I just echoing back what society has drilled into me? How do I change a view like this that isn't logically arrived at but a revelation of my prejudices? Obvious influences on me are bullshit things like: * "Women don't really like sex" * "Women aren't threatening in any way, especially sexually" * "Non-penetrative rape isn't real rape" * "Men are gross/only women are sexy" * "Only men rape" * "Being penetrated is demeaning/inherently damaging" So yeah, I can line up things that might be influencing me to think this way, but even looking at them and thinking they're nonsense, I totally think it's just not a real issue if the teacher's a woman and a huge issue if it's a guy. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I think a 25 year old female teacher 'consentually' sleeping with a 15 year old student is basically fine, and a 25 year old male teacher doing the same thing is completely inexcusable. So, this clearly seems to be illogical for someone like myself who believes in equality and most gender differences being societally induced and not innate. Am I just echoing back what society has drilled into me? How do I change a view like this that isn't logically arrived at but a revelation of my prejudices? Obvious influences on me are bullshit things like: * "Women don't really like sex" * "Women aren't threatening in any way, especially sexually" * "Non-penetrative rape isn't real rape" * "Men are gross/only women are sexy" * "Only men rape" * "Being penetrated is demeaning/inherently damaging" So yeah, I can line up things that might be influencing me to think this way, but even looking at them and thinking they're nonsense, I totally think it's just not a real issue if the teacher's a woman and a huge issue if it's a guy.

t3_1kmvjx

I believe that, as an adult (over 18), it should be illegal to have consensual/non-consensual sex with a minor. CMV.

A very common opinion on Reddit is that consent laws should be abolished and that there is nothing inherently wrong with a grown adult engaging in a sexual relations with children. I would argue that: 1. Minors are, more often than not, incapable of deciding what is best for them, especially when it comes to adult relationships. 2. Minors are not capable of understanding serious relationships because hormones. 3. A full-grown adult being in a romantic relationship with a child who is still developing, both physically and mentally, is taking advantage and will 9 times out of 10 negatively affect the development of the younger party. I have no statistics for this point, this is just my unprofessional opinion. Please, I ask you, change my view. **EDIT: Not a single person wanted to have a discussion here. Everyone kept bringing up the mythical "18y/o with a 17/yo" situation which is obviously not the issue that I was getting at. Instead, the question was dodged and I was attacked and downvoted in response. Sagan forbid that someone on Reddit actually wants to have a serious discussion about euphebophila/pedophilia. I bet if I had said "I believe a 40 year old neckbeard wielding a fedora and a bag of cheetos should be able to have sex with a 12 year old girl", this would be at the top without question.** **I just wish that if you disagree with me, you could refrain from avoiding the question, actually engage in a discussion and attempt to CHANGE MY VIEW instead of just applying your fingerless gloves and going on about a scenario that rarely ever happens. There's not even a point in responding to the rest of the comments because I'm just going to be negatively received with downvotes. Oh well, I guess I should have been more clear in my original post.**

I believe that, as an adult (over 18), it should be illegal to have consensual/non-consensual sex with a minor. CMV. A very common opinion on Reddit is that consent laws should be abolished and that there is nothing inherently wrong with a grown adult engaging in a sexual relations with children. I would argue that: 1. Minors are, more often than not, incapable of deciding what is best for them, especially when it comes to adult relationships. 2. Minors are not capable of understanding serious relationships because hormones. 3. A full-grown adult being in a romantic relationship with a child who is still developing, both physically and mentally, is taking advantage and will 9 times out of 10 negatively affect the development of the younger party. I have no statistics for this point, this is just my unprofessional opinion. Please, I ask you, change my view. **EDIT: Not a single person wanted to have a discussion here. Everyone kept bringing up the mythical "18y/o with a 17/yo" situation which is obviously not the issue that I was getting at. Instead, the question was dodged and I was attacked and downvoted in response. Sagan forbid that someone on Reddit actually wants to have a serious discussion about euphebophila/pedophilia. I bet if I had said "I believe a 40 year old neckbeard wielding a fedora and a bag of cheetos should be able to have sex with a 12 year old girl", this would be at the top without question.** **I just wish that if you disagree with me, you could refrain from avoiding the question, actually engage in a discussion and attempt to CHANGE MY VIEW instead of just applying your fingerless gloves and going on about a scenario that rarely ever happens. There's not even a point in responding to the rest of the comments because I'm just going to be negatively received with downvotes. Oh well, I guess I should have been more clear in my original post.**

t3_6oljw4

CMV: It is absurd to compare factory farming to the holocaust. Factory farming is much worse.

Lions might kill elk and thus live on suffering to survive, but they do so on a relatively small scale. They are incapable of causing devastation on an apocalyptic level. Humans, on the other hand, with their combined complete lack of concern over non-human suffering and extremely powerful organization and engineering abilities, have caused what I'm aware of is the single greatest tragedy the earth has ever seen. They have practically brought forth a new mass extinction, but I think the simpler example of their untold suffering is the advent of factory farming. Humans make and slaughter way over ten billion livestock per year. If you live in America, you probably eat meat, and you have probably eaten many times your weight in the remains of other animals bred and killed for you. Those animals that you've eaten suffered when they died just as much as you would if you were thrown into a grinder or your legs broke because you couldn't hold your body-weight. In order to believe that the extreme suffering of those less than ten million people (which was also a grave tragedy of untold suffering) was more important than the suffering imposed from birth to death of these hundreds of billions of animals over the years, you'd have to believe that human sorrow was something like 10,000 times more potent. I've never been convinced this is the case. The fact that you do not care is not because of some after-the-fact apologetic magic reasoning, it is because humans don't empathize with non humans. Yes, we have arbitrary concern for pets and animals we deem companions, but just like the rest of our parts our sense of morality is an evolved characteristic we gained to improve our odds at having offspring. It does not point objectively toward a consistent truth and the sooner we collectively realize that suffering and discontent is the root of all evil the sooner we'll understand how absurd and contradictory our dismissive attitude toward "animal" suffering is. I frame the apologetics this way, that they are made in "bad faith", because in truth all of these were developed while society at large was eating meat. Humanity did not sit down, think about the moral implications, and then start hunting once they'd decided cows were too stupid to feel pain - they ate, and then once they were smart enough to think, rationalized their behavior. Because the arguments were developed as a way to excuse torture of non-humans rather than born of genuine philosophical discovery, they're all terrible. Normally I would list the major ones and talk about them in my CMV header so I could get them over with, but since there are so many of these hacked-together explanations I think it would be better if I just responded to them as they were brought up in the comment sections against my view. I will say, however, that if you're preparing to try and call me a hypocrite/"that vegan"/condescending/complicit in the animal slaughter, you are correct and I am a scumbag too. That does not make me wrong.

CMV: It is absurd to compare factory farming to the holocaust. Factory farming is much worse. Lions might kill elk and thus live on suffering to survive, but they do so on a relatively small scale. They are incapable of causing devastation on an apocalyptic level. Humans, on the other hand, with their combined complete lack of concern over non-human suffering and extremely powerful organization and engineering abilities, have caused what I'm aware of is the single greatest tragedy the earth has ever seen. They have practically brought forth a new mass extinction, but I think the simpler example of their untold suffering is the advent of factory farming. Humans make and slaughter way over ten billion livestock per year. If you live in America, you probably eat meat, and you have probably eaten many times your weight in the remains of other animals bred and killed for you. Those animals that you've eaten suffered when they died just as much as you would if you were thrown into a grinder or your legs broke because you couldn't hold your body-weight. In order to believe that the extreme suffering of those less than ten million people (which was also a grave tragedy of untold suffering) was more important than the suffering imposed from birth to death of these hundreds of billions of animals over the years, you'd have to believe that human sorrow was something like 10,000 times more potent. I've never been convinced this is the case. The fact that you do not care is not because of some after-the-fact apologetic magic reasoning, it is because humans don't empathize with non humans. Yes, we have arbitrary concern for pets and animals we deem companions, but just like the rest of our parts our sense of morality is an evolved characteristic we gained to improve our odds at having offspring. It does not point objectively toward a consistent truth and the sooner we collectively realize that suffering and discontent is the root of all evil the sooner we'll understand how absurd and contradictory our dismissive attitude toward "animal" suffering is. I frame the apologetics this way, that they are made in "bad faith", because in truth all of these were developed while society at large was eating meat. Humanity did not sit down, think about the moral implications, and then start hunting once they'd decided cows were too stupid to feel pain - they ate, and then once they were smart enough to think, rationalized their behavior. Because the arguments were developed as a way to excuse torture of non-humans rather than born of genuine philosophical discovery, they're all terrible. Normally I would list the major ones and talk about them in my CMV header so I could get them over with, but since there are so many of these hacked-together explanations I think it would be better if I just responded to them as they were brought up in the comment sections against my view. I will say, however, that if you're preparing to try and call me a hypocrite/"that vegan"/condescending/complicit in the animal slaughter, you are correct and I am a scumbag too. That does not make me wrong.

t3_5t7i0q

CMV: On Survivor, black merged tribes are a good thing.

I am a huge fan of Survivor, and one thing that many people dislike is that half the time the merged tribe is black. However, I think this is a good thing because: 1. It lets us appreciate non-black merged tribes more. 2. It's still cool to see all of the black buff designs they come out with. For instance, Dara from Kaoh Rong was a very different black than Vinaka from MvGx. 3. There is something poetic about red, yellow, and blue mixing into black. Or, alternately, orange/purple/green. 4. I'm the kind of guy who likes precedent. All right! Let's see if you can CMV! EDIT: Yes, I mean the buff color, not race. _____ > *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: On Survivor, black merged tribes are a good thing. I am a huge fan of Survivor, and one thing that many people dislike is that half the time the merged tribe is black. However, I think this is a good thing because: 1. It lets us appreciate non-black merged tribes more. 2. It's still cool to see all of the black buff designs they come out with. For instance, Dara from Kaoh Rong was a very different black than Vinaka from MvGx. 3. There is something poetic about red, yellow, and blue mixing into black. Or, alternately, orange/purple/green. 4. I'm the kind of guy who likes precedent. All right! Let's see if you can CMV! EDIT: Yes, I mean the buff color, not race.

t3_28dlsf

CMV:Tim Howard is overrated, at least in international play.

The media is constantly slurping Tim Howard. Yesterday, Ghana only had two shots on target, both of which went right at him. Yet, if you talk to people who don't know about soccer, they think Tim Howard had an amazing game because of the way the game is called and the media reports it. One ball went right at him at chest height but the ball "dipped" to his waste and the announcer went crazy when he stopped it. His other saves, although athletic, were on balls that were already going out of bounds. He also has a really bad habit of punching balls that are easily catchable. He punched out one in the first half when someone from Ghana went up for a header. Howard is significantly taller than the forward and the service was a soft lob, not a driven pass. I admittedly don't watch EPL but for team USA he has been above average at best. I was a defender/center midfielder and not a goalkeeper, so maybe someone with more expertise can tell me what he does that I'm not picking up on. _____ > *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:Tim Howard is overrated, at least in international play. The media is constantly slurping Tim Howard. Yesterday, Ghana only had two shots on target, both of which went right at him. Yet, if you talk to people who don't know about soccer, they think Tim Howard had an amazing game because of the way the game is called and the media reports it. One ball went right at him at chest height but the ball "dipped" to his waste and the announcer went crazy when he stopped it. His other saves, although athletic, were on balls that were already going out of bounds. He also has a really bad habit of punching balls that are easily catchable. He punched out one in the first half when someone from Ghana went up for a header. Howard is significantly taller than the forward and the service was a soft lob, not a driven pass. I admittedly don't watch EPL but for team USA he has been above average at best. I was a defender/center midfielder and not a goalkeeper, so maybe someone with more expertise can tell me what he does that I'm not picking up on.

t3_1khlm7

CMV: I believe that the fuel economy benefits offered by hybrid cars is a myth due to a basic understanding of physics.

It is my view that the fuel efficiency of hybrid cars is an absolute myth and that this view can be supported by a very basic understanding of physics. Note that I exclude plug-in cars from this statement. The manufacturers of hybrid cars make huge claims of offering fantastic gas milage due to their hybrid technology. Their argument is that as the car has a second electric engine, it can run around without using any gas what-so-ever at low speed and for short distances. They state that the gas engine will only kick in when the extra power is needed. This combination of gas and electric leads to the most efficient possible method to build a vehicle. I would counter this view with the following three key points: 1 - In order to function, a hybrid car must have a series of very heavy batteries, a very heavy electric motor and a series of other heavy electric components (eg systems to recover lost energy during breaking). 2 - Therefore, whenever a hybrid car is driven anywhere at any speed, on gas or electric power, it is carrying the weight of all of these components. 3 - A basic understanding of physics tells us that it is physically impossible to get more energy out of something than was put into it. When we combine these three points, I reach the conclusion that the fuel efficiency offered by a hybrid is a myth. I reach the conclusion that the benefits of driving around on electric power is totally offset by the extra fuel used when on gas to carry around the batteries, motor, etc which would otherwise not be there. It is my contention that if you were to take a vehicle such as a Prius, and completely remove all of the electrical components, it would achieve a better level of fuel efficiency over a year of driving than an identical hybrid. It is my contention that hybrid cars are developed to sell as a marketing pitch, and that in actual fact a straight up efficient gas car is a much more logical and efficient way to achieve good levels of economy.

CMV: I believe that the fuel economy benefits offered by hybrid cars is a myth due to a basic understanding of physics. It is my view that the fuel efficiency of hybrid cars is an absolute myth and that this view can be supported by a very basic understanding of physics. Note that I exclude plug-in cars from this statement. The manufacturers of hybrid cars make huge claims of offering fantastic gas milage due to their hybrid technology. Their argument is that as the car has a second electric engine, it can run around without using any gas what-so-ever at low speed and for short distances. They state that the gas engine will only kick in when the extra power is needed. This combination of gas and electric leads to the most efficient possible method to build a vehicle. I would counter this view with the following three key points: 1 - In order to function, a hybrid car must have a series of very heavy batteries, a very heavy electric motor and a series of other heavy electric components (eg systems to recover lost energy during breaking). 2 - Therefore, whenever a hybrid car is driven anywhere at any speed, on gas or electric power, it is carrying the weight of all of these components. 3 - A basic understanding of physics tells us that it is physically impossible to get more energy out of something than was put into it. When we combine these three points, I reach the conclusion that the fuel efficiency offered by a hybrid is a myth. I reach the conclusion that the benefits of driving around on electric power is totally offset by the extra fuel used when on gas to carry around the batteries, motor, etc which would otherwise not be there. It is my contention that if you were to take a vehicle such as a Prius, and completely remove all of the electrical components, it would achieve a better level of fuel efficiency over a year of driving than an identical hybrid. It is my contention that hybrid cars are developed to sell as a marketing pitch, and that in actual fact a straight up efficient gas car is a much more logical and efficient way to achieve good levels of economy.

t3_5dk1p4

CMV: Citizen's United and McCutcheon open the doors for the line between speech and bribery to be dangerously blurred and determined by judges rather than the majority of voters.

Pretty much this. The only reason why the personal contribution cap still stands but the party contribution limit and pro/anti candidate advertisement caps do not is because the "appearance of quid pro quo corruption" was apparent to the four liberal justices but not the five conservative justices. This is an incredibly subjective determination and should be made by the voters normally tasked with subjective choices. Americans' effort to find a candidate unsullied by outside money was so strong that we chose the outside money itself because we thought he could not be influenced as hard. Americans were CLEARLY influenced by the appearance of corruption in all aspects of this last election, but now have to wait for an individual or organization such as the ACLU to raise a suit and have it rise to Scotus. That seems insanely unresponsive to a campaign finance system that moves with the speed of modern technological innovation. Make me more confident fellas, 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: Citizen's United and McCutcheon open the doors for the line between speech and bribery to be dangerously blurred and determined by judges rather than the majority of voters. Pretty much this. The only reason why the personal contribution cap still stands but the party contribution limit and pro/anti candidate advertisement caps do not is because the "appearance of quid pro quo corruption" was apparent to the four liberal justices but not the five conservative justices. This is an incredibly subjective determination and should be made by the voters normally tasked with subjective choices. Americans' effort to find a candidate unsullied by outside money was so strong that we chose the outside money itself because we thought he could not be influenced as hard. Americans were CLEARLY influenced by the appearance of corruption in all aspects of this last election, but now have to wait for an individual or organization such as the ACLU to raise a suit and have it rise to Scotus. That seems insanely unresponsive to a campaign finance system that moves with the speed of modern technological innovation. Make me more confident fellas, CMV. > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

t3_29ms0t

CMV: There's no way I can be a practicing Buddhist and a handloader/reloader simultaneously.

...without some sort of cognitive dissonance. (A reloader being someone who makes bullets.) I REALLY want my view to change. I know this is related to a popular post right now regarding magazines, so I'm sorry if this is too repetitive. I feel like I've been brainwashed into thinking that guns are bad. Just "bad" intrinsically, and I feel that way on such a primal level. If I tried to explain it, I would feel like it'd be just like any other person explaining a belief s/he has but doesn't really know why. Just to clarify, this CMV isn't referring to a hypothetical situation. I don't go hunting or shooting or even own a gun, so I myself am not hurting anyone. (Insert Lord of War flashback) Right Livelihood, part of the Noble Eightfold path states that "A lay follower should not engage in five types of business. Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison." Then again, my resume, if I had a proper one, would list me being a porn star, peepshow girl, cam girl, stripper.. and of course a published writer and manuscript editor. REAL QUESTION: How can I stop feeling bad about guns? _____ > *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's no way I can be a practicing Buddhist and a handloader/reloader simultaneously. ...without some sort of cognitive dissonance. (A reloader being someone who makes bullets.) I REALLY want my view to change. I know this is related to a popular post right now regarding magazines, so I'm sorry if this is too repetitive. I feel like I've been brainwashed into thinking that guns are bad. Just "bad" intrinsically, and I feel that way on such a primal level. If I tried to explain it, I would feel like it'd be just like any other person explaining a belief s/he has but doesn't really know why. Just to clarify, this CMV isn't referring to a hypothetical situation. I don't go hunting or shooting or even own a gun, so I myself am not hurting anyone. (Insert Lord of War flashback) Right Livelihood, part of the Noble Eightfold path states that "A lay follower should not engage in five types of business. Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison." Then again, my resume, if I had a proper one, would list me being a porn star, peepshow girl, cam girl, stripper.. and of course a published writer and manuscript editor. REAL QUESTION: How can I stop feeling bad about guns?

t3_1u8mzm

Demands to fix inequality is just a kinder way of wanting a bigger, high taxing government. CMV

Liberal activists and politicians from president Obama on down have been forever agitating for bigger government that confiscates more of its citizens' wealth and income. Since it is impolitic to outright demand raising taxes on the public, they have masked their goal in the form of expressing "outrage" over the supposed soaring economic inequality in America. The tell is that the solution liberals want is always in the form of higher, more expansive taxes and redistribution of those monies directed to their favored political allies, namely unions and minority groups. Alternatives like educational choice is verboten as it conflicts with the teachers unions. Economic inequality, in and of itself, is a mere mathematical calculation, not a judgment upon the well being of society. It can rise or fall when the economy is strong and when the economy is weak. There is little correlation between a measure of inequality and the standard of living of a populace. North Korea has very low inequality, but nobody thinks it's a beacon of harmony. While America is more unequal than most countries, it has also the highest standard of living, excluding tiny countries like Switzerland. Liberals point out that Scandinavian countries have low inequality and a decent life. However, Americans of Scandinavian ancestry have a higher income than their native brethren (see http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2010/01/dynamic-america-poor-europe.html). That is not to say income inequality is not a concern in extremis, but it is not, nor should it be the dominant issue of the day for most Americans. CMV.

Demands to fix inequality is just a kinder way of wanting a bigger, high taxing government. CMV. Liberal activists and politicians from president Obama on down have been forever agitating for bigger government that confiscates more of its citizens' wealth and income. Since it is impolitic to outright demand raising taxes on the public, they have masked their goal in the form of expressing "outrage" over the supposed soaring economic inequality in America. The tell is that the solution liberals want is always in the form of higher, more expansive taxes and redistribution of those monies directed to their favored political allies, namely unions and minority groups. Alternatives like educational choice is verboten as it conflicts with the teachers unions. Economic inequality, in and of itself, is a mere mathematical calculation, not a judgment upon the well being of society. It can rise or fall when the economy is strong and when the economy is weak. There is little correlation between a measure of inequality and the standard of living of a populace. North Korea has very low inequality, but nobody thinks it's a beacon of harmony. While America is more unequal than most countries, it has also the highest standard of living, excluding tiny countries like Switzerland. Liberals point out that Scandinavian countries have low inequality and a decent life. However, Americans of Scandinavian ancestry have a higher income than their native brethren (see http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2010/01/dynamic-america-poor-europe.html). That is not to say income inequality is not a concern in extremis, but it is not, nor should it be the dominant issue of the day for most Americans. CMV.

t3_1k8rcv

I think that people who always point out and bash things or people that are considered "Hipster" are more annoying than hipsters themselves CMV

I get it that a lot of people are tired of hipsters. All the irony and trying to go against all things "mainstream" gets old. But what I think gets even older is when people are constantly spotting things that others are doing or wearing such as Ray Bans, Converse or Toms shoes, beards and mustaches, bicycle riding in the city, and the myriad of other things that are often identified with hipsters and hating on the person for being "an idiot ironic hipster". A lot of those things are so popular now that if everyone who wore or did these things were a hipster then they would vastly outnumber all the "normal" people. Seriously who the fuck even cares?! I get why people get annoyed with hipsters, but I think the people who are violently and outspokenly (thats a word now) opposed to all things considered "hipster" are just as narrow and irritating to listen to. I welcome you to CMV!

I think that people who always point out and bash things or people that are considered "Hipster" are more annoying than hipsters themselves CMV. I get it that a lot of people are tired of hipsters. All the irony and trying to go against all things "mainstream" gets old. But what I think gets even older is when people are constantly spotting things that others are doing or wearing such as Ray Bans, Converse or Toms shoes, beards and mustaches, bicycle riding in the city, and the myriad of other things that are often identified with hipsters and hating on the person for being "an idiot ironic hipster". A lot of those things are so popular now that if everyone who wore or did these things were a hipster then they would vastly outnumber all the "normal" people. Seriously who the fuck even cares?! I get why people get annoyed with hipsters, but I think the people who are violently and outspokenly (thats a word now) opposed to all things considered "hipster" are just as narrow and irritating to listen to. I welcome you to CMV!

t3_2ka7la

CMV: Access to firearms should be considered as a gender equality issue.

My view: On average, women are less capable at defending against a physical attack than their male counterparts. By allowing all eligible citizens to access firearms you neutralise this disadvantage women have. By preventing all eligible citizens from legally accessing firearms, you have a disproportionate affect upon women. Thus, access to firearms should be considered a gender equality issue. Notes: I am a 21 year old Irish male. Gun control is an issue that interests me but there is not much opportunity for discussion amongst my peers as we don't have much of a gun culture here. Although I enjoy discussing many of the aspects around gun control, I would like to limit this CMV to the view stated. _____ > *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: Access to firearms should be considered as a gender equality issue. My view: On average, women are less capable at defending against a physical attack than their male counterparts. By allowing all eligible citizens to access firearms you neutralise this disadvantage women have. By preventing all eligible citizens from legally accessing firearms, you have a disproportionate affect upon women. Thus, access to firearms should be considered a gender equality issue. Notes: I am a 21 year old Irish male. Gun control is an issue that interests me but there is not much opportunity for discussion amongst my peers as we don't have much of a gun culture here. Although I enjoy discussing many of the aspects around gun control, I would like to limit this CMV to the view stated.

t3_2c6i30

CMV: The atomic bombing of Japan was both morally and militarily justified.

It seems like most people in this modern day see the atomic bombing of Japan as a morally reprehensible act, and to be honest I really don't understand how anyone can hold this view. The main thing I believe is that it boils down to a simple numbers game. When you look at the casualty estimations for Operation Downfall they are staggering, A study done for the Secretary of War estimated that the conquest of Japan would cost 1.7-4 million American casualties and 5-10 million Japanese casualties. These were on the extreme end of the spectrum, most numbers that President Truman had access to put the number of fatality's on the American side between 500,000-1 million with unknown Japanese numbers (though they would far exceed American ones). In comparison the combined number of dead from Hiroshima and Nagasaki is 129,000-246,000. So the loss of life in the actual invasion would have far exceeded the amount who died from the bombing. Now I know that many of you are thinking "You cant make a straight comparison between civilian and military casualty figures, there is a difference between dropping a bomb on unsuspecting civilians and combat casualties". I concede that yes this is true, but we cant forget that most American soldiers at the time were drafted. They were not volunteers and they were aged 18-22. Those kids were our babies. The only way I believe that you can say the bombing were unjustified is if you believe a Japanese civilians life is worth more than that of an Americans. In fact if we over estimate the casualties of the bombing at 250,000 and go on the conservative side for the allied casualties at 500,000 (by the way this does not even count all of the dead Japanese soldiers and civilians that would result from an American invasion) you would have to think the the life of one Japanese civilian is worth in excess of 2 American males aged 18-22. Since I believe that the lives of each are equally important the bombings were justified. So CMV. Just so you are aware you will not change my view by saying that we could not have known how many would have actually died in invasion since we never did it, The numbers I have quoted are what key decision makers in the USA believed and were operating with and they most certainly made the decision with these numbers in mind.

CMV: The atomic bombing of Japan was both morally and militarily justified. It seems like most people in this modern day see the atomic bombing of Japan as a morally reprehensible act, and to be honest I really don't understand how anyone can hold this view. The main thing I believe is that it boils down to a simple numbers game. When you look at the casualty estimations for Operation Downfall they are staggering, A study done for the Secretary of War estimated that the conquest of Japan would cost 1.7-4 million American casualties and 5-10 million Japanese casualties. These were on the extreme end of the spectrum, most numbers that President Truman had access to put the number of fatality's on the American side between 500,000-1 million with unknown Japanese numbers (though they would far exceed American ones). In comparison the combined number of dead from Hiroshima and Nagasaki is 129,000-246,000. So the loss of life in the actual invasion would have far exceeded the amount who died from the bombing. Now I know that many of you are thinking "You cant make a straight comparison between civilian and military casualty figures, there is a difference between dropping a bomb on unsuspecting civilians and combat casualties". I concede that yes this is true, but we cant forget that most American soldiers at the time were drafted. They were not volunteers and they were aged 18-22. Those kids were our babies. The only way I believe that you can say the bombing were unjustified is if you believe a Japanese civilians life is worth more than that of an Americans. In fact if we over estimate the casualties of the bombing at 250,000 and go on the conservative side for the allied casualties at 500,000 (by the way this does not even count all of the dead Japanese soldiers and civilians that would result from an American invasion) you would have to think the the life of one Japanese civilian is worth in excess of 2 American males aged 18-22. Since I believe that the lives of each are equally important the bombings were justified. So CMV. Just so you are aware you will not change my view by saying that we could not have known how many would have actually died in invasion since we never did it, The numbers I have quoted are what key decision makers in the USA believed and were operating with and they most certainly made the decision with these numbers in mind.

t3_2xfu48

CMV: Not only is the Power/Rangers short film bad and unnecessary, it proves how stupid the Power Rangers really are.

Now this isn't about ragging something goofy, because I can take goofiness. I enjoy Dr. Who, though how much it fucks around with damn near everything can be a tough pill to swallow. The Power Rangers show itself is fine, if you like it, be my guest. But this new Power/Rangers short has been blowing up everywhere because of the legality and the darkness, but all I can think of is how cheesy and bad it is. The grittiness goes beyond even Dredd's level of darkness. The fight scenes, while well-choreographed, had these cheap stock effects that took me out of it. James Van Der Beek and Katie Sackhoff are terrible here, mostly because of the awful lines they're fed. There are no pathos and ethos to the Power Rangers franchise, such as a work like Batman, so the utter seriousness doesn't feel well-earned, but gratuitous. And the short's failure to work as well as it should have lead to another unfortunate problem: it kinda proved that the entire Power Rangers franchise as a whole is really dumb. Again, goofiness is fine, but you have giant robot dinosaurs lead by a maniacally laughing Maleficent knock off (keeping the laugh in the short was especially dumb, like when the Sonic short film kept Jaleel White's '90s voice of Sonic). It's really hard to take seriously. I've seen short films create better developed charaxter's in less time than this one. However, I feel bad about ragging on an entire franchise because of one crappy short, so please help me understand the other side, I'm open to changing if it's an especially good answer. _____ > *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: Not only is the Power/Rangers short film bad and unnecessary, it proves how stupid the Power Rangers really are. Now this isn't about ragging something goofy, because I can take goofiness. I enjoy Dr. Who, though how much it fucks around with damn near everything can be a tough pill to swallow. The Power Rangers show itself is fine, if you like it, be my guest. But this new Power/Rangers short has been blowing up everywhere because of the legality and the darkness, but all I can think of is how cheesy and bad it is. The grittiness goes beyond even Dredd's level of darkness. The fight scenes, while well-choreographed, had these cheap stock effects that took me out of it. James Van Der Beek and Katie Sackhoff are terrible here, mostly because of the awful lines they're fed. There are no pathos and ethos to the Power Rangers franchise, such as a work like Batman, so the utter seriousness doesn't feel well-earned, but gratuitous. And the short's failure to work as well as it should have lead to another unfortunate problem: it kinda proved that the entire Power Rangers franchise as a whole is really dumb. Again, goofiness is fine, but you have giant robot dinosaurs lead by a maniacally laughing Maleficent knock off (keeping the laugh in the short was especially dumb, like when the Sonic short film kept Jaleel White's '90s voice of Sonic). It's really hard to take seriously. I've seen short films create better developed charaxter's in less time than this one. However, I feel bad about ragging on an entire franchise because of one crappy short, so please help me understand the other side, I'm open to changing if it's an especially good answer.

t3_26x0v0

CMV: I don't care about climate change

To be clear - I don't deny climate change, I don't deny that people might be causing it, I don't deny that it might have big effects on the global ecosystem. I just don't really care about it. There is no way climate change can permanently ruin the planet if an asteroid from space with the energy of 2 billion atomic bombs couldn't do it. Animals die all the time, extinct species are simply replaced by new ones. There's no reason to panic over animal extinctions, there is no tangible benefit to preserving animal species. Nature has killed far more animals than we ever will, and yet the Earth has survived. Humans will simply adapt and move on, we are an incredibly resourceful species and have collectively survived or overcome every single challenge posed to us. We will never see the fruits of the sacrifices we are being asked to make now for climate change. It makes no sense to sacrifice the quality of our life for what might possibly happen in the future. Once we are dead, we are dead, so we should enjoy our time on earth until nature decides its our extinction time. _____ > *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 care about climate change. To be clear - I don't deny climate change, I don't deny that people might be causing it, I don't deny that it might have big effects on the global ecosystem. I just don't really care about it. There is no way climate change can permanently ruin the planet if an asteroid from space with the energy of 2 billion atomic bombs couldn't do it. Animals die all the time, extinct species are simply replaced by new ones. There's no reason to panic over animal extinctions, there is no tangible benefit to preserving animal species. Nature has killed far more animals than we ever will, and yet the Earth has survived. Humans will simply adapt and move on, we are an incredibly resourceful species and have collectively survived or overcome every single challenge posed to us. We will never see the fruits of the sacrifices we are being asked to make now for climate change. It makes no sense to sacrifice the quality of our life for what might possibly happen in the future. Once we are dead, we are dead, so we should enjoy our time on earth until nature decides its our extinction time.

t3_1o8o2p

I believe taxation is immoral. CMV

As a long time libertarian, I believe using force as a means to achieve government ends is wrong, regardless of the goals it seeks to accomplish (welfare, health insurance, wars, policing, etc.). As for the issues tax dollars are used for, I don't believe government is the correct way to address them. Not to mention, we have absolutely no say in where our tax dollars go. For example, if tax dollars are used for funding abortion clinics, and someone is against abortion on a moral level, their tax dollars have absolutely no right being used to fund such programs. You could argue the same formula for war, welfare, social security, what have you. I don't believe taking people's money through the name of government is moral, and I don't believe the government has any clue how to actually handle the issues many people believe it should. I should note that holding this view does not entail I don't care about poor people, that I think the federal War on Drugs should be stopped so children can have easier access to drugs, etc. Being against taxation does not immediately mean I'm against the goals federal and state programs fund. Fundamental morality simply prohibits the use of force through taxation to fund such programs.

I believe taxation is immoral. CMV. As a long time libertarian, I believe using force as a means to achieve government ends is wrong, regardless of the goals it seeks to accomplish (welfare, health insurance, wars, policing, etc.). As for the issues tax dollars are used for, I don't believe government is the correct way to address them. Not to mention, we have absolutely no say in where our tax dollars go. For example, if tax dollars are used for funding abortion clinics, and someone is against abortion on a moral level, their tax dollars have absolutely no right being used to fund such programs. You could argue the same formula for war, welfare, social security, what have you. I don't believe taking people's money through the name of government is moral, and I don't believe the government has any clue how to actually handle the issues many people believe it should. I should note that holding this view does not entail I don't care about poor people, that I think the federal War on Drugs should be stopped so children can have easier access to drugs, etc. Being against taxation does not immediately mean I'm against the goals federal and state programs fund. Fundamental morality simply prohibits the use of force through taxation to fund such programs.

t3_6wvxop

CMV: When people say "This is a humbling experience" while getting recognized for some achievement it's actually the exact opposite

I'm not sure how it started but many people getting awards or recognition inevitably talk about how much of a humbling experience it is. I call bullshit. My view is what they're really reacting to is 'wow, i'm really great. wait a minute i don't want people to know i think that' so boom, they say it's humbling. It isn't humbling. Or they're just using it wrong. I've won a small number of awards and recognition in my life. I've had things published, won contests, beat challenging opponents, overcome difficult odds, etc and not a single one of those things was ever humbling for me. quite the opposite. i was probably difficult to be around for weeks. To change my view, explain how the hell something like getting an oscar or having a book published is humbling to someone. _____ > *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: When people say "This is a humbling experience" while getting recognized for some achievement it's actually the exact opposite. I'm not sure how it started but many people getting awards or recognition inevitably talk about how much of a humbling experience it is. I call bullshit. My view is what they're really reacting to is 'wow, i'm really great. wait a minute i don't want people to know i think that' so boom, they say it's humbling. It isn't humbling. Or they're just using it wrong. I've won a small number of awards and recognition in my life. I've had things published, won contests, beat challenging opponents, overcome difficult odds, etc and not a single one of those things was ever humbling for me. quite the opposite. i was probably difficult to be around for weeks. To change my view, explain how the hell something like getting an oscar or having a book published is humbling to someone.

t3_1egg7y

I think that less sleep is beneficial because it gives more time to do things, makes me more agile, and seems to make me more alert. CMV

My friend has this opinion, and i remembered this subreddit. I'm submitting it for him because he isn't actually a fan of reddit, and I want to see what sort of things you can come up with to help me convince him to get more sleep.

I think that less sleep is beneficial because it gives more time to do things, makes me more agile, and seems to make me more alert. CMV. My friend has this opinion, and i remembered this subreddit. I'm submitting it for him because he isn't actually a fan of reddit, and I want to see what sort of things you can come up with to help me convince him to get more sleep.

t3_1jq8kv

I think that campaigning for social change is inherently un-democratic. CMV

I'm of the opinion that when political movements, organizations, or groups campaign for social change, they are going against the democratic spirit that is central to the American political ideology (just talking about the USA here because it's my home country and I'd have a hard time speaking accurately for other Western nations). This "democratic spirit," as it has been described by modern thinkers (I think David Foster Wallace explained it excellently in some of his writings), basically states (1) that every individual has certain human rights, one of which is the right to free thought and expression and (2) that no individual may infringe on another's rights. In this way, I think that a movement that is specifically targeted at forcing people to believe (or at least express) certain things contravenes these principles. For example, when modern feminist organizations argue for a change in the portrayal of women in television, I believe that they do so in direct opposition to the ideals of democracy. Whether or not they succeed in limiting others' ideas or expression is beside the point--I just think that the whole idea of a targeted assault on a certain *viewpoint* (not an actual legal or political issue, just a controversial way of thinking) is anti-democratic. In my mind, any attempt to control the behavior or thoughts of other individuals, provided they (the behaviors/thoughts) do not infringe on the rights of others, is abhorrent to all democratic ideals. It boils down to the idea that political groups have no philosophical basis for arguing for anything other than total legal and political equality for all citizens. Of course, individuals who believe in social change can and should hold and express their own views, but they must not impose them on others. And this isn't limited to one political faction or another. Americans should not be pressured to view homosexuality as acceptable, just as they should not be pressured to view owning an assault rifle as acceptable. Of course, social campaigns are a direct result of having the public's views and values determine the composition of its government. They are, of course, useful for small factions that have political goals to achieve. They are an integral part of achieving legal and political equality for all citizens. But the basic intent of forcing others to change their views by making it shameful, unprofitable or worse, illegal (see hate speech legislation) to hold/express those views should have no place in a democratic society. CMV inb4 OP's using a throwaway--I "quit" reddit a while back and deleted my old account, but it turns out I just can't leave you guys for good

I think that campaigning for social change is inherently un-democratic. CMV. I'm of the opinion that when political movements, organizations, or groups campaign for social change, they are going against the democratic spirit that is central to the American political ideology (just talking about the USA here because it's my home country and I'd have a hard time speaking accurately for other Western nations). This "democratic spirit," as it has been described by modern thinkers (I think David Foster Wallace explained it excellently in some of his writings), basically states (1) that every individual has certain human rights, one of which is the right to free thought and expression and (2) that no individual may infringe on another's rights. In this way, I think that a movement that is specifically targeted at forcing people to believe (or at least express) certain things contravenes these principles. For example, when modern feminist organizations argue for a change in the portrayal of women in television, I believe that they do so in direct opposition to the ideals of democracy. Whether or not they succeed in limiting others' ideas or expression is beside the point--I just think that the whole idea of a targeted assault on a certain *viewpoint* (not an actual legal or political issue, just a controversial way of thinking) is anti-democratic. In my mind, any attempt to control the behavior or thoughts of other individuals, provided they (the behaviors/thoughts) do not infringe on the rights of others, is abhorrent to all democratic ideals. It boils down to the idea that political groups have no philosophical basis for arguing for anything other than total legal and political equality for all citizens. Of course, individuals who believe in social change can and should hold and express their own views, but they must not impose them on others. And this isn't limited to one political faction or another. Americans should not be pressured to view homosexuality as acceptable, just as they should not be pressured to view owning an assault rifle as acceptable. Of course, social campaigns are a direct result of having the public's views and values determine the composition of its government. They are, of course, useful for small factions that have political goals to achieve. They are an integral part of achieving legal and political equality for all citizens. But the basic intent of forcing others to change their views by making it shameful, unprofitable or worse, illegal (see hate speech legislation) to hold/express those views should have no place in a democratic society. CMV inb4 OP's using a throwaway--I "quit" reddit a while back and deleted my old account, but it turns out I just can't leave you guys for good

t3_2tk2no

CMV: Drunk Driving is a victimless 'crime' and should be completely legal.

I'll keep this short, there is no victim in the 'crime' of driving while intoxicated, it is a victimless act and should therefor be completely decriminalized. The state should not be arresting, jailing, and fining individuals for peaceful actions because of what could happen, this is basically a pre-crime'. The individual is made a criminal for crimes they could have possibly committed, killing someone or damaging property, but that they never actually did. If a driver injures a person or damages property while driving they should be held responsible for these acts because there are direct victims. I know a lot of people will probably argue that drunk drivers have killed people and it should therefor be a crime, but the real crime committed was murder/manslaughter. My view is that this doesn't justify charging people as criminals who drove without injuring anybody or damaging any property because of what they could have done but didn't. _____ > *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: Drunk Driving is a victimless 'crime' and should be completely legal. I'll keep this short, there is no victim in the 'crime' of driving while intoxicated, it is a victimless act and should therefor be completely decriminalized. The state should not be arresting, jailing, and fining individuals for peaceful actions because of what could happen, this is basically a pre-crime'. The individual is made a criminal for crimes they could have possibly committed, killing someone or damaging property, but that they never actually did. If a driver injures a person or damages property while driving they should be held responsible for these acts because there are direct victims. I know a lot of people will probably argue that drunk drivers have killed people and it should therefor be a crime, but the real crime committed was murder/manslaughter. My view is that this doesn't justify charging people as criminals who drove without injuring anybody or damaging any property because of what they could have done but didn't.

t3_1ge0af

I believe that auto insurance companies should NOT be allowed to charge different rates based on gender. CMV

I am an 18 year old male and today I was informed that my car insurance just went down to $165 from $180 a month. I have a good student discount and I had my learner's permit for 6 months longer than needed before getting a license. My sister just turned 16 yesterday and got her license and her insurance is $163. I understand the economic aspect of it all, but why is it acceptable for a company to use statistics to charge more to males, but it would be unlawful discrimination if statistics read, for example, that a black person is more likely to get in an accident and they therefore charge all black people more?

I believe that auto insurance companies should NOT be allowed to charge different rates based on gender. CMV. I am an 18 year old male and today I was informed that my car insurance just went down to $165 from $180 a month. I have a good student discount and I had my learner's permit for 6 months longer than needed before getting a license. My sister just turned 16 yesterday and got her license and her insurance is $163. I understand the economic aspect of it all, but why is it acceptable for a company to use statistics to charge more to males, but it would be unlawful discrimination if statistics read, for example, that a black person is more likely to get in an accident and they therefore charge all black people more?

t3_20azlb

CMV: How is it possible that privacy is something governments can ignore without us becoming angry?

I think privacy is very important for people who have nothing to hide. People who have nothing to hide should have the right to not be under investigation all the time. We live in a suspicious society where everybody is a suspect. This is wrong! We used to live in a society where we were all innocent untill proven guilty. Now, we live in a society where not only our government thinks we are homicidal maniacs but we also see the people near us as suspects. Trust is being destroyed by the lack of privacy.

CMV: How is it possible that privacy is something governments can ignore without us becoming angry?. I think privacy is very important for people who have nothing to hide. People who have nothing to hide should have the right to not be under investigation all the time. We live in a suspicious society where everybody is a suspect. This is wrong! We used to live in a society where we were all innocent untill proven guilty. Now, we live in a society where not only our government thinks we are homicidal maniacs but we also see the people near us as suspects. Trust is being destroyed by the lack of privacy.

t3_2dhhyd

CMV:I believe that a person cannot both be a serious environmentalist and have children.

This idea just sprung up after watching yesterday's episode of Utopia. During the episode, one character lectures a woman with her child about the environmental costs of said child, when she starts talking about how environmentally conscious she is. He threw out a lot of facts, which I have gone on to research lightly, and have convinced me that anyone who willingly has a child, or multiple, cannot seriously care about the environment, and the deleterious effects of climate change on our world. That's not to say they can't be an environmentalist at all, just that they do not take the issue seriously, and value the luxury of a child higher than the carbon footprint a child/new person would produce over their lifetime. I'm not advocating that people stop having children, or that if you do have children you shouldn't try to lessen your environmental impact. I just wouldn't take that person's opinions and thoughts as seriously when it comes to environmental matters. I think my position is open, so 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 that a person cannot both be a serious environmentalist and have children. This idea just sprung up after watching yesterday's episode of Utopia. During the episode, one character lectures a woman with her child about the environmental costs of said child, when she starts talking about how environmentally conscious she is. He threw out a lot of facts, which I have gone on to research lightly, and have convinced me that anyone who willingly has a child, or multiple, cannot seriously care about the environment, and the deleterious effects of climate change on our world. That's not to say they can't be an environmentalist at all, just that they do not take the issue seriously, and value the luxury of a child higher than the carbon footprint a child/new person would produce over their lifetime. I'm not advocating that people stop having children, or that if you do have children you shouldn't try to lessen your environmental impact. I just wouldn't take that person's opinions and thoughts as seriously when it comes to environmental matters. I think my position is open, so CMV.

t3_6a0ssw

CMV: The Internet is not necessary for the health, well-being, or sustenance of a person, therefore is not a "basic human right"

I fully believe a "basic human right" is what is necessary to fulfill the base needs of a human. This includes access to food and water for physiological needs, or access to a homestead or place of living for safety needs. I consider access as also the unrestricted right to purchasing those needs. In my opinion, prohibiting someone a basic human right is simply prohibiting them from such need fulfillment, i.e. preventing someone from buying a bottle of water. The Internet is not necessary to basic need fulfillment. You do not need the internet for access to sustenance, as you can go to the local markets or stores, or even personal harvested food source. You don't need the internet to purchase or obtain a home, apartment, or any place of living. Even the access to information, ideas, people, and beliefs can be achieved through many other channels. So, why is Internet being considered a "basic human right" when not having it won't prevent you from fulfilling your basic human needs? Edit: I'm sorry, there seems to be a little bit of a confusion based on some of the replies. My problem isn't so much the existence and access to the internet, it's whether it deserves to label of "basic human right". Don't get me wrong, I love the benefits and luxuries I get from the existence of the internet. Having access to more diverse and more affordable entertainment, easier and quicker access to information, ideas, and knowledge. Ease of shopping for harder to obtain items. And more people to share discussions with. But I believe calling it a basic human right likens the internet to food, water, shelter, and the freedom to exist in general. While the latter are all necessary for human life, I'm wanting to be convinced of why the internet deserves that big of a label.

CMV: The Internet is not necessary for the health, well-being, or sustenance of a person, therefore is not a "basic human right". I fully believe a "basic human right" is what is necessary to fulfill the base needs of a human. This includes access to food and water for physiological needs, or access to a homestead or place of living for safety needs. I consider access as also the unrestricted right to purchasing those needs. In my opinion, prohibiting someone a basic human right is simply prohibiting them from such need fulfillment, i.e. preventing someone from buying a bottle of water. The Internet is not necessary to basic need fulfillment. You do not need the internet for access to sustenance, as you can go to the local markets or stores, or even personal harvested food source. You don't need the internet to purchase or obtain a home, apartment, or any place of living. Even the access to information, ideas, people, and beliefs can be achieved through many other channels. So, why is Internet being considered a "basic human right" when not having it won't prevent you from fulfilling your basic human needs? Edit: I'm sorry, there seems to be a little bit of a confusion based on some of the replies. My problem isn't so much the existence and access to the internet, it's whether it deserves to label of "basic human right". Don't get me wrong, I love the benefits and luxuries I get from the existence of the internet. Having access to more diverse and more affordable entertainment, easier and quicker access to information, ideas, and knowledge. Ease of shopping for harder to obtain items. And more people to share discussions with. But I believe calling it a basic human right likens the internet to food, water, shelter, and the freedom to exist in general. While the latter are all necessary for human life, I'm wanting to be convinced of why the internet deserves that big of a label.

t3_267c30

CMV: I believe when a streaming service such as Spotify allows you to save music for offline play, it is just as bad as piracy.

I understand that streaming services are certainly no way to make revenue for an artist. However, I feel that if Spotify is going to tout itself as the best way for an artist to be discovered, it ought to offer some sort of incentive for discoverers to purchase the music. When it's as easy as clicking "save for offline play" to be able to access the music with no tethers, it's almost the equivalent of going and downloading it off of The Pirate Bay. Granted, to access these songs offline, I believe you need to have premium (or at least to do it on mobile devices), but there is no extra benefit to the artist when a person chooses to have something available offline. Change my view! _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I believe when a streaming service such as Spotify allows you to save music for offline play, it is just as bad as piracy. I understand that streaming services are certainly no way to make revenue for an artist. However, I feel that if Spotify is going to tout itself as the best way for an artist to be discovered, it ought to offer some sort of incentive for discoverers to purchase the music. When it's as easy as clicking "save for offline play" to be able to access the music with no tethers, it's almost the equivalent of going and downloading it off of The Pirate Bay. Granted, to access these songs offline, I believe you need to have premium (or at least to do it on mobile devices), but there is no extra benefit to the artist when a person chooses to have something available offline. Change my view!

t3_2jgfi5

CMV: Being faithful is inherently more difficult for a male in a marriage

Oxytocin is the main hormone released for women during sex, highlighting a feeling of comfort and bonding. Men often experience that of dopamine, or pure pleasure. This occurred because historically women were only able to fertilize on egg at a time which means bonding after sex would be imperative while men can consummate several times within one day. This us to the point now where monogamous relationships are the popular partnership, which obviously is counterproductive in the scheme of male development.

CMV: Being faithful is inherently more difficult for a male in a marriage. Oxytocin is the main hormone released for women during sex, highlighting a feeling of comfort and bonding. Men often experience that of dopamine, or pure pleasure. This occurred because historically women were only able to fertilize on egg at a time which means bonding after sex would be imperative while men can consummate several times within one day. This us to the point now where monogamous relationships are the popular partnership, which obviously is counterproductive in the scheme of male development.

t3_393is9

CMV: I don't think Americans freedoms are being eroded away like many people would have us believe

For the past decade or so there's been this growing idea that America is heading toward being a police state and that rights and freedoms are being picked off one by one, and judging by the public outcry it seems that things like the Patriot Act and the Snowden Affair have been eroding liberty and freedom from a point in time when they were guaranteed and unquestionable, a sort of 'good old days' mentality. I find this really ridiculous and think that while the US governments practises aren't anything good, they certainly aren't heralding the descent into hell from heaven so many people make them out to be. I mean America has never really been a place of liberty and freedom and equality for most of its history unless you were white and decently wealthy. The US committed genocide against the Indians, practised slavery, had institutionalized segregation until sixty years ago, allowed corporations to flat-out shoot unruly workers, and on multiple occasions made it illegal to speak out against the government. So while many current deeds by the US certainly aren't good, in contrast to most of US history things are better than ever and aren't really getting 'worse' like the public outcry would lead you to believe.

CMV: I don't think Americans freedoms are being eroded away like many people would have us believe. For the past decade or so there's been this growing idea that America is heading toward being a police state and that rights and freedoms are being picked off one by one, and judging by the public outcry it seems that things like the Patriot Act and the Snowden Affair have been eroding liberty and freedom from a point in time when they were guaranteed and unquestionable, a sort of 'good old days' mentality. I find this really ridiculous and think that while the US governments practises aren't anything good, they certainly aren't heralding the descent into hell from heaven so many people make them out to be. I mean America has never really been a place of liberty and freedom and equality for most of its history unless you were white and decently wealthy. The US committed genocide against the Indians, practised slavery, had institutionalized segregation until sixty years ago, allowed corporations to flat-out shoot unruly workers, and on multiple occasions made it illegal to speak out against the government. So while many current deeds by the US certainly aren't good, in contrast to most of US history things are better than ever and aren't really getting 'worse' like the public outcry would lead you to believe.

t3_3ek3tt

CMV: Requiring a presidential candidate (USA) to be natural born American citizen is hypocritical and possibly dentrimental.

The United States was founded on immigrants. All the colonists were immigrants, the Chinese, the Irish, the polish, Hispanics, Africans, all of these groups and more were critical in building the United States and all of them were immigrants. Today we have a huge immigrant population in the United States; Immigrants who left their families and friends for an unknown future with only the promise of America. Why shouldn't they be elligible for president? I absolutely believe there should be a "years lived in america" requirement. For instance, if you are natural born and want to run for president you need to be 35 years old. It's my contention that legal immigrants who have been citizens for 35 years or more, should be eligible to run for president. I would argue that naturalized citizens might even have a better perspective on the "American Dream" than the average birthright American. They had to work to get here. They had to sacrifice to earn the title of American citizen. They deserve the right to try and lead us. Change my view.

CMV: Requiring a presidential candidate (USA) to be natural born American citizen is hypocritical and possibly dentrimental. The United States was founded on immigrants. All the colonists were immigrants, the Chinese, the Irish, the polish, Hispanics, Africans, all of these groups and more were critical in building the United States and all of them were immigrants. Today we have a huge immigrant population in the United States; Immigrants who left their families and friends for an unknown future with only the promise of America. Why shouldn't they be elligible for president? I absolutely believe there should be a "years lived in america" requirement. For instance, if you are natural born and want to run for president you need to be 35 years old. It's my contention that legal immigrants who have been citizens for 35 years or more, should be eligible to run for president. I would argue that naturalized citizens might even have a better perspective on the "American Dream" than the average birthright American. They had to work to get here. They had to sacrifice to earn the title of American citizen. They deserve the right to try and lead us. Change my view.

t3_2x0m77

CMV: "Sport" hunters have nothing to be proud of.

The hunters of yesteryear using tools like bows and arrows had to be in tune with nature, highly skilled, strong in body and mind. Encounters were high risk and a successful hunt was a true feat in human capacity. Not so much today. We have GPS tracking, night vision goggle wearing, ATV driving, scope using, electronic animal call blasting, amazon ordered camouflage dressed, custom automatic weapons super hunters hunting the same animals. We get the pictures of proudly smiling into the camera next to that tiger, bear, deer or wolf. A proud smile for that sonar tracked massive trout caught on a battery powered lure. Okay, I admit, it's not a zero skill endeavor. We can even strip away most of the gadgets. Still, pulling a trigger you're firing a chunk of metal up to 5,600 feet per second at a creature you drove up to. This is Hercules or superman smiling proudly at the camera with his Para-Olympic gold medal in weight lifting. There is just a plateau that has been hit. Once we have robots of human level prowess that can be hunted then maybe hunters will have something to be proud of again. Modern popular hunting should not even be considered sport as it is inherently low skill. Unless its robots. Edit: At 144 comments what it's boiled down to is they tell me even with modern weapons, gadgets and tools, its still hard. Even though five year olds do it. Even though I posted a video of first time hunters bagging game because they googled how to use their turkey callers. Even though with current tech you can basically do anything and if not its because rules they themselves set like its a halo match. Not convinced. Edit: My whole point was even with minimal gadgets were like superhumans compared to animals like wolves and doves. Superman wouldn't be proud beating up an average joe. Edit: I retract my my blanketing of sport hunters. The minority of them do seem to experience moderate difficulty which would make sense for some low amount of pride. For the most part my view still stands as hunting is increasingly easy and pride stems from superior/difficult things. Edit: In 2011 the [success](http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/big-buck-zone/2013/10/deer-hunting-success-story) rate for deer was 48% and up to 83% in some states. The numbers are also lower because restrictions on hunting so without them you can bag yourself some deer PRETTY EASILY.

CMV: "Sport" hunters have nothing to be proud of. The hunters of yesteryear using tools like bows and arrows had to be in tune with nature, highly skilled, strong in body and mind. Encounters were high risk and a successful hunt was a true feat in human capacity. Not so much today. We have GPS tracking, night vision goggle wearing, ATV driving, scope using, electronic animal call blasting, amazon ordered camouflage dressed, custom automatic weapons super hunters hunting the same animals. We get the pictures of proudly smiling into the camera next to that tiger, bear, deer or wolf. A proud smile for that sonar tracked massive trout caught on a battery powered lure. Okay, I admit, it's not a zero skill endeavor. We can even strip away most of the gadgets. Still, pulling a trigger you're firing a chunk of metal up to 5,600 feet per second at a creature you drove up to. This is Hercules or superman smiling proudly at the camera with his Para-Olympic gold medal in weight lifting. There is just a plateau that has been hit. Once we have robots of human level prowess that can be hunted then maybe hunters will have something to be proud of again. Modern popular hunting should not even be considered sport as it is inherently low skill. Unless its robots. Edit: At 144 comments what it's boiled down to is they tell me even with modern weapons, gadgets and tools, its still hard. Even though five year olds do it. Even though I posted a video of first time hunters bagging game because they googled how to use their turkey callers. Even though with current tech you can basically do anything and if not its because rules they themselves set like its a halo match. Not convinced. Edit: My whole point was even with minimal gadgets were like superhumans compared to animals like wolves and doves. Superman wouldn't be proud beating up an average joe. Edit: I retract my my blanketing of sport hunters. The minority of them do seem to experience moderate difficulty which would make sense for some low amount of pride. For the most part my view still stands as hunting is increasingly easy and pride stems from superior/difficult things. Edit: In 2011 the [success](http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/big-buck-zone/2013/10/deer-hunting-success-story) rate for deer was 48% and up to 83% in some states. The numbers are also lower because restrictions on hunting so without them you can bag yourself some deer PRETTY EASILY.

t3_70thl7

CMV: Debates cannot contribute to a controversial topic.

True, having two sides presenting their arguments and defending them is a great way to learn how to make arguments, support it with reasoning and evidence and spot logical fallacies. But what is it worth beyond this? My opinion is that there is none. Because of how a debate works, neither side could possibly come to a conclusion or contribute to a topic as they have incentive to do whatever it takes to persuade the audience that their side if right, even if it might not be the case. Even if a debater thinks his opponent is persuasive, he cannot concede his point in fear of losing the argument. What different is this, compared to the ignorant voter who will not be persuaded by scientific evidence and logical reasoning? Debating is like arguing with him: Even if you make sense, he will not change his mind, nor will you accomplish anything. The audience may be persuaded by you - but isn't this more easily done through a format that is not a debate, like an article or a speech? And is it even possible to sway an audience, who may not be skillful enough to evaluate the scenario, and may think an one-sided debated is actually 50/50? I'm sure you have seen debates on controversial topics, like those surrounding climate change. Deniers will often bring up fallacious arguments, or ones that are already proven wrong many times. They will often criticize scientific evidence as biased, while bringing up even less credible evidence or no evidence at all. Even if they make no sense, they sound like they're infallible. To the public, this gives the false pretense that climate change is something still not agreed upon, while the truth is that climate change deniers are a very small portion of people who refuse scientific consensus. One often mentioned upside to debates is that it allows two sides to exchange opinions. Then, is it not better to do it through a conversation and not a formal debate? In an conversation, it is completely acceptable to concede a point, change one's mind, and learn about the other side. Hell, even this subreddit has a rule that promotes conversations and not debating. I think this rule and /r/changemyview's ability to actually change viewpoints proves my point - conversations evolve topics, not debates. So, are formal debates really something we want to show to the public? Shouldn't we want to present truth in a more authoritative way, or present arguments in a more conversational way? I know my argument isn't flawless - and I'm happy to discuss this topic. (And yes, I had unpleasant experiences with debates.) _____ > *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: Debates cannot contribute to a controversial topic. True, having two sides presenting their arguments and defending them is a great way to learn how to make arguments, support it with reasoning and evidence and spot logical fallacies. But what is it worth beyond this? My opinion is that there is none. Because of how a debate works, neither side could possibly come to a conclusion or contribute to a topic as they have incentive to do whatever it takes to persuade the audience that their side if right, even if it might not be the case. Even if a debater thinks his opponent is persuasive, he cannot concede his point in fear of losing the argument. What different is this, compared to the ignorant voter who will not be persuaded by scientific evidence and logical reasoning? Debating is like arguing with him: Even if you make sense, he will not change his mind, nor will you accomplish anything. The audience may be persuaded by you - but isn't this more easily done through a format that is not a debate, like an article or a speech? And is it even possible to sway an audience, who may not be skillful enough to evaluate the scenario, and may think an one-sided debated is actually 50/50? I'm sure you have seen debates on controversial topics, like those surrounding climate change. Deniers will often bring up fallacious arguments, or ones that are already proven wrong many times. They will often criticize scientific evidence as biased, while bringing up even less credible evidence or no evidence at all. Even if they make no sense, they sound like they're infallible. To the public, this gives the false pretense that climate change is something still not agreed upon, while the truth is that climate change deniers are a very small portion of people who refuse scientific consensus. One often mentioned upside to debates is that it allows two sides to exchange opinions. Then, is it not better to do it through a conversation and not a formal debate? In an conversation, it is completely acceptable to concede a point, change one's mind, and learn about the other side. Hell, even this subreddit has a rule that promotes conversations and not debating. I think this rule and /r/changemyview's ability to actually change viewpoints proves my point - conversations evolve topics, not debates. So, are formal debates really something we want to show to the public? Shouldn't we want to present truth in a more authoritative way, or present arguments in a more conversational way? I know my argument isn't flawless - and I'm happy to discuss this topic. (And yes, I had unpleasant experiences with debates.)

t3_60gqzt

CMV: Drug Commercials are Good

It seems that I hold a minority opinion on Reddit that I think drug commercials are good, or at least not bad. A lot of people make fun of America for having drug commercials but I haven't found a compelling argument for the benefits of not having the commercials. My argument for them being good is that they provide information to potential users of the drug with who may not be aware anything is wrong. I.e. I wouldn't know ringing in my ears isn't normal if I didn't know about tinnitus on tv. They display their information to a broad audience, not just to doctors, but to consumers and friends and family to consumers. I feel that it's better if more people should know about a drug or a disease that the drug treats. I feel that the counter arguments are really weak. Saying, "it allows people to seek drugs that they do not need, or allow people to self diagnose to attempt to get these drugs" is an overly simplistic argument, which fails to take into account that these drugs are usually prescribed. Saying, "doctors will prescribe them anyway" is also too simplistic because I believe that the vast majority of doctors won't prescribe drugs to their patients if they don't need them, and that the doctors who will are very few. There is a risk that these drugs will get into the wrong hands, but I think that these issues don't outweigh benefits of having drug commercials.

CMV: Drug Commercials are Good. It seems that I hold a minority opinion on Reddit that I think drug commercials are good, or at least not bad. A lot of people make fun of America for having drug commercials but I haven't found a compelling argument for the benefits of not having the commercials. My argument for them being good is that they provide information to potential users of the drug with who may not be aware anything is wrong. I.e. I wouldn't know ringing in my ears isn't normal if I didn't know about tinnitus on tv. They display their information to a broad audience, not just to doctors, but to consumers and friends and family to consumers. I feel that it's better if more people should know about a drug or a disease that the drug treats. I feel that the counter arguments are really weak. Saying, "it allows people to seek drugs that they do not need, or allow people to self diagnose to attempt to get these drugs" is an overly simplistic argument, which fails to take into account that these drugs are usually prescribed. Saying, "doctors will prescribe them anyway" is also too simplistic because I believe that the vast majority of doctors won't prescribe drugs to their patients if they don't need them, and that the doctors who will are very few. There is a risk that these drugs will get into the wrong hands, but I think that these issues don't outweigh benefits of having drug commercials.

t3_1tw3g8

I think financial transactions taxes are fair and would be an efficient new way of generating new revenues for the US government. CMV.

(Note: this is notwithstanding the advantages and disadvantages of taxes. My argument is that a financial transactions tax would be efficient, and something to consider if the US government is choosing between different forms of taxes.) Currently, the US levies a 0.0034% tax on stock transactions only, pulling in anywhere from $800 million to $2 billion per fiscal year. Let's say instead the US government levies a tax of 0.34% on stock transactions, two orders of magnitude higher. Someone who wants to move $100,000 in stocks in New York only pays $340. This fits well into whatever broker fees he would have to pay in the first place, and the trader probably wouldn't even bat an eye. He's not going to move to Singapore (or wherever) and abandon all the advantages of the US financial system just because of a new 0.34% tax. According to the World Bank, the US moved $21,375,280,000,000 in stock transactions in 2012. A tax of 0.34% would generate $72,675,952,000. If the tax applied to all equities, like mutual funds and whatnot, new revenues for government would be even more, maybe even double that amount. And if the federal government taxed all financial transactions, we're talking up to a $500bn to $1tn in revenues. In that sense, I think it's a good idea. I think there is something in a financial transactions tax to satisfy most people. If you're a conservative, then it's a way to cut income taxes and replace the revenue lost with what's basically, in the eyes of the consumer, an indirectly levied consumption tax. If you're someone who's more left-wing, then it's a way to fund boatloads of social programs and promote fairer income distribution.

I think financial transactions taxes are fair and would be an efficient new way of generating new revenues for the US government. CMV. (Note: this is notwithstanding the advantages and disadvantages of taxes. My argument is that a financial transactions tax would be efficient, and something to consider if the US government is choosing between different forms of taxes.) Currently, the US levies a 0.0034% tax on stock transactions only, pulling in anywhere from $800 million to $2 billion per fiscal year. Let's say instead the US government levies a tax of 0.34% on stock transactions, two orders of magnitude higher. Someone who wants to move $100,000 in stocks in New York only pays $340. This fits well into whatever broker fees he would have to pay in the first place, and the trader probably wouldn't even bat an eye. He's not going to move to Singapore (or wherever) and abandon all the advantages of the US financial system just because of a new 0.34% tax. According to the World Bank, the US moved $21,375,280,000,000 in stock transactions in 2012. A tax of 0.34% would generate $72,675,952,000. If the tax applied to all equities, like mutual funds and whatnot, new revenues for government would be even more, maybe even double that amount. And if the federal government taxed all financial transactions, we're talking up to a $500bn to $1tn in revenues. In that sense, I think it's a good idea. I think there is something in a financial transactions tax to satisfy most people. If you're a conservative, then it's a way to cut income taxes and replace the revenue lost with what's basically, in the eyes of the consumer, an indirectly levied consumption tax. If you're someone who's more left-wing, then it's a way to fund boatloads of social programs and promote fairer income distribution.

t3_1sx9zw

Im for Racial Transformation CMV

"Racial transformation is the process by which someone changes their appearance with respect to race, either from their current race to another race or to a new category. These changes are currently done through a variety of methods including surgery or chemical treatments." Im a tall white guy who has always wanted to change my skin color to black because I think it would be fun to join a black person gang. Not sure if I should use a tanning machine or get some surgery like my main man micheal jackson. CMV

Im for Racial Transformation CMV. "Racial transformation is the process by which someone changes their appearance with respect to race, either from their current race to another race or to a new category. These changes are currently done through a variety of methods including surgery or chemical treatments." Im a tall white guy who has always wanted to change my skin color to black because I think it would be fun to join a black person gang. Not sure if I should use a tanning machine or get some surgery like my main man micheal jackson. CMV

t3_4l4fwd

CMV: The left has a herd mentality

Below I will explain two premises for why I think the left has a herd mentality: I got downvoted on this subreddit to the point that I couldn't post anywhere anymore. I had to get upvotes going to random subreddits. At first, I thought that going to like minded subreddits would be the easiest way to get into positive Karma again. I then found that the easiest way was to go to Bernie Sanders or Global warming subreddits and write unsophisticated statements such as "Corporate greed is destroying this country", or "Global warming will be the doom of us all if Exxon Mobil doesn't pay us all money!" This is because no matter how little thought out the statement is, if it agrees with the general statements of corporations=evil, silly left wingers will upvote it :). I also found that it was very difficult to find a socialist subreddit that allowed Negative Karma, but virtually all conservative subreddits did allow it. Premise 1: The left are more likely to be subjected to herd mentality on reddit and in the political forum Premise 2: The left are more agreeable to censorship Edit: Man, those downvotes are killing me. I will have to visit more bernie subreddits after this. Praaaaiiise the Bernie. AMEN! Edit 2: I have made a controversial post on the Donald, and it was removed right away. However, the Donald is not exactly a conservative, so this is not a great test. Edit 3: I have made a controversial post on r/capitalism. Here it is. The jury is out on that one :D. https://www.reddit.com/r/Capitalism/comments/4l5u55/so_far_i_have_believed_that_socialism_is_the_best/ Congrats to those that have been awarded deltas thus far!

CMV: The left has a herd mentality. Below I will explain two premises for why I think the left has a herd mentality: I got downvoted on this subreddit to the point that I couldn't post anywhere anymore. I had to get upvotes going to random subreddits. At first, I thought that going to like minded subreddits would be the easiest way to get into positive Karma again. I then found that the easiest way was to go to Bernie Sanders or Global warming subreddits and write unsophisticated statements such as "Corporate greed is destroying this country", or "Global warming will be the doom of us all if Exxon Mobil doesn't pay us all money!" This is because no matter how little thought out the statement is, if it agrees with the general statements of corporations=evil, silly left wingers will upvote it :). I also found that it was very difficult to find a socialist subreddit that allowed Negative Karma, but virtually all conservative subreddits did allow it. Premise 1: The left are more likely to be subjected to herd mentality on reddit and in the political forum Premise 2: The left are more agreeable to censorship Edit: Man, those downvotes are killing me. I will have to visit more bernie subreddits after this. Praaaaiiise the Bernie. AMEN! Edit 2: I have made a controversial post on the Donald, and it was removed right away. However, the Donald is not exactly a conservative, so this is not a great test. Edit 3: I have made a controversial post on r/capitalism. Here it is. The jury is out on that one :D. https://www.reddit.com/r/Capitalism/comments/4l5u55/so_far_i_have_believed_that_socialism_is_the_best/ Congrats to those that have been awarded deltas thus far!

t3_67wbsm

CMV: You Cannot Blame a Generation for how they Act

Forgive me if this is not the Right Subreddit, I have come across a topic with some friends that always interested me, and I was curious to hear your thoughts. Some friends and I were talking about The Great Gatsby and one of them told me he did not like the book due to the Authors Sexist Nature, and how he beat his wife. Now, it's understandable to dislike something for own personal views, but can you dislike something just because of the way they were raised? Many Generations before have always had a Gender Role Society, and it was rather common (at least from what I can tell) to be sexist. Can you blame a society for the way they acted, based off of how society is today? I am of Portuguese Descent and my Grandfather still has that expectation of Dinner being ready when he comes home. If that was how he was raised, and led to believe it was the way, can someone truly judge them? I'd like to hear your points and counter points. I'm sorry for the Long Post, I hope to read your thoughts on this topic. _____ > *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: You Cannot Blame a Generation for how they Act. Forgive me if this is not the Right Subreddit, I have come across a topic with some friends that always interested me, and I was curious to hear your thoughts. Some friends and I were talking about The Great Gatsby and one of them told me he did not like the book due to the Authors Sexist Nature, and how he beat his wife. Now, it's understandable to dislike something for own personal views, but can you dislike something just because of the way they were raised? Many Generations before have always had a Gender Role Society, and it was rather common (at least from what I can tell) to be sexist. Can you blame a society for the way they acted, based off of how society is today? I am of Portuguese Descent and my Grandfather still has that expectation of Dinner being ready when he comes home. If that was how he was raised, and led to believe it was the way, can someone truly judge them? I'd like to hear your points and counter points. I'm sorry for the Long Post, I hope to read your thoughts on this topic.

t3_1qg5xb

I don't believe that you should be expected to tip at a restaraunt. CMV

Let me start by saying that in most instances my experience at a restaurant has been normal or pleasant. In no way do I regularly experience a demonstration of exemplary service that demands a monetary reward. I believe that servers are paid to do their job. Anything above that should be 100% up to me to decide if I want to give them that. I should not be obligated to tip a certain amount. Without a sob story about your dying kids and how waiting tables was the last option you had, please change my view. Please make your response as concise as possible. I will check on the thread and reply in the morning.

I don't believe that you should be expected to tip at a restaraunt. CMV. Let me start by saying that in most instances my experience at a restaurant has been normal or pleasant. In no way do I regularly experience a demonstration of exemplary service that demands a monetary reward. I believe that servers are paid to do their job. Anything above that should be 100% up to me to decide if I want to give them that. I should not be obligated to tip a certain amount. Without a sob story about your dying kids and how waiting tables was the last option you had, please change my view. Please make your response as concise as possible. I will check on the thread and reply in the morning.

t3_5yr6z1

CMV: The British Empire was the greatest thing that ever happened to an undeserving world; we should revive Imperialism

Granted, the British Empire had plenty of faults, and some horrific things were committed under it and in it's name. But despite it's huge faults, when all was said and done, the world is much better off for the British Empire having happened. **The British Empire:** -**Spread new technologies** (the steam-engine, the telegraph, railways, advanced agricultural tools, best medicinal tools humanity had at the time) -**Spread new ideas** (Democratic ideals, Enlightenment Values, the idea of "Rights" as we now conceive of them [our understanding having been an expansion of the old "Rights of Englishmen"], freedom of speech and press; the Common Law System; enforced women's rights to own property, file divorce, and generally be an independent entity with rights under the law; Empiricism, etc.) -**Suppressed barbaric practices** (Effectively ended Suttee in India [until the end of imperial rule, anyway]; Dedicated tremendous resources [far more than any other entity] to combatting the slave trade, enforcing the British ban on the practice from 1807 onward across the oceans of the world; Outlawed and battled human sacrifice, thuggee, piracy, violence against women, religious violence, and ritual torture) **Under the British Empire:** -**There was stable, secular government across the Middle East** -**Hindus and Muslims coexisted in peace on the sub-continent (no India-Pakistan conflict)** -**There was Prosperity and stability in Somalia, Ethiopia, Sierra Leone, Liberia, the Congo, Sudan, etc.** Much of the former Empire is now failed states or brutal theocracies. Granted, decolonization was a disaster and that certainly was at least a contributing factor to the mess, but going forward, considering what we ought to do now, the fact that decolonization was previously carried out in an arbitrary and over-rapid manner is no objection to reviving Imperialism. So tell me why we shouldn't bring back Imperialism? Is rampant theocracy, chronic warfare and sectarian violence preferable? Are starving failed states run by local warlords using child soldiers preferable? We need to consider the actual alternatives. Without the imposition of civility by the Empire, people are living under the rule of local warlords and/or theocrats who rape, torture, and rob with abandon, and, in between 140,000 to 600,000 present cases, kidnap children to be soldiers. A great many people in the above-mentioned countries would be overjoyed to have the Royal Marines come kill the local warlords, set up schools, and provide food, medicine, and stable secular government. **Note**: Once again, I am fully aware that Imperialism has historically had tremendous faults, and I'm denying neither the scope nor the scale thereof. Rather, I contend that the status quo (i.e. the absence of a proper Empire) is, *in at least some former colonies,* far worse than the situation would be if the Anglo-sphere reasserted Imperial government *in those regions*. Also note: In considering the re-establishment of the British Empire, I don't necessarily mean that it would be the United Kingdom in charge. Rather, I mean that the English Speaking nations could unite to start a new English Empire, providing a stable ruling power in chaotic regions, spreading Western culture, (e.g. Equality before the Law; Freedom of Speech; Freedom of Religion; Empiricism; Science; Capitalism; Women's Rights; Modern Medicine; Secularism, etc.), and imposing a new Pax-Britannica under which any behavior of the bride-burning/homosexual-murdering/adulterer-stoning/blasphemer-beheading/rape-victim-executing/child-mutilating/warlording/enslaving variety would receive swift and fitting punishment, any "culture" that condones such behavior be damned. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: The British Empire was the greatest thing that ever happened to an undeserving world; we should revive Imperialism. Granted, the British Empire had plenty of faults, and some horrific things were committed under it and in it's name. But despite it's huge faults, when all was said and done, the world is much better off for the British Empire having happened. **The British Empire:** -**Spread new technologies** (the steam-engine, the telegraph, railways, advanced agricultural tools, best medicinal tools humanity had at the time) -**Spread new ideas** (Democratic ideals, Enlightenment Values, the idea of "Rights" as we now conceive of them [our understanding having been an expansion of the old "Rights of Englishmen"], freedom of speech and press; the Common Law System; enforced women's rights to own property, file divorce, and generally be an independent entity with rights under the law; Empiricism, etc.) -**Suppressed barbaric practices** (Effectively ended Suttee in India [until the end of imperial rule, anyway]; Dedicated tremendous resources [far more than any other entity] to combatting the slave trade, enforcing the British ban on the practice from 1807 onward across the oceans of the world; Outlawed and battled human sacrifice, thuggee, piracy, violence against women, religious violence, and ritual torture) **Under the British Empire:** -**There was stable, secular government across the Middle East** -**Hindus and Muslims coexisted in peace on the sub-continent (no India-Pakistan conflict)** -**There was Prosperity and stability in Somalia, Ethiopia, Sierra Leone, Liberia, the Congo, Sudan, etc.** Much of the former Empire is now failed states or brutal theocracies. Granted, decolonization was a disaster and that certainly was at least a contributing factor to the mess, but going forward, considering what we ought to do now, the fact that decolonization was previously carried out in an arbitrary and over-rapid manner is no objection to reviving Imperialism. So tell me why we shouldn't bring back Imperialism? Is rampant theocracy, chronic warfare and sectarian violence preferable? Are starving failed states run by local warlords using child soldiers preferable? We need to consider the actual alternatives. Without the imposition of civility by the Empire, people are living under the rule of local warlords and/or theocrats who rape, torture, and rob with abandon, and, in between 140,000 to 600,000 present cases, kidnap children to be soldiers. A great many people in the above-mentioned countries would be overjoyed to have the Royal Marines come kill the local warlords, set up schools, and provide food, medicine, and stable secular government. **Note**: Once again, I am fully aware that Imperialism has historically had tremendous faults, and I'm denying neither the scope nor the scale thereof. Rather, I contend that the status quo (i.e. the absence of a proper Empire) is, *in at least some former colonies,* far worse than the situation would be if the Anglo-sphere reasserted Imperial government *in those regions*. Also note: In considering the re-establishment of the British Empire, I don't necessarily mean that it would be the United Kingdom in charge. Rather, I mean that the English Speaking nations could unite to start a new English Empire, providing a stable ruling power in chaotic regions, spreading Western culture, (e.g. Equality before the Law; Freedom of Speech; Freedom of Religion; Empiricism; Science; Capitalism; Women's Rights; Modern Medicine; Secularism, etc.), and imposing a new Pax-Britannica under which any behavior of the bride-burning/homosexual-murdering/adulterer-stoning/blasphemer-beheading/rape-victim-executing/child-mutilating/warlording/enslaving variety would receive swift and fitting punishment, any "culture" that condones such behavior be damned.

t3_39g8hn

CMV:The vast majority of women are NOT attracted to money.

I am constantly seeing guys with the opinion that women are attracted more to a guys wallet than his appearance or who he is as a person. Of course there will be some exceptions where a woman is actually attracted to the financial opportunities with a guy, but I feel most women are more attracted to the other traits that most successful and wealthy people have. The traits I'm referring to are passion, drive, ambition and confidence. A guy could have all of these things and direct them towards something like charity and the majority of women are still going to be very attracted to him. Most times though, these personality traits lead toward success which then leads to wealth. It's easy to recognize expensive things like nice cars and clothing that we don't have and associate that as to the difference between ourselves and the stranger with the beautiful girlfriend. It's not easy to see a strangers personality as they are walking to their car in the parking lot of the shopping mall. It's human instinct to notice patterns and try to learn from them. It makes sense we would think that wealth and beautiful girls go hand in hand. But in reality, the girlfriend he has was not originally attracted to his wallet, but his hard work ethic and the confidence he had in himself and what he was doing. Edit: I'd like to add competence as a major factor in what attracts a women to a man. _____ > *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 vast majority of women are NOT attracted to money. I am constantly seeing guys with the opinion that women are attracted more to a guys wallet than his appearance or who he is as a person. Of course there will be some exceptions where a woman is actually attracted to the financial opportunities with a guy, but I feel most women are more attracted to the other traits that most successful and wealthy people have. The traits I'm referring to are passion, drive, ambition and confidence. A guy could have all of these things and direct them towards something like charity and the majority of women are still going to be very attracted to him. Most times though, these personality traits lead toward success which then leads to wealth. It's easy to recognize expensive things like nice cars and clothing that we don't have and associate that as to the difference between ourselves and the stranger with the beautiful girlfriend. It's not easy to see a strangers personality as they are walking to their car in the parking lot of the shopping mall. It's human instinct to notice patterns and try to learn from them. It makes sense we would think that wealth and beautiful girls go hand in hand. But in reality, the girlfriend he has was not originally attracted to his wallet, but his hard work ethic and the confidence he had in himself and what he was doing. Edit: I'd like to add competence as a major factor in what attracts a women to a man.

t3_25suor

CMV: America imposing sanctions on Russia for their actions in Ukraine is both wrong and useless

I believe his for a few reasons: 1) Putin will not care. He is dedicated to the idea of a greater Russia and deeply distrusts the West already. By imposing sanctions on him, we are reinforcing his view of an evil west. 2) America has no prior obligations to Ukraine. They are not in MATO and we have no other treaties with them. Intervening into the affairs of a random nation is both imperialist and exactly what we are deriding Russia for. 3) The Russian people should not be punished for the actions of their government. By harming the economy of Russia we hurting the populace, who, while in an ostensibly democratic state, would have a hard time voting Putin out of office anyway. 4) Imposing sanctions strains our relationship with Russia, which is a strong geopolitical power and would be troublesome to have as an enemy. 5) Crimea *voted* to join Russia. By intervening, we are going against the very "will of the people" we value so highly, and it also makes us look ridiculous in the eyes of the international community. _____ > *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: America imposing sanctions on Russia for their actions in Ukraine is both wrong and useless. I believe his for a few reasons: 1) Putin will not care. He is dedicated to the idea of a greater Russia and deeply distrusts the West already. By imposing sanctions on him, we are reinforcing his view of an evil west. 2) America has no prior obligations to Ukraine. They are not in MATO and we have no other treaties with them. Intervening into the affairs of a random nation is both imperialist and exactly what we are deriding Russia for. 3) The Russian people should not be punished for the actions of their government. By harming the economy of Russia we hurting the populace, who, while in an ostensibly democratic state, would have a hard time voting Putin out of office anyway. 4) Imposing sanctions strains our relationship with Russia, which is a strong geopolitical power and would be troublesome to have as an enemy. 5) Crimea *voted* to join Russia. By intervening, we are going against the very "will of the people" we value so highly, and it also makes us look ridiculous in the eyes of the international community.

t3_2o818q

CMV: The right to be forgotten should not be a civil right

When I first learned about the right to be forgotten on the internet, I thought that it was a good idea. Then when I did a bit of research, it does infringe on people's rights to self expression. In this case, I think that although the right to one's individual privacy overrides one's individual right to self-expression (Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs), the amount of people's right being infringed upon outweighs the needs of one person's right to privacy. In this case, copyright violation and hacked material should not count and should be respected, etc., etc. Edit: there seems to be a bit of confusion: when I said the right to be forgotten, I meant online (the removal of search results). And also I meant that intellectual property and hacked material is NOT YOURS so it doesn't count because it includes theft. _____ > *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 remembering 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 right to be forgotten should not be a civil right. When I first learned about the right to be forgotten on the internet, I thought that it was a good idea. Then when I did a bit of research, it does infringe on people's rights to self expression. In this case, I think that although the right to one's individual privacy overrides one's individual right to self-expression (Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs), the amount of people's right being infringed upon outweighs the needs of one person's right to privacy. In this case, copyright violation and hacked material should not count and should be respected, etc., etc. Edit: there seems to be a bit of confusion: when I said the right to be forgotten, I meant online (the removal of search results). And also I meant that intellectual property and hacked material is NOT YOURS so it doesn't count because it includes theft.

t3_4zbfr5

CMV: The 24-hour media cycle isn't bad and those who distrust the media don't get accurate news.

I understand that CNN, FOX, and MSNBC definitely all share their forms of partisanship. I surely wouldn't consider themselves to be the best form of news. But I can't help but wonder why exactly American media is deemed so "untrustworthy". One incidence I wanna bring up is that Michigan rioter brought up not too long ago. CNN delivered her quip as wanting peace, but her full speech showed her dissatisfaction with rioting in their community. I understand why people would be upset by the "bring the riots to the suburbs" comment, but the CNN editor apologized within 24 hours. Places like CNN may be somewhat bad at the news and keeping interest, but I don't see how exactly they're untrustworthy. The nationwide distrust of the media is assuredly there, proven by recent polling. But even then, I don't believe the people who say they distrust the media. Where else do they find their news? Blogs? YouTube videos? Stormfront? It has me pretty curious, and I'm interested to see how people get their information without looking to mainstream news.

CMV: The 24-hour media cycle isn't bad and those who distrust the media don't get accurate news. I understand that CNN, FOX, and MSNBC definitely all share their forms of partisanship. I surely wouldn't consider themselves to be the best form of news. But I can't help but wonder why exactly American media is deemed so "untrustworthy". One incidence I wanna bring up is that Michigan rioter brought up not too long ago. CNN delivered her quip as wanting peace, but her full speech showed her dissatisfaction with rioting in their community. I understand why people would be upset by the "bring the riots to the suburbs" comment, but the CNN editor apologized within 24 hours. Places like CNN may be somewhat bad at the news and keeping interest, but I don't see how exactly they're untrustworthy. The nationwide distrust of the media is assuredly there, proven by recent polling. But even then, I don't believe the people who say they distrust the media. Where else do they find their news? Blogs? YouTube videos? Stormfront? It has me pretty curious, and I'm interested to see how people get their information without looking to mainstream news.

t3_1oxv6t

I think smoking is absolutely disgusting, CMV

Okay so backstory: one of my best friends smokes, and I keep asking him to quit. Personally, I think smoking is gross, it smells disgusting, and it is also unhealthy for you. When I ask him to quit, he asks why and then when I tell him why, he says he will not quit. When I ask him why, he can never give me a reason. I am just wondering why you would NOT considering smoking disgusting. My question to Reddit is, what good things about smoking am I missing? I know, obviously, that it is addicting but he says the addiction does not factor in. Okay so backstory: one of my best friends smokes, and I keep asking him to quit. Personally, I think smoking is gross, it smells disgusting, and it is also unhealthy for you. When I ask him to quit, he asks why and then when I tell him why, he says he will not quit. When I ask him why, he can never give me a reason. I am just wondering why you would NOT considering smoking disgusting. My question to Reddit is, what good things about smoking am I missing? I know, obviously, that it is addicting but he says the addiction does not factor in. Okay so backstory: one of my best friends smokes, and I keep asking him to quit. Personally, I think smoking is gross, it smells disgusting, and it is also unhealthy for you. When I ask him to quit, he asks why and then when I tell him why, he says he will not quit. When I ask him why, he can never give me a reason. I am just wondering why you would NOT considering smoking disgusting. My question to Reddit is, what good things about smoking am I missing? I know, obviously, that it is addicting but he says the addiction does not factor in. Okay so backstory: one of my best friends smokes, and I keep asking him to quit. Personally, I think smoking is gross, it smells disgusting, and it is also unhealthy for you. When I ask him to quit, he asks why and then when I tell him why, he says he will not quit. When I ask him why, he can never give me a reason. I am just wondering why you would NOT considering smoking disgusting. My question to Reddit is, what good things about smoking am I missing? I know, obviously, that it is addicting but he says the addiction does not factor in. Okay so backstory: one of my best friends smokes, and I keep asking him to quit. Personally, I think smoking is gross, it smells disgusting, and it is also unhealthy for you. When I ask him to quit, he asks why and then when I tell him why, he says he will not quit. When I ask him why, he can never give me a reason. I am just wondering why you would NOT considering smoking disgusting. My question to Reddit is, what good things about smoking am I missing? I know, obviously, that it is addicting but he says the addiction does not factor in.

I think smoking is absolutely disgusting, CMV. Okay so backstory: one of my best friends smokes, and I keep asking him to quit. Personally, I think smoking is gross, it smells disgusting, and it is also unhealthy for you. When I ask him to quit, he asks why and then when I tell him why, he says he will not quit. When I ask him why, he can never give me a reason. I am just wondering why you would NOT considering smoking disgusting. My question to Reddit is, what good things about smoking am I missing? I know, obviously, that it is addicting but he says the addiction does not factor in. Okay so backstory: one of my best friends smokes, and I keep asking him to quit. Personally, I think smoking is gross, it smells disgusting, and it is also unhealthy for you. When I ask him to quit, he asks why and then when I tell him why, he says he will not quit. When I ask him why, he can never give me a reason. I am just wondering why you would NOT considering smoking disgusting. My question to Reddit is, what good things about smoking am I missing? I know, obviously, that it is addicting but he says the addiction does not factor in. Okay so backstory: one of my best friends smokes, and I keep asking him to quit. Personally, I think smoking is gross, it smells disgusting, and it is also unhealthy for you. When I ask him to quit, he asks why and then when I tell him why, he says he will not quit. When I ask him why, he can never give me a reason. I am just wondering why you would NOT considering smoking disgusting. My question to Reddit is, what good things about smoking am I missing? I know, obviously, that it is addicting but he says the addiction does not factor in. Okay so backstory: one of my best friends smokes, and I keep asking him to quit. Personally, I think smoking is gross, it smells disgusting, and it is also unhealthy for you. When I ask him to quit, he asks why and then when I tell him why, he says he will not quit. When I ask him why, he can never give me a reason. I am just wondering why you would NOT considering smoking disgusting. My question to Reddit is, what good things about smoking am I missing? I know, obviously, that it is addicting but he says the addiction does not factor in. Okay so backstory: one of my best friends smokes, and I keep asking him to quit. Personally, I think smoking is gross, it smells disgusting, and it is also unhealthy for you. When I ask him to quit, he asks why and then when I tell him why, he says he will not quit. When I ask him why, he can never give me a reason. I am just wondering why you would NOT considering smoking disgusting. My question to Reddit is, what good things about smoking am I missing? I know, obviously, that it is addicting but he says the addiction does not factor in.

t3_5jaffi

CMV: It's deceptive when trans people wait to reveal that they're trans when things get sexual

Hey all, I've seen this conversation hashed out more now that trans people are becoming normalized and accepted in society. The debate gets pretty heated on both sides and I can certainly understand why. I took a psychology of sexuality class in college a couple of years ago. One of the exercises we did was "things that should be revealed on or before the first date." Our professor then gave different scenarios or revelations, and we had discussions as to what has to be divulged and what can wait until things get more serious. One of the topics was "should you reveal if you're trans before a first date?" Most of my class said no, but I was part of a very small minority who said yes. Some people even made the argument that I was being transphobic. As gay person, I understand that some of our societal struggles with the trans community have been similar. Given this, I was kind of taken aback by the reaction. My reasoning is this: When you decide to go on a date with someone, you're concluding that this person meets a set of standards that you've created for yourself (this person has similar interests to mine, this person is someone I'm physically attracted to, this person is the sex that i'm attracted to, etc). Deciding what sex/gender you're attracted to is one of the most primary decisions you make before you start dating. Without that, you have little guideline to finding someone you want to be in a long-term partnership with. By making gender revelation a long-term relationship announcement, a trans person can harmfully throw off the order of this process. When a cis person goes on dates with a trans person, only to find out that they're trans much later, this is an act of dishonesty. I know that there are a lot of grey areas with this, considering some trans people go through bottom surgery and some don't. I also know that gender isn't a primary compass for some people (say, a pansexual person or sapiosexual) when dating. I know anecdotes aren't very persuasive in these situations, but I can confidently say that I would end a relationship if this happened to me. It's not so much about being closed minded about the gender, but the dishonesty so early on would probably turn me away. CMV

CMV: It's deceptive when trans people wait to reveal that they're trans when things get sexual. Hey all, I've seen this conversation hashed out more now that trans people are becoming normalized and accepted in society. The debate gets pretty heated on both sides and I can certainly understand why. I took a psychology of sexuality class in college a couple of years ago. One of the exercises we did was "things that should be revealed on or before the first date." Our professor then gave different scenarios or revelations, and we had discussions as to what has to be divulged and what can wait until things get more serious. One of the topics was "should you reveal if you're trans before a first date?" Most of my class said no, but I was part of a very small minority who said yes. Some people even made the argument that I was being transphobic. As gay person, I understand that some of our societal struggles with the trans community have been similar. Given this, I was kind of taken aback by the reaction. My reasoning is this: When you decide to go on a date with someone, you're concluding that this person meets a set of standards that you've created for yourself (this person has similar interests to mine, this person is someone I'm physically attracted to, this person is the sex that i'm attracted to, etc). Deciding what sex/gender you're attracted to is one of the most primary decisions you make before you start dating. Without that, you have little guideline to finding someone you want to be in a long-term partnership with. By making gender revelation a long-term relationship announcement, a trans person can harmfully throw off the order of this process. When a cis person goes on dates with a trans person, only to find out that they're trans much later, this is an act of dishonesty. I know that there are a lot of grey areas with this, considering some trans people go through bottom surgery and some don't. I also know that gender isn't a primary compass for some people (say, a pansexual person or sapiosexual) when dating. I know anecdotes aren't very persuasive in these situations, but I can confidently say that I would end a relationship if this happened to me. It's not so much about being closed minded about the gender, but the dishonesty so early on would probably turn me away. CMV

t3_1q7p5b

I believe that wearing expensive jewelry is immoral in a world where 2.7bn people live on <$2/day. CMV.

When I hear people talking about their engagement rings that cost tens of thousands of dollars, or how much money they spent on their gold chain etc. I can't help but think of the lives that could objectively be saved. In wearing these items they are indicating that they care more about flaunting their wealth than they do about the lives of their fellow human beings. It's not as though the wearing of precious metals or stones has any actual use/utility, it's just a display for others. I think that that is immensely selfish and shows a lack of empathy bordering on the sociopathic. Organizations such as the http://www.againstmalaria.com/ foundation (or through http://www.givewell.org/) demonstrate beyond any doubt that this money could be used to save lives. I don't understand people who can justify to themselves these gratuitous displays of wealth given the opportunity costs in terms of human lives/life years. Maybe this view is a little black and white, so CMV.

I believe that wearing expensive jewelry is immoral in a world where 2.7bn people live on <$2/day. CMV. When I hear people talking about their engagement rings that cost tens of thousands of dollars, or how much money they spent on their gold chain etc. I can't help but think of the lives that could objectively be saved. In wearing these items they are indicating that they care more about flaunting their wealth than they do about the lives of their fellow human beings. It's not as though the wearing of precious metals or stones has any actual use/utility, it's just a display for others. I think that that is immensely selfish and shows a lack of empathy bordering on the sociopathic. Organizations such as the http://www.againstmalaria.com/ foundation (or through http://www.givewell.org/) demonstrate beyond any doubt that this money could be used to save lives. I don't understand people who can justify to themselves these gratuitous displays of wealth given the opportunity costs in terms of human lives/life years. Maybe this view is a little black and white, so CMV.

t3_1khn2a

I believe that if one is curious about a topic, they are also care about it. CMV

I had an argument with my roommate the other night about curiosity vs caring. She says that they are completely different and pretty much stuck with that the whole night. I said that if one was curious about something, they also somewhat cared for it as well. You can't be curious about something then follow up on it by saying "hey, I know I've been asking about this a lot, but I really don't care". You wouldn't be looking into so much if you didn't care. I guess what I'm trying to say is that, you can't be nosy/curious about something and then go "oh, but I don't care". If I'm wrong, please CMV.

I believe that if one is curious about a topic, they are also care about it. CMV. I had an argument with my roommate the other night about curiosity vs caring. She says that they are completely different and pretty much stuck with that the whole night. I said that if one was curious about something, they also somewhat cared for it as well. You can't be curious about something then follow up on it by saying "hey, I know I've been asking about this a lot, but I really don't care". You wouldn't be looking into so much if you didn't care. I guess what I'm trying to say is that, you can't be nosy/curious about something and then go "oh, but I don't care". If I'm wrong, please CMV.

t3_4qjz47

CMV: The United States has become unsustainably overpopulated, and that's a fundamental problem.

I'm always bothered that people are so unwilling to talk about how big a problem raw overpopulation is. People will (rightfully) cite globalization, climate change, and other existential dreads for evidence of the declining fortunes of the Western world, but the brass tacks is that there are simply too many of us motherfuckers. For the sake of discussion, I'm limiting the scope of overpopulation to the United States. We have a *lot* of people here, and a tragic percentage of our population lives in poverty, and it's only getting worse. America simply feels busier and more frantic than it used to. Have you been in a modern popular American city lately? Holy shit; where did all these people come from? There's just no way to structurally support our population, and it drives me nuts. Yes, I'm aware that most of the world's population could *physically* live in Texas. That's not relevant here.

CMV: The United States has become unsustainably overpopulated, and that's a fundamental problem. I'm always bothered that people are so unwilling to talk about how big a problem raw overpopulation is. People will (rightfully) cite globalization, climate change, and other existential dreads for evidence of the declining fortunes of the Western world, but the brass tacks is that there are simply too many of us motherfuckers. For the sake of discussion, I'm limiting the scope of overpopulation to the United States. We have a *lot* of people here, and a tragic percentage of our population lives in poverty, and it's only getting worse. America simply feels busier and more frantic than it used to. Have you been in a modern popular American city lately? Holy shit; where did all these people come from? There's just no way to structurally support our population, and it drives me nuts. Yes, I'm aware that most of the world's population could *physically* live in Texas. That's not relevant here.

t3_65d9ft

CMV: Motorcycling is inherently dangerous

**Why I feel this way**: - There is nothing protecting the rider from being injured, except for the gear they wear, which can only do so much. Nothing's going to prevent their spine or neck from breaking. - They are much less visible to other drivers on the road than other kinds of vehicles. - Those two points to me mean that a) motorcyclists are more likely to get into an accident than drivers of other vehicles, and b) are almost guaranteed to suffer a serious injury if they do. I realize that my view as stated in the title is not refutable, since levels of risk exist on a spectrum and there is no magic line that makes an activity "safe" or "dangerous". So I'll say **you can CMV by showing me that the level of risk for motorcycling is lower than or equal to an activity I already consider to be "safe enough".** I'll leave it open as to what can be used as a comparison, but will offer two starting points: - Automobile driving. I consider it a given that it is more dangerous to ride a motorcycle than drive a car, but maybe it's not. - Urban cycling. My work/home commute has never been such that it made sense for me to cycle as a regular mode of transportation, but I do live in a major urban center and have cycled as a mode of transportation occasionally, and if it made sense for me to do so regularly I would. For context, my husband loves motorcycling and being a motorcyclist is an important part of his identity. I've accepted that it's something that's important to him, and don't want to stand in the way of him doing something he loves, but do worry about him when he's out and overall would prefer he didn't do it at all. He'd also like me to ride with him as a passenger, and while I'm not worried that I'd be injured on one of the few motorcycle rides I took in my life, if I were to express approval by riding with him and then later he would become injured or worse, I'm not sure that I could live with myself afterward. I can compare this feeling to what it might be like if you were, say, a social or occasional smoker, and someone you cared about started smoking regularly. Or if you were a social drinker, and someone you cared about started drinking heavily. You'd probably no longer feel comfortable smoking or drinking around them, as that might seem like tacit approval of their habits. Please, CMV. I'd very much prefer to not worry when he's out, and if I did go out on a ride with him it would totally make his day. _____ > *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: Motorcycling is inherently dangerous. **Why I feel this way**: - There is nothing protecting the rider from being injured, except for the gear they wear, which can only do so much. Nothing's going to prevent their spine or neck from breaking. - They are much less visible to other drivers on the road than other kinds of vehicles. - Those two points to me mean that a) motorcyclists are more likely to get into an accident than drivers of other vehicles, and b) are almost guaranteed to suffer a serious injury if they do. I realize that my view as stated in the title is not refutable, since levels of risk exist on a spectrum and there is no magic line that makes an activity "safe" or "dangerous". So I'll say **you can CMV by showing me that the level of risk for motorcycling is lower than or equal to an activity I already consider to be "safe enough".** I'll leave it open as to what can be used as a comparison, but will offer two starting points: - Automobile driving. I consider it a given that it is more dangerous to ride a motorcycle than drive a car, but maybe it's not. - Urban cycling. My work/home commute has never been such that it made sense for me to cycle as a regular mode of transportation, but I do live in a major urban center and have cycled as a mode of transportation occasionally, and if it made sense for me to do so regularly I would. For context, my husband loves motorcycling and being a motorcyclist is an important part of his identity. I've accepted that it's something that's important to him, and don't want to stand in the way of him doing something he loves, but do worry about him when he's out and overall would prefer he didn't do it at all. He'd also like me to ride with him as a passenger, and while I'm not worried that I'd be injured on one of the few motorcycle rides I took in my life, if I were to express approval by riding with him and then later he would become injured or worse, I'm not sure that I could live with myself afterward. I can compare this feeling to what it might be like if you were, say, a social or occasional smoker, and someone you cared about started smoking regularly. Or if you were a social drinker, and someone you cared about started drinking heavily. You'd probably no longer feel comfortable smoking or drinking around them, as that might seem like tacit approval of their habits. Please, CMV. I'd very much prefer to not worry when he's out, and if I did go out on a ride with him it would totally make his day.

t3_2ngf0n

CMV:Blacks play the race card way too often.

The whole ferguson case is a non issue. If a white kid tries to pull a cops gun out of his holster, runs and gets shot, hes a fucking punk and the cop was in the right. A black kid does it and its all of a sudden the crime of the century. I know the media played a big part in blowing this out of proportion, but the black community is way too quick to defend the colored just because they're colored, wrong or right. I understand that centuries of slavery and oppression have left a palpable effect, but we're decades removed from that. Straight up, vocal, racists are in the minority now. They dont represent the diverse and multicultural population of the United States in 2014. The ferguson case is not about the color of the skin, but a violation of clear cut laws. Black people are quick to scream prejudice and then turn and loot stores of chinese and indian immigrants for "justice". I dont think they give a shit about justice or that dead kid, but just want to make a show of themselves. If you stop always acting like the victim, you won't be treated like one. CMV. (if this seems racist, its not. this is a cultural issue, not a racial one) _____ > *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:Blacks play the race card way too often. The whole ferguson case is a non issue. If a white kid tries to pull a cops gun out of his holster, runs and gets shot, hes a fucking punk and the cop was in the right. A black kid does it and its all of a sudden the crime of the century. I know the media played a big part in blowing this out of proportion, but the black community is way too quick to defend the colored just because they're colored, wrong or right. I understand that centuries of slavery and oppression have left a palpable effect, but we're decades removed from that. Straight up, vocal, racists are in the minority now. They dont represent the diverse and multicultural population of the United States in 2014. The ferguson case is not about the color of the skin, but a violation of clear cut laws. Black people are quick to scream prejudice and then turn and loot stores of chinese and indian immigrants for "justice". I dont think they give a shit about justice or that dead kid, but just want to make a show of themselves. If you stop always acting like the victim, you won't be treated like one. CMV. (if this seems racist, its not. this is a cultural issue, not a racial one)

t3_1gn5gq

Obese people deserve the same amount of ridicule at the same intensity felt by people who don't shower enough or fail to use deodorant. Obesity shouldn't be defended or have any concessions made for it because it is a failing in one's personal hygiene. CMV.

**EDIT: My view has definitely been changed. I don't want to sound like I was actually here to change my view, because I wasn't. I just wanted to test how strong my opinion was and it was about as solid as piss. Because I missed so many probably obvious and important points despite holding this view for at least a year, it is obvious I've got some underlying prejudices I have to work through. Thanks to the people who commented though. It will make a big difference in the real world I'm sure. Also, I have a daughter, which means that now she will benefit throughout her life from not having Daddy's asshole opinion about a topic that is relevant to many many people. Thanks for doing my parenting for me, suckers** I hold this view because I believe that weight and it's various consequences, disease or the lack of it, are a part of personal hygiene. Some people find it difficult to lose weight for many reasons. I get that. I fucking despise working out until I finish doing it. It's awful stuff, I'd much rather be doing other less strenuous shit. But I still do it anyway because even though I'm not built like a brick shit-house (Australian for big and tough) I still find that it maintains the shape of my body. If I didn't work out then I would get fat or at least start looking pretty sloppy i.e. gut etc. But When that starts to happen I eat a little better and work-out and do my best to pull away from being fat or obese. If I didn't have showers twice a day I would stink. It sucks. People don't think I smell bad but it's because I put in the effort to shower when I wake up and before I go to sleep. If I didn't I would stink and people would react accordingly. If I stank enough to need 3 showers then I would do my best to do so. Even if there was a trend running in the wealthier parts of the world where more people were stinking, I would still try to shower enough. I wouldn't just accept it. Please, if anyone is thinking of posting an argument saying that "it's really hard for some people", or anything close to that, do not do it. I get for a select few, weight must be impossible to lose. We are human, some people are born with hearts out of their fucking chest, I'm sure some people just literally can't lose weight. But I don't believe all the fat people here in Australia and America should even think about asking to not be teased or ridiculed. Obviously, I don't advocate street rallies against the fatties. I'm just saying that as far as people would normally ridicule stinky people or dirty people then so should that level of ridicule be due obese people. Some people stink more and so they have to shower more. Some people gain weight quicker or faster or easier and so they should be more healthy and work out harder to avoid being fat -- otherwise they are fair game. CMV. I am sorry a little bit if I come off sounding like an asshole. I'm not that sorry, but I am mildly apologetic despite it being my intention. I just am curious to see if people can CMV on seeing the broad obesity "problem" in the West as a personal hygiene failing. THIS ALSO MEANS THAT I WOULD REALLY LIKE PEOPLE NOT TO TRY TO CMV BY CITING THEIR FAT COUSIN OR FAT-SELVES WHO HAVE A DISEASE DISALLOWING FAT LOSS OR EXERCISE. So change my view or just tell me I'm wrong. Feel free to be hostile if I am blatantly wrong.

Obese people deserve the same amount of ridicule at the same intensity felt by people who don't shower enough or fail to use deodorant. Obesity shouldn't be defended or have any concessions made for it because it is a failing in one's personal hygiene. CMV. **EDIT: My view has definitely been changed. I don't want to sound like I was actually here to change my view, because I wasn't. I just wanted to test how strong my opinion was and it was about as solid as piss. Because I missed so many probably obvious and important points despite holding this view for at least a year, it is obvious I've got some underlying prejudices I have to work through. Thanks to the people who commented though. It will make a big difference in the real world I'm sure. Also, I have a daughter, which means that now she will benefit throughout her life from not having Daddy's asshole opinion about a topic that is relevant to many many people. Thanks for doing my parenting for me, suckers** I hold this view because I believe that weight and it's various consequences, disease or the lack of it, are a part of personal hygiene. Some people find it difficult to lose weight for many reasons. I get that. I fucking despise working out until I finish doing it. It's awful stuff, I'd much rather be doing other less strenuous shit. But I still do it anyway because even though I'm not built like a brick shit-house (Australian for big and tough) I still find that it maintains the shape of my body. If I didn't work out then I would get fat or at least start looking pretty sloppy i.e. gut etc. But When that starts to happen I eat a little better and work-out and do my best to pull away from being fat or obese. If I didn't have showers twice a day I would stink. It sucks. People don't think I smell bad but it's because I put in the effort to shower when I wake up and before I go to sleep. If I didn't I would stink and people would react accordingly. If I stank enough to need 3 showers then I would do my best to do so. Even if there was a trend running in the wealthier parts of the world where more people were stinking, I would still try to shower enough. I wouldn't just accept it. Please, if anyone is thinking of posting an argument saying that "it's really hard for some people", or anything close to that, do not do it. I get for a select few, weight must be impossible to lose. We are human, some people are born with hearts out of their fucking chest, I'm sure some people just literally can't lose weight. But I don't believe all the fat people here in Australia and America should even think about asking to not be teased or ridiculed. Obviously, I don't advocate street rallies against the fatties. I'm just saying that as far as people would normally ridicule stinky people or dirty people then so should that level of ridicule be due obese people. Some people stink more and so they have to shower more. Some people gain weight quicker or faster or easier and so they should be more healthy and work out harder to avoid being fat -- otherwise they are fair game. CMV. I am sorry a little bit if I come off sounding like an asshole. I'm not that sorry, but I am mildly apologetic despite it being my intention. I just am curious to see if people can CMV on seeing the broad obesity "problem" in the West as a personal hygiene failing. THIS ALSO MEANS THAT I WOULD REALLY LIKE PEOPLE NOT TO TRY TO CMV BY CITING THEIR FAT COUSIN OR FAT-SELVES WHO HAVE A DISEASE DISALLOWING FAT LOSS OR EXERCISE. So change my view or just tell me I'm wrong. Feel free to be hostile if I am blatantly wrong.

t3_30dlku

CMV: The media should stop covering the Germanwings tragedy immediately

We know that all forensic psychologist experts agree that once the media hypes up a spree killing, there is copycats afterwards. Usually mass-murderers like this is seeking attention in their ultimate suicide. Now that this is looking more and more likely in the case of Germanwings, we should stop covering it, as it will in all likelihood inspire someone else. For those doubting this, consider that there are hundreds of thousands of pilots. Many work in pretty bad conditions (this also needs change) like long work hours, loneliness from being unable to live normal social lives etc. So that some of these are feeling suicidal and might be inspired by this is inevitable. Of course this wont happen, but we should truly stop covering and discussing this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-D3YoW3Hxg

CMV: The media should stop covering the Germanwings tragedy immediately. We know that all forensic psychologist experts agree that once the media hypes up a spree killing, there is copycats afterwards. Usually mass-murderers like this is seeking attention in their ultimate suicide. Now that this is looking more and more likely in the case of Germanwings, we should stop covering it, as it will in all likelihood inspire someone else. For those doubting this, consider that there are hundreds of thousands of pilots. Many work in pretty bad conditions (this also needs change) like long work hours, loneliness from being unable to live normal social lives etc. So that some of these are feeling suicidal and might be inspired by this is inevitable. Of course this wont happen, but we should truly stop covering and discussing this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-D3YoW3Hxg

t3_5ydjk2

CMV: It is ok to not participate in politics

I've never been a fan of politics regardless if it's national or local level. I've recently had to lie pretty often when people ask me if I'm voting on certain things because I get such a negative response from everyone I tell that I don't vote or care. In my eyes, I did not choose or ask to be placed in the country I am. When people get upset at me for not voting I hear it as "You're an asshole for not participating in a system you forced into." Why do I have to care? Why do I have to participate? I disagree with the majority of political parties, systems and theories, so why would I participate? The answer I get often is so I can at least voice myself and have influence on what goes on. But again, I just don't care. Why does that make me such a bad person? Why does that make me "part of the problem"? I see politics as a whole to be the problem. With all of the good that does come from politics, there's also an endless sea of bad. I'd rather detach myself from politics as much as I can and just focus on my life and the lives of those that I care about - rather than focus time on how I think things should be ran in my country/state/town. Edit: I'm headed to bed in the next few minutes (currently 12:30 AM PST). I'll reply to everyone tomorrow! > *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: It is ok to not participate in politics. I've never been a fan of politics regardless if it's national or local level. I've recently had to lie pretty often when people ask me if I'm voting on certain things because I get such a negative response from everyone I tell that I don't vote or care. In my eyes, I did not choose or ask to be placed in the country I am. When people get upset at me for not voting I hear it as "You're an asshole for not participating in a system you forced into." Why do I have to care? Why do I have to participate? I disagree with the majority of political parties, systems and theories, so why would I participate? The answer I get often is so I can at least voice myself and have influence on what goes on. But again, I just don't care. Why does that make me such a bad person? Why does that make me "part of the problem"? I see politics as a whole to be the problem. With all of the good that does come from politics, there's also an endless sea of bad. I'd rather detach myself from politics as much as I can and just focus on my life and the lives of those that I care about - rather than focus time on how I think things should be ran in my country/state/town. Edit: I'm headed to bed in the next few minutes (currently 12:30 AM PST). I'll reply to everyone tomorrow! > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

t3_4dk7qn

CMV: Justice cannot be created without also creating injustice

So, I've been thinking a lot about the so-called "justice" system and its prejudices in prosecuting and persecuting people based on race and economic means. The rich commit public crimes and go free seemingly without any meaningful punishment because of their means while the poor can lose years of their lives for the stupidest of reasons. What might seem to be a reasonable sentence when viewed through the impersonal lens of a prison would appear pretty twisted when viewed in isolation. If the cops come and lock up my neighbor for 20 years for growing marijuana, that might seem reasonable. But if my neighbors and I built a cage in my basement and kept him caged up for that many years, that would obviously be pretty twisted. How is it that when an individual or a small group of people do something, it's clearly wrong, you're sociopaths - but when a large group of people go and do that same thing, what was sociopathic before becomes instead the opposite, society? Do the democracy of numbers somehow imbue something that would otherwise be wrong with some sense of rightness? And what of the men and women locked up for crimes they did not commit? How many guilty men do you need to lock up for the innocent one to be considered an acceptable cost? Somehow, it seems that the more we try to create justice, the more injustice we end up creating in the world. So my question is this, is there any system in the world that could be said to be perfectly just? Is it even possible to create justice without also creating injustice? _____ > *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: Justice cannot be created without also creating injustice. So, I've been thinking a lot about the so-called "justice" system and its prejudices in prosecuting and persecuting people based on race and economic means. The rich commit public crimes and go free seemingly without any meaningful punishment because of their means while the poor can lose years of their lives for the stupidest of reasons. What might seem to be a reasonable sentence when viewed through the impersonal lens of a prison would appear pretty twisted when viewed in isolation. If the cops come and lock up my neighbor for 20 years for growing marijuana, that might seem reasonable. But if my neighbors and I built a cage in my basement and kept him caged up for that many years, that would obviously be pretty twisted. How is it that when an individual or a small group of people do something, it's clearly wrong, you're sociopaths - but when a large group of people go and do that same thing, what was sociopathic before becomes instead the opposite, society? Do the democracy of numbers somehow imbue something that would otherwise be wrong with some sense of rightness? And what of the men and women locked up for crimes they did not commit? How many guilty men do you need to lock up for the innocent one to be considered an acceptable cost? Somehow, it seems that the more we try to create justice, the more injustice we end up creating in the world. So my question is this, is there any system in the world that could be said to be perfectly just? Is it even possible to create justice without also creating injustice?

t3_5ww1o2

CMV: Linda Sarsour being a face of the Women's March is counterproductive to the movement and women rights.

One of the head organizers of the Women's March is Linda Sarsour. Linda Sarsour has been very vocal about supporting Sharia Law which if everyone isn't already aware - Sharia Law supports the beating of women, decreased allowance for rights under the law and many more oppressive rulings. Linda Sarsour also has spoken about her support of Palestine, her extreme disdain for Israel and even has alleged ties to Hamas, a terrorist organization. She has proven to be against the values of the western civilization in a lot of ways which I believe is ultimately detrimental, especially in the case that people listen and believe her ideological statements and positions. I think for someone who advocates for Sharia Law, it is clearly counterproductive and hypocritical to be a leading voice in a organization such as The Women's March. Someone who can actively support such an ideology which directly conflicts with the rights of Women, among other minorities - cannot come out and organize or lead such a movement. Though I'm sure there is someone out there who is a supporter of The Women's March *(Which I'm somewhat against to be fair.)* and actively thinks Linda Sarsour is a good leader for the movement I'd like to hear the other opinions out there on this. So Reddit, attempt to change my view. _____ > *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: Linda Sarsour being a face of the Women's March is counterproductive to the movement and women rights. One of the head organizers of the Women's March is Linda Sarsour. Linda Sarsour has been very vocal about supporting Sharia Law which if everyone isn't already aware - Sharia Law supports the beating of women, decreased allowance for rights under the law and many more oppressive rulings. Linda Sarsour also has spoken about her support of Palestine, her extreme disdain for Israel and even has alleged ties to Hamas, a terrorist organization. She has proven to be against the values of the western civilization in a lot of ways which I believe is ultimately detrimental, especially in the case that people listen and believe her ideological statements and positions. I think for someone who advocates for Sharia Law, it is clearly counterproductive and hypocritical to be a leading voice in a organization such as The Women's March. Someone who can actively support such an ideology which directly conflicts with the rights of Women, among other minorities - cannot come out and organize or lead such a movement. Though I'm sure there is someone out there who is a supporter of The Women's March *(Which I'm somewhat against to be fair.)* and actively thinks Linda Sarsour is a good leader for the movement I'd like to hear the other opinions out there on this. So Reddit, attempt to change my view.

t3_4qbap4

CMV: Pro-gun advocates become hypocrites when they concede that felons and people with mental illness afflictions should not have guns.

As a liberal, gun control is one of the issues where I can understand both sides of the argument. I personally believe that a lot of the measures liberals in power take to control guns are just feel-good half-measures. I think that the country would be a better place if civilian-owned guns suddenly vanished into thin air. However that's not realistic. Anyway, there's one part of the pro-gun argument I can't see a logically consistent justification for: when it's argued that "good guys with guns" shouldn't be punished with gun control reform, but that the government is justified in taking those rights away from felons and mentally ill people. (Note: I recognize that there are some pro-gun advocates who disagree and think everyone should have the right to own a gun) Parts of this just don't make sense to me. If owning a gun is a constitutionally granted right, why shouldn't felons be able to buy a gun to protect themselves? If they're out of jail it means the justice system determined that they paid theit debt to society. Apart from voting (which I seriously disagree with) what other constitutional rights do we deprive freed felons of? Should they just be dead to rights if someone breaks into their home at night? Should people with mental illness be vulnerable to You might respond "well, felons will just have to figure out a way to defend themselves." Why can't gun owners do the same and resort to knives, mace, home security systems, etc.? Is the answer as simple as "felons gave up their chance to enjoy Constitutional rights" and "mentally sick people can't be trusted with Constitutional rights?" We don't deprive felons of knives, nailguns, chainsaws, etc (or whatever other method of killing people you want to substitute - and that pro-gun advocates will snidely respond to when an instance of a public stabbing/knifing massacre happens with "WE SHOULD BAN X"). So why is it only guns that are okay to take away from felons and the mentally ill? Aren't you conceding that guns carry an inherent danger to them and its not as simple as "well the illegal things people do with guns are already illegal and there's no law that will prevent that?" Is my view on this - that there's no logically consistent way for pro-gun advocates to agree with background checks - just one big "gotcha?"

CMV: Pro-gun advocates become hypocrites when they concede that felons and people with mental illness afflictions should not have guns. As a liberal, gun control is one of the issues where I can understand both sides of the argument. I personally believe that a lot of the measures liberals in power take to control guns are just feel-good half-measures. I think that the country would be a better place if civilian-owned guns suddenly vanished into thin air. However that's not realistic. Anyway, there's one part of the pro-gun argument I can't see a logically consistent justification for: when it's argued that "good guys with guns" shouldn't be punished with gun control reform, but that the government is justified in taking those rights away from felons and mentally ill people. (Note: I recognize that there are some pro-gun advocates who disagree and think everyone should have the right to own a gun) Parts of this just don't make sense to me. If owning a gun is a constitutionally granted right, why shouldn't felons be able to buy a gun to protect themselves? If they're out of jail it means the justice system determined that they paid theit debt to society. Apart from voting (which I seriously disagree with) what other constitutional rights do we deprive freed felons of? Should they just be dead to rights if someone breaks into their home at night? Should people with mental illness be vulnerable to You might respond "well, felons will just have to figure out a way to defend themselves." Why can't gun owners do the same and resort to knives, mace, home security systems, etc.? Is the answer as simple as "felons gave up their chance to enjoy Constitutional rights" and "mentally sick people can't be trusted with Constitutional rights?" We don't deprive felons of knives, nailguns, chainsaws, etc (or whatever other method of killing people you want to substitute - and that pro-gun advocates will snidely respond to when an instance of a public stabbing/knifing massacre happens with "WE SHOULD BAN X"). So why is it only guns that are okay to take away from felons and the mentally ill? Aren't you conceding that guns carry an inherent danger to them and its not as simple as "well the illegal things people do with guns are already illegal and there's no law that will prevent that?" Is my view on this - that there's no logically consistent way for pro-gun advocates to agree with background checks - just one big "gotcha?"

t3_4mt005

CMV: Everything we need should be given to us through our right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

So we have sufficient technology to harvest food autonomously. We have enough technology to ship food autonomously. We have autonomous vehicles that can mine materials, manufacture materials, fabricate, machine, and assemble everything we consume. We should start demanding that our homes be made of autonomously generated materials. Assembled by construction bots. Food should be free. We do not need bank tellers with ATMs sitting in the same lobby. We do not need telemarketers. We do not need employees anywhere. Walmarts could be reduced to automated warehouses and you walk into the lobby and place your entire order on a touch screen. What happens when we cannot create enough jobs for people to have to feed themselves? Would there be an uprising against the people who own it? All of this technology exists. Some of my ideas, I understand, are a little further in the future but why can't we just have our needs met? And then if you have a job, then that's just an additional bonus for your life if you think of working in that way. Update: Im pretty new to Reddit, and I'm now realizing that the way I phrased the question and the premise is wrong. All of the arguments i have read are strong and well thought out. I will say that my opinion has been changed just on the fact that I didn't really mean right now. I meant like in a few years we will start to see people demanding that they be fed based on human rights and I was curious if the "life liberty and pursuit of happiness" clause might be an issue. View changed.

CMV: Everything we need should be given to us through our right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So we have sufficient technology to harvest food autonomously. We have enough technology to ship food autonomously. We have autonomous vehicles that can mine materials, manufacture materials, fabricate, machine, and assemble everything we consume. We should start demanding that our homes be made of autonomously generated materials. Assembled by construction bots. Food should be free. We do not need bank tellers with ATMs sitting in the same lobby. We do not need telemarketers. We do not need employees anywhere. Walmarts could be reduced to automated warehouses and you walk into the lobby and place your entire order on a touch screen. What happens when we cannot create enough jobs for people to have to feed themselves? Would there be an uprising against the people who own it? All of this technology exists. Some of my ideas, I understand, are a little further in the future but why can't we just have our needs met? And then if you have a job, then that's just an additional bonus for your life if you think of working in that way. Update: Im pretty new to Reddit, and I'm now realizing that the way I phrased the question and the premise is wrong. All of the arguments i have read are strong and well thought out. I will say that my opinion has been changed just on the fact that I didn't really mean right now. I meant like in a few years we will start to see people demanding that they be fed based on human rights and I was curious if the "life liberty and pursuit of happiness" clause might be an issue. View changed.

t3_62t57q

CMV: This whole internet thing is bunk.

Sure, it's an information "super highway" but it's way too slow. I could get in my Toyota Supra Turbo and drive to the library, get the book I need, and drive back before that loud modem is done screeching. Ever since my fart-knocker friends got hold of this "information super-highway" they've been acting like they're like some hella smart dudes. So now only some of my friends scrubs and if I want to use this "information-superhighway", I need to connect to this loud banshee modem thing and wait for decades before I can get on, in which time I could have already gotten my information from the library.

CMV: This whole internet thing is bunk. Sure, it's an information "super highway" but it's way too slow. I could get in my Toyota Supra Turbo and drive to the library, get the book I need, and drive back before that loud modem is done screeching. Ever since my fart-knocker friends got hold of this "information super-highway" they've been acting like they're like some hella smart dudes. So now only some of my friends scrubs and if I want to use this "information-superhighway", I need to connect to this loud banshee modem thing and wait for decades before I can get on, in which time I could have already gotten my information from the library.

t3_25ogt7

CMV: I believe that the US drinking age should be lowered to 20.

The government does have the right idea that teenagers shouldn't be drinking alcohol, but in my view, nobody who has passed his or her teenage years should be denied. Obviously it should not be 18, because that would give easy access to high school kids. The current drinking age of 21 completely undermines the 20th birthday, the dawn of a new decade, arguably the most important of one's life. Instead of celebrating, most people just simply gloss over their 20th birthdays, just waiting the extra year. Should we skip our 30th birthdays and wait until 31 for a big celebration? 41 instead of 40? Obviously not.

CMV: I believe that the US drinking age should be lowered to 20. The government does have the right idea that teenagers shouldn't be drinking alcohol, but in my view, nobody who has passed his or her teenage years should be denied. Obviously it should not be 18, because that would give easy access to high school kids. The current drinking age of 21 completely undermines the 20th birthday, the dawn of a new decade, arguably the most important of one's life. Instead of celebrating, most people just simply gloss over their 20th birthdays, just waiting the extra year. Should we skip our 30th birthdays and wait until 31 for a big celebration? 41 instead of 40? Obviously not.

t3_212thd

Religious agnosticism makes no sense to me. CMV

There's a popular line of thought that since no one can present real proof either confirming or disproving the existence of a deity, the rational response should be to become agnostic, acknowledging that either case is possible. But to me that seemingly requires a gross abandonment of all logic and knowledge of human motivations. While it is possible that a God exists a la the one in the Christian bible, I think a far more rational to postulate that the Christian God is a fictional invention of mankind that satisfies our desire for our society to be a Just World in which there's a higher power secretly judging us for our actions and punishing bad behavior and rewarding good behavior. That neatly explains the existence of religion without have to resort to absurd conclusions that contradicts everything I've ever learned about science, nature, and the universe. Furthermore, if I chose to be agnostic about the existence of a religious god, to be logically consistent I'd also have to be agnostic about everything else that I can't prove doesn't exist. I don't know of any proof that fire-breathing dragons don't live in the center of the earth, yet few people would admit to being "agnostic" about that. They rightly proclaim that the likelihood of that being the case is so astronomically low that it's most efficient to believe that it's not true. Finally, being agnostic about a deity seems extremely inefficient to me, as there are an infinite number of different deities that could exist. In other words, agnosticism is so imprecise that it becomes a useless mode of thought. Even if you're agnostic, choosing which deity you're agnostic about seems like an insurmountable task, given that all we have to go on is historical knowledge about which deities have been popular to believe in in the past. To believe in the possibility of any deity that can be conceived by the human mind is to not truly believe in any of them. I guess my view is that atheism makes sense to me, religiosity makes sense only insofar that you use pure emotion-based faith to believe in it rather than factual evidence (which doesn't exist), and agnosticism makes very little sense to me given my reasoning above. 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 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!*

Religious agnosticism makes no sense to me. CMV. There's a popular line of thought that since no one can present real proof either confirming or disproving the existence of a deity, the rational response should be to become agnostic, acknowledging that either case is possible. But to me that seemingly requires a gross abandonment of all logic and knowledge of human motivations. While it is possible that a God exists a la the one in the Christian bible, I think a far more rational to postulate that the Christian God is a fictional invention of mankind that satisfies our desire for our society to be a Just World in which there's a higher power secretly judging us for our actions and punishing bad behavior and rewarding good behavior. That neatly explains the existence of religion without have to resort to absurd conclusions that contradicts everything I've ever learned about science, nature, and the universe. Furthermore, if I chose to be agnostic about the existence of a religious god, to be logically consistent I'd also have to be agnostic about everything else that I can't prove doesn't exist. I don't know of any proof that fire-breathing dragons don't live in the center of the earth, yet few people would admit to being "agnostic" about that. They rightly proclaim that the likelihood of that being the case is so astronomically low that it's most efficient to believe that it's not true. Finally, being agnostic about a deity seems extremely inefficient to me, as there are an infinite number of different deities that could exist. In other words, agnosticism is so imprecise that it becomes a useless mode of thought. Even if you're agnostic, choosing which deity you're agnostic about seems like an insurmountable task, given that all we have to go on is historical knowledge about which deities have been popular to believe in in the past. To believe in the possibility of any deity that can be conceived by the human mind is to not truly believe in any of them. I guess my view is that atheism makes sense to me, religiosity makes sense only insofar that you use pure emotion-based faith to believe in it rather than factual evidence (which doesn't exist), and agnosticism makes very little sense to me given my reasoning above. CMV?

t3_1g0v7c

I prefer Iphones over Droids. CMV.

I guess I don't have too much of a lengthy justification, but I simply find Iphones' interface MUCH more user friendly. Everything is cleanly laid out and there are no mysteries whereas droids' software can feel a bit clunky, in my subjective experience. I've found that most people that are well-versed in the tech world scoff at Apple products and are vehement about droids' superiority. I guess Iphones just feel easier to use and have a clean interface whereas droids don't feel as well designed and don't SEEM to offer a parallel level of ease and functionality.

I prefer Iphones over Droids. CMV. I guess I don't have too much of a lengthy justification, but I simply find Iphones' interface MUCH more user friendly. Everything is cleanly laid out and there are no mysteries whereas droids' software can feel a bit clunky, in my subjective experience. I've found that most people that are well-versed in the tech world scoff at Apple products and are vehement about droids' superiority. I guess Iphones just feel easier to use and have a clean interface whereas droids don't feel as well designed and don't SEEM to offer a parallel level of ease and functionality.

t3_3ee4f1

CMV: r/nofap is the most inspiring sub on reddit.

I'm not saying the most honest or intellectually stimulating or progressive, but inspiring. I say this because it is honest about a deeply embarrassing topic and it is filled with sincere and supportive people. Doesnt seem like a very judgemental place but it does offer people solutions to their problems. Perhaps the best part is that thread after thread stresses your people are real but they cannot ve solved instantly. You need a plan you're accountable to, you need to be honest with yourself and those around you. This to me is a fundamental aspect of the human experience: suffering (or negative emotion) is inherent to all our lives and we can best deal with that suffering by facing it. Supportive, honest, and sincere community. Individuals bearing their sole in the hopes of helping others and understanding themselves. morality that is practical but not judgemental. This is what makes an inspiring sub, and the sub that best embodies that the most is r/nofap. 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: r/nofap is the most inspiring sub on reddit. I'm not saying the most honest or intellectually stimulating or progressive, but inspiring. I say this because it is honest about a deeply embarrassing topic and it is filled with sincere and supportive people. Doesnt seem like a very judgemental place but it does offer people solutions to their problems. Perhaps the best part is that thread after thread stresses your people are real but they cannot ve solved instantly. You need a plan you're accountable to, you need to be honest with yourself and those around you. This to me is a fundamental aspect of the human experience: suffering (or negative emotion) is inherent to all our lives and we can best deal with that suffering by facing it. Supportive, honest, and sincere community. Individuals bearing their sole in the hopes of helping others and understanding themselves. morality that is practical but not judgemental. This is what makes an inspiring sub, and the sub that best embodies that the most is r/nofap. CMV

t3_3w7n30

CMV: I don't think we should have Muslim immigration

Immigration is not a charity. Its not a favor we do for the rest of the world. It has one sole purpose and that's to benefit us. We take in immigrants because we believe they will improve America. People following a religion in which [strong majorities believe women who wear pants deserve rape and gays and apostates need to die](http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/gsi2-overview-2.png) will not in any way shape or form improve America. Being Muslim is not immutable like race or gender. Its a belief that you chose to hold. You read a book about a prophet who's main activity was conquering villages then beheading all males with pubic hair and enslaving the women and children. A prophet who once [ordered his own people burned alive for failing to come out for the call to prayer](http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/011-sbt.php#001.011.626). You read about that prophet and said to yourself "I think that's a good role model for me". I understand that the Old Testament contains some harsh stuff. But if Muslims ignored the Quran, and didn't abuse women or kill gays, and ignored the frequent calls by the prophet to wage open ended violent Jihad against unbelievers. If they ignored all that, we wouldn't be having this conversation. But to anyone who reads the news or looks at Pew's frequent polling of the Muslim world it is quite clear that that is not what is happening. _____ > *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 we should have Muslim immigration. Immigration is not a charity. Its not a favor we do for the rest of the world. It has one sole purpose and that's to benefit us. We take in immigrants because we believe they will improve America. People following a religion in which [strong majorities believe women who wear pants deserve rape and gays and apostates need to die](http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/gsi2-overview-2.png) will not in any way shape or form improve America. Being Muslim is not immutable like race or gender. Its a belief that you chose to hold. You read a book about a prophet who's main activity was conquering villages then beheading all males with pubic hair and enslaving the women and children. A prophet who once [ordered his own people burned alive for failing to come out for the call to prayer](http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/011-sbt.php#001.011.626). You read about that prophet and said to yourself "I think that's a good role model for me". I understand that the Old Testament contains some harsh stuff. But if Muslims ignored the Quran, and didn't abuse women or kill gays, and ignored the frequent calls by the prophet to wage open ended violent Jihad against unbelievers. If they ignored all that, we wouldn't be having this conversation. But to anyone who reads the news or looks at Pew's frequent polling of the Muslim world it is quite clear that that is not what is happening.

t3_4n9k4p

CMV: The K-12 education system in the US is more problematic than the higher education system, and we should focus on fixing primary education before secondary.

Most of the attention given to education lately has been on higher education like community college or university. Although higher education does bring great benefits, it seems like it would be irresponsible to spend resources there when our k-12 education system is so troubled. Specifically, the fact that our worst public schools operate in the poorest areas means that kids from the poorest areas also receive the lowest quality k-12 education. k-12 school helps prepare you for higher education, but if the kids from poor areas are not prepared for college because they went to a poor school then it doesn't seem like it matters if they can go to school for free, they won't have the skills to succeed. [This source](http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/education_futures/2015/08/10_reasons_the_us_education_system_is_failing.html) states that although high school graduation rates are the highest they have ever been, less than half of the graduates can read or do math at a proficient level. There are many ways to ensure that as many people as possible have the opportunity for education, affordability is only one aspect, and simply attending college won't make up for an inadequate k-12 education and will only make the poorest students less likely to graduate. Shouldn't priority be given to the foundation of our education system? Edit: k-12 vs. higher education. Not primary vs. secondary, my bad. _____ > *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 K-12 education system in the US is more problematic than the higher education system, and we should focus on fixing primary education before secondary. Most of the attention given to education lately has been on higher education like community college or university. Although higher education does bring great benefits, it seems like it would be irresponsible to spend resources there when our k-12 education system is so troubled. Specifically, the fact that our worst public schools operate in the poorest areas means that kids from the poorest areas also receive the lowest quality k-12 education. k-12 school helps prepare you for higher education, but if the kids from poor areas are not prepared for college because they went to a poor school then it doesn't seem like it matters if they can go to school for free, they won't have the skills to succeed. [This source](http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/education_futures/2015/08/10_reasons_the_us_education_system_is_failing.html) states that although high school graduation rates are the highest they have ever been, less than half of the graduates can read or do math at a proficient level. There are many ways to ensure that as many people as possible have the opportunity for education, affordability is only one aspect, and simply attending college won't make up for an inadequate k-12 education and will only make the poorest students less likely to graduate. Shouldn't priority be given to the foundation of our education system? Edit: k-12 vs. higher education. Not primary vs. secondary, my bad.

t3_1v02ta

US Politics: I believe that all the politics that you and I observe is simply kabuki theater. CMV.

Update: A lot of commenters have taken this to mean that I believe our government is a vast conspiracy. That's not where I'm going with this. I'm simply saying for things like floor speeches in congress, presidential speeches, TV interviews, etc., the objective isn't to convince fellow legislators of the merits of their perspective, they are there to play to their audience (typically their constituents, both financial and democratic). I see this as why if you watch clips from people giving floor speeches in congress, there's nobody in the chamber but the person speaking and maybe a handful of others. Nobody in power cares about what is actually said in that specific forum. Everything real happens behind closed doors. I see more House of Cards and less Illuminati. ---- I believe that everything that happens on the floor of congress, in a press conference, a public committee meeting, or a speech has been discussed at length prior with all involved parties (including adversaries). That there are few, if any, genuine surprises that aren't the result of outside events. I believe that everything that actually matters happens in closed door meetings that are determined by what each participant can get away with or do for their respective constituencies (and not all the residents necessarily, just those that represent their political base). I once heard a lawyerly phrase: never ask a question you don't know the answer to. Give me some hope in our system. CMV.

US Politics: I believe that all the politics that you and I observe is simply kabuki theater. CMV. Update: A lot of commenters have taken this to mean that I believe our government is a vast conspiracy. That's not where I'm going with this. I'm simply saying for things like floor speeches in congress, presidential speeches, TV interviews, etc., the objective isn't to convince fellow legislators of the merits of their perspective, they are there to play to their audience (typically their constituents, both financial and democratic). I see this as why if you watch clips from people giving floor speeches in congress, there's nobody in the chamber but the person speaking and maybe a handful of others. Nobody in power cares about what is actually said in that specific forum. Everything real happens behind closed doors. I see more House of Cards and less Illuminati. ---- I believe that everything that happens on the floor of congress, in a press conference, a public committee meeting, or a speech has been discussed at length prior with all involved parties (including adversaries). That there are few, if any, genuine surprises that aren't the result of outside events. I believe that everything that actually matters happens in closed door meetings that are determined by what each participant can get away with or do for their respective constituencies (and not all the residents necessarily, just those that represent their political base). I once heard a lawyerly phrase: never ask a question you don't know the answer to. Give me some hope in our system. CMV.

t3_4n7hxi

CMV: Long term weight loss of over 10% of body weight is almost impossible without surgery

Every legitimate long term study of non surgical weight loss shows that it doesn't happen for the vast, vast majority of people. 1) ["In controlled settings, participants who remain in weight loss programs usually lose approximately 10% of their weight. However, one third to two thirds of the weight is regained within 1 year, and almost all is regained within 5 years. "](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1580453) 2) Giant meta study of long term weight loss: ["Five years after completing structured weight-loss programs, the average individual maintained a weight loss of >3% of initial body weight."](http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/74/5/579.full) 3) Less Scientific: [Weight Watcher's Failure - "about two out of a thousand Weight Watchers participants who reached goal weight stayed there for more than five years."](https://fatfu.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/weight-watchers/) 4) [The reason why it's impossible seems to be that although calories in < calories out works, the body of a fat person makes it extremely difficult psychologically to eat less.](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine/tara-parker-pope-fat-trap.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all) This is borne out by the above data. 5) [The only thing that does seem to work in the long term is gastric surgery.](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1421028/) Moreover, you won't find any reputable study on the web where the average person lost 10%+ of their body weight and kept it off for five years. Not even one. I'm not making excuses - I'm not even overweight - but based on the above, I hate the morality involved with body weight. EDIT: I'd also like to add that the above chances are to lose even 10% of bodyweight. The chances are much lower to go from obese to fit. EDIT2: The logical conclustion of of my view is that because "statistically, most people regain most of the weight they lose", it is worse than useless advice for doctors, friends, dietary people, and nutritionists to recommend behavior based weight loss to an obese person wanting to lose weight. The chances are that it won't work and it will leave the fat person feeling like a failure when it 98% chance fails. Better advice is to go get surgery or learn to accept being overweight. _____ > *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: Long term weight loss of over 10% of body weight is almost impossible without surgery. Every legitimate long term study of non surgical weight loss shows that it doesn't happen for the vast, vast majority of people. 1) ["In controlled settings, participants who remain in weight loss programs usually lose approximately 10% of their weight. However, one third to two thirds of the weight is regained within 1 year, and almost all is regained within 5 years. "](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1580453) 2) Giant meta study of long term weight loss: ["Five years after completing structured weight-loss programs, the average individual maintained a weight loss of >3% of initial body weight."](http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/74/5/579.full) 3) Less Scientific: [Weight Watcher's Failure - "about two out of a thousand Weight Watchers participants who reached goal weight stayed there for more than five years."](https://fatfu.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/weight-watchers/) 4) [The reason why it's impossible seems to be that although calories in < calories out works, the body of a fat person makes it extremely difficult psychologically to eat less.](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine/tara-parker-pope-fat-trap.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all) This is borne out by the above data. 5) [The only thing that does seem to work in the long term is gastric surgery.](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1421028/) Moreover, you won't find any reputable study on the web where the average person lost 10%+ of their body weight and kept it off for five years. Not even one. I'm not making excuses - I'm not even overweight - but based on the above, I hate the morality involved with body weight. EDIT: I'd also like to add that the above chances are to lose even 10% of bodyweight. The chances are much lower to go from obese to fit. EDIT2: The logical conclustion of of my view is that because "statistically, most people regain most of the weight they lose", it is worse than useless advice for doctors, friends, dietary people, and nutritionists to recommend behavior based weight loss to an obese person wanting to lose weight. The chances are that it won't work and it will leave the fat person feeling like a failure when it 98% chance fails. Better advice is to go get surgery or learn to accept being overweight.

t3_226cju

I think free market capitalism promotes ethical and moral obligations, more so than socialism. CMV.

Free markets eventually regulate themselves to the needs of the market which are specific to the consumers which, in turn, seem to give rise to certain obligations due to the competition. However in socialist societies, the burden is on the government to do what the free market does and creates people (majority of them) who are complacent and not driven to make it. It's not do or die as the government will pick up the tab (think benefits and social welfare). How is government dependency moral or ethical? What would be the best alternative apart from capitalism given our current culture (in developed nations)? Change my view, Reddit.

I think free market capitalism promotes ethical and moral obligations, more so than socialism. CMV. Free markets eventually regulate themselves to the needs of the market which are specific to the consumers which, in turn, seem to give rise to certain obligations due to the competition. However in socialist societies, the burden is on the government to do what the free market does and creates people (majority of them) who are complacent and not driven to make it. It's not do or die as the government will pick up the tab (think benefits and social welfare). How is government dependency moral or ethical? What would be the best alternative apart from capitalism given our current culture (in developed nations)? Change my view, Reddit.

t3_2j1je6

CMV: Women are less attractive as long term relationship material if they are nonorgasmic.

I am a 20 year old female. I've only had a couple sexual partners, but each one lost interest in me when they realized I just can't cum. I love sex, I have an extremely high libido. I always figured with good communication and time, it would eventually happen. It hasn't. After posting in a men's forum before asking how they would feel with a girl who can't orgasm, the majority of them revealed just how important it is, and a large amount said they would leave a girl after an extended period of time together without an orgasm happening. This view is also frequently reflected in other people's posts. And I get it. I dated a guy on antidepressants and it was a downer that he rarely got off no matter what I did. So, now I am almost relationship phobic. Why bother letting anyone close if they'll just leave me for being inadequate? _____ > *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: Women are less attractive as long term relationship material if they are nonorgasmic. I am a 20 year old female. I've only had a couple sexual partners, but each one lost interest in me when they realized I just can't cum. I love sex, I have an extremely high libido. I always figured with good communication and time, it would eventually happen. It hasn't. After posting in a men's forum before asking how they would feel with a girl who can't orgasm, the majority of them revealed just how important it is, and a large amount said they would leave a girl after an extended period of time together without an orgasm happening. This view is also frequently reflected in other people's posts. And I get it. I dated a guy on antidepressants and it was a downer that he rarely got off no matter what I did. So, now I am almost relationship phobic. Why bother letting anyone close if they'll just leave me for being inadequate?

t3_5qap5o

CMV: Falling in love puts our cognitive biases on steroids.

Love is celebrated as the highest, most noble emotion. It feels wonderful. And I am so psyched that it is a capacity of the human mind. But falling in love dulls our rationality. So we need to be very skeptical of our thoughts when we fall in love. When we are falling in love, it becomes very difficult to tell which of our thoughts have merit. We imagine happily ever afters with the person. We are tolerant of behaviors we would find repellant in others. We are extra nice to the person. And so they assume how nice we are to them is representative of how nice we are in general. Every one of their kind gestures strikes us as wonderful and considerate. We end up tacitly placing them above everyone else in our minds. An identical kind gesture from someone we aren't falling for would seem just nice. But we act as though the gestures by the one we're in love with have more moral worth than those by others. And then there's wishful thinking and confirmation bias. If they invite us over and act happy when they are with us, we assume their feelings are identical to ours and that a long, happy relationship was meant to be. We have very selective memories of them laughing at our jokes and doing nice things for us. And we use these memories to convince ourselves of the quality of the person, and how right they are for us. And we convince ourselves that, of all persons on this Earth, this person alone is worthy of our deepest affections. All of these mental acrobatics are ridiculous. For example, if we just change the variable of the person's looks, so that now they are just below our minimum standards for physical appearance, all of this goes out the window. Love becomes impossible, unachievable with the person. Even worse, for some all you would have to change is the person's net worth or social class or race. I want to believe that love is on firmer ground than it really is. I want to believe it can be a guiding principle, because it feels incredible. I love who I am when I'm on it. I love feeling good treating someone so well. I love it when it feels so rewarding to be good towards someone else. But really, I'm just acting like an idiot. And the emotional investment is risky. Outcome dependance is risky. Yet these two things can enhance the feelings. Maybe someone can change my views about this. EDIT: A few Redditors have accused me of confusing infatuation or falling in love with real love. Please note that I'm talking about falling in love or limerence, as u/Memories_of_you has pointed out. The preamble at the beginning where I discuss love as a noble emotion is confusing and bad writing, so I apologize. I didn't expect this post to become so visible. I probably won't spend the time go back and edit the post though. But note that I pivot to falling in love after I discuss society's views on love. This was intentional. No I don't think the butterflies and goofiness of the honeymoon stage are features of "real love", which is noble, more disciplined and mindful in comparison to limerence. So the follow up to this would be, "why do you want to elevate limerence, when it demonstrably diminishes critical thinking?" Simply because it is a unique mind state to inhabit and I want to hold it in higher regard. I believe it can be very beneficial to someone who is prepared for it. It's an important part of our lives and we fail young people by not preparing them for it. So yes it dulls our rationality, but maybe just refining the way we talk about it to young people can reduce the negative impact of the dulling effect. I appreciate everyones' thoughtful responses. I haven't had a chance to read them all, but I'll get there eventually.

CMV: Falling in love puts our cognitive biases on steroids. Love is celebrated as the highest, most noble emotion. It feels wonderful. And I am so psyched that it is a capacity of the human mind. But falling in love dulls our rationality. So we need to be very skeptical of our thoughts when we fall in love. When we are falling in love, it becomes very difficult to tell which of our thoughts have merit. We imagine happily ever afters with the person. We are tolerant of behaviors we would find repellant in others. We are extra nice to the person. And so they assume how nice we are to them is representative of how nice we are in general. Every one of their kind gestures strikes us as wonderful and considerate. We end up tacitly placing them above everyone else in our minds. An identical kind gesture from someone we aren't falling for would seem just nice. But we act as though the gestures by the one we're in love with have more moral worth than those by others. And then there's wishful thinking and confirmation bias. If they invite us over and act happy when they are with us, we assume their feelings are identical to ours and that a long, happy relationship was meant to be. We have very selective memories of them laughing at our jokes and doing nice things for us. And we use these memories to convince ourselves of the quality of the person, and how right they are for us. And we convince ourselves that, of all persons on this Earth, this person alone is worthy of our deepest affections. All of these mental acrobatics are ridiculous. For example, if we just change the variable of the person's looks, so that now they are just below our minimum standards for physical appearance, all of this goes out the window. Love becomes impossible, unachievable with the person. Even worse, for some all you would have to change is the person's net worth or social class or race. I want to believe that love is on firmer ground than it really is. I want to believe it can be a guiding principle, because it feels incredible. I love who I am when I'm on it. I love feeling good treating someone so well. I love it when it feels so rewarding to be good towards someone else. But really, I'm just acting like an idiot. And the emotional investment is risky. Outcome dependance is risky. Yet these two things can enhance the feelings. Maybe someone can change my views about this. EDIT: A few Redditors have accused me of confusing infatuation or falling in love with real love. Please note that I'm talking about falling in love or limerence, as u/Memories_of_you has pointed out. The preamble at the beginning where I discuss love as a noble emotion is confusing and bad writing, so I apologize. I didn't expect this post to become so visible. I probably won't spend the time go back and edit the post though. But note that I pivot to falling in love after I discuss society's views on love. This was intentional. No I don't think the butterflies and goofiness of the honeymoon stage are features of "real love", which is noble, more disciplined and mindful in comparison to limerence. So the follow up to this would be, "why do you want to elevate limerence, when it demonstrably diminishes critical thinking?" Simply because it is a unique mind state to inhabit and I want to hold it in higher regard. I believe it can be very beneficial to someone who is prepared for it. It's an important part of our lives and we fail young people by not preparing them for it. So yes it dulls our rationality, but maybe just refining the way we talk about it to young people can reduce the negative impact of the dulling effect. I appreciate everyones' thoughtful responses. I haven't had a chance to read them all, but I'll get there eventually.

t3_2wn5sd

CMV:PLEASE convince me, a white person, that I should feel comfortable in ethnically minority neighborhoods.

Okay, as a white person submitting a question like this I honestly feel that I have to prove I'm not a racist first. Yea it's a really typical and cliche thing to say, but regardless I feel I have to say it anyway. On a personal level I don't judge people by race. I have "minority" friends who I have very interesting and intellectual conversations with. My sister is dating a black guy who is awesome and I would even say that I trust with my life with him. He has been there for me when my other friends haven't. However I feel on a broader scale that minorities are so underrepresented in the media and through politics that they feel disenfranchised. I feel that this underrepresentation makes them distrust white people. Most of the white people they have interacted with have been some sort of authority figure, whether that be a cop, teacher, security guard or judge. And I feel that this generalization and distrust of white people is present when I am in a "minority" neighborhood. I also feel thar their culture contributes to violence. Things such as not "snitching" and cooperating with police, and rap music glorifying crime and violence contributes to this. I understand this all on a certain level. I love rap music talking about selling crack and killing cops and all that shit. However I know it's just music. I feel there are definitely people(especially young ppl) who take it seriously. I also feel that the fact that ethnically minority neighborhoods are typically less wealthy leads to robbery and crime. Please try to convince me that although I'm white I should feel comfortable In minority neighborhoods. Anybody I don't get back to today I definitely will tomorrow, thanks.

CMV:PLEASE convince me, a white person, that I should feel comfortable in ethnically minority neighborhoods. Okay, as a white person submitting a question like this I honestly feel that I have to prove I'm not a racist first. Yea it's a really typical and cliche thing to say, but regardless I feel I have to say it anyway. On a personal level I don't judge people by race. I have "minority" friends who I have very interesting and intellectual conversations with. My sister is dating a black guy who is awesome and I would even say that I trust with my life with him. He has been there for me when my other friends haven't. However I feel on a broader scale that minorities are so underrepresented in the media and through politics that they feel disenfranchised. I feel that this underrepresentation makes them distrust white people. Most of the white people they have interacted with have been some sort of authority figure, whether that be a cop, teacher, security guard or judge. And I feel that this generalization and distrust of white people is present when I am in a "minority" neighborhood. I also feel thar their culture contributes to violence. Things such as not "snitching" and cooperating with police, and rap music glorifying crime and violence contributes to this. I understand this all on a certain level. I love rap music talking about selling crack and killing cops and all that shit. However I know it's just music. I feel there are definitely people(especially young ppl) who take it seriously. I also feel that the fact that ethnically minority neighborhoods are typically less wealthy leads to robbery and crime. Please try to convince me that although I'm white I should feel comfortable In minority neighborhoods. Anybody I don't get back to today I definitely will tomorrow, thanks.

t3_6l0sdy

CMV: If you are against the idea of allowing homosexuals to marry because you feel marriage is about having kids and raising them, then you should be against old people marrying and against sterile people marrying.

The reason so many people have against allowing homosexuals to marry is that they feel marriage is about having and raising kids. It would seem to me that people who feel this way should also be against allowing older people from marrying (such as ones whose kids are already grown, or who had no kids in the first place). They should also be against allowing infertile people to marry. I will l not accept the argument here that the person's infertility can be cured - let's assume it cannot, or they are infertile because they had surgery done and don't want kids. I point out as well that just because a person is homosexual doesn't mean they cannot conceive a child through other means. Being homosexual doesn't mean a person doesn't want kids at some point.

CMV: If you are against the idea of allowing homosexuals to marry because you feel marriage is about having kids and raising them, then you should be against old people marrying and against sterile people marrying. The reason so many people have against allowing homosexuals to marry is that they feel marriage is about having and raising kids. It would seem to me that people who feel this way should also be against allowing older people from marrying (such as ones whose kids are already grown, or who had no kids in the first place). They should also be against allowing infertile people to marry. I will l not accept the argument here that the person's infertility can be cured - let's assume it cannot, or they are infertile because they had surgery done and don't want kids. I point out as well that just because a person is homosexual doesn't mean they cannot conceive a child through other means. Being homosexual doesn't mean a person doesn't want kids at some point.