Datasets:

simonycl

/

change_my_view_test

like 0

CMV: I think all tobacco products should be illegal.

I think that cigarettes and chewing tobacco should be outlawed. There are no positive benefits whatsoever. Smokers say its relaxing, but have you ever seen one stressing because they need a smoke but ran out/cant leave to smoke at the moment etc, so if it is relaxing, it also adds to stress. Not to mention it's relaxing because it's a form of self fulfilling effect. It is relaxing because their body wants those chemicals, and they are giving it to the body. All the unhealthy effects are well known, I'm not going to list all them. It pollutes the enviroment. All the chemicals in the smoke, and the filters... how many smokers actually throw away the cigarette butts. I am sure 95% of them just flick them on the ground... look around outside anyplace where people go on smoke breaks. They are everywhere, blowing around, getting in the water, and animals eat them. Im sure the main counterpoint to this is going to be "how can you or the government tell me what i can do with my body and health"... They already do though. They pass laws all the time because they say it's for our own good. Seatbelt laws for one example. The only person you hurt by not wearing one is yourself, but they make that a law. They have laws about what toxins and chemicals can be in our bug sprays, paint, and food, so it isn't like they dont already do that. _____ > *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!*

Your view seems to be based on the assumption that everyone who smokes tobacco is addicted to it and throws their waste everywhere. This is a flat out false stereotype about smokers. There are plenty of people who like to smoke every once in a while whether it be through a pipe, hookah, a cigar, cigarette, etc. Yes, it's true that some people litter their cigarette butts everywhere they smoke, but that doesn't mean we should punish those who don't do so. Aside from that, smoking can absolutely be relaxing. It essentially forces people to relax and take slow, deep breaths which can certainly be relaxing to some people. You may not find it relaxing, which is perfectly fine, but that doesn't mean others don't. As for the negative health effects, yes tobacco is bad for people. Instead of banning it completely, why not continue to educate the public on the negative health effects of smoking and teach people not to use it consistently if they're going to smoke? In the U.S. where this approach towards tobacco has been used for years, [tobacco use is at an all time low.](http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/tables/trends/cig_smoking/?mobile=nocontent) Since education instead of prohibition is obviously working to reduce the rate of tobacco use, why change the way we look at tobacco, especially when we have seen that prohibition generally doesn't stop people from using different substances?

I think you need to elaborate on what you mean by illegal. The US government tried banning alcohol, and prohibition was by most metrics a disaster. Similarly, many consider the war on drugs a disaster. Everything you said is right - although smoking is a very minor negative to the environment, and smoke butts on the ground are more a nuisance than an actual problem. I don't think this CMV really will really be worthwhile unless you can explain what sort of penalties you'd have for people caught smoking, people caught growing tobacco, people trafficking tobacco, what the penalty would be for an 80 year old who's smoked a cigar every Saturday for the past 60 years, and whole lot of other details. Then consider what a big problem smuggled cigarettes already are with people trying to avoid taxes, and explain where you'd stop - alcohol is nearly as deadly a drug as tobacco, obesity related illnesses brought on by unhealthy foods account for a huge number of deaths, etc.

CMV: Leasing a car is always and forever a bad choice.

Would you go to Enterprise and rent a car for 24 months? That's very similar to what a lease is. 1. **Suze Orman, very rich lady and personal finance guru, hates car leases in all situations.** [If anyone ever brings up the topic of leasing a car, she just gives them a Suze Smackdown.](http://www.suzeorman.com/resource-center/suze-orman-money-tips-video-collection/lease-or-buy-a-car/) 2. **People lease cars so they can afford to drive something they cannot buy.** "You're spending money you don't have to impress people you don't know," Suze says. You should go to a used car lot and find something you can own for the same payment as what you would lease. It might not be that hard, the first owner took a 20-30% hit in value as soon as he took ownership. You might find the car 2 or 3 years old and you can buy with the same money. 3. **When you look at the details, it just doesn't add up to a good deal.** You have to come up with a large down payment, pay monthly, and at the end of it all, you own nothing. To re up your lease, they expect another large down payment *for a car you already have*. Their are milage restrictions. Once I knew a guy who lived in Detroit and wanted to go to Chicago for the weekend, but was afraid to drive his car because he calculated that his daily commute was going to put him very close to or slightly beyond the mileage limit by lease end. You're paying monthly for a car that you can't drive whenever you want because they're going to charge you $.25 per mile over the limit. If you go 3000 miles over (which could happen in one road trip) that's $750 you have to pay *just to give the car back*. Oh and you're also paying through the nose for any dent, ding, bump, stain or scratch in the car. Unless it's a company providing a company car for business purposes. Your employer isn't in the business of owning, servicing and managing vehicles for the long term so a lease makes sense for them. They dont have time to sell a car when they're done with it, or deal with ownership. All the drawbacks of leasing such as mileage fees, they probably just pass that on to employee driving it. _____ > *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!*

Plenty of people have employment that requires spending 3-12 months on site for a project and then leaving. Sometimes this can be on the other side of the country, sometimes it can be another country. In these cases, it is a lot better to lease a car than to try and buy a new one or take a car with you. Furthermore, some people, especially wealthier people, prefer only to drive newer cars and don't want to have to worry about the maintenance at all. A lease lets them switch out for the newest car at regular intervals and basically is like having a 100% lifetime warranty for the car when you own it.

If you want to only drive a newer car and would trade it in when the warranty expires anyway, leasing makes great sense for some cars (particularly luxury brands). I don't think you've thought through Point 2, being able to drive a car you couldn't otherwise afford is an argument **for** leasing.

CMV: Socialism/ Communism will not work in today’s society because people are selfish.

Socialism and its later potential follow up Communism, are great ideas and in an ideal world would create an utopia, where everyone is truly equal and there is no gap between rich and poor, in fact there are no poor and rich. However previous experiments have shown that it just does not work due to the key concept Marx himself proposed, that in order for socialism to work, the whole world has to be socialist. In this case I would propose countries like Russia (Where I am from), China and others who attempted at doing this, but I failed. The counter argument would be that these states were authoritarian and never really had socialism. However that is the very issue, which I have with socialism, due to two reasons: First, people are just not perfect enough to share all their work with others and live in communities where everything belongs to everyone, and nothing to them personally. That is the very reason why it later turned into a terrible state like Soviet Union, where there were no true elections anymore, corruption was high and some were “more equal than the others”. Meaning it was not the authoritarian state, which was the cause of the failure of socialism, but people’s inability to follow socialist rules, which led to the failure of the USSR in the 90s, whose system was heavily relied on Oil prices and the economy was otherwise weak. Second of all, as mentioned before, in order for Socialism to work, the whole world has to comply with it. If for example say USA will start implementing even minor socialists norms, then other countries like China, where there is no free health care or free anything for that matter, will simply out perfume costly workers of USA and take away their jobs. Which is indeed the case with things like outsourcing and not so quickly growing USA economy. The solution for USA would then be to close itself up and live in a world where there are no imports or exports, this would protect its citizens from fierce external competition, but leave USA lacking behind in progress of all kinds. Examples for this are Venezuela or Columbia. All in all, I still think that some elements of socialist systems are useful, like welfare for people who recently lost their jobs, paid mothers leave etc. However this are minor elements, which I think, should otherwise be implemented in fierce Capitalist society, where in order to succeed you cannot rely on gov. support, but 95 % on yourself. Edit: I hope this is not too long of an explanation. _____ > *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!*

>great ideas and in an ideal world would create an utopia It's not supposed to be utopian. It's just "we have a series of things in our economic system that are really fucked up in many ways, if we did this and that, we end up with a less fucked up system". >In this case I would propose countries like Russia (Where I am from), China and others who attempted at doing this, but I failed. A basic knowledge of Marx tells you that the revolution required an informed industrial proletariat. The examples you give were full of illiterate peasants. >First, people are just not perfect enough to share all their work with others and live in communities where everything belongs to everyone, and nothing to them personally. Not how it works. Socialism and communism *mostly* care about the property of the *means of production*. >That is the very reason why it later turned into a terrible state like Soviet Union, where there were no true elections anymore, corruption was high and some were “more equal than the others”. It's not like Tsarist Russia was better. Also not like Russia with Putin has improved much. Many relevant metrics peaked during the late USSR. But yeah, it was obviously far from perfect. Funny how you never hear the same "it doesn't work because we're not perfect" with capitalism, though. >All in all, I still think that some elements of socialist systems are useful, like welfare for people who recently lost their jobs, paid mothers leave etc. Those are mere concessions pried with sweat by the workers from the State that oppresses them.

> Socialism and its later potential follow up Communism [...] Socialism is by no means a precursor to anything, let alone communism. The notion of socialism preceding communism was a Marxist idea, probably propaganda, and is surely false considering the numerous countries that have successfully implemented democratic socialism, for instance: Sweden, Norway, Finland, Belgium, Denmark, Australia (formerly) and New Zealand (formerly). One could argue that the United States used to be a democratic socialist country following the New Deal reforms from 1933-38. > [...] are great ideas and in an ideal world would create an utopia, where everyone is truly equal and there is no gap between rich and poor, in fact there are no poor and rich. Again, be careful not to confuse the very broad concept of **socialism**, encompassing ideologies ranging from social democracy to revolutionary socialism, with **communism**, which broadly encompasses Trotskyism, Marxism-Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, anarcho-communism and others. > However previous experiments have shown that it just does not work due to the key concept Marx himself proposed, that in order for socialism to work, the whole world has to be socialist. This is incredibly broad and vague, but if you're referring to the collapse of numerous *communist* power structures, then this is probably more often than not due to the undermining of left ideologies through American foreign policy, especially in regard to countries like Cuba. Cuba is also worth assessing since it is a third-world country and still has a higher life expectancy and a more efficient and accessible health-care system than the United States. > In this case I would propose countries like Russia (Where I am from), China and others who attempted at doing this, but I failed. Neither Russia nor China were socialist countries. It was their propaganda systems that declared themselves as socialist. For instance, nobody really believes that the Democratic Republic of the Congo is democratic. > First, people are just not perfect enough to share all their work with others and live in communities where everything belongs to everyone, and nothing to them personally. This is *not* socialism. At all. You really ought to research socialism as a political theory for yourself, since this sentence mirrors the sound bites heard from the Cato Institute and AEI. As your following points, these are predominantly tangents that have developed from your own misconceptions of socialism. Research socialism for yourself, away from the caustic, whiny student protestors and the conversely obnoxious right-wing jingoists and I think you'll find that it offers numerous palpable solutions to the ecological and economic crises that we face as a direct result of unrestricted neoliberalism.

CMV: Public Service should be Mandatory for all Citizens

Tired of that construction down the road? If annual public service was mandatory, maybe that'd be already done! Why is the local government spending so much money paying people to pick up trash in a park when citizens could do it for free, and the extra money could be spent in more worthwhile efforts, like the social services to help abused children? My view is that every year, every citizen (unless you have a legitimate disability) should be required to perform *x* amount of hours of service to society. 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!*

If you require a certain number of hours, you're incentivizing being inefficient and sitting around as long as possible. This wouldn't speed up the rate public works get done, it would slow it down (especially as random volunteers that change day to day are replacing people who actually know wtf they're doing because it's their job). Plus, you'd have to set up a huge, costly administration to monitor who did their public service. It would cost way more than just paying people minimum wage to do shit jobs, like we already do.

A person's time has value, so forcing them to use it for public service is forcing people to give up a valuable resource of their own which could be used for various other things that could benefit society. Also, most people probably don't have the necessary skills to do the things you would want them to do? How many people know how to repair roads, buildings, bridges, etc.?

CMV: People Should Have Freedom of Religion

I support gay marriage, abortion, etc; however, I also believe that people should have the freedom of religion, meaning, that their religious beliefs aren't as big of a 'joke' as angry liberals make it seem. What I'm trying to say, is that people should not be forced into believing and supporting gay marriage, gay/lesbian/transgender/pansexual and all that—they should be allowed to express their freedom of religion without the oppression of liberalism the way they expect not to be oppressed by conservatism. Seems very hypocritical, no? The point here, is that staunch liberals have a very high tendency to be hypocritical towards religion, but get really offended when a conservative does the same towards them. It all makes no sense to me, and I want to be open to changing my belief about this one way or the other. It's a big mess that aggravates me, because no one on the far sides of the spectrum sticks to their word very well. I'm a libertarian, so I have my likes and dislikes toward each side, and I would like to understand these specific viewpoints better. EDIT: This blew up a lot more than I thought it would, which is good. I got a lot of clarification, and I've awarded some ∆'s. To be more specific (if you're trying to step in my shoes), I USED to be a devout Catholic, until I thought some of the teachings were immoral and 'behind the times.' I just don't think that religion is a bunch of crap as some make it out to seem; however, since my view has been changed, I believe that as people should have freedom of religion, that freedom of religion can only go so far before it becomes a legal issue. I believe that freedom of religion already has a more bigoted starting point than the opposite viewpoint which is more 'realistic' shall I say.

>What I'm trying to say, is that people should not be forced into believing and supporting gay marriage, gay/lesbian/transgender/pansexual and all that—they should be allowed to express their freedom of religion... People are already free to practice their religion, they don't have to support LGBT people and they're not being forced to either. What they can't do, is impose their religious beliefs on other people, they can't get their religious beliefs enshrined into law. Religious people are in no way being oppressed by two gay people getting married, they just aren't allowed to dictate the rules on who gets to get married based on their religion.

Ok freedom of religion does not entail a number of things, first and foremost, you are free to practice your religion and others are free to criticize you or yes make fun of you for it (which makes them assholes, yes, but they are free to do so, just as you are free to mock non-religious people) Second, denying a service of public accommodation to someone on the basis of religion is not allowed. This does not constitute an act of oppression. In which ways are religious people being oppressed by liberalism?

CMV: McDonald's Liebeck lawsuit was frivolous

I've read through the details of the Liebeck v McDonald's lawsuit many times. I still cannot grasp how it was the fault of McDonald's in any way, shape, or form. The facts are: * McDonalds brewed (and continues to brew) coffee at standard brewing temperatures of 200F * McDonalds holds and serves its coffee after brewing between 170-180F (which is no different than most other restaurants) * McDonalds has *NOT* lowered the temperature of their coffee, nor have the changed the temps at which they hold and serve coffee To me, the purchaser of coffee acknowledges the fact that they're buying near-boiling water when they decided "hey, I want coffee". Change my view, please. [sources](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants) EDIT: Looks like I screwed up by questioning the frivolousness of the case. Even if the blame doesn't lie on McDonalds, the case does not seem to be frivolous in the slightest. This was an easy one. Thanks guys.

>McDonalds holds and serves its coffee after brewing between 170-180F **(which is no different than most other restaurants)** This is factually incorrect. [During research for the trial, Danny Jarrett "found that none came closer than about 20 degrees to the temperature at which McDonald's coffee is poured"](http://www.business.txstate.edu/users/ds26/Business%20Law%202361/Misc/McDonalds%20coffee.pdf). Research also indicated that such a temperature difference makes a massive difference in the amount of time needed for said coffee to cause burns and therefore the dangers associated with the drink. Such a difference between McDonald's coffee and other coffee in the city means that a customer has a reasonable expectation for coffee at any given restaurant to be in a similar range of temperature. By exceeding that range, McDonald's was giving the customer that had a significantly increased risk of injury associated with it without any warning that theirs was different from similar products in other places.

> McDonalds brewed (and continues to brew) coffee at standard brewing temperatures of 200F Why does it matter? They can brew it at 1,000,000 degrees. What matter is how they serve it. > McDonalds holds and serves its coffee after brewing between 170-180F (which is no different than most other restaurants) > McDonalds has NOT lowered the temperature of their coffee, nor have the changed the temps at which they hold and serve coffee This is false. Most fast food restaurants serve their coffee at substantially lower temperatures. "The company has refused to disclose today’s standard temperature, but Retro Report shows a handbook for franchisees calling for temperatures 10 degrees lower." http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/21/booming/not-just-a-hot-cup-anymore.html?_r=0 Also, from the wiki you cited "McDonald's claimed that the reason for serving such hot coffee in its drive-through windows was that those who purchased the coffee typically were commuters who wanted to drive a distance with the coffee; the high initial temperature would keep the coffee hot during the trip.[2] However, the company's own research showed that some customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.[3]" >To me, the purchaser of coffee acknowledges the fact that they're buying near-boiling water when they decided "hey, I want coffee". No, most fast food consumers want coffee to drink immediately, not coffee they need to spend time waiting to consume. " The plaintiffs argued that Appleton conceded that McDonald's coffee would burn the mouth and throat if consumed when served.[17]"

CMV: The government should NOT be able to force businesses to serve customers/cater events the business does not want to serve/cater.

So neither side of this debate feels morally right for me to be on, but I think logically, I'd have to support the conservative side of the argument. All modern economic transactions involving physical items (no stocks, capital, etc.) can be simplified down to a trade of money for labor. Yes, you can buy an item off the shelf at someplace like Target, but what you're really buying is the labor involved in making that item, the item being the end result of it. In other words, it is impossible to buy a physical item that is not shaped and made valuable by labor. In this sense, what you do when you walk to a pizzaria and buy a pizza is *directly* contract the labor of the pizza maker in exchange for money (as opposed to indirect contracting through a store, e.g. DiGornios). Because of this, businesses should have the right to refuse to labor for any particular individual, *for any reason*. If this is NOT the case, and some outside authority can force a person to preform labor they don't wish to preform, that could be seen as a type of slavery (I hate to use the term), because an outside authority is forcing a person, under the threat of force, to labor, even when that person doesn't want to. So prove me wrong everyone, help me come to better formulate and understand my own ideas! That's what this sub is about, after all. Please excuse the weird grammar and sentence structure, I just woke up

I think it is ludicrous for a business to turn away customers for irrelevant matters. Doing so, to me means you're no longer so much in the business of making money, you're now making a political statement. You're essentially giving your customers a litmus test and if they pass you allow them to purchase your services. Giving employees such tests is illegal, why should it be legal to apply the same sort of tests to customers? These laws protect consumers. End of story. These people are not going into establishments and ordering non-menu items, they're not walking into Muslim owned diners and demanding pork, they're not going to subway and demanding a big mac, they're not being unreasonable in the slightest. Therefore I believe that it is the government's duty to protect these people.

In a capitalist system, the person who would be making decisions about who the business serves is most often not the person who is actually dealing with the customers. So in most cases this discrimination would involve a boss telling his employees not to serve certain people. In a hypothetical non-capitalist, non-hierarchal society (whether or not you believe such a society would be feasible), this might be more about free association, and non-discrimination laws might not be as necessary as you could ask any other worker to help you. But in a capitalist world, there is a higher risk that a business owner could be preventing a certain group of people from accessing an important resource. And I can't see it as "enslaving" a business owner to prevent him or her from having a policy that certain groups of people should be refused service.

CMV: There hasn't been a truly culturally significant band/ singer out of America in the last 15 years.

I'm not talking about merely "popular". But a game changer. Somebody that can be regarded as both iconic within the genre and the broader musical community. Somebody whose work changed genres, marketing, style etc. in the general population. Key word "Changed". Examples from the past: Hendrix, Ella, Louis Armstrong, Nirvana, The Ramones, NWA, The Pistols, Iggy Pop, Bob Marley, Metallica... Absolutely changed their genres irrevocably in addition to; possibly and even more than their popularity might suggest. *Edit: Did not realize I had started and abandoned another sentence in the middle of the previous one. My apologies for confusion. Should have read:* Examples from the past: Hendrix, Ella, Louis Armstrong, Nirvana, The Ramones, NWA, The Pistols, Iggy Pop, Bob Marley, Metallica... Absolutely changed their genres irrevocably in addition to the general culture; (possibly) even more than their popularity might suggest. Beyonce as an example would NOT fit this bill. There simply isn't anything "new" to her act. Her solo career is typical for a successful singer moving from group to solo etc. In other words... there isn't a "Change" that we can attribute to her. Bands that started out before 2000 would also fall outside of this since it is "within the last 15 years" There are also the usual songs that make it into the general consciousness in terms of jokes, references etc. But those always exist and don't signal a change in the society itself. Edit 2: I'm open to bands that might have formed before 2000, but didn't release an album until 2000. There are two reasons I chose this cutoff date. The first is the emergence of MP3's and the second is 9/11/2001. But I didn't want to draw attention to those ideas although a couple people did note that the former may have been the reason for the dearth of any "big game changers". Edit 3: I recognize that Marley and The Pistols are not American bands. Used them to indicate scope. Edit 4: For those claiming that 15 years isn't enough time... Each of the bands used as examples had made their cultural significance known within about 5-7 years of their first national exposure. (Ella, Armstrong and Marley are arguable exceptions) There is also at least one representative from each decade between 1940 and 2000 in the list. Edit 5: I KNOW I've been slow... I'm honestly listening to at least one track from each band that people have mentioned. Sometimes to acquaint myself with them, sometimes to remember them. Edit 6: Kanye and Taylor Swift. I've read every argument you guys have given for them. And have yet to see a SINGLE argument that transcends what would be expected from their popularity. Being a crossover pop/country hit isn't a shift in the general culture... it's routine. Maybe if she had a crossover deathmetal/ Gospel hit and *brought both audiences together*. But to combine the two best selling genres into one act... again... isn't a change. Kanye is good at what he does. No doubt. But what does he have beyond simply selling records? Simply having a unique flow is completely normal in hip hop. What *change* has he made to the overall musical or cultural conversation? That's the question I keep asking and nobody has been able to come up with an answer that isn't at least equally attributable to somebody else who was doing it before Kanye. _____ > *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!*

The White Stripes/Jack White had almost single-handedly brought blues music back to young people in the early 00s. Not to mention he was basically the first and only one to successfully combine punk and blues on a massive scale with songs like seven nation army and icky thump. The Black Keys would have never become popular if not for the white stripes, who reminded people a 2 person band can work on a radio format. They then took the blues formula and brought back 70s soul, R&B and delta blues influence into the "rock single" of modern day. The strokes did something very similar with garage rock in NYC in the early 00s. They came on the scene when alternative, pop-punk and arena rock dominated the rock charts and turned it on its head. "Is this it" changed the direction of rock music and showed that you didn't need to be U2 or Blink 182 to sell records. And that's just blues and garage rock. Not to mention what the Foo Fighters did with modern rock, what QOTSA did with stoner rock, or John Mayer did with texas blues-rock with the john mayer trio. That's all just in the world of rock music; ignoring pop, EDM, hip-hop, jazz and soul.

Eminem? I know he technically broke out just before the new millenium, but my how the "game has changed". Being white in the rap genre was a barrier he destroyed. Bringing hip-hop so far into the mainstream it has basically become pop music. Brought his icon of a persona to the silver screen with an award winning soundtrack in tow. All of this happened within the first decade of his career. I think it's safe to say he's had an enormous impact on music as a whole throughout the world. Iconic within genre and abroad? Check Changed genres? Marketing? Style? Triple check. We will look back on today's current music and remember Eminem for everything he's done. Beyond that, I think the oversaturation of the music industry that has been caused by the dawn of the internet age is the main cause of the many one hit wonders, short attention span, single-serve artists that we hear nowadays. That, along with the fact that most of the broad, accessible genres have "all been done before", so the innovation comes in smaller amounts and in subgenres that aren't going to have the major cultural impact that the artists of yesteryear had. I think it's a "pre-internet vs post-internet" battle that you are referencing in your search for finding those impactful artists. They exist, but it's impossible to stand out as much as the artists you've mentioned were able to due to their place in time and the technology that exists now. While I think he is the obvious answer to your question I'll throw out some other names that might work for ya... Taylor Swift (made country popular) Kid Rock (turned country, rock, and hip-hop into pop) Blink-182/Green Day (started in the 90's, blew up in the 00's, making pop-punk popular) System of a Down/Slipknot (made heavy metal popular) Linkin Park (meshed rock and hip-hop and made it popular) The White Stripes/The Strokes/Interpol (turned indie rock into an incredibly marketable genre) Skrillex and Deadmau5 (will be remembered as some of the first to bring house, techno, and dubstep into the mainstream) Bright Eyes/Death Cab/Modest Mouse (more underground success, but took some good old roots americana, added some emo, incredible song-writing and developed a cult following)

CMV:If we are opposed to the prison industrial-complex... then perhaps shaming, shunning, and exile should be considered as alternatives.

First of all, I am largely opposed to the prison-industrial complex. I feel that many of the laws behind it are arbitrary (re: the drug war and victimless crimes), and that even many of the violent criminals who are jailed don't need to be locked up for as long to prevent them from being an immediate or persistent threat. In fact, I believe that long term incarceration under harsh conditions is something which actually causes further social harm – directly to the person incarcerated and to the society which the prisoner will be released into after an extended period of incarceration. Also, if the person has dependents, they too might suffer more if their material needs are not adequately provided for. Subsequently, if some sort of punishment is required for violating some sort of socially accepted institution, then I feel that some form of shaming, shunning, and exile are possibly effective alternatives to prevent crime before we decide to incarcerate someone for an extended period of time or issue fines which they may not be able to pay. One advantage to this approach is that the punishment is more directly democratic. It's not a punishment which is wholly issued by a sitting judge who is appointed to represent the public and who arbitrarily decides a perpetrator's fate. Rather, the perpetrator, by agreeing to make public their offense, can still receive a certain degree of sympathy and forgiveness. And if they are shunned or exiled (for some indeterminate amount of time), then other members of the public can go along with that punishment to a degree they see fit. Granted, with shunning or exile the punishment would work much better with social cohesion, but if it were the accepted form of punishment then shunning or exile might be more readily accepted and enforced by the general population of an area. Admittedly, this is an aspect of society which would probably have to be reformed or evolve if a society chose to move away from incarceration, corporal punishment, and excessive fines. But if society is incapable of changing in this way... then I'm not sure society would be able to change in other ways which would make it sustainable and tolerable to live within. _____ > *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!*

Going to prison for year is horrible, but what's arguably worse is that you have no life when you leave prison. Your family might have shunned/disowned you, you will have lost contact with your friend and you don't have a job. It is very hard to get a new job, because of your status as a convict. This is the reason why many ex-convicts fall back in to a live of crime. Your system skips the prison part, which is nice, but it might drop you in a place where you are unable to enjoy your life or contribute to society. It would be better if after serving their prison sentences ex-convicts are accepted back into society, so they can rehabilitate. Obviously the war on drugs is ridiculous and people shouldn't go to jail for victimless crimes. We should fix these problems instead of trying to find a workaround.

I don't see how this solves any of the problems with the prison system, besides the costs. It doesn't protect society, because you're just putting them somewhere. Dumping your problem onto another country is not a solution to the problem. It doesn't rehabilitate them at all if they're not getting any help. It doesn't sound particularly humane, and it doesn't help the people who are wrongly accused. Plus, I would definitely not trust the general public with dealing out punishments. The public will hurl abuse and hatred at anyone they decide is guilty, regardless of how much evidence there is for their guilt. Think of all the hate Oscar Pistorius got without the public even knowing if he was guilty. You're essentially leaving the news media in charge of the justice system.

CMV: Most "big words" have no place outside of formal writing or speeches.

IMO, whenever they're used it's mostly just confusing especially to younger readers. Why say "preposterous" when you can just say crazy or insane and have it make sense to more people? Do you need to sound smart with fancy language? Of course there are some exceptions for things that can't be described any other way, like names of diseases and other "domain-specific" words. A lot of times, teachers will encourage writing with fancy words for elaboration, and not just in persuasive or story-telling writings. Why would you try to explain something to as many people as possible, but use words that would exclude some of your readers? _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from Obama. 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!*

I want people to know exactly the sentiment I'm trying to express. If I say I'm sad, it has a very different flavor than if I say I'm feeling a little melancholy. Why would I sacrifice clear communication for mass communication? What's the point in having people understand something that's not quite what I want to say?

preposterous - contrary to reason or common sense; utterly absurd or ridiculous It does not mean "crazy" or "insane". Using "big words" adds precision to language. It makes it easier to understand for people who are familiar with the words. Often, the goal isn't to explain something to as many people as possible, but just to explain something as well and as clearly as possible to a set of people who can understand it.

CMV: The Jesus Myth Hypothesis is Plausible

Crossposted from a comment on /r/skeptic I've read David Fitzgerald, some of Richard Carrier, and the criticisms of both and it seems to me that there is a lot of vitriol on both sides. The mythicists take umbrage at being dismissed as amateurs and dabblers and vociferously defend their hypotheses, the historicists take umbrage at the strenuous attacks, and it all gets very torrid very quickly, and becomes very difficult to actually analyze the actual strength of the arguments. So, as a skeptic, I'm sufficiently intrigued by the Mythicist arguments to profess agnosticism as to the Historical Jesus, for the following reasons: * There are no extrabiblical attestations of any significant event from the life of Jesus. On the contrary, events such as the slaughter of the innocents, the census of all the Empire are clearly fictitious, and multiple miracles, the triumphal entry to Jerusalem, and multiple events surrounding the crucifixion are absent from all historical records when there's a reasonable chance that some account of them would have survived, had they occurred at all. * The synoptic problem indicates that we are working from at most one source that even approaches being primary, and even that most likely written much later, anonymously, and as hagiography rather than history. * Well into the third century, pagan sources mostly recount the existence of Christians and document the claims of Christians. This is at best hearsay. * attempts to reconstruct the "real" historical Jesus are invariably unprovable and contradictory with one another--there is no consensus. * While the vast bulk of NT scholarship presumes an historical Jesus, the "scholarly consensus" should be given less weight since for centuries, such research has been largely a devotional undertaking. Jesus mythicism is very nearly literally heretical, as well as figuratively. At least sufficiently that it deserves consideration even though a strong consensus exists that contradicts it. So, we accept the historical reality of many persons throughout ancient history based on much less proof than gospels and various other pagan mentions. So maybe there was an itinerant sage named Yeshua who ran around, gathered a minor following, and was executed for sedition. But the problems above mean A) we know nothing about him and B) almost everything written about him is unknowable or outright fictitious. I look at it as the difference between "Abraham Lincoln" and "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter." Notwithstanding that there is an historical person that was the basis, the hero version is a myth. _____ > *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!* _____ Edit: Gosh, people sure do seem to use the Downvote as a "Disagree" button. Seems odd, when the purpose of the discussion is to engage with people who disagree.

Your opening assertion is patently false. Josephus and Tacitus both reference the death of Jesus and neither man's writing is included in the Bible, of course. Your second assertion does not square even remotely with current scholarship on the gospels. It's only mythicists who think we can trace all the gospels back to Mark. At bare minimum you have Mark and Q. Your remaining assertions are not terribly substantive. The bottom line is that we have multiple, largely independent sources referencing Jesus within a century of his death. That is a reasonable body of evidence considering the status of the man (yet another Jewish troublemaker in a backwater of the Roman Empire) and the general lack of sources to survive from the period in general. **Christian Sources.** You have the gospels (and the sources lying behind the gospels like Q). You have Paul (Galatians 1 being the strongest link, in which he mentions meeting with Peter and James in the mid 30s). Both Paul and the extant gospels preserve earlier material, e.g. the hymn in Philippians or Matthew 12:1-8, likely surviving elements of earlier oral traditions. **Jewish Sources** Josephus in his Antiquities mentions Jesus twice, in books 18 and 20. He also mentions John the Baptist in Book 18. The references to John and the reference to Jesus in Book 20 are considered authentic by the overwhelming majority of Josephus scholars. The reference to Jesus in Book 18, the Testimonium, is obviously an interpolation but there is widespread agreement among scholars that the passage contains an authentic core. **Roman Sources.** You have Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the Younger. Of those three, Tacitus is the strongest and clearest reference. For the mythicist case to stand, you need to explain away all of those references. You also need to explain why somebody in the first century would invent a supposed Jewish messiah who acts nothing like what every Jew knew the messiah was supposed to be (hint: it wasn't dying in shame on the cross). You need to explain why Matthew and Luke take great pains to explain how a man from Nazareth was actually from Bethlehem, when if the man were a fiction they could simply have placed him in the right city to begin with.

I hope that this doesn't get burried, I've thought a bout this for quite some time trying to figure out the best way to approach this. Firstly I will attack your claims using logic and reasoning and methods that are used to determine history from primary sources. ignoring le STEM circlejerk logic, and facts do dictate what is considered history, while there is room for debate most people will come to similar conclusions via exegesis. I will begin with your own admission >maybe there was an itinerant sage named Yeshua who ran around, gathered a minor following, and was executed for sedition. as you are already on the edge of accepting these things as facts, and you should for good reason. everything we know from history we don't actually know, we have epistemological trust that they are true. That is we have to judge who to believe, and what to believe. For example if Rush Limbaugh says "all comunists are bad people" we know that we should not necessarilly believe that all comunists are bad because Rush Limbaugh is biased. We can understand that Rush, along with a fair few other people believe that communists are bad people, and that there may even be a few bad communists, but it wouldn't make since for us to believe that *ALL* communists are bad. you have chosen to believe that Tacitus is not worth your epistomological trust, thats fine i suppose, we still have pliny the younger, seutonius, and Josephus, but let us assume that they were all liars, or wrong or missunderstood, or whatever. the question then becomes "who will you believe existed?" perhaps you would accept James, the brother of Jesus, or Paul the apostle, or peter, the first pope, or the second pope, or the third pope, etc. find a person you belive exists in relation to jesus and ask yourself, "does it make sense that the third pope would know the second pope?, the second pope the first, (i.e. Peter), and would Peter have moved away from his homeland, changed religions and died for a person who did not exist? if so what is his motive? Ockhams law would dictate from this alone that Jesus, or Yeshua, did exist. thats great news! this means that we suddenly have a whole lot of primary documents to look at, pliny is back, josephus is back, tacitus is back, the gospels are back, Q is back, the gnostic gospels are all back and useful. sure they may be propaganda, but propaganda can be incredibly useful, it may not give you the day someone was born, but it sure as heck can give you an idea about their ideology. One thing that everyone of the primary sources agrees on is that jesus was crucified, and the plaque on his cross read "KING OF THE JEWS". crucifiction, as agreed by every historian i've ever heard/read was reserved by the romans for people who were trying to rebel against the empire. this would imply that Jesus, Yeshua, was a rebel, a pretender to the thrown of Jerusalem. this is just one piece of evidence that points to this, there is also the meaning of the word "messiah", the messianic secret, the other self proclaimed messiahs, the talk of the coming of the kingdom of god, all of it points to a proto-zealot like figure who was trying to upend the roman government. using almost entirely a priori arguments I believe I have proven that the most likely case is that. >there was an itinerant sage named Yeshua who ran around, gathered a minor following, and was executed for sedition. this alone shatters the jesus myth hypothesis as anything except convoluted and unlikely, furthermore by looking at the texts we can draw several other conclusions, he was most likely a day laborer in tiberias until his thirties, he was most likely born in nazareth, his father may not have been known as he was refered to as yeshua bar mary which would have been an insult, he was most likely john the baptists disciple, etc. in conclusion the most likely case is that jesus did exist, every other hypothesis has much less evidence, and is much more convoluted following ockhams razor a historical jesus is the most likely true case. furthermore using the primary documents, even if they are bald faced lies, we can draw conclusions about the life and times of jesus. Edit: if you'd like I can use this process i outlined above to get information about Abraham lincoln, using only abraham lincoln vampire hunter as a source.

CMV: I am a father who hates Father's Day.

I am a husband and father of two. I love my wife, and I love my children, but I am not a fan of Father's Day. I feel the "holiday", if one can call it that, forces people to adopt a tradition that bills itself very similarly to a birthday...which I already have once a year. If you want to appreciate someone it should be done on an individual basis and *not* based on some yearly Hallmark Holiday. Yes, I feel the same about Mother's Day, but I'll be damned if I don't go through the motions. I feel much the same way about many of the other "appreciation days" (e.g. Administrative Professionals Day, Thank a Mailman Day, etc.). You are thanking someone for doing what they *chose* to do. Society should not force an expectation on others to give you praise for the things you choose to do or become. _____ > *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!*

Most holidays are hard to justify on paper. Why celebrate someone's birthday? It's really just an arbitrary marker that bears little on an individual's actual development. Christmas is a scam. Halloween is a scam. Easter (if you're not religious) is a scam. Mother's day: scam. On and on. But you know what? I like these days, I don't care if they were pushed into being by cold and uncaring corporations. They are a part of our culture, and we chose to make that so. You could say that companies were just responding to a need (days of celebration) evidenced by how well they were received and embedded into the fabric of our culture. There are many 'holidays' you've never heard of, because they were never accepted by the public at large. The ones we celebrate, we celebrate for a reason. Ignoring the consumerism for a moment, what I find important about these days is it does give you time to reflect. Mother's Day makes us ask ourselves "Have I been showing my mom how much I love her?" In the day to day hustle of life, it's easy to lose track of these things. Ideally, we'd never need a day, we'd just be thankful and appreciative all year round. But we tend to be focused on our own needs most of the time. Father's Day helps raise our awareness about what it means to be a good dad, or a good son or daughter for that dad. I'm not going to try convincing you to love Father's Day, but I would urge you not to "hate" it. My dad actually sounds quite a bit like you, and honestly it saddens me the way he is. He is so hyper aware of social manipulation of this kind that he loses perspective. He takes on a cynical attitude towards these trappings and so becomes less emotionally receptive as a result. He thinks he's rebelling against culture, but really, he's just rebelling against his own family, closing off one small avenue to help strengthen bonds. In the end, he accomplishes nothing with his rebellion in terms of reshaping culture, and ultimately starts to seem more a curmudgeon than anything. Being in such vehement opposition to something as trivial as a holiday doesn't make you brave or heroic, it just makes you an ass (not saying this about you personally, just in general). Your view of the world shapes reality. If you see Father's Day as consumerist bullshit, that is exactly what it will be for you. You will act in such a manner as to make it so. It's very easy to pick up on the vibe of your parents and respond in kind. Your kids could have had an opportunity to be extra loving on this day with you, and you could respond in turn. But alas, you are simply too above it. Too above a good excuse to be a bit kinder to each other. Is that really something worth fighting for? Is that the person you want to be? Is that how you want your kids to be? Just try this. Be stupid for a day. On Father's Day, take it just as seriously as marketers would like you to. Get excited about all the gestures of kindness, material or otherwise, and make your appreciation clear to your family. You will be surprised to discover, that forced excitement and appreciation becomes real. What was before only a formality, becomes a catalyst for real emotional connection. When your family sees your warm reception, it will make them happy, which in turn will make you happy. Instead of reinforcing a cycle of cynicism, you are now reinforcing a cycle of love and kindness. Does it actually really matter how the day came about? You have an opportunity here, fucking *use it*. Life may ultimately be meaningless, but each day we have the ability to create real meaning for ourselves, our friends, and our family. Father's Day may be bullshit, but it also represents one small opportunity to find true meaning. Not just find it, but to make it. To fail to understand this is to fail to make the best use of this short time we have. ^(This post sponsored by Hallmark.)

I would try to convince you to appreciate Father's Day in much the same way I would try to convince someone who says "I don't want to celebrate my birthday"; basically by saying "Well, it's not really *for* you." When someone's birthday comes around, it may make them feel old or self-conscious to have people wish them well, but what a birthday really does is gives the ones who love the birthday-person the occasion to say "YAY! You exist! We get to celebrate the fact that you are in our lives and are special for existing!" Now, this doesn't mean I don't love the birthday-person the other 364 days of the year, but their birthday gives me an excuse to make that love and appreciation tangible. (And to be a bid morbid, people do choose to have birthdays; they can always "opt out.") And so I feel much the same way about "Appreciation Days." It's not about them to "reap the benefits" of something they chose to do, but rather for the rest of us to say "Yay, you did something, and we are really quite happy you did!" Finally, Appreciation Days also allow people to feel less guilt about being lavished with loot. I don't have a dad, so I can't speak for Father's Day, but if I gave my mom gifts every time I felt appreciation for her existence, she'd feel guilty for all the money I was spending. But because Mother's Day exists, I can get her a nice gift and she has to go "Well, okay then." Now, if you have people in your life that few the appreciation of you on Father's Day as a burden, then I wouldn't like that day either. But if you have people who look at it as an *opportunity*, then it's for them, not you, and I say give them free rein to say "Yay!"

CMV: City life is hugely preferable to country/small town life

I've spent a couple of months living in the country near a small town/village, and I honestly do not understand how it would appeal to anyone. The differences are too many to list, but the big ones are: #Cities have significantly better municipal services. The difference is night and day. Cities have bigger and better libraries, schools, police/fire departments, hospitals, gas, internet, and so on and so forth. As 4G LTE rolls out, I can tell you exactly who's going to get it first. Everything about this makes city life so much safer and more comfortable. #Everything is closer in the city, and there is a greater range of things to do. A really small town will have one or two general-purpose shops. Cities can have huge malls filled with stores and restaurants of all varieties. There are theatres and large public events and strip clubs and meetings of like-minded people and clubs and just about anything to do if you ever get bored. There's a convenience store on just about every corner. #Cities afford a degree of pseudo-anonymity. If you move into an apartment building, lolwhocares. If you move into the country you've got a ton of people who have a **new neighbor** that they wanna get to know and everything. Even if you abstain from social interaction, you become "that weird neighbor that abstains from social interaction." This tends to temper individualism, and it's not like you can "just spend time with the people you like," because rumors and all travel fast with a community that small. #bugs holy fucking shit the bugs aaaaaaaaa #In the country, everything is high maintenance. Since just about everything that isn't a tractor was designed to operate in a man-made environment, everything keeps getting dirty and breaking. Cars and houses and electronics and appliances and furniture all need to be repaired and/or replaced noticeably more frequently than they would in the city.

It's very difficult to change someone's views on something that is entirely subjective. The answer is: City life is preferable to country life, unless you prefer country life more. Some people like the more slowed down/relaxed nature of the country. Some people like the big open spaces, with the ability to do more activities. Some people like that the country is less crowded. Some people like the ability to do things in public but still be private (ever fired off illegal bottle rockets in a massive field as a kid just for kicks, knowing that there's no chance anyone's around for miles to bitch at you for it?). Some people like having lots of animals. Some people like the lack of pseudo-anonymity and prefer to get to know their neighbors well. There's really no way to convince you that country life is preferable, because it all comes down to what you personally prefer. The best I can do, maybe, is convince you that country life is preferable to *some people.* For the record, I love city life and hate country life (I've done both). But I completely understand why some people might prefer country life.

I think there's a trade off for everything. You're accustomed to having everything as fast as you want it. Country people aren't. They know and accept some things are going to be a hike. It's also possible you don't really "hear" the noise around you all the time like someone who hasn't grown up with it or lived in it for many years, would. Silence is golden, and if you live in an area where you can never have that, it can drive some people mad. It's difficult to say one is "better" than the other. I'd vouch both have their bonuses. The quiet, the privacy the country affords, the beauty of it. Enjoying nature, having a big garden, maybe even some farm animals. You can't do those things in the city and those things sure can keep people, very busy. The bugs one though, come on. You know as well I do there are many cities with very nasty bug problems.

CMV: McDonald's Liebeck lawsuit was frivolous

I've read through the details of the Liebeck v McDonald's lawsuit many times. I still cannot grasp how it was the fault of McDonald's in any way, shape, or form. The facts are: * McDonalds brewed (and continues to brew) coffee at standard brewing temperatures of 200F * McDonalds holds and serves its coffee after brewing between 170-180F (which is no different than most other restaurants) * McDonalds has *NOT* lowered the temperature of their coffee, nor have the changed the temps at which they hold and serve coffee To me, the purchaser of coffee acknowledges the fact that they're buying near-boiling water when they decided "hey, I want coffee". Change my view, please. [sources](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants) EDIT: Looks like I screwed up by questioning the frivolousness of the case. Even if the blame doesn't lie on McDonalds, the case does not seem to be frivolous in the slightest. This was an easy one. Thanks guys.

Frivolousness (the actual legal term) is a really high bar. There are two types, factual and legal frivolousness. For factual frivolousness the Supreme Court [has held the standard to be as follows.](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9141408508548092395) >[A] court may dismiss a claim as factually frivolous only if the facts alleged are "clearly baseless," 490 U. S., at 327, a category encompassing allegations 33*33 that are "fanciful," id., at 325, "fantastic," id., at 328, and "delusional," ibid. As those words suggest, a finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them. This case is clearly not factually frivolous under that standard. The facts alleged were that the plaintiff was burned (true) by coffee that was hot (true), that was above industry temperature standards (a plausible assertion of fact), and that McDonald's willfully made its coffee hotter than standard (a plausible assertion of fact). As far as legal frivolousness, this is defined [as follows:](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=868429855339617087&q=legal+merit+frivolous&hl=en&as_sdt=6,33) >an appeal on a matter of law is frivolous where none of the legal points are arguable on their merits. In this case, there was at least a plausible case for tort negligence based on the alleged facts. It might be a case that's a likely loser, but as long as there's some level of sane argument to be made, it's not frivolous.

Frivolous has a very limited meaning, and this lawsuit does not qualify. To be frivolous, a lawsuit must have no merit. But here, McDonald's deliberately set the temperature of their coffee to one that could cause tissue damage (>110 degrees F). Had they set that coffee to a temperature under 110, it would be highly unlikely that any damage would have ensued. So they are at least partially at fault in any scald injury. Liebeck did indeed suffer a scald injury, and she did so by exposure to hot McDonald's coffee. With those elements satisfied (McDonald's had a duty to safeguard its customers, it took an action that conflicted with that duty, she suffered injury, and the injury was caused by McDonalds' action), the case is not frivolous. We might want to live in a world in which coffee can be served above 110F without fear of lawsuits. I happen to enjoy McDonald's coffee. That desire doesn't change the definition of frivolous, however.

CMV: I think the upcoming policy change is a positive direction for reddit.

Reddit is a website, a business, it is the "front page of the internet". This front page doesn't have to house hate speech or hostile ideologies. I think removing these will only make reddit a more positive and progressive place to be. I think free speech can flourish without hate speech. I think we can recognize accurately the INTENTION of certain subreddits. Some can be gross, negative or downright morbid but don't have ill intentions but I think its the intention that matters and I feel from the [announcement](https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3dautm/content_policy_update_ama_thursday_july_16th_1pm/) that those subreddits with vile intetions will be removed while other "alternative" subreddits will be just fine. I think certain viruses have an intention to spread through the body and I think some subreddits here can be likened to viruses so I can only see a positive outcome when extracting these viruses out of the 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!*

> Reddit is a website, a business, it is the "front page of the internet". You're citing the reference *"front page of the internet"* without acknowledging the policies that *got reddit there*. It is a business and going forward from where it is, *perhaps* it is better to not be a bastion for free speech. *However* the thing that grew reddit from an insignificant spec on the internet to where it is today *is exactly* the ability to have an open dialog about anything without fear of reprimand or reprisal. Eliminating that component might be the best way to go from here. However it will have a cost. Also, policies exist in a context of ideology. Even though I understand and agree with this policy, it is clear that the fundamental ideology of reddit is shifting. This may or may not be positive.

> This front page doesn't have to house hate speech or hostile ideologies. But would removing these be representative of the Internet? So how can it be the "front-page"? > I think free speech can flourish without hate speech. But some speech people consider hate, while others don't. So I don't like Jews because of reason X. Is that hate speech or just free speech? > Some can be gross, negative or downright morbid but don't have ill intentions What is an ill intention and what does it have to do with removing free speech? Why not just say "ill intention subreddits will be banned"? What if someone says the gross, negative and morbid is ill intentions to him? Who is to judge on this?

CMV: I support resources and help centers for male rape victims, but I don't see male rape as severe as female rape.

Hey fellow Redditors! I'm a male myself and I just have trouble equating female rape with male rape. I perfectly understand that non-consensual sex is rape regardless of gender, and I encourage all men who have been sexually abused to immediately seek help, but I have trouble feeling as bad for men who are raped and it's hard for me to weigh the impact of that rape on their lives. The reason is because whenever I think of women getting raped, I think of a strong (and sometimes old) man who clearly has power of a much weaker woman forcing her to do things that she finds derogatory. The fact that women are the prominent gender in the sex slave trade doesn't help. That only makes me feel like a man raping a woman is essentially treating her like property and belittling her humanity. Also, although I can't prove this scientifically, we all know at least that society views men as horny fucks who are out there just to fuck women. This evokes some feeling in me that women are men's "prey" and they are the victims who have to put up with this feeling of worthlessness. Whenever I think of a man getting raped however, I think of a guy who has had a little too much to drink and is being coerced into sex by a woman who finds him attractive. Yeah, he may not want to have sex with her, and yeah at that point he is way too weak to resist, but because he's a man, there's something inside of me that feels like he can deal with this and it's simply just another night that didn't go so well. Now as for gay men, that's different and I can sympathize with them more, especially if they were the ones who were penetrated. Even though I feel that way with gays, I still don't think of rape of gay men as bad as rape of women. I guess I may see being penetrated unwillingly as worse than having to penetrate someone against your will. But the fact that toughness and security are associated with males and feebleness and innocence are associated with women also doesn't help. I really do hate my stance on this because I like to think of myself as a benevolent person who wants the common good for everyone. Please tell my why I should *think* of male rape as bad as female rape. Again, I really want my view to change. _____ > *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!*

I think the root of this comes not from the feeling that women are weaker or defenseless against men, because even if a woman is much, much stronger than an individual man, I suspect that the rape of that woman will seem worse for you than the rape of that man. I think this attitude comes from the purity aspect of women; Women's bodies are temples that they are the overseers of, at least in our western society. When and if she chooses to allow someone into the temple, it is in some way devalued. Mens bodies aren't seen the same way. The are seen as inherently the defilers, and not as something pure that can be devalued. This even applies to gay men raped by other men; They just don't have that inherent purity to be stolen that a woman, any woman, has. If we sit back and examine this, and the purity culture that produced it, we have a chance to see that from the standpoint of the individual that is overpowered or tricked into an intimate activity there is no difference. Internalized purity culture is the reason women may feel worse about being raped than men do, and why we are more sympathetic to them, but the net result is the same- use of our physical self by another person against our will.

Well for one, many men are penetrated against their will very much in the same way that women are raped. This can either be with an object (by a woman or man), or by another man. It's not just gay men that are raped by other men... First thing you should do is stop thinking of male rape as: >Whenever I think of a man getting raped however, I think of a guy who has had a little too much to drink and is being coerced into sex by a woman who finds him attractive. Men are forced with violence to perform sexual actions and there is no reason to think of this kind of case as the default "male rape".

CMV: Life is meaningless and we should all commit suicide

I'm no professional when it comes to logic or argumentation but I have been pondering this thought lately. I am not a believer of any after life or supernatural. If after death we experience what we experienced before birth which is nothingness, then isnt life meaningless? Why should we continue to suffer when life is literally a constant suffering? I personally believe life is meaningless. When you are under the assumption that you experience nothingness when you are dead, what is the point of living? The only reason I can personally see for living is to not inflict additional emotional suffering on those that you know and care about you. But if you do experience nothingness after life then why should it matter when you wont be able to conceive of this suffering. Its been something I've been thinking a lot about lately... Change my view, please. Also, this is not a cry for help and I will not be jumping off the golden gate bridge any time soon.

There is no inherent meaning in life so it is up to us to make meaning. This is not a choice, but central to who we are as sentient beings. In reality there is no singular you that persists through time. You are the result of many processes interacting and constantly changing and evolving. The string that ties all of this together into an identity is the life story that you tell yourself. We are quite literally nothing without this narrative, so you could say that while life has no inherent meaning, the experience of living is utterly dependent on creating meaning.

Life is not constant suffering. Not at all. It is filled with joy and fulfillment. Some suffer more than others. But I don't think hardly anyone has lived a life of pure suffering. Everyone finds joy in something. So why go on living even if it is meaningless? Because it is fun. I mean why not go on? Think of all the stuff you can experience and enjoy. If it doesn't matter whether you live or die you might as well live and make the most of it.

CMV: There will never be another military draft (forced conscription) in America.

Not really an opinion so much as a prediction, but its still a view i hold. My prediction is based on a number of factors and you can address any or all of them or bring up new issues I haven't thought of. 1) Unpopular: The draft for the war in Vietnam was extremely unpopular with massive protests and draft dodging. After the draft was eliminated the protests died down even as the war continued. It seems that America will support a lot of military activity (Iraq War 1 & 2, Afghanistan, etc) as long as they are not personally forced to serve. 2) No close border crisis: Other modern developed countries have forced selective service (South Korea, Israel) but usually these countries face bordering existential crises to their very existence. America does not have this, has not ever had this, and presumably will not ever have this and so there is no need to have millions of men and women be conscripted every year for a tour of duty. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription 3) Nuclear Weapons: America may face small attacks here and there but no nation state large enough to possibly overthrow the United States government seems likely to attack for fear of nuclear weapons retaliation. While 9/11 was a tragedy, there was no hope of terrorists taking over the country or overthrowing the government. The only world forces strong enough to do this would be large nations with large militaries of their own and if they did have a mainland ground force invasion of US soil it would almost guarantee a nuclear response. 4) Women, and the out of shape: This is a minor reason but none the less I'll bring it up for discussion. In a modern draft there would be seemingly no way for women to avoid serving. Currently women face demanding physical aptitude tests to qualify for the most demanding positions or in some cases are barred from service for fear they will not be able to handle the physical requirements of the job (front line combat, Navy Seals, etc). In the 21st century when men and women have equal rights and are largely treated equally there would be pushback if those less capable of serving were thought to be more likely to get an easier or safer assignment. This would create a race to the bottom for applicants seeking to avoid dangerous duty. Furthermore the vast majority of Americans are overweight, out of shape, and would require extensive training to become combat ready. If diabetes, heart conditions, obesity, or any number of conditions would disqualify a person from service I imagine people would quickly engage in unhealthy habits (or bribe doctors) in order to avoid service. 5) Conscientious objectors: In previous generations there was a much stronger sense of duty, warrior culture, and sense of imminent danger which cultivated a value in service. In the modern world, where people increasingly distrust their government, have more access to information, and are more likely to have diverse religious and philosophical views I do not see the public getting behind any major military involvement that would require a draft. I would imagine there would be a rush to qualify yourself as a conscientious objector to the war in order to avoid combat even if that individual didn't feel that way immediately prior to the draft. Please change my view!

On your Point 3 (Nukes): We will have, in the next 50 years, the ability to defeat ICBM's. It is not unthinkable that China, Russia and India will also have this ability. In fact, I would go so far as to say that any warhead capable of delivering a nuke (at present sizes) will be able to be defeated prior to detonation. Whether this is due to anti-missile shields, laser technology or targeted EMP's, it does not matter. Once nukes are a non-factor, the single largest strategic problem with going to war with another country is gone. States that don't have to worry about their interests being nuked are much more likely to send the ground troops in. On your point 4 (Women and the Out of Shape): I see no reason that our current health problems will stop us from drafting people. The training may be longer and more involved, but where their is a requirement, there is a way in the US Military. As for women, I look forward to the day women are eligible for the draft. But just because they are drafted does not mean they will be automatically able or fit to do all jobs. They will be assigned to the jobs that they can do well at. On point 5 (CO's): You have to prove your CO status. This has always been true. Access to info will only make people more ready for it. But if 5-10 more people out ov every 1000 do qualify, you still have 990. You can play with those numbers, but I am not convinced that this is a problem that will completely negate the benefit a government would get out of a draft.

The US will revert to a draft as soon as the US deems it necessary - which is when the number of volunteers do not met the numbers required. To counter some of your points, look at this example: World War II. During World War II, [over 10.1 million](https://www.sss.gov/induct.htm) of the US's sixteen million service members were *drafted* That's right, WW2, a popular war most people today agree was worth fighting for, drafted over 60% of its servicemembers. Simply put: the US needed manpower, it drafted even when 6 million men volunteered. Keep in mind too that conscientious objection was an even bigger issue in the past than today. The US was staunchly isolationist up until WW2, and many religious exemptions existed for groups like the Quakers. In addition, those servicemembers all served overseas. In fact, Vietnam was similar - the US maintained more troops in West Germany during this time than in Vietnam. Conscripts weren't sent just to fight in Vietnam - many were sent to fill in ranks in Germany to keep our obligations there. Our obligations worldwide are smaller today, true, but they still exist and may certainly grow again in the future.

CMV: Prisoners should have the option to end their life.

I believe someone who has been convicted of a non violent crime should have the option to end their life in prison. So if someone is doing 20 years for drug distribution they can choose to die. This would decrease prison population and relief funding to the prison system. Less people = less taxpayers have to spend. The prisoner would get to choose if they want to die, but the state would perform the execution. This would only apply to people 18 years or older. Prisoners sometimes have to endure very horrible things while in prison. Rape, sexual assault and violence affect many prisoners that are serving time for theft, drugs, etc. This would also apply to criminals who are terminally ill and suffer everyday from the side effects. People are given life sentences without parole for non violent offenses sometimes. link:http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/11/23-petty-crimes-prison-life-without-parole I believe it is right to give these criminals an option to end their life's so they don't have to suffer in prison if they don't want to. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

I previously held the view that assisted suicide is something that would be beneficial for many individuals suffering from certain illness or whatever circumstance, I can completely understand someone who wishes to end their life, and empathize with the situation that they are in and cases where the suicide is simply hastening the inevitable. I am sure that any mature human can understand this desire and for that emotional reason would advocate for assisted suicide. But to legally define such an ultimate act, what does and does not warrant it, who presides over it, even, who is responsible for it, are such complex questions and I believe are not the responsibility of a governing body. I looked into it a lot in an Australian context, since that's where I live and it was temporarily legalized in the Northern Territory, from 1995 to 1997, it has also been put to government multiple times since. During the time the Australian Medical Association stated their firm stance against the concept and I feel quite eloquently stated their argument, "The AMA believes that medical practitioners should not be involved with interventions that have as their primary intention the ending of a persons life." When a request for assisted suicide is made by a patient they often suffer a mental disorder, depression or dementia. But I suppose you specifically want an argument against prisoners in life sentences to voluntarily end their life to ease the system? A very noble, altruistic notion. I would say that the people making such requests are also suffering from a mental condition. It goes against human nature to want to die, in such a dramatic environment I can quite easily see a warped perception of reality in the inmates. I don't think the answer to the problem of the prison system is to assist in the suicide of life prisoners. Can you imagine what corruption would entail such a possibility? I believe that many external factors would pressure or influence these people into doing something that they may not truly wish for. I would advocate alternative options to reduce the strain on the prison system, sentence reform, prison reform, as well as a better management of these people to rehabilitate them into society. A prison should not be a place to keep people away from society, more importantly it should aim to rehabilitate them.

The problem here is that the "point" of prison is either to rehabilitate or punish the prisoner. Either goal is failed if the prisoner would rather die. If that option was available, I'm sure many would take it. Many take that way out already. Instead of allowing the powerless and institutionalized prisoners to end their lives since there really isn't any way for them to stay out, maybe we should look into ending privatized prisons that *want* to keep them in for business, and improving the culture and procedures for release. We shouldn't be putting prisoners in the position where they *want* to end their lives in the first place. Putting that option out there for them is a clear message: We don't care about you, and you have no way out of this life. Save us some money and let us kill you instead. Sudden changes in lifestyle and environment *can* cause depression too, which is another concern I have. If being put in prison for 15 years doesn't make you depressed, I don't know what will. Depressed people have a harder time making rational decisions, especially involving self-harm, right? So why would you put someone in a position to *make* them depressed, then offer them suicide as an alternative? Prozac or Cyanide, pick your poison. My other major concern is that this is essentially a way to cheat around capital punishment. Even if it's only available to lifers. Think about it. They seek the death penalty in court, settle for life in prison, then say "but you know, you can still kill yourself if life in prison doesn't sound like a good life."

CMV: It's immoral to spend any more money than what you must spend for basic needs and reasonable comfort, when that money could be used to help people in need.

**GONNA START OFF RIGHT NOW BY SAYING I DON'T LIVE BY THIS RULE.** Reasons being: 1. I am 16 and (obviously) live with my family still, I don't have a job or any personal income to speak of. I don't have the financial independence to live by this creed. 2. It sounds like not much fun One of those reasons is pretty valid and one definitely isn't. I believe this because it just makes the most logical sense to me. Why on earth would it be fair for me to walk around with a new pair of shoes when there's people I can see *in my own damn neighborhood* who can't afford a square meal, to speak nothing of comfortable clothing? It's just...wrong. That's why I think that as soon as somebody has their basic needs and some *reasonable, modest* comforts like a TV, and air conditioning, any more money past that should go to a charity, or similarly be used for good. **I'm really, really not trying to be high and mighty about this**. I don't live like this, and honestly even when I move out and start making my own money I don't think I'd be able to bring myself to throw out the PC and the cellphone and the car. I also don't think there's any non-arbitrary specific point where it could be declared that someone is being selfish with their money, and also everybody's definition of "basic needs and modest comforts" is probably different. I think you still get my meaning. I still believe, speaking in idealistic terms, it's unjustifiable to keep to yourself what would be best spent saving others. **EDIT:** My V has been C'd! /u/Lesser_Frigate_Bird made a good comment please read it. Keep the responses coming if you want though! **EDIT2:** A couple of challenges have been along the lines of, "where do you draw the line on what's a basic need and what's frivolous spending?" to which I'd have to respond, "I don't know but I think you catch my drift". Obviously if we were going to codify this belief into law there would need to be a strict number or strict criteria but on an individual basis, even though it'd be different from person to person, I think everybody knows roughly what's a reasonable need or desire and what's too much. _____ > *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!*

You say that this isn't something you would do yourself, but that alone should be enough to change your view, unless you've accepted the fact that you would have an immoral lifestyle. With that being said, you could still get a job (depending on the labor laws where you live) and donate any extra money you make. You could also donate your time to charities in your area which is often just as valuable, if not more valuable than your money. So, do you do this? If not, why not? As for your second point, you're right; donating everything after one's own living expenses wouldn't be fun. While this may be true, if everyone was pressured into giving up everything that they don't need, I don't think many people would bother working very hard to be able to have a lot of money and nice things. Personally, I would quit my job and take an easy minimum wage job that I would constantly slack off at. Right now I'd consider my lifestyle to be more than comfortable (although I'm certainly not rich). Why should I, or anyone else for that matter, bother to keep working at the level I do when at the end of the day I'll have the same lifestyle as everyone else? And, what do you think the effect would be in society as a whole if the majority of people lived like you proposed and decided to stop working like I've proposed? I know that sounds selfish, and maybe it is, but society thrives on people being selfish and working to have more than just a modest lifestyle.

Person X works extremely hard, earns lots of money, and keeps it all for himself. Person Y has an easy job and earns just enough money to cover his own expenses. If X is morally obligated to give away his excess money, then should Y also be morally obligated to work harder, so that he can earn more money, so that he can give away more money as well? If X is morally obligated to give away all his excess money, and Y is not morally obligated to *earn* more money (so that he can likewise give it away), then X is a fool for working so hard. All his hard work gains him nothing.

CMV: Fear mongers like (The Thinking Mom's Revolution and the Food Babe) and woo sellers like(Dr. Oz and Teresa Caputo) should be applauded and not disliked.

This people are selling good feelings. Not really being able to talk to the dead or a magic pill to lose weight. They are like movies or video games. They sell a happy time and its not their fault if you believe them. If you watch Independence Day and really think aliens are invading Earth, its not Will Smith's fault even though says in the movie that aliens are invading Earth. They are entrepreneurs that have found a unique way of selling things. They aren't actually hurting anybody. People pay Teresa Caputo money and in return they get good feelings. Nobody is being hurt by her. The Food Babe may use psuedoscience and have people avoid food that doesn't actually hurt them, but people feel good about. They feel good paying extra money for her sponsors food then buying "junk food". The Thinking Mom's Revolution gives answers to parents on why their children are autistic. Sure the information is wrong. But they feel better knowing its not their fault. _____ > *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!*

Over [200,000 deaths are associated with preventable medical errors.](http://journals.lww.com/journalpatientsafety/Fulltext/2013/09000/A_New,_Evidence_based_Estimate_of_Patient_Harms.2.aspx) You know who prevented a lot of these medical errors? The patients. But that's not possible in a world where popularity trumps knowledge. When people adopt counter- and non-scientific opinions, massaged into fact-shaped blurbs by TV charlatans, they replace reason with rationalization. They become trained to accept utterly arbitrary data based on how well it soothes their mind and conforms to their biases rather than the outcome of clinical trials. And when the real scientific process, ugly, slow, and unintuitive, rears its head, they become hostile towards it. Charlatans crave ignorance, and when their audiences accept their roles as empty-headed children, unworthy of and uninterested in knowledge of the real world, our society becomes ever more dangerous. Basic ethical concepts in medicine like ["informed consent"](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informed_consent) become impossible. We make medical decisions totally ignorant of the process and disconnected from the principles. Media panics and trends steal our attention and squander our limited ability to care for our personal health. Blinded by lies and deprived of tools, we rely on luck and chance. There's nothing wrong with false hope in impossible situations. But these are not impossible situations. This is nutrition. These are basic, daily concerns, containing no harsh or unbearable truths. Yes, there is a degree of comfort in being told what you want to hear. But the same is true of opium. I say the peddlers of both ought to be ashamed.

You're comparing these fear mongers to fictional movies, but there's a key difference. Independence Day doesn't claim to be telling a true story. These fear mongers on the other hand are presenting themselves as experts. See the difference? It's the same reason a sci-fi movie about aliens visiting ancient Egypt would be goofy entertainment, but the History Channel's Ancient Aliens is a disgraceful, misleading, embarrassing series. It claims to be discussing a possibly legitimate truth; therefore it transitions from mere entertainment to actively misleading the public for profit. Everyone is happy about their beliefs. Racists, Nazis, ISIS, you name it. Feeling good about your beliefs doesn't mean your propaganda should be "applauded." Attitudes have an impact on society. If parents stop trusting medical science because of unqualified internet stars claiming to be "experts" and spouting superstitious, baseless misinformation, there will be tragic consequences. Outbreaks of completely preventable infectious diseases. Kids not getting treatment they need because of fear of doctors. In some cases hippie food movements driven by fear can have similarly tragic consequences (see the "raw milk" movement, which puts people at risk of contracting very dangerous infections from unpasteurized milk). It doesn't matter if it makes people happy to be told outright lies for profit, that's not the point. The point is that it's morally wrong to spread lies that put people in danger, especially children. If a parent truly wants to feel better, they should listen to people who actually spend their lives trying to develop real, testable, concrete cures to disease. People who spend their entire working careers in labs intensively studying the disorders that cause so much suffering. Not TV talking heads who act as if the scientific establishment is some sort of corporate monster whose goal is to poison food and children.

CMV: The Jesus Myth Hypothesis is Plausible

Crossposted from a comment on /r/skeptic I've read David Fitzgerald, some of Richard Carrier, and the criticisms of both and it seems to me that there is a lot of vitriol on both sides. The mythicists take umbrage at being dismissed as amateurs and dabblers and vociferously defend their hypotheses, the historicists take umbrage at the strenuous attacks, and it all gets very torrid very quickly, and becomes very difficult to actually analyze the actual strength of the arguments. So, as a skeptic, I'm sufficiently intrigued by the Mythicist arguments to profess agnosticism as to the Historical Jesus, for the following reasons: * There are no extrabiblical attestations of any significant event from the life of Jesus. On the contrary, events such as the slaughter of the innocents, the census of all the Empire are clearly fictitious, and multiple miracles, the triumphal entry to Jerusalem, and multiple events surrounding the crucifixion are absent from all historical records when there's a reasonable chance that some account of them would have survived, had they occurred at all. * The synoptic problem indicates that we are working from at most one source that even approaches being primary, and even that most likely written much later, anonymously, and as hagiography rather than history. * Well into the third century, pagan sources mostly recount the existence of Christians and document the claims of Christians. This is at best hearsay. * attempts to reconstruct the "real" historical Jesus are invariably unprovable and contradictory with one another--there is no consensus. * While the vast bulk of NT scholarship presumes an historical Jesus, the "scholarly consensus" should be given less weight since for centuries, such research has been largely a devotional undertaking. Jesus mythicism is very nearly literally heretical, as well as figuratively. At least sufficiently that it deserves consideration even though a strong consensus exists that contradicts it. So, we accept the historical reality of many persons throughout ancient history based on much less proof than gospels and various other pagan mentions. So maybe there was an itinerant sage named Yeshua who ran around, gathered a minor following, and was executed for sedition. But the problems above mean A) we know nothing about him and B) almost everything written about him is unknowable or outright fictitious. I look at it as the difference between "Abraham Lincoln" and "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter." Notwithstanding that there is an historical person that was the basis, the hero version is a myth. _____ > *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!* _____ Edit: Gosh, people sure do seem to use the Downvote as a "Disagree" button. Seems odd, when the purpose of the discussion is to engage with people who disagree.

I'm kind of confused and would like some clarification. Are you saying the statement "There was no one behind the creation and spread of Christianity and the Jesus character did not exist in any form" is plausible or "The mythical aspects of Jesus are unconfirmed while it is likely that there was a man behind the myths in some aspect." My understanding is that Carrier says the former and I thought that was what you were saying. The last statement "Abe Lincoln vs vampie hunter" suggests the latter. Which exactly are you arguing as plausible?

OP, quite frankly I came here to read sources refuting your point out of interest because I know so little about the topic. Given the lacking of that, I'm starting to sway strongly to your view. I do think you should add an edit clarifying what I thought was a clear point. That is, I understand your point to be "there isn't enough evidence to dismiss the mythicist viewpoint." That is to say that as the null hypothesis, there ought to be more evidence discrediting it for it to be so widely accepted that the historical Jesus existed. I also think you should include in the edit your counterpoints to Tacitus and the other common counterpoints that aren't as solid as they may seem.

CMV: Elements created in a lab that cannot exist in nature or in quantities greater than a few atoms for microseconds at a time have no place on the periodic table

I'm no chemist, but I do study science as a hobby, and in reading up on elements such as [ununpentium](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ununpentium) or [ununtrium](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ununtrium), I got the feeling that it's almost cheating to call these things elements and add them to the periodic table. The atoms are created in a lab, usually by slamming two other heavy atoms together in a collider. The resulting atom decays in microseconds and does not naturally occur outside the lab. Calling these things new elements strikes me as the same thing as grabbing two random objects, (say a water bottle and a book), holding them together in your hands and saying, "Look! I've created a bookbottle!" The object will only last until you let go of it, and then be torn apart by the stronger force, in this case, gravity. It's not a new tool or object and you can't file a patent for it. Ununpentium and its ilk are not elements if they can't be found outside the lab, cannot exist as more than a few atoms at a time, or last more than a few microseconds. They are interesting experiments to be sure, but they are not new elements. Change my view. EDIT: Wow, I really didn't see how many gaping holes my argument had. What I've learned: >Short half life It's short by our human standards, but that means nothing on the universal scale. Our lives are nothing on the scale of the universe, that doesn't mean we aren't alive. >Very few atoms at a time This is just a limit on what we're able to synthesize. Massive quantities could theoretically be created in a supernova. >Not outside the lab. Where it is synthesized doesn't matter. The lab is still in the universe, so it could be said that the universe is creating these atoms. There are lots of convincing arguments here, and I'll respond to all of them and delta the ones I feel really swayed me. Thank you for the discussion.

The very definition of a chemical element is determined by the number of protons in its nucleus. Those Protons, along with however many Neutrons it takes to hold it together, comprise its Atomic Weight. Now, it is true that atoms of high atomic weight are unstable and decay. Think of it as a giant lego sculpture--you can build extremely large objects, but those plastic pieces only have so much clutch power and beyond a certain size they will fall apart under their own weight. Just because that sculpture isn't independently stable doesn't mean that it didn't exist, or that the design for it isn't a perfectly valid configuration of its component parts. You could use a drafting program to *design* a 1:1 scale 747, and the pieces would still fit together just fine, whether or not it could exist in the environment. Plutonium, to a first approximation, doesn't exist in nature; its half-life is too short relative to the stellar fusion processes (supernovas) which would produce any natural amounts of it. All the plutonium for all the reactors and warheads we've ever made came from bombarding Uranium with neutrons and converting it into a different chemical with different chemical properties. Where these elements slot into the periodic table also makes predictions about how these elements behave, what they'd react with, and what form they would take under standard environmental conditions. The regular patterns of nature is what defines the rows and columns of the periodic table, hypothesize what would fit into a given spot, then go out and actually "build" that atom to see if it can be done. Plutonium, though it's entirely manmade, still reacts with other elements in certain ways, with itself in certain ways. It's an element. It belongs on the periodic table. To an alien life form that exists on billion-year time frame, Plutonium would be just as fleeting as Ununonium. Does it not belong on the periodic table just because its lifespan arbitrarily fits within a significant portion of how one species on one planet experiences time?

An element is just an atom the has a certain number of protons in its nucleus. Hydrogen has 1 proton, helium has 2, etc. It is possible to form very large atoms, with a very large number of protons in it, under extreme conditions. Why not name every possible configuration? If we can create them in a lab, they can very likely be created in extreme situations, like a star going supernova.

CMV:All states should adopt laws similar to the "Idaho Stop Law" with regards to people riding bikes

**Final Edit: Thank you to everyone who contributed to this discussion! I'm pleased with how it went and the back and forth was impressively civil. Kudos! I awarded two deltas: one disputing my included claim that bicycles are more capable of maneuvering a rolling stop than cars, and one for a caveat that municipalities should have the option of restricting the law in certain zones where the dangers would outweigh the benefits. Continue the conversation! I'm ready for bed.** *This has been argued before, but the most recent iteration I could find was two months ago and I believe because:* *1. it is part of a major national ongoing discussion in transportation circles, and* *2. the post of two months ago used different reasoning than my own,* *It is worth revisiting* ______________________________________ **Background**: Idaho Statute 49-720, commonly known as the "Idaho Stop Law" or "Idaho Yield Law" is legislation allowing legal exemptions from stop signs and stop lights for people riding bicycles that was adopted in 1982. The full law can be read [here](http://legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title49/T49CH7SECT49-720.htm) for those interested. Paraphrased, the law states that any bicyclist approaching a stop sign must slow their speed and check for cross traffic, but may proceed without stopping if it is safe to do so. Additionally, bicyclists approaching a stop light must come to a full stop (defined as a "halt of forward momentum") and may proceed through the light forward or by turning onto a cross street in either direction if it is safe to do so and the bicyclist does not impede cross traffic. **My reasoning**: Having lived in Idaho (among many other places both densely urban and vastly rural) and having used a bicycle as my primary means of transportation for nearly 20 years in those areas, I believe the Idaho Stop, if implemented correctly, is not only the best compromise for all forms of traffic that share the roads, but is actually *beneficial* to all road users. There are many reasons the law is beneficial to cyclists, from their perspective (taken from [wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop#Positions)): * Because of the positive externalities of cycling, bicycle laws should be designed to allow cyclists to travel swiftly and easily, and this provision allows for the conservation of energy. * Current laws were written for cars, and unlike cars, it is easy for cyclists to yield the right-of-way without coming to a complete stop. * Because cyclists are moving slower, have stereoscopic hearing, have no blind spots and can stop and maneuver more quickly than cars, current traffic control device laws don't make sense for cyclists. * With the Idaho stop, at special intersections where lights are controlled by sensing equipment, there is no need to provide extra equipment for cyclists. *(This is a big problem)* * The usual law forces cyclists to choose between routes that are more efficient but less safe due to higher traffic volumes, and routes that are safer, but less efficient due to the presence of numerous stop signs. Allowing cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs empowers them to legally make the safer routes more efficient. These are all logical benefits to the cyclist. As such, they should be taken into account when making decisions regarding traffic infrastructure improvements. However, give the overwhelming task of replacing/improving infrastructure long since built primarily for motor vehicles, cyclists of my generation and probably the following as well require some compromises to be able to use the streets safely and efficiently as legal vehicles (yes, bikes are considered vehicles every bit as much as cars in every state.) That said, I believe the strongest two arguments for why the Idaho Stop makes sense right now is not the benefit it provides to the cyclist exclusively, but the benefit it is to traffic flow in general. **1. Allowing bicyclists to proceed through intersections during red lights or at stop signs when it is safe to do so greatly reduces the number of bicycle riders who slow the flow of traffic through intersections.** **2. By allowing cyclist to get in front of traffic, they become more visible, and in so doing, safer.** The Idaho Stop allows bicycles to remove themselves from the acceleration phase of a traffic cycle, when the speed discrepancy is highest between bicycles and motor vehicles, while simultaneously allowing the cyclist as a small, slow moving vehicle to move to the front of traffic making them more visible to all road users. [The only study done on the topic in Idaho](http://bclu.org/jmeggs-TRB-IDAHO-AUG10.pdf)(pdf warning) found the latter claim to be true as the number of injuries to bicycle riders in the year after implementation dropped by 14.5%, with no increase in fatalities. As for the traffic flow improvement claim, I have nothing to offer other than anecdotal evidence from myself and fellow cyclists who have practiced the law. I would be open to reading any studies demonstrating evidence to the contrary if they exist. **Conclusion**: Ultimately, I believe the best solution for all parties is separated infrastructure for cyclists akin to what is found in the Netherlands and other bicycle-friendly European countries, such as protected bike lanes, cycletracks, and protected intersections. Many jurisdictions in the U.S.A. are moving toward implementing these necessary improvements, but timelines for such a massive restructuring of traffic flow and accompanying reeducation period stretch on, quite literally, for a lifetime. Timeline projects for some projects are on the scale of 50 years. In the meantime, I believe people who chose to ride bicycles for practical purposes ought to be encouraged and protected in doing so and the Idaho Stop Law is the best example of a working compromise available while we continue to work toward a more permanent solution. I feel strongly about this argument and have spent years debating it, but I am always open to having my view changed if the right argument arises that I haven't considered. CMV? EDIT 1: A huge caveat required to make this practical is a strong educational program to accompany the law change wherever it is affected. Schools, news organizations, government agencies, and police would have to cooperate to educated all road users about the change. It is happening in Boise right now, and can be done. EDIT 2: A good number of responses are arguing that bicyclists already break laws and this would make them more likely. Contrarily, what has been seen in Boise is that with the advent of the law, police are free to ignore bicyclists behaving in law-abiding and safe manner, and freed up to target those who are actually putting others in danger. There is nothing inherent in the law that legalizes hitting pedestrians or cutting off cross traffic, and violators who do that can more easily be identified and appropriately cited. _____ > *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!*

> unlike cars, it is easy for cyclists to yield the right-of-way without coming to a complete stop How is that not possible for cars? Have you ever heard of a "rolling stop"? > have no blind spots ...excuse me? You're telling me that a bicyclist, who has no mirrors, can see everywhere around them, but a car with a legally required minimum 2 mirrors, can't? Also, effectively all of your arguments also apply to motorcycles, too. Do you support such changes for motorcycles, too? If not, why not?

The one problem with the law is that bicyclist are not required to stop at stop signs. This is fine if it is a four way stop as the other vehicles which could hit them will likely be going at a low speed and they can avoid an impact. This is not safe at a two way stop with cars going 45+ with a right away having to look out for a cyclist who is crossing without having to stop and look. TL;DR change the law to require stopping at anything other than 4 way stop signs.

CMV: the Earth is alive

The Earth is constantly changing and moving in predictable patterns and cycles. The water cycle and nutrient cycles (carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, sulfur, etc.) are Earth's metabolism. The *Homo sapiens* component of Earth is preparing to initiate reproduction by copying Earth's structure onto other planets like Mars; not only in terms of atmospheric composition, but Earth will also give Mars many of its species and possibly its ecosystems as well. The Earth maintains relatively constant conditions over time, like surface temperature, ocean salinity and pH, and atmospheric composition, and these relatively constant conditions are homeostasis. Change my view. Edit: I already awarded a delta to someone so good job guys Edit: two deltas Edit: Okay, I'm done responding to new top-level comments, thanks everyone _____ > *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!*

Hi, biologist here - the Earth is more akin to a petri dish, with life growing on the agar. The agar, and the dish itself are not alive. Now, imagine instead of a petri dish, you took a bowling ball, covered it in a thin thin thin thin layer of agar, and let stuff grow on the surface. The vast majority of the Earth is abiotic.

Is fire alive? It consumes material for energy, and leaves behind waste (ash). It can move, grow and reproduce (spread) and it will die without oxygen. You can easily make as convincing a case for the earth as for fire, they both do have all the superficial qualities of life. However, they don't pass down any information when they reproduce. There's no DNA or genetic information of any kind, they can't evolve. Neither are really reproducing, a copy is just being made.

CMV: We need to develop alternative energy capabilities, but that shouldn't include an expansion of nuclear power.

I have a couple of concerns about nuclear energy. Overall, I'm not terribly concerned about the risks involved with nuclear power plants - sure, Fukushima and all that, but realistically many more people are killed by other forms of energy generation (I believe!). That's not to say that this isn't a worry, on some level. It's just not my top worry. I am, however, concerned about nuclear waste. The goal of developing alternative energies, to my mind, is to reduce our environmental footprint and save our ecosystem as we know it. Sure, we might slow global warming using nuclear energy - but to my knowledge, we don't really have any good way of dealing with nuclear waste. Investing in nuclear energy is just a way of trading one environmental problem for another. Second, other forms of renewable energy are increasingly cost-effective and efficient. There's no reason to be generating nuclear power when we can do just as well with other forms of energy. Third, nuclear energy is an international conundrum. If we could move away from nuclear energy in the United States and invest globally in other forms of renewable resources, we would be able to prove, in some small way, that nuclear energy programs are unnecessary - and, therefore, give us more leverage to refuse to tolerate them in diplomatic talks. _____ > *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!*

I would like to introduce you to [ITER](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER), an awesome nuclear fusion project that will produce **no radioactive waste** in the traditional sense. We shouldn't give up on nuclear energy, we should instead invest in something like this. Other forms of renewable energy are NOT cost-effective or efficient. Solar power plants get less and less effective the farther away you go from the equator, and transporting electricity is a problem, as more of it is lost with distance. Even with very high voltages, significant power loss over long distances is unavoidable. Wind farms take a significant amount of resources to construct and maintenance is very expensive (they also have a tendency to kill birds, which can be problematic, especially near coastlines, which also happens to be where wind turbines are most cost-effective, due to strong winds and reasonable accessibility). Geothermal and Hydroelectricity depend on location a lot so they're not viable everywhere. Furthermore hydroelectricity has a tendency to ruin the environment too, for example read about Chinese hydroelectricity plants and the effects damming rivers have had on the river deltas there. Check their respective wikipedia pages for more details. A lot of things can be proven to not be necessary, strictly speaking (cars, internet, etc.) but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to get rid of them, and even if the US would get rid of them, it wouldn't convince anyone else. I think the US has enough leverage in international politics without this.

First, you're right that [nuclear energy kills far less people than the resulting pollution from other energy forms](http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/). Second, there's never going to be a perfect solution to dealing with nuclear waste, but containment and sequestration are very good options. Third, there are problems with other alternative energy sources that make Nuclear energy a good compliment to it. Hydroelectric power is somewhat limited in its scope, and not available everywhere. Solar and wind power can be somewhat seasonal, are not ideal everywhere, and solar energy obviously is not effective at night or in cloudy conditions. Nuclear energy can help fill the gaps. Also, solar and wind energy are not easily scaleable - if there's a surge, you can increase the power of a nuclear generator to compensate, we can't turn up the wind. We could also compensate with batteries, but batteries typically have a pretty significant environmental footprint as well, and paying for huge amounts of energy generators and batteries together would be even steeper in terms of cost. Fourth, nuclear energy is ready... now! That's a big deal. We keep improving solar generators, and wind power is becoming more attractive, but nuclear energy is a very safe option with a proven track record (albeit a scary reputation) and has been around for decades. Finally, regarding the international conundrum - the US still has a ton of nuclear weapons. I feel like if they moved away from nuclear energy and still had enough nuclear firepower to blow up the moon... well it wouldn't provide too much additional leverage.

CMV: I believe A-Sexualism is a trend and is just something people call themselves just to be 'interesting' or 'different'.

EDIT: Lots of very well rounded, interesting points. Thanks! Really helped with my perspective. EDIT 2: I've been awarding deltas to people whom have been making some very good, solid points...but then I get a message from the delta bot informing me that I didn't do it correctly. I just want you all to know that you have successfully changed my view! Thank you so much for all your insight, i really appreciate it. I watched the documentary on A-Sexualism and I'm not convinced. I think these people that identify as "asexual" either haven't found the 'right' person for them yet, are just looking for attention, or just joining part of a trend to seem 'interesting' or 'different'. I think if you're born with a set of a genitals, you are in fact a sexual being and in turn, feel some sexual attraction to other humans. I understand how this can be offensive. I look at my brother who is gay and I understand where he comes from, and the obstacles he overcomes through being gay, and I just can't sympathize with people who identify as 'asexual' and implicate that they endure the same struggles as someone from the LBGT community. Please change my view!

Being asexual is definitely not a choice. While some kids may "try on" asexuality just like some kids experiment with bisexual or gay relationships in their early years, it's something that wears on you over time. If there is one solid expectation of you in society, it's that everyone wants to get laid. Sex is such an integral part of our relationships and our perceived value in relationships. Can you think of the last time you got aroused? Can you imagine *never* having been aroused? Isn't it such a strange thought? That's how many asexuals feel about the idea of sexual attraction. It's *strange* and foreign. And because we have that powerful disconnect from something which is a strong underlying motivation for the human existence, we're constantly being judged in our relationships--from friendships, to family, and of course our partners as well. Many asexuals find the right person for them, but the relationship isn't viable because a sexual connection is very important for most people. Even if an asexual is willing to have sex, it's never going to be that powerful "perfect fit" sex that partners with good chemistry have. People are extremely uncomfortable at the idea of asexuality. It's definitely not something you can choose. ####*personal anecdote follows* I'm 30 years old and asexual. This is a throwaway. I've come to strongly resent my asexuality at this point in my life. Maybe because I spent most of my life trying to ignore it, then trying to fix it, and then ultimately concluding that I am stuck with it. I've went my entire life and felt no physical attraction to another human being, and it's a really hard concept for a lot of people to understand. I've actually had my mother tell me "I wish you were gay just so I could understand!" and that's difficult to hear because that's right up there with being a satanist for her (conservative roots here). I think there is definitely some people that participate in sexual "trends" per se as they are growing older and finding their sexual identity. It's just a natural part of experimenting and finding out about your own body and what you like. Or, maybe people think because they've never been laid that they must clearly be asexual because that seems like a better club to be in than undesirable. You really start noticing a gap between you and your friends very quickly, though. There's different shades of asexuality, but I remember so clearly being that weird kid who was completely uninterested in sex but that many people found very attractive. Emotionally, I can connect to other people like anyone else. While I didn't desire sex, I desired to make an emotional connection. So I dated... and dated, and dated. When I was young, I had the excuse that (being in a conservative area), I was waiting for marriage even though I wasn't religious at all. As you can imagine, though, this gets pretty old with young kids wanting to rut everywhere. I got talked about a lot, and not in a good way. As an adult, I didn't really have any excuses anymore. I went to see sex therapists, regular therapists, doctors, and anyone else who would listen trying to fix myself. Medically, there's nothing wrong with me. I stopped dating for a long time. I came to realize that for most other people, sex was a necessary part of a relationship and that they couldn't feel connected without it. That thought was as alien to me as my lack of sexuality was to my boyfriends. I've been dating my fiance for three years now. Emotionally, we have a really powerful bond but physically I struggle. We do have sex, sometimes. It's tedious and unpleasant for me but I try to make it nice for him. I like cuddling afterwards because I feel like I've endured something that has brought us closer together. We both struggle with my asexuality because it's really hard for a partner to understand that there's nothing they can do to change it but it doesn't mean I don't love him.

> I think if you're born with a set of a genitals, you are in fact a sexual being and in turn, feel some sexual attraction to other humans. You're making the same leap in logic that people make regarding sex change operations. *"If you have a penis, you're a boy. If you have vagina, you're a girl"*. It's definitely *easier* to dismiss someone's ideas than to consider them, but that doesn't make it accurate. > I just can't sympathize with people who identify as 'asexual' and implicate that they endure the same struggles as someone from the LBGT community Why would that be? Sexuality is strongly tied to identity. Imagine all of the cues that society gives a person who is sexual sexual. Everything from who they are having sex with (IE disparities in attractiveness, age, race, etc) is scrutinized. Also the kinds of sex that you are open about having strictly helps to categorize you somewhere in the system. Almost everything about sex is in some public sense taboo. Even without sex, there's a lot of bonding among men and women (separately or together) regarding sexuality. Just looking at an attractive person passing you by and nodding to your buddy. Or discussing events, celebrations or just making up. Sex is a common topic of discussion. Then there's the media. Sexuality drives us to buy everything from beer to gym memberships. It's a tool which is used because it works. If it didn't work on you, you would find it more than just superfluous, it would be frustrating to be exposed to it regularly. It is a factor of identity which is deeply ingrained in society and ubiquitous in daily life. If a person does not feel a sex drive, everything from social bonding, to reactions to commercials to meeting social expectations would be impacted.

CMV: Being Transgender to the point of wanting surgery or hormonal treatment is a mental illness, and saying otherwise is harmful to both transgender people and to the stigma surrounding mental illness.

Being transgender and wanting surgery/hormonal treatment is being so uncomfortable with yourself as a person that you need invasive surgery, or completely body-altering hormonal treatment to feel comfortable. I think that the only reason we don't define it as that is political correctness, combined with the stigma around mental illness. Transgender people don't want to be lumped in with other people with mental illnesses because there is a such a stigma against it. And if society starts treating transgender people as having no mental issue, and accepting invasive surgery as the standard treatment then that will slow research towards less drastic treatments. Ideally, in the future, if someone were to come into a doctor's office and say "I feel so bad in my current body that I want hormonal treatment and invasive surgery" the doctor would be able to prescribe something that would just make the transgender person no longer feel terrible in their current body. Edit: I always hate doing controversial topics and just sacrificing my comment karma in a sub. Please think about why you're downvoting before you do. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

Historically, we were indeed considered mentally ill. The DSM (used in the US) recently declassified us as a 'disorder', but the ICD (used in much of the rest of the world) continues to classify us as a paraphilic disorder (essentially, a fetish). It's worth pointing out, however, that the ICD didn't declassify homosexuality as a disorder until the 90s (in fact, they did so in the current version of the ICD), two decades after the DSM declassified it. It also classifies the vast majority of the population as sex disordered, since things like enjoying kinky sex are disordered by the ICD's standards. The current draft of the upcoming new ICD edition also declassifies us as mentally ill, following the DSM's example. But I would say we are not disordered, for three primary reasons: one, we show some basis in fact for our identification; two, unlike true delusional or somatoform disorders (which seem the most obvious comparison), psychiatric medication does not affect our feelings; and three, unlike true delusional/somatoform disorders, allowing us to pursue our feelings is far from destructive and in fact has exceptionally well-demonstrated positive results. ------------------------------ As best we can tell, gender identity is at least partially determined by brain structure formed very early in fetal development. A [few](http://www.journalofpsychiatricresearch.com/article/S0022-3956%2810%2900158-5/abstract) studies [show](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21195418) patterns [typical](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7477289) of our identified gender and not of our birth sex. Moreover, transgenderism correlates strongly with endocrine conditions - if we look at people born with externally female bodies, those with PCOS (which raises testosterone) are [much more likely](http://books.google.com/books?id=RUfMrW4Pzp0C&pg=PA52&lpg=PA52&dq=PCOS+and+transgenderism&source=bl&ots=jDzI2rtV5S&sig=EMQL22TzAMnQ2nNSZV1LfuE2djM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cDd-U_b7I8SXqAaiiIK4CA&ved=0CIYBEOgBMAk#v=onepage&q=PCOS%20and%20transgenderism&f=false) to ultimately identify as men; those with CAIS (which makes their bodies incapable of responding to testosterone) almost never do, to the point that [single cases](http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10508-010-9624-1) merit publication in their own right. On top of that, digit ratio (a marker of prenatal testosterone exposure) displays markedly low T exposure on average in trans women and high T exposure in trans men. There's even some experimental evidence that, when cis (=not trans) people are categorized contrary to their birth sex, they experience the same distress that trans people do. Under the assumption that gender is malleable to social expectations, [David Reimer](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer) was raised as a girl after a botched circumcision. He found himself uncomfortable with the female role, displayed symptoms typical of what would be expected of a trans man (that's FTM, to be clear), and ultimately transitioned to living as a man as soon as he became aware of his status in his early teens. And on the flip side, an author named [Norah Vincent](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norah_Vincent) spent a year living as a man for the purposes of writing a book. By the end of that time, she was so depressed she *checked herself into a mental institution* because she was worried she might harm herself. ------------------------------ Additionally, trans feelings simply don't respond to psychiatric medication designed to 'cure' them. No professional organization in the world - even those that do classify us as a mental illness for (I feel) mostly historical/political reasons - recommends just giving us SSRIs or the like and sending us away. Traditional therapies simply do not work. Compare this with Body Dysmorphic Disorder, a disorder that could be seen as an analog to trans people. BDD sufferers fixate on a small (e.g., a mole) or nonexistent part of their bodies, which they believe makes them hideous and unlovable. Some seek out treatment to remove the offending part. But BDD, unlike trans people, [responds well](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1785390/) to [both therapy and SSRIs](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3589080/) and does not respond to their desired interventions. (continued below)

And about your pill: What about intersex people? People born physically not clearly male or female, what would you adjust their minds to and why? You see, gender is something defined by your brain. It's that way for cis, trans and intersexual people. Surely, I think it's wrong and absolutely fatal to take an intersexual infant or child and simply modify their bodies to "match with standards" as you have no way to know whether they're male or female gendered. Say you have an intersexual infant that is male gendered (but you can't know that) and turn them physically female. When they grow up they'll have so much mental suffering because of what was done to them. In the past it was believed that gender is a social construct and that your body and society defines your gender. Which is why so many intersexual infants have simply been mutilated (yes, it's a mutilation) and turned into a female (well, only physically anyway). Same happened to male infants that had a failed circumcision or were simply born with a micro penis. Doctors believed that simply permanently changing their bodies to a female would be better for them than living as a male with a damaged or small penis. It's like taking a cis/intersex person and making them trans. Which is horrible. A lot of those people later on have spoken up and said what horrible thing was done to them. It showed that gender is something in your brain that you're born with and not something defined by your body. Some of those people ended up committing suicide because of what was done to them. Transition for trans people on the other hand, is like the opposite of the above. It's to alter the body to be in accordance with one's gender (one's mind). If you, the reader, happens to be a cis male, just look down and think: Do you like your penis? Of course you do. Would you want it to be cut away? Of course not. But why? Well, that's because your brain is programmed that way. Ever wondered why girls are fine with having no penis and males are fine with having one? For either gender, just look down and think having the wrong bits between your legs. Not such a nice imagination, right? Imagine getting up tomorrow and suddenly being trapped in the wrong body. Imagine having the wrong bits down there, Imagine having the wrong face, the wrong voice and just the complete body is wrong. It's the suffering trans people go through every day. And, the way you're programmed is connected to your gender, your personality and your entire identity, which is why changing your body is less invasive than changing who you are. So, if you were to get up in the wrong body tomorrow and there was such a pill to change your brain. Would you rather take such a pill, change your whole identity and the way you feel and struggle everyday thinking that "once it was different", "this is not right" or would you rather go trough the process of getting hormonal treatment, surgery and adjust your body to match who you truly are? Which one sounds more fulfilling and correct? And even if you would decide to take that pill, and you would be physically and mentally the opposite sex of what you used to be, remember that you don't have any experience in that gender. You'd only know how it used to be and it would be a shock. It just doesn't seem right, does it? A trans person's mind on the other hand has always been the way it is. Gender is something in your brain that you're born with. Changing one's body to the opposite of one's mind is absolutely terrible, just as is leaving a person born in the wrong body with the body they have. Changing one's mind to the opposite sex of what it is, is just as terrible, for everyone. No matter whether you're cis, trans or intersexed. Edit: [Just wanted to add the link to my earlier post as this is an extension to it. Click me!](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/367d1j/cmv_being_transgender_to_the_point_of_wanting/crbw1t1)

CMV: There is not enough evidence of the safety/efficacy of vaccines, especially in the face of controversy and conspiracy

Both my parents are heavily anti-vax and none of their 3 kids have been vaccinated. After leaving the nest I realized just how uncommon this was, however after years of being in the main stream, I'm still not convinced that vaccines are all they are cracked up to be. Between whistle blowers (William Thomson, Scott Cooper, Andrew Wakefield etc) and corruption within the vaccine industry, it seems like something sinister is afoot. There are countless horror stories and it seems like everyone just shuts up about these things and keeps thumping that vaccines are the greatest. Now I'm not antivaccine (although I haven't been immunized yet) I'm just not pro vaccine. I haven't seen enough to discredit this dark side of things and show undoubtedly that vaccinations are the way to go. Please change my view.

The problem is there are thousands of vaccines in the world, all with their own specific goal, their own specific ingredients and therefor their own specific interaction with the human body. Saying vaccinating is a bad idea because some may or may not cause negative side effects is akin to saying that eating is a bad idea because some people have bad reactions to certain foods. It is nonsensical. Yes, there are undoubtebly some horror stories out there about cases where vaccination may or may not have played a role. And that is absolutely sad and horrible for the parents involved. But the inevitable result of introducing a foreign object (the vaccine) into the human body is that somebody, somewhere is going to have an adverse reaction to this. In the end, life itself is inherently risky and we can never eliminate all risks. I myself am terribly allergic to walnuts. Give me a handful and I'll be dead before you can call an ambulance. In the US alone it is estimated there are over 15 million people with food allergies (1 in 20), yet how many parents will have their children tested before giving them their first peanut butter? I would guess none. Why? Because the risk is thought to be minimal. Yes, there might be countless horror stories, and some of these might even be true, but billions of people have been vaccinated over the years. Compared to that number, even if all these stories are true, means that there is virtually no risk whatsoever. A child is far more likely to die from eating a peanut butter and jelly sandwich than from getting complications from vaccinations. Now a lot has already been said about the actual health dangers to vaccinations, I could add to it, but instead I'll direct you to a very informative video by Potholer54: [Health, vaccinations and junk science](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0ZZTjChW4o) (Potholer54 is a journalist who regularly makes videos debunking junk science, I suggest you check out his channel).

> Between whistle blowers (William Thomson, Scott Cooper, Andrew Wakefield etc) and corruption within the vaccine industry, it seems like something sinister is afoot. There are countless horror stories and it seems like everyone just shuts up about these things and keeps thumping that vaccines are the greatest. The problem with this argument is that it is open ended and not grounded in a fact or idea. It is as hard to dispute it as it is to dispute the comment *"I am scared"*. Whistle-blowers are essential to keep groups honest. It doesn't mean that the whole system is better off gone. It only means that there are more flaws than an entity would otherwise acknowledge. I'm not familiar with everyone on the list, but considering that Obama immediately granted William Thompson immunity from any crimes for testifying clearly indicates that we're not looking at a conspiracy. He spoke out and he was encouraged to do so. > Now I'm not antivaccine (although I haven't been immunized yet) I'm just not pro vaccine. I haven't seen enough to discredit this dark side of things and show undoubtedly that vaccinations are the way to go. As /u/amazingmrbrock pointed out in what might be deemed *the laziest CMV comment in history* there's more at stake than what you can plainly see. Specifically Herd Immunity. That means that we are communally protected from diseases because they are less prevalent. So for instance, babies younger than 1 year old or the elderly with weakened immune systems may not be able to be vaccinated. However the lack of prevalence of the disease in society makes it that they are still safe. So being vaccinated is not just about saving your life but it is about saving the lives of others around you. Separately, it is important not to look at public policy from an empirical perspective. Everyone will always know of a story about someone who suffered in some way. This only points out that a system is not perfect, which was never really in contention. The only question is if the system is better than the lack of a system. Which *statistics* do a much better job at proving. Looking at the [Anti-vaccine Body count](http://www.antivaccinebodycount.com/Anti-Vaccine_Body_Count/Home.html) we can see staggering numbers in preventable diseases and deaths. If vaccines caused autism or had similar effects, then surely it would be measurable in a similar way. We could reconcile that data against each other. But in the absence of facts, horror stories take it's place. I can see how gory details are more moving than a chart, but it doesn't make them more accurate.

CMV:The Nuremberg defense isn't that bad

When the german leaders were put on trial after WWII, They claimed they were just following orders but it was decided that this was not good enough. Hitler could have had them and their children killed for refusing to obey orders. soldiers who refused orders were killed and their families received no help from the state and suffered penalties. so why wasn't this a good defence? were they legally supposed to be martyrs? You can't legally force someone to allow themselves and their families to die/suffer badly even if it means saving others lives obligatory "obligatory wow gold?" _____ > *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!*

Those put on trial at Nuremberg were not rank and file soldiers; they were high-ranking officers. At that level, they were the ones giving the orders. No one was press-ganged into high-ranking positions in the SS. It was a largely volunteer force that that always had its pick of the most fanatical recruits. No one on trial at Nuremberg held the rank they held against their will.

So I'm going to answer this in three aspects - First, legally. The Germans surrendered unconditionally. That means the Allies were free to try the Germans in whatever manner the Allies desired. The ground rules for the Nurember trials wer set down in the [London Charter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Charter), which prohibited "I was only following orders" as a defense. (The Germans decided to use it as their defense anyway). I'd also like to point out that the British prosecutor at Nuremberg, Hartley Shawcross, went to great lengths to show that the trials were not a case of post hoc justice. That is, the Germans on trial at Nuremberg were guilty of many crimes under both German and international law predating the War. Second, as other people have said, the Germans on trial at Nuremberg were the top surviving leaders of Germany. Third, even if they were not high ranking, "I was only following orders" is not a legal defense for soldiers *at any level*, from the lowliest private to the highest ranking general. Soldiers have a duty to disobey illegal orders. > You can't legally force someone to allow themselves and their families to die/suffer badly even if it means saving others lives It's a shitty position to be in, but yes, we absolutely can expect that. If not, nobody would ever be guilty of anything.

CMV: There was a child who was deaf in my showing of Jurassic Park. He was very noisy. I don't believe he should have gone to the movies, and I think it would have been okay if he were kicked out for being a disturbance.

There was a younger child who was deaf at my showing of Jurassic Park. He was constantly making loud "woo-ing" noises throughout the entire movie, being quite the disturbance. *Edit: He may have another disability as well, it was difficult to tell. Deafness was the only apparent one.* Much of the audience was clearly uncomfortable, but didn't want to ask his guardians or someone from the theater to get him to leave. I was having quite the moral dilemma about it, I didn't ask either, so I'm not saying that anyone was in the wrong about staying quiet. Perhaps he shouldn't have been at the movie to begin with because of the graphic nature of the film, but that wouldn't have been enough to ask him to leave. So, change my view. Even though this child had a clear disability and the disability is why he was being a disturbance, it should be okay for him to be kicked out without repercussion. Edited for grammar. Edited for clarity. ##Edit: Also I'm an idiot, it was Jurassic World, not Jurassic Park. #Deltas: 1. [Changed my view on: he should go to the movies. However, I think that he shouldn't have stayed at the movies after causing the disturbance.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3a27yg/cmv_there_was_a_child_who_was_deaf_in_my_showing/cs8o08l) 2. ~~[Changed my view on: Well, this was just a good point about repercussions.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3a27yg/cmv_there_was_a_child_who_was_deaf_in_my_showing/cs8nx8v)~~ 3. ~~[Changed my view on: If he should have been kicked out. There are legal ramifications on kicking him out.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3a27yg/cmv_there_was_a_child_who_was_deaf_in_my_showing/cs8uyvs)~~ 4. [Changed my view on: well, retracted my view on repercussions](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3a27yg/cmv_there_was_a_child_who_was_deaf_in_my_showing/cs98bq1) 5. [Changed my view on: ...well, retracted my change on view about legal ramifications](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3a27yg/cmv_there_was_a_child_who_was_deaf_in_my_showing/cs99pzj) Things I do still believe: his guardians/parents should have quieted him or had him leave, ~~but he shouldn't have been kicked out of the movie.~~ If I had spoken to an usher, then the usher could have asked ~~him~~ *edit: his guardians* to be quiet, ~~but that's all I could have expected.~~ *Edit: maybe it would be okay for him to be removed still, struggling with this one.* *Edit: I shouldn't approach the guardians.* Otherwise I would expect to get a refund and go see the movie another time. ~~What a weird conclusion.~~ Without all of the strikethroughs/edits: "his guardians/parents should have quieted him or had him leave. If I had spoken to an usher, then the usher could have asked his guardians to be quiet. Maybe it would be okay for him to be removed still, I'm struggling with this part still. I shouldn't approach the guardians. Otherwise I would expect to get a refund and go see the movie another time. #Current struggle points: * Is his time & enjoyment more valuable than the rest of the moviegoer's combined? * What are arguments against him going to a time dedicated to children/families, a time with significantly less viewers, or some other method of viewing that wouldn't have caused a disturbance to others? #Irrelevant at this point: * I know I can ask the manager for a refund and/or leave. That doesn't address my view, or change it. #Update: At this point, I will only respond to those I feel like are making a good case or I want more information from. I highly encourage continued posting, I am reading absolutely everything and genuinely interested in what people are saying. _____ > *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!*

The problem with kicking somebody out is the potential backlash from enforcement. If the parents willfully take the kid out, there's no problem. But if theater staff tell the parents that they need to take their child and leave, it's entirely possible that headlines of "Disabled child kicked out of movie theater" run wild on the internet. With how fast social media works, it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility to have the story go viral, with or without context to make the theater's position look more reasonable. It's obviously not a great situation either way, and I imagine that the theater probably could have done more to alleviate the situation, but kicking the family out has the potential to cause more harm than good for the theater. While it should be okay for the theater to kick movie-goers out, it should also be okay for theaters to face repercussions for that, and for theaters to decide for themselves whether the potential risk is worth taking.

I think you're being too rigid, which is something that shows up a lot in CMV. Yes, the movie theater is supposed to be as quiet as possible, but you have to understand that you're voluntarily going into a social situation and there are people in society that have disabilities. For that kid his non-standard upbringing is probably difficult for him and for his family too, especially if he has mental disabilities as well (which he probably does because I don't think deafness makes you go woo woo). I think you need to step back and have a little compassion, and know that nobody is being rude to you. I'm sure he was technically breaking the rules of the theater but every situation is different, and most people would know that it is better to let a disabled child enjoy his Dinosaur movie than kick him out.

CMV: I think the Olympic Games should be held in Greece every four years, with all the other IOC members contributing to the costs.

The host country thing has run its course. Organizing the Olympic games is financially ruinous, blatantly wasteful and the procedure favors corrupt regimes willing to put themselves on the map. Similar to the financial organization of the UN, all International Olympic Committee members should pay according to their ability. The Committee could invest in large stadiums that have an actual purpose after being used for the Olympic Games, namely, the next Olympic Games. Furthermore, and this is just speculation, this would allow Greece to reap the benefits of the economic surplus generated by the Games. _____ > *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!*

It would certainly be economically reasonable to do something like this, but I don't think other countries would want to fund it and it could reduce the appeal of the games. The problem is that the other nations will have even less reason to fund someone *else's* financially ruinous and blatantly wasteful Olympics than their own. Like a lot of sporting events it is a prestige thing (which is part of why those corrupt regimes want it), and there isn't a good reason to pay for someone else's prestige. While you would certainly save money with reusing the infrastructure it will still be expensive, as you will need to be maintaining stuff far beyond was is necessary locally between each games. Other countries won't have an incentive to pay for extra blatantly wasteful pageantry and extravagance, so keeping everything sparkly new like currently happens would be unlikely. It may also hurt the appeal of the games. Won't you please think of the puff pieces? You know, the incessant hours of talking about the planning, design, and pitfalls of the event itself, then sending a reporter to ooh and aah over the most "exotic" aspects of the local culture and cuisine? The wild new arena designs, ridiculous attempts to outdo each other, national rivalries with the host city, and general amount of stuff to cover and build hype over is going to go down a lot if you just do them in the same locations in Greece over and over. Most of what you would have left would be, like, the *sports* and *athletes*! Who watches the Olympics for *that*?

> Organizing the Olympic games is financially ruinous Is it really? The Barcelona olympics is credited for transforming a decaying city into a tourist magnet. The London games were used to develop East London, Vancouver to build infrastructure. They were successful and the infrastructure benefits have paid for their costs long term, even if they all had a couple unnecessary temporary facilities. Beijing *did* do a lot to clean up the city, even if you don't trust their numbers. The Atlanta & Sydney games are probably a wash in terms of cost/benefit, depending on whom you ask. > blatantly wasteful That's not to say all have been successful. Sochi was a mess of epic proportions. Montreal, Nagano, and Lake Placid were bad too... all of them badly overestimated future tourism and growth of their host cities. I'm not sure how far back in time you want to go. The games can be beneficial, and they can be money pits. It really comes down to management. > I think the Olympic Games should be held in Greece every four years You are aware that the Athens games were among the most mismanaged and over budget ever, right? > this would allow Greece to reap the benefits of the economic surplus generated by the Games I'm not sure we need to further enable Greece to be financially irresponsible and devoid of a real economy. As it is now, a pretty huge amount of their income comes from tourism. > Similar to the financial organization of the UN, all International Olympic Committee members should pay according to their ability. The UN is an open dialog... and that's about it. The UN does have increased status (security council, etc) for the top countries that are footing the bill. The Olympics, OTOH, are mostly a feel good event - but they are a moneymaker. Keeping them in one location isn't very inclusive or in spirt with the games. It seems more likely to me that cities will just become wiser about not overspending. We're already seeing that in the 2024 bid with Boston backing out, and a wiser LA-SF plain instead.

CMV: The United States lost World War II

I believe that, at the end of the day, America (and to a lesser extent, the UK and USSR) ultimately lost the second World War in every way that matters. I am not disputing the fact that the United States achieved its principal military/political goals (defeat of the Third Reich and the Japanese Empire), and I of course recognize the fact that the US managed to do so with virtually no civilian casualties/ destruction of the homeland, which is especially impressive given the sheer scale of civilian destruction seen in World War II. What I am arguing is that, having 'won' (as much as it is possible to win) the war, the United States promptly lost its soul, and has ended up in a worse position than Germany or Japan. The reason (I claim) that this is true is because, even before the last Germans had surrendered and the war in Europe ended, the Cold War had already begun. The United States quickly exchanged one enemy (Nazi Germany) for another enemy (The Soviet Union). From 1945 to 1990-ish, combating the Soviet Union and the spread of communism was perhaps the centerpiece of American foreign policy, and led the United States into a variety of fights where we otherwise had no business (such as Vietnam), and ultimately begat a lot of hatred for the United States, leading to many of the foreign policy difficulties America now faces (particularly anti-US terrorism). The Truman Doctrine and containment strategy eventually gave way to a neoconservative 'Pax Americana' ideal, that the United States is some kind of global police force tasked with maintaining order. I think it is clear from Iraq that US military presence generally does not breed goodwill, and therefore the United States (in trying to maintain global power) has led itself into something of a downward spiral. In trying to eliminate one enemy (for example, Iran), we adopt what may seem like a reasonable strategy (arming their enemies, the Iraqis), which eventually backfires and requires later invention (the Gulf War and Iraq war), which itself leads to further issues (like the emergence of ISIS), and on and on and on. It's a cycle that only leads to cartoonishly large military budgets and American blood spilled in conflicts where we don't belong. In short, hegemony has not been kind to the United States, and we would be better off if we weren't a world power. Contrast this with the Japanese and Germans, who are (arguably) doing rather well for themselves. Sure, each country was broken and defeated at the end of the war, and it took a very long time for them to recover, but they came out better. I say they came out better because neither the Japanese nor Germany have the 'obligation' to police the world. In fact, both countries forbid themselves from taking offensive military action. While these countries can be (and often are) considered 'western', and are sometimes the target of anti-western hate, they are not widely hated like the United States, and are not tasked with maintaining ridiculous global military presence. Rather (and forgive me for oversimplifying), Germany can focus on Germany and Japan can focus on Japan. One need not look long to find a wealth of statistics to indicate that these two nations have far superior social safety nets, education, healthcare, etc. than the United States. While this superiority can, of course, be attributed to a wide variety of factors, I believe that one cannot ignore the important fact that these nations have their priorities straight, having suffered the shame of defeat, having gone through the experience of rebuilding and being free of any expectation of global military prowess. What really solidifies this belief for me is the existence of universal health care in most of western Europe. I apologize that I don't have the source, but if I remember correctly, I remember watching an interview with a worker in the UK's NHS, who attributed the success of socialized medicine in Europe (versus the US) to the fact that Europe had to rebuild after World War II. Effectively, when you have to start from scratch and pick your life up from the rubble, there's a greater sense of common bond with the rest of your nation. The US, having not been hurt in the war in the same way, never had to rebuild and instead developed a more violently individualistic character, where the idea of potentially paying for someone else's health care is utterly repulsive. Americans, by virtue of having won World War II without civilian casualty, has ended up with a far worse society than those who 'lost'. If that's the case, aren't we the real losers? Sorry if this post got long. Please, CMV! _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

There's a lot to your point, but I have a few rebuttals. 1. The U.S. became one of 2 superpowers after WWII. After outlasting the USSR, America is now the only superpower. While this may bring the country into certain conflicts, it has enabled America to become the biggest player in world affairs. The amount of influence America can exert, whether that's been used for good or bad purposes, is incredible. 2. You mention the U.S. military presence doesn't breed goodwill, but I think you've isolated certain regions in a certain time period. Most recently, a U.S. convoy was [welcomed with open arms] (http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/25/politics/army-convoy-through-europe/) during its trek across Europe. Additionally, the U.S. military, (especially the navy) is central to many humanitarian relief efforts. Here's one [example.] (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/14/us-military-relief-philippines_n_4277471.html) 3. Lastly, I don't think universal healthcare should be the measuring point for whether or not a nation succeeded in "winning" WWII. I realize you mentioned other safety net aspects, but overall the standard of living in America is great, not to say its bad in Japan or Germany, but America isn't in dire straits because it lacks certain welfare programs.

Well, what would have happened to the U.S. if the Axis powers had achieved a military victory? We might have universal healthcare, but no gays or Jews. I'm not sure that outcome could be called a "win". Moreover, the Nazis would most likely have been the first to develop nuclear weapons, and quite possibly used them to win the war. You claim that the U.S. "lost", but I would argue that in fact, civilization *won* due to the fact that the U.S. rebuilt Germany and Japan, both economically and politically, ending both the Nazi and Imperial governments.

CMV: Studio Ghibli is overrated and their films more often than not require an adaptation in the western film adjusted viewer's watching habits in order to be perceived as enjoyable

I'm posting this hoping that someone will point out what I might be missing or that I can begin to understand why Spirited Away, for example, sits so high in top movie list rankings. I am a westerner who has had exposure mainly to western film but also enjoys many other film types and cultures including Japanese and anime film. However, I don't much care for Studio Ghibli stuff. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that I don't like it. Except for Hisaishi's music, which I think is beautiful. I don't know why everyone seems to like these films so much. It bothers me as lots of my other views in life are congruent with the norm, or I can see why they vary. I've watched lots of Ghibli films in order to give them a chance. I've already heard lots of people arguing that the artwork is great (and I do agree it is) and that's what makes the film great, but that doesn't cut it for me; the same people who argue in this way don't seem to apply that logic to the other films they watch and so must be adapting their viewing style for Ghibli or just repeating something they heard somewhere else, not responding as they normally would (perhaps with reference to direction, plot, acting, action, scripting, etc) when asked why they like a film. Any comments or thoughts (outside of 'the artwork is so good') would be appreciated.

_Spirited Away_ contains one of the most hauntingly beautiful scenes I've ever encountered in a movie, one that resonates deeply with me. I once spent six months of my life travelling, alone, in countries where I was either marginally fluent, barely able to speak a few hundred words, or completely incapable of communicating in the local language (depending on the country). That scene where Sen is on the train, riding through the water with no-face following her? That *perfectly* captured the surreal experience of being alone and unable to communicate in an alien land. It's moments like that that make Ghibli awesome. Not the art work; not the story per se (although _Princess Mononoke_ is an amazing story): the fleeting momentary encapsulation of feeling in the form of art.

This type of CMV is pointless. Nobody is going to be able to convince you to be retroactively moved by a film. However, I can assure you that nobody is "faking" their love for these movies, as you suggest. Why the hell would people do that? It's not even as though there's some intellectual clout to be gained by claiming to like movies that are largely indistinguishable to non-fans from trashy mecha anime. Miyazaki's films have strong, rounded characters, beautiful imagery, fantastic music, and inventive, original plots (who the hell else has ever made a decent movie about a supernatural bathhouse?). That sounds like exactly what I look for in other films.

CMV: There is no such thing as good frozen pizza.

Where a restaurant's pizza quality can range from amazing to average, frozen pizza ranges from average to inedible. There is no overlap; even the very best frozen pizza isn't as good as the worst pizza you can find in a restaurant. I have searched for years trying to find frozen pizza that's half as good as even Little Caesar's, but to no avail. I've come to terms with the fact that every variety has low-quality sauce and not enough cheese. What I can't stand, however, and definitely the most common flaw, is the terrible, *terrible* crust, which ends up either undercooked or bone dry, without fail. I understand that pizza can only be properly cooked using a pizza stone, but it completely baffles me that this is the best we can do without one in 2015.

The Totino's little party pizzas are wonderful. They are admittedly horrible, but they are also wonderfully horrible. It's like a train wreck in your mouth. Little Ceasars is also far from the worst pizza you can find from a pizzeria. I stumbled into a place in Chicago that appeared to have not known the difference between salt and sugar when making their sauce. Side note from another place: If you are going to put out garlic salt instead of garlic powder... warn us. Little Ceasars, Dominoes, Pizza Hut etc. are all mediocre pizza places. Most chains are. But there are definitely some places that long to serve pizza, really longing to have a pizza because they have only heard of them by rough description. For frozen if you look at the Jacks/ Tombstone/ Red Baron types... these are absolutely what you are talking about. Light on the cheese, heavy on the lack of taste. These also sell for about $3 a pie. The cost of a slice at a good place. But you want to move up in quality. So you think Di'giorno or Freschetta.. but these are made by the same companies as the shitty ones listed above with the same idea... which is to make pizza really cheap. Most pizza toppings also don't survive freezing very well. Which is why there is a lot of compromise in quality. However if you are in a store that puts a lot of effort and branding into their store brand (Wegmans in the northeast comes to mind)... their frozen pizza, and all of their store branded items are made to re-enforce the brand of the store. Which is why their name is all over the packaging instead of having an "Exclusive brand" like "Everyday essentials". Those are going to be the frozen pizzas that have the best chance of not just being a decent frozen meal, but also being a decent pizza. Different from a pizzeria but just as good on a quality scale. (The aforementioned Wegmans pizzas always struck me as a little floury and not as greasy as the closest pizzerias to me growing up. But very close to one of the upscale pizzerias I found on Chicago's Michigan Avenue) You might want to also look into picking up a frozen pizza (mailed directly to you) from Chicagos "Giordanos". It is as close as I've come to getting good pizzeria quality pizza from frozen. Also about the same cost as getting it in the store. You're not going to get a NYC pizzeria quality pie from frozen though. The hand tossed dough etc. just isn't replicable in the large scale assembly line demanded by frozen. But then again.. you're not going to get that NYC quality in most of the country from a pizzeria anyway.

I disagree with you, but this sounds like a personal opinion on taste than an actual viewpoint. Sometimes little ceasers "hot and ready" Pizzas are not exactly fresh, I have had some shitty pizzas from there (and some amazing ones). I would say that the delissio rising crust when cooked properly and fresh out of the oven is superior to the lower tier of little ceasers hot and ready pizzas. Mainly because of the immediacy you can eat the pizza from the oven. Yes the frozen crust is always worst. I just don't eat it.

CMV: I (and many others) have no need to use Linux for a desktop computer.

Linux is a hard to learn OS and seems daunting for the average Windows user. Many things on Windows cannot be used on Linux (Distros I have tried were Mint and Ubuntu). 1. Gaming. Games such as ARMA 3 or any other DirectX 11 games cannot be played on Linux at all. In fact, Steam refuses to download them. Even some directx 9 games cannot be played using Wine. (personal issues were splinter cell, battlefield (any of them), and SWBF2 to name a few.) 2. Ease of use. Whenever I try to look up how to do something on Linux it always involves the terminal and confusing commands. With Windows, everything has a easy to use interface. Compared to Windows, Linux is not as polished and requires a lot of setup to easily use. Many technologically challenged people have no idea how to use the terminal, especially without Google's help. 3. Drivers. I applaud Linux for its ability to easily recognize system drivers (chipset, USB stuff, etc) but when it comes to things such as joysticks and gaming controllers, even Nvidia drivers and other special drivers (ps3 eye webcam), the terminal has to be used with varying degrees of success. 4. Applications. Almost every program is Windows only and has no alternative in Linux. Some examples are anything GPU/gaming related, (MSI afterburner, geforce experience, etc.) fan control, temp monitors, and any program that has an exe at the end. In short, the excessive use of the terminal combined with the lack of common programs/drivers make Linux unusable for both the everyday consumer and the gamer. I am completely willing to change my view, as I have tried Linux many times with the same common issues appearing. I just see no benefit Linux has over Windows, besides being free. _____ > *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!*

I'm going to stretch the CMV just a little to leave out the word "desktop", and make a case for why you might need "Linux". First of all, there is a good chance that you are actually already using Linux. If you have a TiVo, or an android phone, or certain internet routers then you are already using a Linux powered device every day. Linux is used to drive some calculators, smart TVs, automobile control systems, and home appliances. Linux is low cost, secure, stable, and customizable. Many devices would be prohibitively expensive or unworkable without Linux. And while you personally might not be using it to run your desktop, the mere fact that it exists keeps Microsoft from having a complete monopoly. If you ever find yourself completely disgusted with Microsoft for some reason, you have another option available to you.

I'm a fan of free stuff. I use Linux Mint because I could get free upgrades to the latest version way before Microsoft announced that people who already use Windows could upgrade to Windows 10 for free. I can use any combination of LibreOffice and Google Drive depending on what I'm doing at any given time as a replacement for Microsoft Office. You don't *need* to use Linux if you decide that it's not the right option for you. That's one major reason I'm a fan of free market systems -- different people have different needs and goals and should be able to choose the option that works best for them even if someone else who has a bigger gun than you might not agree. But it's sweet to know that Linux is available if you ever run into a situation where Windows messes up in a big way and you need to use another option for a while.

CMV: Mainstream acceptance of the Book of Mormon Musical shows that joking about a religion (of any kind) should be allowed in the USA

To start off yes I am Mormon and no I am not offended by The Book of Mormon Musical. In fact I know a ton of very devout Mormons who have seen the play and they all said that they thought it was very funny. In fact the LDS (Mormon) church even bought ads in the Playbills of the musical to direct the audience to the official LDS website. Prominent political figures such as Hilary Clinton have also seen the play and didn't have any issues about it. Yet at the same time there are certain religions in the United States that are big no-no's to make fun of. This seems slightly counter intuitive. I only have the view from a Mormon perspective but there have been other pieces of media that openly mock and slap at Mormons including [this](http://images.politico.com/global/2012/07/bbw_mormonempire_cover29.jpg) from the cover of Bloomberg Businessweek. For a little bit of background on this cover and what it is depicting. That is Joseph Smith who is the founder of the Mormon church along with another member of the church receiving a blessing from an angel. Obviously this angel did not say those things that are on the cover and disputing what the cover brings up is a topic for a different subreddit, so please don't address those things, but know that this cover is offensive to most Mormons. This scene in Mormon theology is as sacred as Moses receiving the ten commandments or Buddha reaching Nirvana. So I guess I'm just trying to understand why its acceptable to harshly mock some religions (not just Mormons) but not others. TL;DR Why is it politically correct to never criticize one religion but its okay to criticize another? Edit: /u/nosotros_road_sodium explained it the best with the [Punch UP vs Punch Down idea](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/35md5x/cmv_mainstream_acceptance_of_the_book_of_mormon/cr5qlbl). Thanks a bunch from all of your input guys it was very informative and helpful. And thank you for not being rude to me for being Mormon. _____ > *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!*

As to why it's OK to mock some religions but not others in American culture, look up the meaning of [punching up vs. punching down](http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2014/07/21/never-punch-down/). Mocking a majority religion like Christianity is degrees edgier than mocking a minority religion like Islam. Yes, I know a minority of Christians are LDS, but Mormons have become a cultural force in America whether: a major university with a powerhouse football program (BYU), the last Republican presidential candidate (Mitt Romney), and the numerous Mormons in business executive positions (Marriott for instance, from what I recall). Muslims, on the other hand, get lots of shit for choosing their faith, with the stereotype of being terrorists/terrorist apologists/anti-American rising post 9/11. look at how many "Obama is a covert Muslim" remarks have been spread around AM radio, blogs, Free Republic, etc. since Obama entered the national political scene. The "All-American Muslim" reality show, an attempt to show how Muslims are "just as American" as WASPs, backfired big time, while the same audiences offended by such a show embrace reality TV about fundamentalist Christianity like "19 Kids and Counting". TL;DR: Mocking a majority religion = standing up to a bully, mocking a minority religion = kicking a dead man.

I'm going to take a guess here and say it has something to do with how mature the culture is that follows the religion. Mormons, from what I've seen, are mature people who, if you say something dumb about their religion to them, will rather ignore you for being dumb then take actual offence by it. One can talk and discuss religion in general with them without the feeling they are talking to either a wall or a broken record. A lot of Christians I know are similar, you can mock their faith all you want, they understand that different people hold different views and not everybody believes as they do and it's fine. Joke about the religion and they laugh, say something dumb about it and they ignore you. Yet other Christians I've met or heard about seem to want to grab arms as soon as a non-believer even mentions god. Or treat you as if you're denying the day and night cycle. Most people I know that follow the Islam are different than that, the "mature" people will simply not like it when you joke about the religion and give you very foul looks if you say something dumb about it. The not-so-mature folks will take greater offence. In the end, the reason why I think it's okay to joke about some religions and not others is because some religions have a lot of supporters that get really pissed if you joke about their religion. As for how it should be, or rather, how I think it should be, acceptance for people saying dumb shit should be lower. I'm all for freedom of speech, it's important and should be an universal basic right. It should NOT be about how dumb religious people are and it should not be about how all non-believers should go to hell. It's not helping anybody, doesn't change opinions and only stirs up trouble for no good reason. Somebody yelling something thats obviously wrong should be slapped (probably figuratively, *maybe* literally) and educated. You are free to believe what you want but your not free to sprout bullshit. There is plenty of room for discussing non-scientific things in a civilized manner. Usually this is philosophy, which is probably just as great as science is.

CMV: Any life other than one of poverty is unethical.

Lets start by looking at a situation: Imagine you are walking by a shallow river on your way to a ball when you see a child drowning. You're wearing some pretty expensive clothes (lets say 500 pounds) that will no doubt be ruined if you jump into the river. Saving this child doesn't put you in danger as you can stand in this river while the child being smaller cannot. Do you jump into that river to save that child? Let's say you encounter that same river with a different child in it the next day while wearing your rolex watch. Do you jump into that river to save the child? Now lets look at the real world. More than 1.3 billion people live in extreme poverty (less than 80p a day) and 7.6 million children are estimated to have died before their 5th birthday in 2010. Many of these are from poverty, preventable diseases and illnesses. Money can help provide infrastructure for schools, hospitals, sanitation facilities, vaccinations etc which no doubt will help reduce child mortality rates. Once you look at the world through this lens then it is easy enough to look at the world in terms of opportunity cost. This iphone or 100 life saving vaccinations. An expensive house or cheap government housing and a new well providing water for a village. One may argue that there is a difference between the example and this and that is distance. These children are much further away but I don't see how that dilutes your moral responsibility to them. Therefore, it seems that any money that you keep must be worth a child's life, education etc or be allocated to some other duty such as child rearing where you have a responsibility to give time and money (for schools, healthcare etc) to make sure that your child grows up to be a socially productive member of society. I know that sounds like a very cold perspective on what parenting is about but i couldn't think of another way to phrase it haha. I will assume that most people think that you should save the child but this specifically is why I would save the child. I'm looking at this from the stance of virtue ethics (Aquinas) and I believe that by allowing this child to die shows a lack of charity and isn't positively building character. I can't justify losing a life in exchange for 500 pounds. But, I think even taken from the stance of consequentialism (believing that consequences should inform your moral thinking) or deontological ethics (believing that laws inform your moral stance) you would still reach the eventual conclusion that you must jump into that river: Consequentialism (i.e. Utilitarianism): You would have to argue that having 500 pounds will lead to greater pleasure/happiness than that life and I don't think you can justify that. Deontological ethics (i.e. Kant): I only really understand Kant so he's the one that I will briefly (very briefly) talk about but allowing that child to die breaks the categorical imperative as if you allowed that act to become universal you would be devaluing human life by saying that it has a price tag. I've only briefly talked about why I think the child should be saved as I take it as a assumption that most people would save the child but I will be willing to discuss my ethical stance more thoroughly if anyone asks me about it but i didn't want my post to only appeal to those who have studied philosophy. Thanks for your answers! _____ > *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!*

You could literally spend a lifetime reading the different philosophical responses that come up to this challenge, so rather than trying to formulate the argument that I think is the most convicing, I might jsut ask you which of the following arguments you think sounds most likely to convince you, and then give a basic summary of the kind of argument that ususally entails. Additionally, I really don't think you sufficiently dealt with Kantian ethics at all (I wasn't convinced by your account of the categorical imperative, and you ignored the other components of Kantian ethics, which I actually think make a stronger case for you, specifically the second formulation), and it seems like you misunderstood virtue ethics: it isn't about maximising behaviour that conforms with a particular virtue, it's about cultivating the virtue itself. Virtue ethics demands that you are a charitable person, not that you perform maximally charitable actions. Under an Aristotelean framework (which is essentially what Aquinas operates under), it's very easy to be *too* charitable, as well, which I think is worth considering. Regardless though, some common critiques of the view your espousing would be: - It's impossible to accurately quantify 'happiness' in such a way that would allow you to make the assumptions you're making - Ethics isn't the highest thing we should aspire to - You have unique ethical responsibilities to people who are closer to you (i.e. that space is morally relevant) - Utilitarianism is heavily flawed, and your argument doesn't really work for any other major school of ethics - This position contradicts common-sense morality, which is what all moral systems aspire to emulate Do any of those sound like they could maybe change your view?

Your argument is based on the notion that money can fix all of the problems that impoverished people face. This is simply not true. Sure, money can build a school, but it won't change the fact that millions of people live in a place that can barely produce food (and is losing even that ability with a changing climate). It doesn't change the fact that the politics of many of these regions are such that any resources sent there will immediately be confiscated by warlords. Sure, my $25 could help feed someone...if the food was actually able to get to them. But then what? A week from now they're back in exactly the same situation.

CMV: I don't think scientists assume the uniformity of nature

I think that rather than assuming the uniformity of nature, scientists take it as a tentative hypothesis. My main reason for having this view is due to how I think scientists would respond if something did happen that disproved the uniformity of nature. I believe if something suddenly changed, scientists would acknowledge this change and attempt further investigation into why this change was possible. I do not believe that scientists would simply outright deny that a change has happened, which is what I think they would do if they simply assumed the uniformity of nature. _____ > *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!*

If I understand your point correctly, in order to change your view, we would need to prove that "scientists" would not change their ideas on the uniformity of nature, even if presented with evidence to the contrary, right? Since that would really be counter to the fundamentals of the scientific method, it doesn't seem likely. The only approach I can think of to change your view is to examine what you mean by "scientists". While the overall scientific community would respond as you say, undoubtedly there are many scientists who wouldn't - either because they lack the mental flexibility to rethink their world, or they have a vested interest in the status quo. Now, I think this would be a small percentage overall, but certainly not ALL scientists would behave "correctly".

Scientists, as far as I know, have to assume uniformity or all the scientific theories fail. The thing is though, none have failed for that reason, so they really have evidence by now. But if the universe would change in how it behaves, they would change their view. An assumption can be challenged and changed clearly.

CMV: We do not have to fear automation

They've been saying this since the 30s. Keynes predicted that as technology increased and our material needs would be met, we would only need to work 15 hours a week, instead we are working longer hours than ever. There's no reason to think this will change anytime soon, if it hasn't in the last 80 years. http://www.theguardian.com/business/2008/sep/01/economics People were saying from the 18th Century that the industrial revolution will make man redundant? But did it? People moved on, new types of job openings which we'd never have imagined before came to be, think about the luddites' opposition to technology. We do not have anything to fear.

This is kind of an aside:  I think both sides of this argument are missing the point here (and I do agree with points on both sides). While I do think that it is possible for automation to replace the lion's share of modern jobs (I just watched a lecture yesterday where it was claimed that only ~20% of factory jobs were lost overseas whereas they discovered in retrospect that almost ~80% were lost due to automation), I also think economists opposing this view have a good point when they say that we can create new jobs, ones that we can't even imagine today, to keep the majority of people employed to the same degree as today. That said, I think there are two *very important* factors missing from this discussion:  1) The inherent value of a newly created jobs compared to past jobs, and 2) Our economic system's ability to accommodate accelerating technological change in terms of employment Regarding the first point, people tend to become disillusioned about work on a psychological level when they feel that their work isn't adding any value. That was one of Marx's core critiques about Capitalism when he argued how essential it was for the workers to control the means of production. The less valuable/necessary people percieve their jobs, regardless of how well compensated they are for it, the less satisfied they will be with their lives. I recently read an article about how the vast majority of people in cities like London, a place where many people (office drones) are employed in information industries doing jobs that didn't exist ten to fifteen years ago, feel that their jobs are utterly meaningless in the grand scheme of things (and they're not wrong) and many subsequently feel depressed. London is an extreme example but rest assured, with increasing automation, most other places will start to catch up. Information and information-based services will be (already is) the most important product that we produce, not physical goods/labour. This means is that the work we do as humans is becoming more work for the sake of work. A century ago, the majority of work that we did were things that quite obviously needed to be done. We repaired things, we built things, we provided crucial services, and so on. Think about ten people around you today and ask yourself: do the jobs they do create a net benefit for their lives and the lives of people around them, or are their jobs essentially bullshit? You'd be surprised at how many jobs today add little to no value. Even if they do add some value, it's often not (nearly) enough to rationalize it taking up 40+ hours of someone's life each week. This trend is only going to get worse, too, as more and more "critical" jobs are automated/rendered obsolete and more and more bullshit jobs get added to the pool. It's no wonder that people are miserable: we've seen a kind of spiritual decay where the vast majority of people have become miserable in their employment and that it's only going to get worse until we decide enough is enough and no longer require people to work in order to provide for themselves. This is all exacerbated by the fact that we're collectively more educated and aware than we've ever been, and that we all know the most surefire way to become wealthy is to game the system (like on Wall Street), not create value for others. As per the second point, say you disagree with my first point and want to argue that the value of new jobs being added to the economy is worthwhile enough to continue to employ the majority of people in new jobs. Fair enough. The other problem with this is that a lot of the jobs being added don't fit into the employment model of the past century. It's becoming harder and harder for companies to justify hiring people full time, putting them all in an office and making them sit in cubicles for 40+ hours per week. Just look at the business models of Uber, Amazon, Facebook, Instagram and so on: these companies are indicative of a 21st century employment model. They are not traditional vertically integrated companies that need to hire tens of thousands of people in order to function, instead they get by on hiring a handful of people and providing a service to more than a billion people. Traditional vertically integrated companies are learning from this as well and reducing the number of employees they have (when they can get away with it).  Thanks to the internet and accelerating technological change, these 21st century business models are scalable in a way that traditional business models weren't. A lot of the information-based services and distribution models around them that needed to exist last century are totally irrelevant now and are in the middle of a mass extinction. That's why we've been hearing the death rattle from the MPAA and many other large "information brokers": they're irrelevant and they're flailing wildly trying to find a way to prop up the old business model just so they can survive (while making everyone hate them in the process). We don't need a middle man anymore, the software is the middle man with algorithms replacing humans as gatekeepers to 1s and 0s.  So regardless of what you think about automation and job creation, you can't dodge the fact that our current employment models no longer make sense. The world is full of offices that exist for the sake of tradition (and supposed information security) where the majority of people sit at their desks doing valueless busy work and surfing the internet every chance they get. That's why we're seeing a huge boom in freelancing. A (regulated) Uber-style employment is likely going to be the new employment model for the next few decades. Companies are going to want to hire freelancers (from anywhere in the world), have them sign NDAs, produce X amount of work for them and those freelancers might do work for 2-3 companies at the same time. Blue collar work is no exception. Companies like McDonalds are slowly and carefully revealing to the world that they intend to phase out many of their workers in the coming years, something I expect will be accelerated by minimum wage increases. Retailers, large and small, are beginning to becoming nothing more than glorified show rooms and many are losing the battle against online shopping. Jobs in the transportation industry (taxis, trucking etc) see the writing on the wall. "Sharing economy" services like AirBnB and Uber will continue to have an impact. Services like Instagram and smartphone cameras killed vertically integrated behemoths like Kodak. The list goes on. Anyway, even if you think that automation is going to displace rather than replace people, I think you still need to concede that replacement is possible if we allow it, and that there are good arguments for replacement over creating jobs for the sake of creating jobs. First and foremost, unless we do something radical (like basic income) a lot of people (especially those not educated or business/tech savvy) are going to fall in the cracks opened up by accelerating change (like anyone who works in the transportation industry today). I also think there is another, even better argument for allowing ourselves to drop out of the labour market if we want to, and that argument is an environmental one: we overproduce and overconsume more than any other point in history, it is unsustainable and that we need to start producing and consuming less and therefore we need to start thinking up a new way to organize economic activity around the concept of sustainability. **Late edit**: added tl;dr **Tl;dr** - Basic human needs are finite and can be totally satisfied with automation in the foreseeable future - Current levels of automation have already displaced humans away from work that has obvious value - New jobs have increasingly less value than before when they are created in spaces where they can't be automated (yet) and thus job satisfaction is on the decline - Many new jobs are created for the sake of creating jobs (a symptom of past bureaucracies / legislation / remaining inertia from 20th century employment practices) - We increasingly overproduce and over consume because of our economic model and increased efficiency over time - The employment system is shifting from full time to part time freelancing type employment, which can be inhumane without the proper framework in place (basic income) - We need to change our antiquated view of work where we think every able bodied person should work to one where we see work as optional and less centralized - We need to think of a new economic system or else things will start getting ugly and this is true regardless of whether you think future automation will displace or replace humans

I'm getting a PhD in this now. Over the next 20 years things will get crazy. To look over the horizon, there's a few technologies that are just now coming together. * Cheap Sensors: 6 years ago I wanted to make an RC Segway. I started on it, but you either had to hand build a sensor from cheaper ones or buy one pre-made for $600. Now, those sensors are $2 a piece and come in cell phones. * Computing Power: For things like automatic cars you need a lot of fast processing power because you can't wait 5 seconds to figure out if you're about to crash. Right now, things are just getting to the level where a $500 or so computer can do enough calculations to have something workable. Those 2 things will make a lot of people redundant. It might be the biggest change society has ever experienced. Robots building robots, driving everyone around and doing everything for us. It'll change politics and how people view living life, but we'll have so much stuff it might be a lot better. For the fear part, this changes war completely. I think robotics is a WMD worse than atomic bombs. Its hard to make atomic bombs, and countries can monitor each other, but anyone can download a program from the internet, load it into a robot, and turn it into an indiscriminate killing machine. If you check out a video of a high powered quadcopter, then look at another of tricks people can make them do, the technology exists today for a small government or large group of people to make killing machines that could wipe out a city. Right now, a country with a cell phone factory could convert it to make sniper drones by the thousands. The only reason you we see it now is because governments like the US and China are more interested in technology that supports their troops in combat, which is more complex, instead of robotic ways to commit genocide.

CMV: I should refrain from sexual activity due to the potential of false rape accusations.

For context, I'm an 18 year-old male who will be entering college this comming fall. This issue has only been a concern of mine in recent months, in part due my exposure to the idea on reddit/other internet sources, and partly because I've never been in an environment where sexual encounters are frequent. I don't think I'm of the party that has difficulty understanding consent. I also understand that there may be a great deal of fear for some women that they may be raped, and I don't wish to sound as though I'm downplaying that. But I have a fear myself of being falsely accused, or accused in a case where consent is retroactively removed. I don't think of this potential as being very high; I don't think most women are that vindictive; however in the event that it occurs it seems the results can be devastating. I've personally spoken to someone who has gone through this process and it took him almost a year to clear his name. I don't want this fear; I'm very open to the idea that it may be exaggerated in the media I've read, or that there are faults in my reasoning. But these are potentials and I can't seem to confirm them on my own; maybe someone else can poke some holes. _____ > *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!*

Humans are unpredictable creatures. I wouldn't say so much, don't have sex at all, but being cautious in who you choose to have intercourse with (and under what circumstances) seems wise. So, you have two questions, "Does this girl really want to fuck?" and "Is this girl a vindictive bitch who will screw me over even if she really wanted it?" In the second case, you wouldn't just be on the lookout for false-rape accusers, but someone who would total your car without even asking if they could borrow it, steal your wallet, pop over at your parents' house in the middle of the night, and all manner of bat-shit crazy activity that you would want to avoid. Might want to take a page out of "How to avoid serial killers on craigslist" for tips on dealing with that scenario. In the first case, well, simply go slower with a woman than you might like to otherwise until you feel comfortable that you are both on the same page as to what you want to do with each other. There's nothing wrong with saying, "I don't kiss on the first date." At your age there's gonna be a lot of virgins around - heck, some of 'em are gonna think it's a huge deal having their boobs fondled for the first time, might be an event all on it's own. Going slow is good, it lets 'em ease into the idea. When you get more experienced you'll get better at reading signals and discussing such things, and with a woman who's into it you might not need to hold off as long before feeling comfortable partaking as when you first started with your sexual explorations. Tl;dr: If you're worried, try dating the same woman for a while first and see what she likes before starting a spree of one-night-stands.

You should refrain from sexual activity with your spouse because of false rape allegations? You should refrain from sexual activity with your boyfriend or girlfriend because of false rape allegations? You should refrain from sexual activity with your fuck buddy because of false rape allegations? You should refrain from sexual activity with the man or woman you've been dating for a couple of months because of false rape allegations? You should refrain from sexual activity with a man or woman you've been on a couple of dates with because of false rape allegations? Or you should refrain from sexual activity with someone who you just met at a party in which everyone is pretty drunk because of false rape allegations? What is the scope of your CMV?

CMV: Prostitution should be legalized, I don't feel most arguments against it hold water.

I've been thinking about this one for a while. While a lot of the arguments for it ("It's the oldest profession"; "we should have full rights to our bodies") don't hold up too well, neither do a lot of the arguments against it. **(As a side note, I'll be referring to women but all these arguments could reliably be applied to male prostitutes for the most part)** One of the most oft-touted arguments that I seem to see is that "Women will be forced into prostitution because they have no other options". I fail to see this as a legitimate concern. Not because I don't think some women would choose prostitution to survive (it would happen, undoubtedly) but because I don't see how this is a bad thing. If the woman's only option was prostitution, and you take that away, what is her option now? Starvation? Homelessness? While it might cause mental damage to a woman to be forced into sex, as long as it's legal, enforced, and safe, isn't the damage likely to be far less than the mental *and* physical damage she'd suffer being unemployed/watching her children and herself starve/living out on the streets/whatever else she needed the funds for? If I argued that minimum wage jobs should be illegalized because "Desperate people might feel obligated to work them", would that make sense? I don't think so. A McJob is a McJob, and a McBlowjob can still be a job without being intrinsically damaging to a person. One could argue that sex is still somewhat taboo, especially with strangers, and that the cultural ramifications cause shame, stress, and mental damage, but that's a part of society's problem with sex, not a problem with prostitution itself. The only argument I could think of is that a woman might be forced to give up her virginity to work, which I concede is awful and should never happen, but often does even with it illegal and if virginity and morality is the only thing standing between eating and starvation, I'm reasonably certain illegality is not going to stop many/any women. I think a regulated, safe, and well-operated system of brothels (and only brothels, to ensure there are no dangers to streetwalkers/regulations can be easily enforced) would reduce the amount of dangers as well as offer additional opportunities. To clarify, this system would involve: >Similar regulations to the porn industry (mandatory screening for all workers, 100% condom use by 'johns', provided and required birth control, contracts either requiring abortion/absolving the secondary party of any/all liability and responsibility, physically and financially, in the unlikely event (but by law of large numbers unpreventable) double failure of condoms and birth control. >Protection, both on and immediately off of brothel grounds, by well-maintained security forces. >New legislation that ensures any fraud or intentional failure to pay (in the event some brothel didn't take money up front) constitutes rape. >Harsh crackdowns and harsher penalties for pimping, street walkers, and other institutions ("Massage parlors"). Death penalties/life sentences (where it isn't already) for human trafficking and sexual slavery, all the way down the ladder, and rehabilitation for victims of this. (Actually, that last one would be good with or without legalized, but whatever). **What I'd like to see to Change My View (in addition to any logical moral/emotional arguments):** -Studies on legalization that prove it's not safe/causes societal repercussions more severe than the benefits. -Studies on lack of effects (or worsening) of street prostitutes/pimp culture. -Anything else relevant to disprove anything I've said here. **What I would not like to see:** -Outright moral arguments ("Selling your body is wrong", anonymous/casual sex is a sin) -Any arguments I listed above without additions ("Women will be forced into sex slavery") -Religious arguments Thanks for your time :3 _____ > *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!*

> If the woman's only option was prostitution, and you take that away, what is her option now? Starvation? Homelessness? While it might cause mental damage to a woman to be forced into sex, as long as it's legal, enforced, and safe, isn't the damage likely to be far less than the mental and physical damage she'd suffer being unemployed/watching her children and herself starve/living out on the streets/whatever else she needed the funds for? First of all, it's a false equivalency to say that people have a choice between either A) prostitution or B) starvation. In most western countries, prositition is practically never the *only* option women with limited marketably skills/education have to make money, it just happens to be the most lucrative. Waiting tables, cashiering, working retail, coupled with a relatively strong social safety net (like foodstamps, medicaid, rental credit/section 8 housing), is how the vast majority of the working poor survive. It isn't just psychological and physical damage, there's some serious damage to both the immediate incentives and long term prosperity of people, particularly women, that go into prostitution, which are quite destructive. Lets ignore the psychological damage/addiction cycles synonimous with prostitution and focus instead simple career growth, total earning potential, and the cycle of poverty. A prostitute's peak earning potential is when they are the youngest and freshest (probably), and gradually dimishes from there. Lets say a 20 year old can make 200-300 a night, 5 nights a week, that works out to about 50k-70k per year. Very good income for someone of that age, certainly tough to walk away from considering the expected income of 20-30k, but nothing you can retire off of, and that's their peak income, and it will only go down from there. After 10 years, they're 30, maybe they're still pretty hot, but they can only get 150 a night. so that means that after 10 years experience, the 45K. 5 years later, they're probably starting to show their age, lets say it drops down to 150. 39k. Once they hit 40 they're most likely on their way down, if they stay in tip top shape, they could probably still get 100 a night. (even that's kind of generous). At what point does the person decide that the money isn't worth it anymore? Is that point before or after when they feel like they're young enough where they can start their career in something else? Does someone who go into prostitution hope to work in the same industry until retirement age? While it's true that low wage work isn't great, it can lead to opportunities of advancement, promotions and pay raises. There are virtually zero of these in prostitution. On the flip side, legal prostitution means higher demand from consumers, leading more people to pay for it, and increasing hte number of people going into as a profession. While the level of damage each individual would decrease, the number of total damage would increase. The types of people that choose this type of work would be lower class people with little career perspectives that would make some money for a while, but over the long term, most would be screwing themselves over financially and careerwise in the long term.

Your argument assumes that a person may be faced with a choice between sex work and slow starvation. This isn't true in most first world nations. The social safety net does a pretty good job keeping mouths fed. There are exceptions to this of course, but most of them are solvable (husband drinks all the money away) or involve other illegal activity (drug addictions). So, given that the social safety nets will keep people from starving, what's the difference between legal sex work and illegal sex work? If sex work is legalized, poor people will have to try sex work before welfare becomes available to them. **Poor people will be *expected* to try sex work before they are given relief.** "Can't get a normal job? Have you tried prostitution? No? Well, try that, and *then* the government will help you out." --- So, who cares? Well, you personally may not think that prostitution is immoral, but *billions* of other people do think that. Legalizing prostitution will mean saying to all those Catholic single mothers "no, you can't have welfare support unless you're willing to sell your body." Does that sound acceptable to you?

CMV: Zach Jesse should not have been banned for life from MtG tournaments by Wizards of the Coast

So I'm not sure how many of you guys are aware of the recent events in the MtG world but today a professional player, Zach Jesse, was banned presumably because of his past criminal history which includes a sexual assault guilty plea when he was 19. I'm not aware of the exact circumstances surrounding his offense. What unsettles me about the ban is that it seems to have occurred because another player, Drew Levin, pointed out Jesse's criminal past with a Twitter post: ""Quick reminder: Zach Jesse is a literal rapist who got away with serving three months of an eight year plea deal." It should be noted that this is a very speculative and misleading statement, as the public is not aware of the details surrounding his plea. Wizards of the Coast gave a short statement saying that the reasoning behind the ban was to ensure that players feel safe at events. Obviously a worthy endeavor, but I don't see how it really applies here. We are talking about large events at convention centers with thousands of people, security, etc. If, in the eyes of the law, he is not considered a threat to the public (i.e. not in jail) then how can Wizards see him as one? And what's the point in attempting to rehabilitate criminals if they are to be forever shunned from participating even in large public events? It's not like the guy is applying for a teaching job at an elementary school or something. They even banned him from online play. Lastly, I do not think Wizards should have taken this action based on a Twitter witch-hunt that was started by another player. If they want to have a universal no criminal record policy at all of their events, then maybe it would be justified. But to selectively ban one person because he was villified on a social media site is pretty unreasonable, IMO. I want to hear people's thoughts on this because it seems like the r/magictcg community is vehemently opposed to the ban. I'd like to hear some outside opinion's. The SRS crowd seems to support the ban, calling r/magictcg a bunch of rape apologists, etc, but then again the SRS crowd is not very logical or reasonable. So I'd like to hear what you all think. CMV, Edit: If anyone can provide a source that he was convicted of rape, I will award you a delta. Edit: So my view has been changed due to new information I have been made aware of regarding the details of Jesse's crime. Anally raping an unconscious girl over a toilet is pretty despicable, I had no idea his offense was even close to that magnitude. Thanks everyone who responded here. I can understand with why Wizards does not want someone who has done something so vulgar to be a top name in their tournament scene. _____ > *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!*

> " as the public is not aware of the details surrounding his plea" If you want to be you can get a copy of his plea agreement as all agreements for felonies must be submitted in writing to the Circuit Court. You can contact the Charlottesville Circuit Court Clerk [here](http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/circuit/charlottesville/home.html). Now he didn't get away with serving 3 months of an 8 year sentence he was literally sentenced to 8 years with all but 3 months suspended. In other words the judge sentenced him to a three month active sentence and can revoke the suspended period should he commit another violation during his period of good behavior. > he is not considered a threat to the public He is a violent sex offender. He has to let the police know where he lives and works at all times so they can keep tabs on him. He is visited at a minimum of once a year by a State Police officer who verifies this information through a surprise visit. In addition he must provide the police any and all usernames on social media, email addresses, vehicles he regularly uses, and his dna. [See Va Code 9.1-903](http://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title9.1/chapter9/section9.1-903/) He wasn't convicted of rape he had the charge reduced to aggravated sexual battery under Va Code 18.2-67.3 from rape. You can find it by looking him up [here in the Charlottesville Circuit Court](http://ewsocis1.courts.state.va.us/CJISWeb/MainMenu.do). While the charge was reduced from rape the statement of facts which he admitted was accurate as part of his plea agreement states that he anally and vaginally raped a girl. You can get that from the clerk's office as it was made part of the record. Edit: spelling

>Edit: If anyone can provide a source that he was convicted of rape, I will award you a delta. I'm not sure if this is enough, but you can read a report on it [here](http://www.readthehook.com/95057/news-uva-rape-case-student-accepts-lesser-charge). He was charged with rape and plead to aggravated sexual battery (according to [this](http://www.wm.edu/offices/police/sexualassault/laws/) the difference is vaginal penetration, though I couldn't find that in the statutes specifically). He plead guilty to aggravated sexual battery because a rape conviction has a 5 year minimum sentence and that charge was dropped because of the plea, not because of the specific facts at hand. This would be in line with the tweet: >""Quick reminder: Zach Jesse is a literal rapist who got away with serving three months of an eight year plea deal." It doesn't say *convicted* rapist, it says *literal* rapist. I can't see anything where he argues he didn't have sex with her, just that it was consensual and/or the alcohol's fault. The aggravated sexual battery charge alone would match other state's as well as some people's colloquial definition of "rape." If this was nonconsensual (as he plead guilty to) and involved penetration then it would indeed be rape, and the lesser charge would be an artifact of the plea bargaining system (as the person mentions). Again, not sure if that satisfies your "convicted of rape" requirement, and I want to specify I am not at all making any comment on the banning, but it is the facts of the case as far as I have been able to find and understand them.

CMV: A system in which students offer "shares" of their future earnings is preferable to the current student loan system.

My post is inspired by [this article](http://www.ifyouonlynews.com/politics/chris-christie-suggests-students-sell-themselves-to-investors-to-pay-for-college/) in which a major politician proposes allowing college students to sell "shares" of their future earnings to investors in exchange for funding their education. I have seen people criticize this system as one of "indentured servitude", presumably because for a period of years students could not be released from the requirement to pay a portion of their earnings to the investor(s). However, the current system of student loans are not dischargeable in bankruptcy, amounting to a lifetime obligation anyway (or longer, if they die early and there are co-signers on the loan). Admittedly, fixed-amount loans are better for students who have unexpectedly high earnings -- so this system might discourage some risk-taking. But so does the current system for those who want to avoid the down-side unemployment and no long-term relief from student loans. A system of "shares" would likely also discourage investors from paying for worthless online degrees, or college amenities that do not advance future earnings. This is a relatively new concept for me, so I'm eager to hear from those who want to change my view, or at least help me refine my understanding of the trade-offs. Thanks for weighing in! Edit #1: Thanks for all the great comments and arguments so far. One delta awarded at this point to /u/PlexiglassPelican for suggesting it makes better sense to have the payment based on a percentage of income beyond a basic amount that would have come even without a degree. (/u/ngxp has also convincingly argued that existing banks would not likely be the ones to enter this new format, but that doesn't persuade me the format is a bad idea. I think maybe formulaic, risk-averse banks *should* take a back seat in this arena.) Edit #2: Whoa! So many great comments and thoughts. Many here are presuming (as I admit I did when I first started the thread) that what major you choose would likely be a key factor for investors deciding who to fund. And so many people here are assuming that a share system would be the death of the liberal arts. Although no one has really argued to the contrary, I now think this is a misplaced emphasis. Although it is not central to my view, I'm inclined to think that getting a degree in any major at an ivy league school vs. any major at a local community college is going to be a bigger factor than your major choice within a given school. Also, the share system doesn't have to be a fixed percentage (though probably there is a natural maximum at the point it starts to discourage seeking work). Finally (and relatedly), getting a degree in something doesn't mean that you are compelled to work in that field. So getting an English degree from a second-rate university might wind up costing, say 12% of your earnings (above a certain threshold -- see edit #1) for the next 30 years, while getting a Math degree from Stanford might wind up costing 3% of your earnings. Edit #3: Thanks to all who participated in this spirited discussion. I'm going to wrap this up with a final delta to /u/hacksoncode who made clear to me that those who marry and have a spouse support them after college would need to be prepared to commit a portion of their joint income to repay the investor. Most of the rest of the comments at this point seem to be covering the same ground, which I have not found persuasive in my view that the proposed system is better than the student loan system: * Investors would find this product more risky than loans, and so it would not fit the business model of banks * Stupid people would no longer be able to, literally, mortgage their future to "dream" unrealistically * Direct taxpayer funding of college might be better than either system. * This deal would be better for some people than for others. For those who wind up making higher incomes, it would on average be a worse deal than existing student loans, for those who wind up making lower incomes it would on average be a better deal. Even if I agreed with these things, and mostly I do, they would not change my view. Finally, there has been a lot of discussion premised (and I was guilty of this too, at first) on the notion that your field of study would be a major driver for attracting investors. I'm coming around to the view that except in the case of very specialized programs (e.g. engineering, medicine), field of study won't be as big a factor as student achievement and quality of school overall. From this point forward, I may not respond to all (or any) further responses, except if I feel they are really adding something new. Nonetheless, I hope the discussion continues with others participating as desired! _____ > *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!*

I would support this idea, with one tweak: in order to ensure that the transaction is net positive for the student, investors do not buy shares in the student's gross income, but rather in however much income they earn above the income they would expect without a degree, and would have a lifetime cap on how much they would collect. The student's expected income would have to be calculated by some independent agency or stated in the agreement, and it is vulnerable to anyone who wants to go to school for four years for a usually high-value degree and then get a job that they could get without it.

I'm going to take another approach to this: Are you planning on making traditional student loans *illegal* in order to get to this state? Because if you don't, people that reasonably can expect to make a lot of money with their degree would be *strongly* incentivized to simply accept a traditional student loan, because *their* costs would end up being far, far, lower over their lifetime. The moral hazard that you have a hard time getting around is that only people who reasonably don't expect to make enough with their earnings to pay off a traditional loan would *ever* want to get one of these "shares" deals.

CMV: Children who do not get 1st-3rd place DO NOT deserve a trophy for simply participating

Hello CMV, I am not a parent but curious as to get your opinions to CMV. I grew playing competitive soccer (worked my way up to the competitive teams from your basic youth teams) and never once received a trophy for simply participating or losing. You either got 1st, 2nd, 3rd or you got nothing it was simple as that. By losing and not being rewarded we understood we had to try harder as an individual and try harder as a team to win. This led me to become much more competitive because I wanted to earn that trophy and be on that competitive team. I really dont understand the idea of rewarding everyone for not winning, it's almost like saying "hey, even if you dont try you still win". I hear stories about teams that go 0-13 in a season and the kids walk away with a trophy, why? Don't get me wrong, I'm not a cold hearted person and love to see all children happy but I dont understand the concept of rewarding someone for losing or not trying hard enough will result in a prize. To me that just teaches a kid that NOT giving your best will still result in a prize. What lesson does that teach you when you grow up? That your failure or lack of effort will be rewarded regardless of how you performed? Doesn't that give the child a bad mentality growing up? Personally if I had a kid and he/she played a sport I wouldn't allow the coach or a parent to give them a trophy for simply participating, I would make them understand that a reward/trophy is earned by hard work and dedication. I know not all kids are athletic but I still dont understand the concept or idea. We all know reality is a bitch and life is going to hit you with some hard lessons so why not teach your kid that hard work pays off? Again, I am not trying to sound cold but I just dont understand the concept of rewarding failure/losing, CMV...... Edit: thanks for all the answers, feedback and insight. Many of you helped CMV. Again, I hope I didn't come off as cold or inconsiderate. I have younger cousins and love to see them succeed in anything they do, especially sports. I was more interested in having a discussion as to "why" and the mentality behind it. Many of you made valid arguments and gave me some great insight. I'm happy to keep discussing if people are interested but please note I am not against the idea but was more interested in helping me change my view of it. If anything please continue to give your children positive feedback, effective communication, motivation and let them know that team work is a great thing. I recommend everyone put their kids in sports (dont push them into it but help and guide them into something they love doing or are very passionate about). It really does pay off when you get older and helps them build some self confidence and understand the dynamics of a social environment. Thanks again everyone! Edit 2: Since the discussion continues, I think children under 12 should only get participation Trophies. Once you hit that age you should be teaching your kids the fundamentals of structured team work, effort and the idea that life will not reward your for simply showing up. Giving participation trophies to kids 13 and above is not a good life lesson. If you care to continue CMV on that! Edit 3: Thanks everyone for the continued conversation, input, points of views and personal experiences. This sub is great for people who are curious as to get the other sides opinion and everyone should keep an open mind about changing their view on the matter. Now some last bit of advice for coaches and parents who put their kids in sports. PLEASE keep your eye out for the that one un-athletic kid who might not be the best on the team and make sure that his/her team mates understand this is a team event and that everyone is in this together. Some of these personal experiences shared with me shed some light on how people hated playing sports and were being bulled because they were that kid and the other kids made them feel left out. Not all kids will be good athletes but you can teach your kids to respect one another, support one another and to ensure that they understand the unity of team work. If your kid is that "all-star" on the team then make them understand this most because the other kids will look to him/her to see how they treat the rest of the team. A good leader will understand this and this habit will grow with them, you just have to show them how and why. Thanks again for all the input, this is a great sub.

I did photography at a tennis event for some inner city 5th year kids. They're 10 years old and most of them had never heard of tennis. They all got a medal at the end regardless of placement because the idea was that playing tennis is fun, there's a tennis club near by and you should go because it'll help you keep fit. The model was to help solidify this message.

I'll start by saying that I agree with OP that a trophy for participating is absurd. However, I think some form of acknowledgment for being in the league at all is cool. I remember one league I was in where every player received a patch with the league logo and the year. It's fun to go back years later and see a physical reminder of the activities of your youth, especially if you're the type of kid who will never go on to play in a more competitive format. I ended up playing college soccer, but I still like seeing my patches from when I was like 8 years old. The one saving grace, I think, is that as long as there's a big, badass trophy for the winners and everyone else gets small, shitty trophies, any kid with even a little competition in his DNA will be pissed about the small trophy and want the big one, so I don't think it impacts the kids mentally as much as it impacts the parents who see the stupid symbolism. I agree that it sets the wrong example, and I'd rather more parents had to have the conversation started by their kid saying, "But why do *they* get a trophy?" but it's probably not as bad as people like you and I think it is.

CMV: X is better than Y

Clearly, X is better than Y, for a number of reasons. 1. Pronunciation. Saying X has a stronger, more powerful sound than saying Y, which only manages to sound a bit whiny, perhaps because is is too close to "why." 2. Exclusivity. Only about 300 words in English start with X. Y starts over 700 (per Wolfram-Alpha, and this appears to include proper nouns). X appears in only 0.15% of English words, while Y appears in far more. I could not find an estimated percentage, but so many adverbs end in "ly" that it rather proves my point. Even though it's so exclusive, it is so much more versatile, as shown below. 3. Consistency. X is always a consonant. Y? Well, it cannot make up its mind. 4. Scrabble. X is worth twice as many points (8:4). 5. Use in math. First, x is almost always the first letter used as you learn algebra. This could go with consistency above as well, but the x-axis shows the constant, stable variable. 6. Appearance. X has a strong, stable stance. Y looks like it could topple over in a slight breeze. 7. Sex. Our favorite word not only has X right in it, but the whole last 2/3 of the word sounds like saying X. Y? Nowhere to be found, unless it tags along to make something sexy. Not to mention the uses of XXX, and the fact that fairer sex is made up of X chromosomes. Y gives us baldness, hairy backs, and emotional immaturity. 8. History. Malcolm X, not Malcolm Y. There's even "American History X." 9. Versatility in other areas. X can be used to show that something is crossed out, used as a check mark to indicate the choice on a form, used in cartoons to show that a person is dead, used in medicine (x-rays), used to show treasure on a map, 10. = X. 11. ~~No one has ever died in a state spelled with an X. Kentucky, New Jersey, New York, and Wyoming combine for 10% of the deaths in the US each year~~ I somehow came up with the 4 Y states off the top of my head and also thought there were no X states. New Mexico and Texas. 12. If you're talking about unknown items, you always say "X is better than Y," never "Y is better than X". EDIT: It worked. I was forced to rethink some of my strongest points. I still may think that X is better, but I can see that Y has its merits and can sometimes be even superior. Very clever responses in many cases, and I'm afraid I'll be banned for giving out too many deltas to people who make me rethink each point. _____ > *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!*

1) X may sound cooler, but the sound isn't exclusive. It can be similarly made with an -ecs or -ecks if you want. There's no way to reproduce the sound of y. 2) Exclusivity does not mean something is better. X is certainly used less, which I would argue makes it a more useless letter. If you could have a key that opens 10 treasure chests, or a key that opens 20, which would you choose? Certainly the more useful one. 3) X may always be a consonant, but it also doesn't always sound the same. Sometimes it's an -ecs sound, sometimes it's a z sound. "xylophone" and "for example" 4) X is only worth so many points because of it's uselessness. It's like getting paid to take the worst player in sports. Only Q is more useless in scrabble, so much so that they had to add the u to it. 5) As others have said, X works for Y. It's like the factory worker and the boss. Who gets paid more? Even so, eventually the greek letters beat all of them out. 6) Y may be more unstable, but it can easily be pounded into the ground like a stake. The X isn't as easy. Or it could just stand there. I've never seen one fall over, so it must be quite talented at standing there. 7) The X in sex is great, I'll admit that. However, you also need consent. Without that y in Yes, the x in sex is useless. 8) X is history, you're right. Y is the future though. See Terminator Genysis. 9) I thought you wanted something consistent? Now you're saying it's a good thing that X can be used in multiple ways, but it's bad for y to be able to be both a consonant and a vowel? This is hypocritical. 10) =y This one looks like a duck with its mouth open. It's cute. Yours is going to starve because it can't eat, and is being mean and refusing to talk to anyone. 11) Nobody has died in a state with an X because X is a communist letter. Nobody wants it in their state name. It's unamerican. 12) It is wrong to claim that any unknown item is better than any other unknown item. Y is being humble here, and X is being an asshole.

In your arguments you make a lot of assumptions about what better means. For instance you presume that rarity is 'better' than versatility. The letter Y is far more versatile than the letter X, it can be used in many more words and is flexible enough to stand in for vowels when using them makes a word look horrible. On that basis the letter Y also has great aesthetic appeal. You assume that consistency is better when versatility could just as easily be argued to be better. You assume that having the word ex in sex is good, but in order to describe the magnitude of sex something exudes you need to add the y on the end (sexy). Number 11 is just plan false as I'm sure many people die each year in Texas, and New Mexico.

CMV: Reddit and our societies standards on religious/philosophical tolerance is inconsistant and hypocritical

Im probably going to ramble on and such so i will make my point clear from the way i see it. Also my rhetoric is not going to be nice because its sort of half a rant too. I guess this is directed at a sort of liberal/progressive crowd, but can apply to right wing people too. Ever since atheism and anti-theism movement sprung up on reddit we have been bashing it. Some of those reasons was correct. I believe atheists used too much rhetoric such as "free thinker", "skeptic", "reason" and "logic" to push their agenda. And we used to (USED TO) have neckbeards spewing some obnoxious shit. And i agree they come off as cringy. But in general, mockery of religion is fun, really fun and FAIR! We laugh at bullshit ideas all the time. "im an atheist but please be tolerant, let them believe" or "People believe different things" or something similar. -We have such an agenda of tolerating christians because in the west because the majority is still christian, this also influences "tolerant atheists" subconsciously -We tolerate Islam because "that is the religion those people in them middle east believe in" so it would make us racist to criticize it. Like i get it Fox news is racist, but i dont have to be racist because i critizice Islam. Its like the people who try to tolerate Islam somehow think its racist to criticize it, failing to see that there is a diverse spectrum of people who believe in Islam and not just middle eastern people. Calling people racist for critizicing Islam is such a high level of mental gymnastics that i cant even. -We cant critizice Jews because that would make us literally Hitler. (I actually understand this one though) -Mormons are made fun of, but mostly they get the same treatment as christians "let people believe what they believe". -We dont respect the views of other-kin, astrologists, parapsychologists, flat earthers etc. Because? They are not a majority, nor taught to us before we could write. That is what i think most people choose to ignore. We dont have people spewing tolerance of religion because we have some genuine need to spare someones feelings. Its because christianity is popular, based on faslehood and people feel like their beliefs are under attack. When was the last time you saw someone going out of their way to defend a person who claimed to be a wolf? Oh, wait they get laughed at and mocked universally. Guy claims to believe hes literally drinking the blood of christ? Someone mocks him and gets labeled a fedora neckbeard. Like seriously if someone tells you they believe in unicorns you can probably laugh in their face like "HAHAHA, you believe that?" and no one would bat an eye. However, have long debates where you try to go into detail of the problems surrounding religion and trying to debunk it? Richard Dawkins and speakers like him get called intolerant. As if a desire to uphold truth is somehow wrong because people get their little feelings hurt. The way i see it religion is as fake as astrology or unicorns. But there is no one defending the latter. Religion is bullshit with good PR. I would prefer to keep laughing at people who think they are wolfs, but with a world where no one is trying to pretend like religion needs some sort of handicap from society to not "hurt precious feelings". I should be able to find religion absurd without being labeled "Euphoric" or "fedora wearing neckbeard". I wish we could call out bad ideas no matter how many people believed in it. I want eqaulity when it comes to mocking things. The way i see it now religion has some sort of taboo of criticism that is protecting it. The way i want our society to change its view is for people to watch all three videos below and laugh. Just for the sake of equality. Sincerely, i live in Norway so i recieve minimal damage from religion. I just wish religion did not have to have some protective shield and having it be taboo to criticize it because they will cry the loudest when mocked. People mocking stupid beliefs: -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtH7l-dhHZQ [1] -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlMiKrwCRQ0 [2] -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ea6w3zp-dYY [3] Penn Jillette: Why Tolerance Is Condescending -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpNRw7snmGM [4] What would change my mind is either: -A huge amount of people going out of their way to prevent people from critizicing bullshit ideas such as Astrology, para-psychology etc. (people can believe what they want, tolerance, does not hurt you) -A huge appeal to mock christianity from its own communities. -Some source proving society not having a total hypocritical view of what bullshit ideas we are aloud to mock and not _____ > *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!*

Religion is unique from the examples you listed (other-kin, astrologists, parapsychologists, flat earthers etc.) in that, at a basic level, it deals with spiritual, non-physical elements that science cannot explore. The ideologies you list are entirely and easily debunkable by modern science. The idea that there's powers that cannot be observed be humans isn't scientific, and can't be proven or disproven, so it's really up to you if you want to believe it. If you think it's ridiculous to believe in something you can't prove, hey, I understand. But either way, the fringe ideologies you mention *can* be proven wrong, so it's far more nonsensical to believe in those than it is to believe in religion. Thus, it's reasonable for there to be more tolerance for religion than for ideologies that can be factually proven wrong. And while I do understand that religion is far more than just a belief system in greater spiritual powers and actually have positive and negative affects on society, I'd argue that the negative criticisms toward those negative affects have existed. Yes, it's appropriate to criticize Islamic extremists who wish to cause undue harm, but it's inappropriate to extrapolate that group to the whole of the Islamic faith (as many are want to do). It's very easy, when we're talking about Reddit/society in general, to mix up these two actions, but both of these happen.

My only thought here would be "why?" What is the benefit. What is gained? If someone is directly or indirectly harming another person: yes. Those ideas should be shot down. Mocked. Removed. But what if I believe that God started the universe. Science cannot say how the universe started. It simply can't. The Big Bang theory does a fantastic job of telling us what happened RIGHT AFTER the universe was formed. But nothing during or before. So, my belief that a god propogated the event that forms the universe does nothing to color the way I see science or treat people. Is there any great benefit of mocking me? Is there any real negative to me dreaming about a life after death? Assuming I don't do any of the things that would normally make me wrong (sacrifice my children, not allow gay marriage, refuse to do anything about climate change, etc) then what's the point? I mock belief systems privately or amongst friends all the time. But I don't generalize that to the world en masse. I get where you are coming from. But I just don't see "religion" as the issue. I see douchbaggery as the issue.

CMV: GMOs are a relatively new development, and should be labeled and treated with caution

While I am not at all for the scare mongering and paranoia, I simply think that there isn't enough evidence to show that GMOs are completely safe to completely accept them with no questions asked. It seems very suspicious to me that large companies are lobbying so hard to avoid having to label GMOs, as I don't see why they would put so much time or money into fighting it unless there was something they were trying to hide. I have always tended to be wary of large corporations and their practices, but I feel like my current view is riddled with ignorance and misinformation. 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!*

So what do you mean by safety? To consume? This is really easy to determine. The chemicals which constitute food plants are really well known and we can test a plant for anything we want. So if you want to know if a food is safe to eat, send it to some chemists, and they'll tell you if it has any dangerous concentrations of chemicals. You don't need to do a complex wait and see approach to it. You just use [mass spectrometry.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_spectrometry) There are other tests too, spectrometry is just the best at catching even traces. As far as labeling, they fight it because people would buy less if they saw the label.

>It seems very suspicious to me that large companies are lobbying so hard to avoid having to label GMOs, as I don't see why they would put so much time or money into fighting it unless there was something they were trying to hide. Similar reasons as to why cigarette companies aren't fond of the Surgeon General's warning to remind people of potential negative health risks. Yes, customers know the health risks to smoking, and are able to make their own informed decisions, but the label nonetheless has a deterring quality that can drive away sales. The same would likely go for any food product with such a label. Mark their products as having GMOs, and those who are opposed to them will drop their sales of those products. Thus, companies at risk of getting that label wouldn't want that drop in sales. Regardless of whether or not GMOs have significant harms - socio-politically, legally, or biologically - as long as there is significant public disapproval of them, companies would rather not be forced to bear a label that will deter sales. It's not a matter of whether or not they have "something to hide".

CMV: 51 "New" Gender Options are Over-the-Top and Useless.

Awhile ago, Facebook released several new genders - many of them seemed to come out of nowhere and almost all are incredibly confusing, over-the-top, and redundant. To preface this, I am *not* against anyone in the LGBT community and welcome the idea of gay marriage and things similar. However, I've never really been on-board with all these new genders. Anyway, some of the terms that come to mind are *Agender* and *Androgynous*. The mean the same thing, to not identify as any gender, so why are they two separate words? *Genderfluid* and *Bigender* seem completely redundant too - so, why even have them? I'm also not entirely sure why people can't just dress the way they want to while remaining whatever sex they were given at birth. Does it really matter if a man dresses as a woman? Does he really have to be classified as *gender-fluid* because it really just seems like a word that would be less blunt than *cross-dressing*. Again, I have nothing against that, but it seems like people are trying to make other words to someone glorify what they're doing. Also, what's the deal with "cis"? * Cis-female. * Cis-male. * Cis-man. * Cis-woman. * Cisgender. If the definition of "cis" is basically people acting within the confines of their gender, why can't they *just* be called women and men? Why do they have to have a special name? Considering that people are giving away names to things that already exist, it seems really indicative of how strong other words in their dictionary are (see: gender-fluid and bi-gender redundancy). Again, I can't stress this enough, I have no issues with people being who they want to be and how they want to be that. It just seems overly unnecessary to have a million new Facebook gender options for things that clearly overlap each-other. A lot of this also seems more of a ploy for attention, not someone *actually* identifying as something. With that being said, am I just seeing this the wrong way? I get incredibly annoyed when someone tells me they're "gender-fluid" or "cis-female". It makes me believe that I may be seeing this the wrong way - or maybe these terms really are inessential and pointless? _____ > *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!*

(Disclaimer: I'm of a binary gender, so some of the things I'm saying may be incorrect) You're right in that there is some overlap between a lot of these terms, but there's also a large amount of difference (similar to how girl, woman and female all overlap in definition but are all distinct terms with differences between them) I'm gonna use a couple different words than you might have heard before. Gender identity: the gender a person identified as. Gender expression: all those external cues you use to determine someone's gender: their hair or clothing or jewelry, posture and the like As for the genders you listed, my understanding of them is that being bigender is a matter of identifying as two genders (usually taken to be man and woman) simultaneously. A bigender friend of mine would always feel weird when asked to choose man or woman, as their gender identity was as both. Meanwhile genderfluid is more like a third gender that isn't man or woman or anything else, but whose gender expression often fits in with depictions of other genders. A genderfluid friend of mine always feels weird when asked to choose man or woman because they identify as neither. A similar thing occurs with genderqueer, which often forms a third gender with your traditional non-gendered displays and presentations. Genderqueer and genderfluid overlap a lot and are really close, but it generally sounds to me like genderqueer is like one gender whereas fluid is more fuzzy and, well, fluid and variable. I've never heard of anyone identifying as androgynous, I usually only see that as a descriptor that someone uses for their gender expression that's still different from their gender identity. Agender, meanwhile, is a term I've usually heard more as an identity than an expression. Essentially, a lot of the terms do overlap a lot, but they do mean different things and meanings and thus can better identify certain people.

So, I think you're accepting that there should be more than male and female, just not quite so many? If you think there should just be two, I want to tell you that I really agonize over what to chose when I'm limited to choosing a binary, because either option feels like lying to people. As for there being so many options, these words are a new thing being explored now that the internet is making it obvious there's a lot more non-binary people than anyone had thought. So the language is still evolving, and similar people end up identifying with different words - but it would be kind of cruel to say to someone, "you might identify as genderless, but agender is the official term so you have to call yourself agender" So facebook errs in favor of inclusion (though technically I think you can put literally anything now? you can just write in what you want, I put 'person' for mine)

CMV: The United States lost World War II

I believe that, at the end of the day, America (and to a lesser extent, the UK and USSR) ultimately lost the second World War in every way that matters. I am not disputing the fact that the United States achieved its principal military/political goals (defeat of the Third Reich and the Japanese Empire), and I of course recognize the fact that the US managed to do so with virtually no civilian casualties/ destruction of the homeland, which is especially impressive given the sheer scale of civilian destruction seen in World War II. What I am arguing is that, having 'won' (as much as it is possible to win) the war, the United States promptly lost its soul, and has ended up in a worse position than Germany or Japan. The reason (I claim) that this is true is because, even before the last Germans had surrendered and the war in Europe ended, the Cold War had already begun. The United States quickly exchanged one enemy (Nazi Germany) for another enemy (The Soviet Union). From 1945 to 1990-ish, combating the Soviet Union and the spread of communism was perhaps the centerpiece of American foreign policy, and led the United States into a variety of fights where we otherwise had no business (such as Vietnam), and ultimately begat a lot of hatred for the United States, leading to many of the foreign policy difficulties America now faces (particularly anti-US terrorism). The Truman Doctrine and containment strategy eventually gave way to a neoconservative 'Pax Americana' ideal, that the United States is some kind of global police force tasked with maintaining order. I think it is clear from Iraq that US military presence generally does not breed goodwill, and therefore the United States (in trying to maintain global power) has led itself into something of a downward spiral. In trying to eliminate one enemy (for example, Iran), we adopt what may seem like a reasonable strategy (arming their enemies, the Iraqis), which eventually backfires and requires later invention (the Gulf War and Iraq war), which itself leads to further issues (like the emergence of ISIS), and on and on and on. It's a cycle that only leads to cartoonishly large military budgets and American blood spilled in conflicts where we don't belong. In short, hegemony has not been kind to the United States, and we would be better off if we weren't a world power. Contrast this with the Japanese and Germans, who are (arguably) doing rather well for themselves. Sure, each country was broken and defeated at the end of the war, and it took a very long time for them to recover, but they came out better. I say they came out better because neither the Japanese nor Germany have the 'obligation' to police the world. In fact, both countries forbid themselves from taking offensive military action. While these countries can be (and often are) considered 'western', and are sometimes the target of anti-western hate, they are not widely hated like the United States, and are not tasked with maintaining ridiculous global military presence. Rather (and forgive me for oversimplifying), Germany can focus on Germany and Japan can focus on Japan. One need not look long to find a wealth of statistics to indicate that these two nations have far superior social safety nets, education, healthcare, etc. than the United States. While this superiority can, of course, be attributed to a wide variety of factors, I believe that one cannot ignore the important fact that these nations have their priorities straight, having suffered the shame of defeat, having gone through the experience of rebuilding and being free of any expectation of global military prowess. What really solidifies this belief for me is the existence of universal health care in most of western Europe. I apologize that I don't have the source, but if I remember correctly, I remember watching an interview with a worker in the UK's NHS, who attributed the success of socialized medicine in Europe (versus the US) to the fact that Europe had to rebuild after World War II. Effectively, when you have to start from scratch and pick your life up from the rubble, there's a greater sense of common bond with the rest of your nation. The US, having not been hurt in the war in the same way, never had to rebuild and instead developed a more violently individualistic character, where the idea of potentially paying for someone else's health care is utterly repulsive. Americans, by virtue of having won World War II without civilian casualty, has ended up with a far worse society than those who 'lost'. If that's the case, aren't we the real losers? Sorry if this post got long. Please, CMV! _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

Haha, nope. Just...nope. Militarily, politically, economically and every other meaningful way, the Allies (not just America) won the second world war. It ushered in 70 years (and counting!) of military, political and economic domination of the world by the Allied powers, America primarily. In a world where entire wars are fought over a few hundred square miles of inessential scrub or a diamond mine in some shithole, I'd call that a victory. I guess we lost the war if you mean that old canard that war makes losers of us all, but I think that's reductive sloganeering. Wars definitely have winners.

Well, what would have happened to the U.S. if the Axis powers had achieved a military victory? We might have universal healthcare, but no gays or Jews. I'm not sure that outcome could be called a "win". Moreover, the Nazis would most likely have been the first to develop nuclear weapons, and quite possibly used them to win the war. You claim that the U.S. "lost", but I would argue that in fact, civilization *won* due to the fact that the U.S. rebuilt Germany and Japan, both economically and politically, ending both the Nazi and Imperial governments.

CMV: There is nothing wrong with requiring (medically-appropriate) vaccination for children to attend public schools

Recently I've heard a lot about mandatory vaccination schemes in public schools. I don't see any problem with them. I've heard a few counterarguments, but they seem unsatisfying to me, for example: 1. My child, my choice. Well, yes. And this is the closest one to a valid argument, IMO. But of course we put limits on what parents are allowed to do and choose for their children; you can't deprive your child of food or education (in the US) and be allowed to keep your child, so clearly it is NOT all your choice. While refusing vaccines is nowhere near on that level, not EVERY possible choice is equally acceptable, because your child is a person, not a piece of property. If the child had the capacity to refuse, I might be swayed, but unfortunately young babies can't understand vaccines on any reasonable level. And, more importantly, it IS still your choice under school vaccination schemes; you can choose to homeschool your child, or send them to private schools that don't care. Those choices aren't available to everyone and that's unfortunate (for far more important reasons than this), but...that's our current system anyway. Being rich gets you all kinds of benefits. I don't think this is different from being able to buy better medical care, better schools, better food, private tutors, and worlds more for your child if you have the resources (I do support basic income, which would alleviate this issue, but that's neither here nor there as we haven't got it). Public schools are a governmental service, and there are rules about who can and cannot use them. I think it is fine to say only vaccinated (or medically exempt) people can use them. 2. Not everyone can get vaccinated. That's why doctors are able to issue waivers for those not medically right for vaccination. This already happens and should continue. 3. Vaccines are dangerous. Not as dangerous as rampant infection. Honestly this is its own debate...But suffice it to say you are going to need some pretty major evidence to possibly CMV. I don't think it exists, but I won't rule it out. I don't really want to talk about vaccine efficacy as it has been done to death, but I guess if there's some truly amazing evidence... 4. Everyone is entitled to an education. They still are. Any unvaccinated child either needs to attend a non-public education option, be homeschooled or eschooled, provide a medical certificate that says they shouldn't be vaccinated, or get the shots. I don't necessarily have a strong view on the best way to handle noncompliance, and don't know enough about policy to say what would be most effective and just. Maybe fines for the parents? The same punishment as parents who refuse to send their kids to school or teach them at home for other reasons? I would not support removing the child from the home or incarcerating the parents, or any other severe punishment. What would change my view: evidence that such a policy would have clear public health risks, would unavoidably keep children from getting an education, or would have some other major negative effect on society. I also am open to the idea that it is fundamentally unjust, though it doesn't seem that way to me right now. Edit: My post focuses mainly on why I think mandatory vaccination isn't bad, but it occurred to me that it might be helpful to say why I think it's good. Mainly, I think it's good because it protects those who cannot be vaccinated and the minority of children for whom the vaccine was ineffective or wore off sooner than it "should have" based on medical guidelines. Children should be safe at school, and I think this promotes safety in a significant way--since children can die of preventable illness. Edit2: If vaccines are prohibitively expensive and can't be obtained for free, this system is pretty shit for poor families. In my area you can get free vaccines in certain conditions, which are very lenient. If this isn't true everywhere in the US (and it almost certainly isn't), it should be before vaccines are made mandatory. Edit3: Going to bed now, will respond to new posts tomorrow. If it blows up, I might not get to everyone, but I will try to address any new points that are brought to the table.

So I do think this policy I justified, but I don't think it's a good mechanism for mandatory vaccination. The people who insist on not vaccinating their children do so because they think it would be harmful for their child, and some of them probably hold this belief strong enough so that they would not enroll their children in school. Are anti-vaxxers really the people you want homeschooling children? The comparison here is, with mandatory vaccinations, hundreds of kids have their lives ruined by leaving school each year. Without them, maybe once every decade, less than a hundred kids will get sick for a few weeks. But the problem is also worse than that, because this also plays into a lot of anti-vaxxer rhetoric. A lot of it relies on exploiting people's fears of the government. Mandatory vaccines only make that seem worse. Additionally, it makes these people even less trusting of the government, meaning that they are more likely to shut themselves of from outside streams of information. So it forces many anti-vaxxers into even more of an echo chamber. One of the must successful ways to spread information is to have anti-vaxxers have a friend or a neighbor who can discuss these things with them. The easiest way to prevent that from happening is by forcing them further away from the rest of society.

As much as I hate defending the anti-vaccine crowd, I think the problem with mandatory vaccination for public school is that school is also compulsory. Ever since No Child Left Behind, education has been mandatory for all children until 16 or 18 (can't remember). Now the same people who demandon't children be sent to school also demand that in order to go to school, they must be vaccinated. Now, now you might say, that's only for public schools, what about private schools and home/eschooling? There's a problem with that too. Roughly 40% of children in the US live in single parent home, which rules out the prospect of homeschooling and eschooling becomes unviable because it's illegal to leave your kids alone at home. You also have a large percentage of the population who can't afford or don't have access to private schools. The amount of overlap here has the potential to be very high, especially in poor neighborhoods. So, now we have a segment of the population for whom public school is the only option. What are the odds that some of these people do not want their kids vaccinated, for whatever reason (ignorance usually, but that's not the point)? Pretty high. So now the question becomes, are we willing to fine and or imprison parents because they don't want their kid to get a vaccine and therefore won't send them to school? Personally, that is not something I'm willing to do, so I'm against mandatory vaccination in order to go to school.

CMV: Insisting your SO does not have sex outside of your relationship is a controlling behavior and should not be considered a normal, healthy behavior.

In our society, we have decided that forcing another to have sex is a major violation of that person's body autonomy. In fact, forcing one to have sex when they don't want to is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to things that are unacceptable to do to a person without his or her permission. Telling someone that they can't get a medical procedure done (or, likewise, telling that they HAVE to get a medical procedure done) is just as awful as is dictating how they were their hair or how they dress. In that same vein, what makes it okay in our society for your significant other to dictate who you sleep with? Sex in our society is a recreational activity enjoyed by most adults in at least some capacity. People dictating what their SOs do for fun in their free time seems rather controlling. Adults should feel free to do what their bodies what they wish as long as they aren't physically forcing another person to do something. Forcing another person to only have sex with you seems to me like an awfully controlling behavior and takes away the body autonomy that they should have. I can understand if a couple decides between the two of them that would like to sleep exclusively with each other. It's just surprising to me at times that it is the norm to be mad enough at your SO to break up with them if they have sex with someone outside of the relationship. I understand that people cheat all the time, but open relationships just seem to be the exception rather than the norm. If you want a monogamous relationship and your SO sleeps with someone else, then you shouldn't be mad at your SO. You should simply realize that you guys want different things out of a relationship and part ways. Getting angry would be controlling your SO and taking away his or her own control over his or her own body. And just for clarification: I am not saying that everyone should go out and cheat on their SOs. I am more stating that it *should* be normal and acceptable for people to have sex with people outside of a two person relationship for no other reason than that it is oddly controlling to insist that your SO sleep with no one besides you. Also, I wanted to point out that I am purposefully not using particular genders. It is just as bad to for a woman to tell a man he can't have sex outside the relationship as it would be if a man told a woman the same thing. So, please. Change my view! Why should it be the norm to have monogamous relationships? _____ > *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!*

> Sex in our society is a recreational activity enjoyed by most adults in at least some capacity. People dictating what their SOs do for fun in their free time seems rather controlling. I feel like this is a biased definition of sex: sex can be a recreational activity, but it is not *only* a recreational activity: it has procreative, romantic and emotional elements. It's often hard to separate these. > Adults should feel free to do what their bodies what they wish as long as they aren't physically forcing another person to do something. Forcing another person to only have sex with you seems to me like an awfully controlling behavior and takes away the body autonomy that they should have. This feels like a misinterpretation of what it means to have your bodily autonomy respected. You *are* free to have sex with other people while in a relationship in the sense that someone cannot actually prevent you from doing so without committing a crime or directly violating their consent in some other way. You are not free, however, to tell other people how to feel about this: that's not what bodily autonomy is. Your argument here is equivalent to saying that a tattoo artist refusing to tattoo someone is an infringement on their bodily autonomy. > If you want a monogamous relationship and your SO sleeps with someone else, then you shouldn't be mad at your SO. You should simply realize that you guys want different things out of a relationship and part ways. Getting angry would be controlling your SO and taking away his or her own control over his or her own body. Saying that someone ought not to be angry is equally controlling, you're telling people how to feel

>If you want a monogamous relationship and your SO sleeps with someone else, then you shouldn't be mad at your SO. You should simply realize that you guys want different things out of a relationship and part ways. Doesn't this make your entire point moot? If two people didn't want monogamy how does this become a problem? Shouldn't you just recommend that people layout the expectations they have of the relationship? It seems like what your advocating is that people be cool with non-monogamous relationships. But you are ignoring the fact that the majority of people tend to associate sex with an emotional monogamous bond. You don't? Cool, find someone else who feels the same way. It is not bad to expect your significant other not to sleep with other people if you are in a healthy relationship where you have laid out your expectations beforehand.

CMV: Anti-GMOers are the same breed of moron as Anti-Vaxxers

To my knowledge there are no peer reviewed sources that link GMOs to any negative health effects. There is as much reason to believe genes manipulated in a lab are inherently harmful as there is for genes selected through domestication. I am asking for a CMV because I have not done thorough research other than reading a few articles supporting my view including a recent cover story for Nat. Geo, a magazine I highly respect. However as a scientifically-minded person, I can't ignore the massive movement against GMOs without considering it first.

Also a fair point to make. Not all people who are Anti-GMO's have concerns because of negative health effects. There are also potential environmental concerns, concerns about increasing monocroping, shady business practices (may or may no be unfounded), potential lax government oversight on safety (GMO's have only been around since 1980, whereas vaccines in early 1900. Take that as you will). Additionally while GMO developers will argue that they are needed to be able to feed a growing population, the much larger problem is food transportation. So much food already gets thrown away. Also a fair point to make. You know you are getting a Vaccine, and know the ingredients that are in it. You don't always know you are eating a GMO, even if you wanted to know.

I disagree. I do not think overall that GMO's are bad, but I don't think GMO's are unequivocally good. GEMO's - much like any other technology have their share of risks. Why - specific vaccines have their own share of risks. Recently there was a controversy with the vaccine Pandemrix It was linked to increased risk of narcolepsy, and then those conclusions were withdrawn in one journal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandemrix#Narcolepsy_investigations_in_the_European_Union The reason why I bring up this isn't that there is a direct parallel - but I want to ask >"What would a rational person believe when they haven't yet formed a belief" This is predicated on many things including our biases and our perceptions of risk. Making decisions on perceptions of risk is a rational decision I would argue. This is very difficult with vaccines. If there was a pending investigation with Pandemrix questioning it's safety as a vaccine - what do you do? What do you do when there's a swine flu outbreak and you have to choose whether to get a potentially risky vaccine or run the risk of getting a disease. Imagine a person in a similar position with respect to GMO foods. There is no "upside" to ingesting GMO foods like there is with vaccines. By avoiding vaccines - we run the risk of not only acquiring certain diseases, but also putting the public at large at risk. Vaccines are generally safe, and my concern for potential side effects doesn't outweigh my concern for safety from diseases and my concern for others. However, if I was to make a stand against consuming GMO foods - I do not have to make that stand against a greater threat. Yes - it is possible that in some places, the ONLY way to grow crops is GMO, and some people claim that only through GMO can we achieve food security (a claim I am highly skeptical about) and so my not wanting to consume GMO does have negative repercussions. However - for most people, there appears to be no such concern. To be clear - I am not particularly concerned about degradation of my health while consuming GMO, but I want to illustrate that it is a rational decision to oppose GMO. I also disagree with the premise that GMO is "basically the same" as regular crops. The methods of production (edit: added production and "and") and what can be achieved through GMOs are very, very different. You could never have a kickstarter for glowing plants https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/antonyevans/glowing-plants-natural-lighting-with-no-electricit if you were growing plants traditionally, and even if it were possible - would likely be infeasible. Of course - some people have problems with the commercial practices of companies, and are concerned about things like IP issues and a lack of diversity. So in conclusion, I think most opposition to GMOs is unfounded, but there are rational reasons for individuals to not want to consume/support it.

CMV: Breastfeeding in public is tantamount to indecent exposure.

First I'm not a prude and I'm completely fine with nudity. I honestly wouldn't care if they abolished all public decency laws and everyone walked around naked. However, that doesn't change the fact that the laws exist, and are the basis of my argument. For the people who do get uncomfortable around nude breasts, a single father with his adolescent daughter, or a mother with a teenage son, or even some old stick in the mud curmudgeon, I don't think it's too much to ask to handle such things in private. Whether pumping milk, or nursing at home, there are ways of handling these things. No one else is obligated to accommodate public nudity. If it's not "convenient" for them, that's all part of the sacrifice of parenthood. __ Edit: Thanks for the heaps of downvotes everyone. This thread is over.___ > *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!*

Many people here have noted that public decency laws often make an exception for nursing, I will try to address why these exceptions make sense to have. The problem with nursing mothers seems to bee that onlookers might feel uncomfortable in seeing a normally sexualized body part. Since the breast of a nursing mother is shown in a clearly non-sexual context the discomfort at seeing it should be minimized already. On the other hand babies need food regularly, to limit where a parent can breastfeed is also to limit how much time they can spend in public. So from this I conclude that any law against public breastfeeding would harm parents far more than it would benefit onlookers. You also mention accommodating public nudity, but we already accommodate otherwise unacceptable behaviors in the name of child rearing. We already accept that parents will take up extra space, will discipline their children, and have their children inconvenience others. Since children are integral to society and they are near impossible to bring up without disturbing others we make exceptions for them, letting their parents feed them everywhere would just be part of this tradition.

> However, that doesn't change the fact that the laws exist, and are the basis of my argument. The laws that exist *explicitly* allow breastfeeding. Not all nudity is the same. > I don't think it's too much to ask to handle such things in private. Whether pumping milk, or nursing at home, there are ways of handling these things. It *is* too much to ask, and that's why these laws exist. Going to a bathroom is uncomfortable and unsanitary. Pumping milk doesn't get everything out, there are transportation (cooling) concerns, and some infants reject the bottle. You can't schedule nursing, so not allowing public breastfeeding relegates mothers to the home. > No one else is obligated to accommodate public nudity. If it's not "convenient" for them, that's all part of the sacrifice of parenthood. Everybody is obligated to accommodate it because that's the law. If it's not "convenient" for you to not stare like a pervert, that's all part of living in a modern society where people accept reproduction.

CMV: Basic income is a horrible idea and anyone who has ever taken a basic economics class should know that.

Let me start off by stating what I believe the reddit basic income theory is. From what I have read from /r/basicIncome, the idea is that in a future utopian society computers will take all of our jobs and there will be a huge number of people out of work. Basic income would be a government-issued wage that would act as a safety net for these newly underemployed/unemployed workers. I am not making this post to argue against future automation problems getting rid of jobs. Yes, jobs will require more skills and basic menial tasks may soon be replaced. But that is frictional unemployment, not structural. Its incorrect to say that because a McDonalds cashier got laid off because of a touchscreen order screen that said McDonald's worker will never work again. Many people on reddit would like to implement Basic Income today. They state that it would rid our problems with a complicated tax code, food stamps and other welfare programs. The huge issue is when you have a dead wage safety net you create a massive systematic disincentive to people to work. If people make a certain wage while working zero hours a week, why go get a job at the grocery store? The marginal value of a full time job becomes diluted. Next off, wages are considered elastic. Wages are often sticky, but they will still react to the market, especially new hires. If everyone is getting basic income, employers would simply cut costs and pay people less in wages because why not? Employees would be indifferent because they aren't netting less money, since basic income would make up the difference. Competitive wages would suffer. 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!*

That's like saying "Brain surgery is a terrible idea, everyone who has taken a first aid class knows that you should close a hole in your skull ASAP!". >From what I have read from /r/basicIncome, the idea is that in a future utopian society computers will take all of our jobs and there will be a huge number of people out of work. Basic income would be a government-issued wage that would act as a safety net for these newly underemployed/unemployed workers. That's only a fraction of it. Basic income would serve as the basic means to redistribute resources, based on the idea that automation and organization which allows much of our current productivity is a common resource, not a private one. This would indeed serve to mitigate the consequences of automation and concentration of capital in the hands of ever fewer owners, but first and foremost it's a different way to organize resource distribution, since labor is no longer in chronic shortage, so it makes no sense to force people to provide it by threats of misery and starvation. >But that is frictional unemployment, not structural. That's just your opinion. >The huge issue is when you have a dead wage safety net you create a massive systematic disincentive to people to work. The current system punishes people who start working and stop being eligible for welfare, by taking away that welfare. A basic income would remain stable, and those people would get the full incentive to work instead of a punishment. >If people make a certain wage while working zero hours a week, why go get a job at the grocery store? The marginal value of a full time job becomes diluted. If unemployment is in the double digits, why expect everyone to work full time at all? The economy doesn't need that much labor anymore. From another angle, why do people now often have several jobs accumulated? We can observe that income from one job does not stop them from getting another, *even* if it requires working from dusk till dawn. So I don't see why think people are going to be couch potatoes all day. >Next off, wages are considered elastic. Wages are often sticky, but they will still react to the market, especially new hires. If everyone is getting basic income, employers would simply cut costs and pay people less in wages because why not? Employees would be indifferent because they aren't netting less money, since basic income would make up the difference. Competitive wages would suffer. *Then* they would effectively reduce the added value of work for their employees, who would quit - because now they *do* have an alternative. So that would force employers to bid the price of labor back up again.

In an economy where there are only jobs for the 10% because of technological automation, and where those jobs require very educated people because they're in fields like science or advanced engineering that can't easily be automated, you can: A) Let the 10% work and earn huge wages and let the 90% starve unemployed because they can't find a job above minimum wage B) Let the 10% work and earn huge wages while the 90% work at miserable jobs below minimum wage C) Decrease work hours and educate the population so that everyone can perform some degree of high-qualified job and put 100% of the population with very few work-hours and earning a nice salary D) Let the 10% work and earn huge wages while providing basic income for the 90%. Those with talent would rather work and earn huge wages than live with basic income, which is high enough to live but not high enough to afford luxuries, so if you want to have a plasma tv, two cars and a fancy computer, you'll better get a job! Personally I prefer D, because there's still an incentive to work, but only if you're talented, so the 90% can get a comfortable but modest life without having to work nor starve on the streets, while the 10% can get a really fancy life which is so amazing it completely offsets the fact that they have to work. We will never be able to see a large amount of entry-level jobs again, and because not everybody has incredible amounts of talent and even if they did there's simply no way our planet has enough resources to give the 7 billion people in this planet a fancy high-level job managing automated machines, then the only way is to distribute the labor. Either by C) massively decreasing work hours and spending immense amounts of resources in education, or by D) giving everyone a basic income for being alive and then providing an incentive to working by paying them huge salaries which because of the automation and technological enhancement would be a possibility. TL;DR Basic income is not going to make people stop working because it only provides enough money to stay above the poverty line and most people would rather work and have a fancy life with large paychecks.

CMV: It's not "creeping", "snooping", or "being a creeper" to browse social media content that presumably was put there for exactly that purpose.

**Edit:** I didn't expect this to get such a response. I've replied to some things and gave out some deltas, but as I won't have time to address everything, I'll summarize in an edit. I think that I already more or less agreed with the principle behind the issue, but I actually misunderstood what the issue was. People aren't so stupid as to think that the things they post online are *private,* but there's a social expectation that you will get information from the source rather than digging up (or participating in) old conversations/content that had nothing to do with you, similar to overhearing a conversation at a restaurant and bringing it up when you meet one of those people later. And then there are better and worse ways to bring up the information you found, if it's a good idea to bring it up at all. In a way some of you have CMV by helping me understand what the problem actually is, so I have posted some deltas. Thanks - I don't know if this is much of a phenomenon, but I see it often enough that I have to wonder whether this is the way society's thinking is turning now. Suppose Susie makes a facebook page, and posts on it pictures of herself and her friends and their activities, some personal trivia, etc. Now her acquaintance Frankie from school mentions in conversation one of the pictures, something she'd said at some point, etc. Susie reacts negatively to this, and calls Frankie a "creep" for "looking through" her profile. I'm 24, but as I've been online since sometime during Windows 95, it's been long enough that I'm allowed to have "good old days". And in the good old days, there was no such thing as "creeping someone's profile" online. Putting aside when a "profile" became a thing. We had web pages, with content we had written, that we wanted as many people as possible to see. We didn't spend all those hours perfecting Javascript mouse trailers and visitor counters and guestbooks for nothing, you know. On these web pages we might have listed all sorts of borderline personally identifying information, or in some cases, all of it. You can still find some super throwback web 1.0 vanity sites where people have straight-up posted their resumes, and more. So the same thing happens now, except on Facebook or so, and the difference I can see is that, back when I was a teenager (xanga 4 lyf yo) and we were all doing it, we somehow managed to remember what we had posted on the public internet, and we didn't lose our shit when someone happened to know something that we had told them ... albeit indirectly ... by putting it online ... I feel like I'm close to the core reason behind this new perspective, but I'm not sure. It's like these people either don't understand how the internet and social media work and are meant to be used in a literal way, or maybe their own metaphors are getting in the way of seeing the reality. Maybe they want their Facebook to be like their high-school bedroom that they've decorated with posters of Ricky Martin, and they have a little diary where they bitch about their poor tragic suburban lives, and nobody else is allowed in there and if you go in and look at their photos or remember too specifically their words, you're a terrible creep, except instead of a bedroom they have erected a large bulletin board in the town square, started posting text and images to it, and got mad when people came to look at them. 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!*

I really don't think it's possible to "change your view" on this, because "creeping" is such an ambiguous word. There is definitely a colloquial use of "creeping" that doesn't imply anything negative. Also, it's frequently thrown around in a sarcastic manner, or simply as a joke. This really has to be broken down into a case-by-case basis, and even then, you might just be misunderstanding somebody. I will say that I think "creeping" is thrown around more casually these days in that specific context because of the ubiquity of social networks. *Everybody* has a Facebook page, and most people have so many Facebook friends that 80% of the content their friends post never even makes it to their timeline. So with that in mind, depending on what specifically you mention as having seen on somebody's Facebook, that almost automatically implies that you put in an effort above and beyond simply becoming Facebook friends and passively monitoring your own personal timeline. It may be a trivial amount of effort, but if somebody becomes aware of the fact that you actively searched through their profile in particular, it is unsettling to some degree... again, this is highly contextual. Nobody wants to suddenly realize that the person they just became Facebook friends with yesterday poured through 5 years of their history and actually paid enough attention to bring up something that happened years ago. The actual act of quickly scanning a new friend's profile isn't really weird, but you have to admit, in a real life social situation, it's a bit awkward to bring something up from it that you weren't personally involved in that happened a long time ago. It just makes you seem like you're coming on really strong. Also, I think in most people's minds, there is still a disconnect between social networks and reality. Sometimes it's just a bit unsettling to realize that everything you put on social media reaches a MUCH larger audience than you might have *really* intended for it to, harmless or not. So there are a number of reasons for some people reacting negatively to bringing up something from a social network. I'm not sure that really changes your view at all, but it's an interesting discussion.

One problem is that neither Facebook nor humans have ultra fine ways of filtering their content. You might have a couple groups that you limit access to, but even that's quite a bit of effort and not very effective. Say you just become friends with someone. You likely weren't part of their lives in any meaningful way five years ago. You don't know that much about their personal history. They aren't the same person they were then either - they look different, hold different opinions and have a different assortment of friends. There's nothing at all strange or off putting for my old friends from elementary school to visit my mom and look through her old photo albums. If someone I recently met did that, that would be incredibly disturbing. What are they really trying to get at? Do they think that this old content is going to give them insight into me and my life, and if so, that's a pretty high level of effort and personal engagement. Facebook has also changed *a lot*. These days it's very much about transient social interactions. Personal information is off the main page and pictures usually just get thrown up rather than put in organized folders. I'd argue that interactions, images and often even personal information on Facebook aren't nearly as good of a way to get a sense of someone as they once were. When you comment on an old item, you are usually doing it out of context. Commenting publicly is also a performative public act, not a personal communication. Still, this also doesn't mean that there aren't people that need to chill. Some people literally consider it to be 'creeping' if you mention the things they've posted publicly to them in person. It's almost like they're so detached from their social media life that they don't fully identify with the person that generated and shared that content. That's stupid. Some people call any interaction with their public content by someone they don't like 'creeping'. No, you should unfriend or restrict them if you don't want them seeing your content or ask them to stop if you don't like their comments. But the above arguments don't address those cases - they look at the cases where digging up old content be a real signal that someone's both extremely, perhaps worrisomely enthralled with your life and feels the need to respond to it performatively. Remember, it's not just looking when you Comment or Like - it's a public performance.

CMV: I think having a preference against promiscuous people is as valid as having a height or weight preference nor does it constitute "slut-shaming".

I don't know if it is skewed on Reddit or not, but anytime I see a comment about not being attracted to a "slut" the poster gets railed for it. I also don't think it is strictly the language being used. Regardless of the label, not wanting your partner to have been with 5+ people is 100% defensible. If we, as a society, can tell people that being tall is attractive or that being fat is unattractive, we can tell being that sleeping around is unattractive. Another logically invalid argument is that the person with the preference, must not be promiscuous themselves. I think this is as non-nonsensical as telling a man he can only be attracted to men, otherwise he's hypocritical. My choice in partner is independent of my partner's choice in me, we can like different things. Many physically fit men are "chubby-chasers" and man slutty men are virginal chasers. Edit: To clarify, the use of the words "slut" earlier was merely a reflection of the term as it has been used on Reddit. I do not view a persons' worth as tied to their sexual history. I also don't have an moral qualms towards premarital sex or number of sexual partners. That said, my personal level of attraction is affected. _____ > *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!*

In my mind, a lot of the problem comes from that a lot of people's ideas about virginity and purity and "sluttiness" aren't based in reality. The idea that if a woman has had multiple partners she's "unclean" or has poor morals is just a stereotype. If you aren't attracted to someone for whatever reason, that's fine - but if you are just basing decisions off of stereotypes of what being a "slut" means, then I think it's absolutely fair for people to challenge those beliefs.

I agree that you don't have to date anyone you don't want to. The problem is, you don't usually criticize people for not adhering to your preferences. "I am not attracted to tall girls" is fine, "ew, girls should never be tall!" Is not. "Slut" is a word with that kind of judgment/criticism built in, and when people are called out for acknowledging a woman's promiscuity, it is usually because they are being critical. I would be hesitant to date a girl who has been with over 20 guys because I would worry about her ability to commit. Likewise, I'd have reservations about dating a girl who is a virgin at 25. But I would never criticize or call her names like "slut."

CMV: I like anecdotal evidence.

Whenever I want to know more about an idea, product, etc. I look to someone who has that idea or uses that product to learn more about it. Why, then, is it looked down on and dismissed as anecdotal evidence for someone to share an experience of theirs? I quite enjoy listening to anecdotal evidence to get new perspectives I wouldn't have thought of or haven't heard before. I understand that in an anecdotal case it is not scientific because it cannot be replicated and held to control standards, but I don't think this is grounds for dismissing the case as merely anecdotal and not worth mentioning. Am I wrong about this? _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

You aren't totally wrong about it. Anecdotal advice is the reason Amazon values its reviews so highly. People do find a lot of value in reading another person's experience. I'm one of them: I bought the watch that I'm currently wearing after reading over a dozen user reviews on Amazon. However, unlike with scientific evidence, you should be much more skeptical about relying on anecdotes. There are plenty of fake reviews on Amazon. In fact, there are so any that Amazon has [had to take action](http://www.geekwire.com/2015/amazon-files-first-ever-suit-over-fake-reviews-alleging-calif-man-sold-fraudulent-praise-for-products/). So proceed with caution and try to get a LOT of feedback so that you aren't influenced by false or misleading reviews.

Essentially, anecdotal evidence is too little evidence. Think of reality as a connect the dots drawing. Each item of anecdotal evidence is a dot. Now then, with say two or three dots, can you tell that the picture will be a car? Of course not. The person supplying that data point could have just been extremely unlucky or extremely lucky. However, when you have say 500 dots, then you can clearly see that the picture will be a Ferrari. This collection of anecdotes collectively is empirical data. you can perform statistical analysis on it to find am average trend. Rather than seeing just a point, you now have a view of the entire bell curve. If someone was unusually unlucky, you will be able to tell and know that in reality, it's a solid product. Likewise, if someone has been unusually lucky, you can also tell and know that you will most likely get a bad product.

CMV: BuzzFeed is a terrible news organization and hurts the field of journalism

Edit: BuzzFeed has a separate "News" section that actually seems better than most mainstream outlets in terms of clickbait/native advertisement. I suppose if you can perceive and understand "BuzzFeed News" as separate from the rest of BuzzFeed, it's alright. Still not going to use it for my news (or anything really) but definitely see it in a new light. Thanks for the perspective and interesting discussion guys! Buzzfeed is a terrible news organization. They are basically the death of journalism. They focus on vague clickbait headlines for the sole purpose of gather views ultimately to make the most ad money possible. I feel this is clearly a sign of a lack of journalistic integrity. Headlines are meant to inform, not confuse. "Obama said something AMAZING at the state of the union, and you won't believe the reaction!" What is that?! That's not informing me, bringing me valuable information. It's vague, biased, uninformative, and purely designed just to get a click. Buzzfeed also focuses on native advertisement and meaningless lists which makes it dangerous for the uniformed who cannot discern between what is news and what isn't and ultimately lose a valuable skill in determining what is a good source and what is not. They also plagiarize, which immediately makes an institution lose all credibility. I've had this view for a while and mostly kept to myself about it, but last night someone brought the topic up and to my surprise a journalism student actually started to praise/defend BuzzFeed. So I figured I would post the big counter points she made and why they aren't legitimate. 1. **BuzzFeed has a large base** "BuzzFeed has revolutionized how news organizations attract viewership and the mass consumption of BuzzFeed show it's prowess in journalism. Journalism is about consumption" This is a silly point. Just because a lot of people read BuzzFeed does not mean it is a legitimate news organization. Sure, it's impressive BuzzFeed can attract so many people to their site through social media and clickbait, but so what? The New York Times could slap a big naked lady on their front page and I'm sure it would increase viewership, but I think we can all agree that doesn't make it better news. And I don't believe journalism is about consumption/getting the most consumption. If the goal is to just get people to read/buy their articles, there is no incentive to generate good news. Everything will just be tabloids. 2. **Every news organization is copying BuzzFeed** "The Washington Post, CNN, Fox News are all scrambling to adopt BuzzFeed's revolutionary model. They can't keep up with BuzzFeed's dominance. They're copying BuzzFeed because it's so good!" Yea, can't argue there. All these news organizations are copying BuzzFeed. And that hurts journalism. Now all sources are turning to clickbait baloney. BuzzFeed is killing the market because they don't have integrity and are willing to make meaningless posts that are designed to go viral. So now in order to compete, all other news organizations must do the same, which hurts journalism. It is now quite hard to find an unbiased, un-editorialized news source. 3.**They do really good pieces** "I'll admit 90% of BuzzFeed is stupid, meaningless posts, but they actually do really good pieces. They've started a whole field of 'explanatory news' and really tries to educate a reader. Most news organizations just assume you know all the background of a piece, but most don't. So these pieces really help the public understand current event." That's great! They should focus on that then! Just because there are good pieces dotted around the site, doesn't mean it's a good news source. If I see a guy down a steak I'm not going to eat his poop just because there might be some prime rib in there. The New York Times does similar things, where they'll have a 30 page story on something like an avalanche explaining the mountain, back country skiing, the days leading up to it, the backstory to all involved. It's great stuff and they don't have "17 Pizza's that look like Ohio" as the next article cued up. I think it's also bad because it gives BuzzFeed credibility. So they can point to the handful of articles and say they're real news when people call them out for their mass quantities of meaningless malarky. 4.**They get people to read the news** "Sure, there's a lot of crap, but it gets people reading the news, which traditional media doesn't do. The clickbait gets people reading! You realize it's crap because you're an educated person who goes to a private college, but most people don't. So it doesn't really matter because those people now read the news where they wouldn't have before." It's true. People who didn't read the news do now thanks to BuzzFeed. But shouldn't we focus on giving those people an education, teach them to evaluate news sources, give them the tools to discern bias and editorialization? Why are we bringing news down to the lowest common denominator just so more people read it? If we ruin journalism in the process, does it really matter if more people have access to it? Also, I think it's really dangerous to do so because now those who previously didn't read the news have BuzzFeed as their introduction to news/journalism. Those people who aren't educated or didn't read the news now are much more susceptible to native advertisement. So now there's possibly a whole host of people who think "This diet pill made these 12 fitness instructors resign because they couldn't compete!" is real news and not just advertisement for a useless sugar pill. 5.**It's a new platform, the next evolution** "You just don't understand this new platform. It's like how print journalism first went on the web. People said the same things you're saying back then but it turned out fine. You just need to realize it's a new age for journalism and you must adapt." Print journalism going on the web was just that. Putting the news on the web. It wasn't changing the what people receive or altering news or putting in ads that look like news. It was just giving a new out for people to access news from. I know social media is big and is a powerful tool, but you can use it without making this clickbait nothings. Tweet out the headline with a link, have a 'share on facebook' button on the article, post it to reddit. Use the tools to increase access to information, not to destroy it. I'm sure one day well all have personal holograms and that will be a new platform for news. But a hologram of "3 of the cutest puppies that show black lives matter" still isn't news. That's the major points I head in defense of BuzzFeed. There were a few more but all under those general points and nothing that CMV. I think the real dangerous part of all this is that all those points I just listed are being taught in journalism classes at renowned institutions. BuzzFeed is now the accepted and taught method for delivering the news. I fear this could be the death of journalism. I always thought "BuzzFeed is kinda dumb, but hey, if people like looking at silly lists, who am I to say they can't." But now these silly lists are being hailed as the height of contemporary journalism! It seems were doomed to editorialized, plagiarized, uninformative clickbait for our news from now on. Anyway, just looking for someone to change my view. I actually would like it if someone changed my view because it would be great to go look at silly lists all day. Seems like a good way to kill time but I don't want to support BuzzFeed. So hopefully someone changes my view, but we'll see. _____ > *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!*

Buzzfeed is actually starting to move away from clickbaity headlines. Partially due to the criticism they've received, but also because Facebook and Google are starting to give less visibility to them, which puts a huge dent in social sharing metrics. You have to realize that "clickbait" headlines are really just the 21st century equivalent of the tired, pun-laced and cliched newspaper headlines that have only recently started to fall out of fashion among editors. I wouldn't say that news organizations are copying Buzzfeed, but Buzzfeed is definitely forcing them to compete more. That is good at the end of the day. WaPo, New York Times etc. have stepped up their mobile game and they're doing more to reach millennials. That's not a direct result of Buzzfeed, but Buzzfeed is still forcing them to fight for relevancy. I'll admit I'm not really a huge fan of Buzzfeed. But I think your criticisms are more reflective of what they did in the past rather than what they're doing now. On their front page right now there are no "you won't believe what happened next" headlines. There is a good mix of hard national news in addition to their standard traffic driving fluff articles. It's much better than it used to be so I will give them credit for that. Speaking of fluff—what's wrong with it? It's no different from how newspapers traditionally worked in the past. The sports and entertainment sections of local newspapers are probably the most read, and it takes the lowest effort for the newspaper to produce. But they produce it because it effectively subsidizes the actual hard-hitting news and investigative pieces that take months to get to print, even though those pieces tend to get less views. It's just a way for news organizations to be able to finance what is core to their purpose. Lastly, Buzzfeed's business model has proved to be sustainable for the time being. Many other news organizations still haven't figured that out yet for themselves. So Buzzfeed is an important model that other organizations can replicate and refine upon. At the end of the day I'll take some garbage with my news over no news at all. Which brings me to my last point: Do you pay for any subscriptions to news websites? If you don't, then at the end of the day it's your fault that so many news organizations have to copy what Buzzfeed is doing.

Of the ones you suggested were copying buzzfeed, haven't they mostly just expanded their output to include some articles that focus on the social media market. I don't think any of them have abandoned serious news (Fox was always awful), they just run some traffic grabbing stuff as well. It's not hard to find some serious news reporting if you go to CNNs front page. It's not really new anyway. Tabloid journalism has always sold more and used these kinds of attention grabbing headlines. More serious journalism has often adopted some tabloid tactics but it hasn't become tabloid journalism.

CMV: Natural is a meaningless word

The word ‘natural’ implies something derived from nature, separate from humans. But why is there this distinction? Humans are obviously a part of and are derived from nature. So unless you’re under any religious persuasion, the word shouldn’t have any meaning. It seems outdated and non-applicable. For instance it’s meaningless to me when someone says ‘it’s only natural’. What isn’t natural? Saying ‘this happens in nature’ is the same as saying ‘this happens’. Because everything happens in nature. And so on.

That's only based on the strictest definition of the word. [Modern dictionaries](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural) have definitions of natural that separate it from "artificial" ingredients. Furthermore, they also have definitions that separate it from the unusual or unexpected (As in something is only natural or is unnatural.) Furthermore, even if you use the strictest definition of the word, it's still useful to distinguish it from the supernatural. Lots of concepts involve the supernatural from the vampire shows on the CW to the entire concept of God. Given how much time and energy human society devotes to religion, the natural and supernatural distinction comes in handy often.

We as humans need a word to differentiate between things that do and do not occur without human intervention. The words we use are natural and artificial. I totally see your point. Humans do come from nature. but what is your solution? We should make a new word that means what natural currently means? Why would we do that, though? We already have a word with that definition. The only reason to do it would be if there was a lot of confusion about they way it currently is. And as far as I know, there is no such confusion.

CMV: I don't support GMO's. I believe altering Mother Nature is wrong and could cause (and probably already have) serious problems.

I do not support GMO's and do not want to consume them. Many other countries have restricted GMO's because they don't consider them safe alternatives. I personally don't believe that we should mess with the composition of the natural world. Especially on this level, where about 80% of our food is GMO in the U.S. We don't know enough about it to widely accept them in the country, as there could be long-term effects. We already know cancer, obesity, heart disease, autism, mental illness( especially anxiety and depression), and diabetes is a growing problem. With this whole GMO labeling issue going on right now I definitely think everyone has the right to know what they are eating, because not everyone wants to consume food that's in essence a science experiment.

I also agree that everyone has a right to know what they're eating. I disagree with just about everything else you've written. > We don't know enough about it to widely accept them in the country, as there could be long-term effects. There have been many, many studies that have demonstrated the safety of GMO crops. Let's start off by [reading the statement by the American Academy for the Advancement of Science](http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf) that addresses many of the common concerns. I'll quote: * In order to receive regulatory approval in the United States, each new GM crop must be subjected to rigorous analysis and testing. It must be shown to be the same as the parent crop from which it was derived and if a new protein trait has been added, the protein must be shown to be neither toxic nor allergenic. As a result and contrary to popular misconceptions, GM crops are the most extensively tested crops ever added to our food supply. * The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques. > We already know cancer, obesity, heart disease, autism, mental illness( especially anxiety and depression), and diabetes is a growing problem. If you're implying that consuming GMO foods causes any of these diseases, then you're wrong. Science disagrees with you. A [widely-circulated paper](http://www.skepticalraptor.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Seralini-Final-Paper.pdf) that claimed to show that GMO food caused health problems [has been debunked](https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22287-study-linking-gm-crops-and-cancer-questioned/?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news). But those who rely on making the public afraid to promote their own agenda aren't usually receptive to proof that disproves their claims. Let me know if you need more proof /u/Londiebug13, there's a ton of research I could show you to demonstrate the safety of GMO foods. Edit: formatting.

The thing is that there is not any substantial, substantiated link between GMOs and any of the health concerns you have outlined. There have been many, many different studies done on GMOs in order to verify their safety, and only a small handful have turned up potential risks (and those studies had major flaws, and the results were not reproducible). Also if you fear that your food may be a "science experiment", you should be surprised to learn that your fears should pretty much apply to every food you eat. As just one very small example, as a means of pest control, some organic crops are sprayed with natural insecticides produced by a type of bacteria called *Bacillus thuringiensis*, because they are both "natural" and non-toxic to humans. Now the interesting thing about this is that one of the main strains of GMOs is genetically modified so that the plant itself produces this exact same protein, rather than having the protein (or the bacteria themselves) sprayed on it.

CMV: There are no good reasons to not wear a helmet while riding a bicycle

As the title says, I can't find any valid reasons to not wearing a helmet while riding a bicycle. Here are a few of the many to wear one: **They reduce the extent of any injuries caused by a bike accident** Bike helmets are proven to make any injuries obtained greatly decreased. The effectiveness of helmets are found to be 85-88% in preventing serious injury. About 70-80% of accidents involve some damage to the head. It is estimated that if children ages 5-15 were forced to wear a helmet, 39,000 to 45,000 head injuries would be avoided, along with 18,000-55,000 face and scalp injuries. I could go on and on with these, but I don't have that much time. If you want more proof, just google "bike helmet facts". I've also listed my sources below. Sources: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/docs/b_helmetlaws.pdf https://sites.google.com/site/bicyclehelmetmythsandfacts/ (NSFW, for some reason there is a picture of a man and woman riding naked. Still good stuff on this page, though) **Helmets do not interfere with riding the bike.** Helmets, if they are the correct size, do not get in the way while riding the bike. The only thing they can do is possibly disturb the airflow, but special aerodynamic helmets are made for this, if that is that big of a deal to a person. Common Counterarguments: **It messes up my hair!/It is uncomfortable!/It makes me look like a dork!** I always hear this, but, you know what, none of these are that big of a deal! I would much rather endure a little discomfort than get a possibly permanent injury to my head. **But I haven't fallen off my bike in, like, years!** This one. I hate when people say this. Just because you haven't gotten in a crash in a while does not mean that you are exempt from ever crashing again. This is especially true when travelling on a main road when other cars are a factor. **They're so expensive!!** No, just no. An average bike helmet will cost about 10 bucks or less. If you can afford a bike, then you can afford a helmet Alright, that's it for now. Please CMV! Edit: My view has been changed. Many of you have brought up good points, but I don't have time to individually comment on each of your comments. _____ > *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!*

From this site: http://bicycleuniverse.info/transpo/almanac-safety.html Helmets Head injuries going up with increased helmet usage. Between 1991 and 2001 two things happened: helmet use among cyclists soared, and head injuries soared along with it. Head injuries among cyclists went up by 10% on a simple basis, but when we factor in the dramatic decrease in the number of cyclists during that period, head injuries effectively went up by 51%. (New York Times, 2001) Incidentally, from this we can figure that there was a 27% reduction in cycling. (e.g., 1000 injuries + 10% = 1100 injuries; 1100 injuries ÷ 1.51 = 728 injuries; 1000 to 728 is a ~27% reduction.) Head injuries didn't go up because helmets turned would-be fatalities into simple injuries. One reader complained that the reason that head injuries went up as helmet use went up was that fewer cyclists died as a result of wearing helmets, and those who didn't die were simply injured instead, making the head injury stats go up. It's a nice theory, but it's dead wrong. Cyclist fatalities have shot straight up with increased helmet use, just as cycling injuries have. Cyclist deaths went from 843 to 728 from 1991 to 2001. (Traffic Safety Facts 2001, PDF, p. 17) However, as per the NYT article above, the number of people biking went down 27% during this period, so we would expect the 843 deaths in 1991 to shrink to 615 deaths in 2001 even without increased helmet use. But as helmet use surged, deaths didn't drop to 615, they actually went to 728. That's effectively an 18% increase in the number of cycling deaths as helmet use surged. And for those who complain that we can't look at specific years because of year-to-year variance, let's compare the five-year-average number of deaths from 1987-1991 and 1997-2001. That gives us 879 to 750 deaths, or an effective increase in biking deaths of 17% as helmet use surged. Helmet use went from 18% in 1991 to 50% in 2008. (Consumer Product Safety Commission, 1999) Helmet use and opinion survey. (NHTSA, 2008) The Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation has lots of information about helmet efficacy.

http://bicyclesafe.com/helmets.html Points made by the site: * Bicycle helmets may have some protective value, but not nearly as much as has been claimed, or most people seem to think. * Wearing a helmet does nothing to prevent you from being hit by a car. * Real bicycle safety involves learning how to ride properly. * Crash helmets could easily save more lives for motorists than bicyclists. * Helmet laws can result in the targeting of minorities, discourage cycling, make cycling more dangerous for those who remain, and shift the blame in car-bike collisions to helmetless cyclists even if it was the motorist who was at fault. Info about car drivers and Bicycle Helmets: http://www.cnet.com/news/brain-surgeon-theres-no-point-wearing-cycle-helmets/ Finally there is a theory that bike helmets is way of not getting more new cyclists. This is a nice talk: http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/TEDxCopenhagen-Mikael-Colville P.S. I am wearing a helmet, because I was lucky in crash that saved me

CMV: Insisting your SO does not have sex outside of your relationship is a controlling behavior and should not be considered a normal, healthy behavior.

In our society, we have decided that forcing another to have sex is a major violation of that person's body autonomy. In fact, forcing one to have sex when they don't want to is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to things that are unacceptable to do to a person without his or her permission. Telling someone that they can't get a medical procedure done (or, likewise, telling that they HAVE to get a medical procedure done) is just as awful as is dictating how they were their hair or how they dress. In that same vein, what makes it okay in our society for your significant other to dictate who you sleep with? Sex in our society is a recreational activity enjoyed by most adults in at least some capacity. People dictating what their SOs do for fun in their free time seems rather controlling. Adults should feel free to do what their bodies what they wish as long as they aren't physically forcing another person to do something. Forcing another person to only have sex with you seems to me like an awfully controlling behavior and takes away the body autonomy that they should have. I can understand if a couple decides between the two of them that would like to sleep exclusively with each other. It's just surprising to me at times that it is the norm to be mad enough at your SO to break up with them if they have sex with someone outside of the relationship. I understand that people cheat all the time, but open relationships just seem to be the exception rather than the norm. If you want a monogamous relationship and your SO sleeps with someone else, then you shouldn't be mad at your SO. You should simply realize that you guys want different things out of a relationship and part ways. Getting angry would be controlling your SO and taking away his or her own control over his or her own body. And just for clarification: I am not saying that everyone should go out and cheat on their SOs. I am more stating that it *should* be normal and acceptable for people to have sex with people outside of a two person relationship for no other reason than that it is oddly controlling to insist that your SO sleep with no one besides you. Also, I wanted to point out that I am purposefully not using particular genders. It is just as bad to for a woman to tell a man he can't have sex outside the relationship as it would be if a man told a woman the same thing. So, please. Change my view! Why should it be the norm to have monogamous relationships? _____ > *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!*

He or she might catch diseases outside of your relationship and infect you with them. Avoiding infection risks sounds healthy to me. Another thing is that you cant guarantee that it would not make you fall in love with someone else.That would cause emotional pain. Avoiding emotional pain sounds healthy to me. Also it might not be accepted by society or your family or general peer group. Avoiding those arguements sounds healthy to me. Basically your reasoning is strongly simplified.

>If you want a monogamous relationship and your SO sleeps with someone else, then you shouldn't be mad at your SO. You should simply realize that you guys want different things out of a relationship and part ways. Doesn't this make your entire point moot? If two people didn't want monogamy how does this become a problem? Shouldn't you just recommend that people layout the expectations they have of the relationship? It seems like what your advocating is that people be cool with non-monogamous relationships. But you are ignoring the fact that the majority of people tend to associate sex with an emotional monogamous bond. You don't? Cool, find someone else who feels the same way. It is not bad to expect your significant other not to sleep with other people if you are in a healthy relationship where you have laid out your expectations beforehand.

CMV: For the west to enjoy the lifestyle it does, subjugation of third world countries is necessary.

The goods and services we consume are made possible by the abundance of cheap resources and labour that the west gets out of underdeveloped countries. The West has no reason to aid or allow the development of these poorer countries, since that would disrupt the ability to acquire cheap resources, thus diminishing the economic superiority of the west. All in all, people in the west's lives can only be "good" because people's lives in poor nations are "bad". With the current infrastructure on earth, it is only possible to make the west happy, not everyone.

This thread could use some numbers. Here's the share of GDP adjusted for purchasing power parity by country. https://www.quandl.com/collections/economics/gdp-as-share-of-world-gdp-at-ppp-by-country You'll notice that every single first world country is in the red. Every Single One. That is, their slice of the pie as a percentage is getting smaller. Which is then being picked up by the third world countries, led by China. (China has been so successful at this I'm not even sure if they're considered third world anymore, but the gains have been realized across nearly the entire third world, except those few places that can't stop destroying all their shit in repeated civil wars) While the slice as a percentage is getting smaller for the first world, we're still experiencing growth, because the pie is getting bigger. Our slice may be thinner, but it's still bigger than it was last year. We might not have enough pie for everybody for everybody to enjoy a first world lifestyle yet, but we're certainly headed in the right direction, and that process has only accelerated since the advent of globalization. Edit: yes, yes, I messed up the definition of first and third world countries, you can stop pointing it out now.

Hm. I want to be careful to not spiral off into vague and generalized arguments back and forth, making this thread unproductive. Can you provide a specific example of what your talking about? * What is an example of something we enjoy in the west? * How is this thing dependent upon the subjugation of people in another country? * How is this necessary? In other words, how is this not attainable through other means?

CMV: Insisting your SO does not have sex outside of your relationship is a controlling behavior and should not be considered a normal, healthy behavior.

In our society, we have decided that forcing another to have sex is a major violation of that person's body autonomy. In fact, forcing one to have sex when they don't want to is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to things that are unacceptable to do to a person without his or her permission. Telling someone that they can't get a medical procedure done (or, likewise, telling that they HAVE to get a medical procedure done) is just as awful as is dictating how they were their hair or how they dress. In that same vein, what makes it okay in our society for your significant other to dictate who you sleep with? Sex in our society is a recreational activity enjoyed by most adults in at least some capacity. People dictating what their SOs do for fun in their free time seems rather controlling. Adults should feel free to do what their bodies what they wish as long as they aren't physically forcing another person to do something. Forcing another person to only have sex with you seems to me like an awfully controlling behavior and takes away the body autonomy that they should have. I can understand if a couple decides between the two of them that would like to sleep exclusively with each other. It's just surprising to me at times that it is the norm to be mad enough at your SO to break up with them if they have sex with someone outside of the relationship. I understand that people cheat all the time, but open relationships just seem to be the exception rather than the norm. If you want a monogamous relationship and your SO sleeps with someone else, then you shouldn't be mad at your SO. You should simply realize that you guys want different things out of a relationship and part ways. Getting angry would be controlling your SO and taking away his or her own control over his or her own body. And just for clarification: I am not saying that everyone should go out and cheat on their SOs. I am more stating that it *should* be normal and acceptable for people to have sex with people outside of a two person relationship for no other reason than that it is oddly controlling to insist that your SO sleep with no one besides you. Also, I wanted to point out that I am purposefully not using particular genders. It is just as bad to for a woman to tell a man he can't have sex outside the relationship as it would be if a man told a woman the same thing. So, please. Change my view! Why should it be the norm to have monogamous relationships? _____ > *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!*

> Sex in our society is a recreational activity enjoyed by most adults in at least some capacity. People dictating what their SOs do for fun in their free time seems rather controlling. I feel like this is a biased definition of sex: sex can be a recreational activity, but it is not *only* a recreational activity: it has procreative, romantic and emotional elements. It's often hard to separate these. > Adults should feel free to do what their bodies what they wish as long as they aren't physically forcing another person to do something. Forcing another person to only have sex with you seems to me like an awfully controlling behavior and takes away the body autonomy that they should have. This feels like a misinterpretation of what it means to have your bodily autonomy respected. You *are* free to have sex with other people while in a relationship in the sense that someone cannot actually prevent you from doing so without committing a crime or directly violating their consent in some other way. You are not free, however, to tell other people how to feel about this: that's not what bodily autonomy is. Your argument here is equivalent to saying that a tattoo artist refusing to tattoo someone is an infringement on their bodily autonomy. > If you want a monogamous relationship and your SO sleeps with someone else, then you shouldn't be mad at your SO. You should simply realize that you guys want different things out of a relationship and part ways. Getting angry would be controlling your SO and taking away his or her own control over his or her own body. Saying that someone ought not to be angry is equally controlling, you're telling people how to feel

>If you want a monogamous relationship and your SO sleeps with someone else, then you shouldn't be mad at your SO. You should simply realize that you guys want different things out of a relationship and part ways. Doesn't this make your entire point moot? If two people didn't want monogamy how does this become a problem? Shouldn't you just recommend that people layout the expectations they have of the relationship? It seems like what your advocating is that people be cool with non-monogamous relationships. But you are ignoring the fact that the majority of people tend to associate sex with an emotional monogamous bond. You don't? Cool, find someone else who feels the same way. It is not bad to expect your significant other not to sleep with other people if you are in a healthy relationship where you have laid out your expectations beforehand.

CMV: I don't think I should spend every waking hour of my teenage life trying to get into a good college

I'm a really bad student, like a really bad student. In certain classes I simply do not do the homework and in all classes I rarely ever study. I understand perfectly where this will get me, but I am simply not willing to throw all my time and energy into things I see as unnecessary. Don't get me wrong I'm not some party high schooler, quite the opposite really. I am an all honors student with many AP classes that I have been scheduled to take next year after taking one AP class this year (sophomore year). I don't waste my time with things I see as trivial and slowly school has turned into something I see as trivial. Instead of doing my school work I spend timing learning how to program or watching a documentary on issues in this world. I write, I read, and I just try to learn everything I can but just not at school. I feel like I need the freedom to choose what I do and when I do it and I am just not allowed this with school. Every morning I wake up at 6:45 sit through painstakingly boring classes with rare highlights as there is just one or two classes I can somewhat enjoy. If there's a test it's a 50/50 that I'll turn it in half blank and if it's a lecture or some other activity I'll tune in only once awhile to get the gist of the lesson. I sometimes look around to my peers and see people with 4.0+ gpa's who are completely focused on school. I see them during free periods doing all the work assigned and I see them get mad when they get 2 points taken off. When I see this I can appreciate the effort, but at the end of the day there are literally thousands of other people just like them. Every school in the country has a couple valedictorians who will all be competing to get into the "best" colleges and a majority of them will not make it. I think I understand the importance of college and I feel like I would excel at some of the top university, but as of now I not chasing that 4.0+ gpa required to get there and I don't see myself doing that anytime soon. I love to learn, I really love to learn and I teach myself new things I find interesting and useful everyday. That passion continues grow but it's pushing me away from going to the best colleges which I have been told will allow me to achieve the things I want to do. So please tell me why I should need to get that 4.0+ gpa and go to the best of the best of colleges. I want to help the world, but I'm not sure I'm going about it in the right way. Edit: Thanks for all the advice guys. It's been very helpful and I'll be visiting this thread in the future when my determination will inevitably falter. _____ > *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!*

If you don't have a desire to exceed professionally, continue the path you are on. I'm going to be brutally honest with you in hopes you'll change your thought process and make you realize you aren't the shining star of intelligence and superiority you think you are. I was in your shoes in high school. I saw people around me busting their ass for good grades, struggling with exams, participating in extra-curricular activities, all in efforts to get into a good university. I could skate by in high school by doing the bare minimum, ace exams without studying, and after having my ego inflated by teachers over the years I simply felt I was better than everyone else. It couldn't be further from the truth and I learned this slowly through my years at a university while meeting people not only more motivated than me, but smarter than me as well. It's easy to have a sense of superiority in high school which you clearly have by saying you'd excel at a top university when you can't put in the basic time and effort to complete basic high school responsibilities. Successful individuals aren't people who are smart with a thirst for knowledge. They're people who are not only smart, but driven in ways you couldn't possibly fathom. Successful people have motors. They do what needs to get done, regardless of how they feel about the task. There is no task that you are above - you've earned nothing thus far. Regardless of what you decide to do in life, you'll be met with tasks that seem menial and unnecessary. Successful people will take these tasks in stride with a grin on their face because they know it leads them to the end game they're trying to achieve. You're a smart, well spoken person. That isn't worth a fucking dime if you can't apply it and get work done even if you can't stand the work. You have a choice, continue to slack in key parts of your life that can lead you to rewarding success, or you can lead your life thinking you're above school work and useless tasks. One will result in a rewarding, challenging, successful lifestyle regardless of financial success. The other will end with a narcissistic adult thinking they're owed something because they can program in their parent's basement but can't put in the work ethic to provide value to anyone. **If you want to get motivated and get your shit together to pursue a rewarding lifestyle and get out of this giant mistake of a hole you're digging, PM me. I was in your shoes once and I was lucky to be surrounded by people who woke me the fuck up. I'd be more than happy to do the same with you.**

You think you will excel at a top university? I doubt it. University will be a lot of the same boring stuff it is now. Sure there will be tougher and more interesting content but there is still a lot of meaningless requirements you will have to do. Also if you really feel this way you need to discard the notion that school is for learning useful information. Especially at the high school level it is about learning how to learn. And that includes actual proper work ethic. Don't get me wrong. No one is saying you have to put 24/7 into your schoolwork to get good grades. Sure the valedictorian will probably be someone that did but that doesn't matter. A lot of top universities are looking for more "rounded" students anyways. But there is a huge gap between going all out and putting in no work at all. Heck just do the minimum. Putting no work into your education means no one will put work into you and help you succeed. You think having good ap scores and such gets you into a good school by itself? Not without good recommendations. There's still time to change. If you think that getting into a good university is a worthwhile endeavor you need to get your act in gear. You don't have to give 100% but you have to give something.

CMV: 51 "New" Gender Options are Over-the-Top and Useless.

Awhile ago, Facebook released several new genders - many of them seemed to come out of nowhere and almost all are incredibly confusing, over-the-top, and redundant. To preface this, I am *not* against anyone in the LGBT community and welcome the idea of gay marriage and things similar. However, I've never really been on-board with all these new genders. Anyway, some of the terms that come to mind are *Agender* and *Androgynous*. The mean the same thing, to not identify as any gender, so why are they two separate words? *Genderfluid* and *Bigender* seem completely redundant too - so, why even have them? I'm also not entirely sure why people can't just dress the way they want to while remaining whatever sex they were given at birth. Does it really matter if a man dresses as a woman? Does he really have to be classified as *gender-fluid* because it really just seems like a word that would be less blunt than *cross-dressing*. Again, I have nothing against that, but it seems like people are trying to make other words to someone glorify what they're doing. Also, what's the deal with "cis"? * Cis-female. * Cis-male. * Cis-man. * Cis-woman. * Cisgender. If the definition of "cis" is basically people acting within the confines of their gender, why can't they *just* be called women and men? Why do they have to have a special name? Considering that people are giving away names to things that already exist, it seems really indicative of how strong other words in their dictionary are (see: gender-fluid and bi-gender redundancy). Again, I can't stress this enough, I have no issues with people being who they want to be and how they want to be that. It just seems overly unnecessary to have a million new Facebook gender options for things that clearly overlap each-other. A lot of this also seems more of a ploy for attention, not someone *actually* identifying as something. With that being said, am I just seeing this the wrong way? I get incredibly annoyed when someone tells me they're "gender-fluid" or "cis-female". It makes me believe that I may be seeing this the wrong way - or maybe these terms really are inessential and pointless? _____ > *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!*

I think Facebook probably gave us all tons of options because they want to know your precise gender for targeted ads. It doesn't hurt them at all to provide extra options, and there's probably someone out there who thinks it is pretty cool to have their gender of choice listed as an option for them. I also think we probably need cis and trans. There are probably times a trans woman needs to identify herself as such, at the very least I think a doctor would have to know. And so since we have trans we also need its opposite. Also if you're like me it's a fun reminder to freshman university chemistry. I'm not an expert on any of this, but I'm sure there are some Sutton differences to each of these, and I'd be pretty hurt if my gender didn't show up on a list. I'm pretty sure I remember seeing that Facebook now has it as mandatory to list a gender, and I think that since they want the data they're trying their best to be as accommodating as possible.

What a load of crap and a waste of time and energy. There should be 3 options - Male, Female, Other. Why do these people want to be so precious and special? It doesn't matter what you think other people think of you, what matters is your knowledge and appreciation of your own value. Stop trying to impress everyone with your precise identity definitions and overly descriptive sex and gender orientations.

CMV: It's not "creeping", "snooping", or "being a creeper" to browse social media content that presumably was put there for exactly that purpose.

**Edit:** I didn't expect this to get such a response. I've replied to some things and gave out some deltas, but as I won't have time to address everything, I'll summarize in an edit. I think that I already more or less agreed with the principle behind the issue, but I actually misunderstood what the issue was. People aren't so stupid as to think that the things they post online are *private,* but there's a social expectation that you will get information from the source rather than digging up (or participating in) old conversations/content that had nothing to do with you, similar to overhearing a conversation at a restaurant and bringing it up when you meet one of those people later. And then there are better and worse ways to bring up the information you found, if it's a good idea to bring it up at all. In a way some of you have CMV by helping me understand what the problem actually is, so I have posted some deltas. Thanks - I don't know if this is much of a phenomenon, but I see it often enough that I have to wonder whether this is the way society's thinking is turning now. Suppose Susie makes a facebook page, and posts on it pictures of herself and her friends and their activities, some personal trivia, etc. Now her acquaintance Frankie from school mentions in conversation one of the pictures, something she'd said at some point, etc. Susie reacts negatively to this, and calls Frankie a "creep" for "looking through" her profile. I'm 24, but as I've been online since sometime during Windows 95, it's been long enough that I'm allowed to have "good old days". And in the good old days, there was no such thing as "creeping someone's profile" online. Putting aside when a "profile" became a thing. We had web pages, with content we had written, that we wanted as many people as possible to see. We didn't spend all those hours perfecting Javascript mouse trailers and visitor counters and guestbooks for nothing, you know. On these web pages we might have listed all sorts of borderline personally identifying information, or in some cases, all of it. You can still find some super throwback web 1.0 vanity sites where people have straight-up posted their resumes, and more. So the same thing happens now, except on Facebook or so, and the difference I can see is that, back when I was a teenager (xanga 4 lyf yo) and we were all doing it, we somehow managed to remember what we had posted on the public internet, and we didn't lose our shit when someone happened to know something that we had told them ... albeit indirectly ... by putting it online ... I feel like I'm close to the core reason behind this new perspective, but I'm not sure. It's like these people either don't understand how the internet and social media work and are meant to be used in a literal way, or maybe their own metaphors are getting in the way of seeing the reality. Maybe they want their Facebook to be like their high-school bedroom that they've decorated with posters of Ricky Martin, and they have a little diary where they bitch about their poor tragic suburban lives, and nobody else is allowed in there and if you go in and look at their photos or remember too specifically their words, you're a terrible creep, except instead of a bedroom they have erected a large bulletin board in the town square, started posting text and images to it, and got mad when people came to look at them. 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!*

Instead of assuming that these people don't understand how the internet works, you might try considering the possibility that you haven't given enough thought to the way *privacy* works. What does it mean to have privacy? The definition I like best (credit to [Helen Nissenbaum](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=_xJfVdDBLcb_ywPdgYLoAg&url=http://crypto.stanford.edu/portia/papers/RevnissenbaumDTP31.pdf&ved=0CCIQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNGBN-P8lmftoRARQIaFC7puTCFEQA&sig2=Gt2vJs2OOigOi9cgEkJ1dA)) holds that it means having a certain degree of control over information about oneself. That control can be achieved in a number of different ways. Your home is generally a private place by default, because access is physically restricted to those who are invited inside. But the privacy of your home isn't contingent on the fact that people aren't able to get through your door without a key. The fact that it's understood as a private space leads to a generally acknowledged *expectation* of privacy that demands the respect of others by way of an unspoken social contract, so that you feel your right to privacy has been violated when someone on the roof of the neighboring building peers into your bedroom window through binoculars. Another form of privacy is that which we expect to have in otherwise public spaces, even when we're completely surrounded by strangers. Think about what it's like to have a conversation in a crowded restaurant. Although it's true that everyone around you can easily eavesdrop, you aren't speaking to them, and the social norms governing that situation dictate that they should ignore you. If someone were to sit nearby and actively listen to you and your friends without having been invited, you'd probably feel that your privacy wasn't being properly respected. Online social media spaces are a lot like that. Everybody has access, but having access isn't the same thing as having an invitation. Do you remember how upset people were when Facebook first rolled out the news feed? None of the things being displayed there were shown to people who didn't already have access to them, but the architecture of the virtual space had been radically altered. Exchanging wall posts used to be like having a private conversation in a restaurant. Suddenly, it was more like *performing* a conversation on a stage, in full view of a room full of people who were actively paying attention. Check out [danah boyd's article](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=JxdfVa2wIpDJogTet4OoDw&url=http://www.danah.org/papers/FacebookPrivacyTrainwreck.pdf&ved=0CCIQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNF8fUtm1RijtNSQnmv9HjXtSoUI-g&sig2=u9tqPkv_lOBeSGrI3-Wxbg) on the Facebook community's reaction to that event. When people call you a creep for knowing about something they've shared on Facebook, what they're really upset about is the fact that you've misunderstood your relationship with them and that information. You may have had access to it, but it wasn't meant for you. You've joined a conversation to which you weren't invited. Being able to recognize the difference between a conversation that you're allowed to join and one you're supposed to ignore even when it's happening right in front of you is a social skill that is just as important online as it is in real life.

You can't use the the fact that something is allowable online as justification for expecting people not to act negatively toward a behavior. Especially when said behavior makes them feel uncomfortable. If a person or persons views being researched online as a violation of boundaries, you either need to respect it or establish that you do not respect their boundaries. While they might not be able to stop you, they certainly don't need to like or accept the behavior in a social context. One way displaying displeasure with such behavior is to refer to it as "creeping" and those doing it as being a "creeper". So another way to word your question is: "Do people have a right to be upset that I learned things about them I found they posted online?" I say yes, why? Because people have a right to their feelings, people establish social norms and boundaries and may be upset when someone violates it. First I much address: "presumably was put there for exactly that purpose." You presume to much, something posted on social media does not imply that the poster means for it be information observed, retained, and reported by every single person who could find access to it. It might not be secret, but it is not meant to be a conversation piece either. If I go to a coffee shop and have a personal conversation with a friend about my Mother dying of cancer, it's not a secret conversation and people may over hear. However if someone, even an acquaintance, comes up to me a month later and starts a conversation with "I heard you talking about your dying Mom at Starbucks last April." I'm going to find it off putting, and likely consider that person a creep. The online world seems to become a place where people tell themselves that if a door is unlocked they are allowed inside. If someone leaves a photo album open, they are allowed to open the book make copies of all the pictures and maybe using them in Photoshop later. While legally, they are right with the second example, social norms in groups may have different rules. These rules can change from group to group and you don't have to agree to them to be held to them in the eyes of the group. Another thing to consider is that people not only take issue with the action of being researched, they also take issue with and are made uncomfortable with idea of someone taking the time and effort to research them and see what is available about them online. They may not be able to stop said activity, but they certaintly don't need to treat it as an acceptable for of social interaction.

CMV: Children who do not get 1st-3rd place DO NOT deserve a trophy for simply participating

Hello CMV, I am not a parent but curious as to get your opinions to CMV. I grew playing competitive soccer (worked my way up to the competitive teams from your basic youth teams) and never once received a trophy for simply participating or losing. You either got 1st, 2nd, 3rd or you got nothing it was simple as that. By losing and not being rewarded we understood we had to try harder as an individual and try harder as a team to win. This led me to become much more competitive because I wanted to earn that trophy and be on that competitive team. I really dont understand the idea of rewarding everyone for not winning, it's almost like saying "hey, even if you dont try you still win". I hear stories about teams that go 0-13 in a season and the kids walk away with a trophy, why? Don't get me wrong, I'm not a cold hearted person and love to see all children happy but I dont understand the concept of rewarding someone for losing or not trying hard enough will result in a prize. To me that just teaches a kid that NOT giving your best will still result in a prize. What lesson does that teach you when you grow up? That your failure or lack of effort will be rewarded regardless of how you performed? Doesn't that give the child a bad mentality growing up? Personally if I had a kid and he/she played a sport I wouldn't allow the coach or a parent to give them a trophy for simply participating, I would make them understand that a reward/trophy is earned by hard work and dedication. I know not all kids are athletic but I still dont understand the concept or idea. We all know reality is a bitch and life is going to hit you with some hard lessons so why not teach your kid that hard work pays off? Again, I am not trying to sound cold but I just dont understand the concept of rewarding failure/losing, CMV...... Edit: thanks for all the answers, feedback and insight. Many of you helped CMV. Again, I hope I didn't come off as cold or inconsiderate. I have younger cousins and love to see them succeed in anything they do, especially sports. I was more interested in having a discussion as to "why" and the mentality behind it. Many of you made valid arguments and gave me some great insight. I'm happy to keep discussing if people are interested but please note I am not against the idea but was more interested in helping me change my view of it. If anything please continue to give your children positive feedback, effective communication, motivation and let them know that team work is a great thing. I recommend everyone put their kids in sports (dont push them into it but help and guide them into something they love doing or are very passionate about). It really does pay off when you get older and helps them build some self confidence and understand the dynamics of a social environment. Thanks again everyone! Edit 2: Since the discussion continues, I think children under 12 should only get participation Trophies. Once you hit that age you should be teaching your kids the fundamentals of structured team work, effort and the idea that life will not reward your for simply showing up. Giving participation trophies to kids 13 and above is not a good life lesson. If you care to continue CMV on that! Edit 3: Thanks everyone for the continued conversation, input, points of views and personal experiences. This sub is great for people who are curious as to get the other sides opinion and everyone should keep an open mind about changing their view on the matter. Now some last bit of advice for coaches and parents who put their kids in sports. PLEASE keep your eye out for the that one un-athletic kid who might not be the best on the team and make sure that his/her team mates understand this is a team event and that everyone is in this together. Some of these personal experiences shared with me shed some light on how people hated playing sports and were being bulled because they were that kid and the other kids made them feel left out. Not all kids will be good athletes but you can teach your kids to respect one another, support one another and to ensure that they understand the unity of team work. If your kid is that "all-star" on the team then make them understand this most because the other kids will look to him/her to see how they treat the rest of the team. A good leader will understand this and this habit will grow with them, you just have to show them how and why. Thanks again for all the input, this is a great sub.

> never once received a trophy for simply participating or losing. You either got 1st, 2nd, 3rd or you got nothing. I find this *so* ironic. You realize that 2nd place is nothing but the first loser, right? And 3rd place?.... don't even get me started. So why are you ok with the first and 2nd losers getting trophies (and, presumably, even accepted them yourself in your youth) but the 3rd loser, 4th loser, 5th loser, etc. get nothing? In the words of Herm Edwards, you.play.to.win.the.game! That means there are two categories: The winner and the losers. Either you support losers getting trophies or you don't; and if you support *some* losers getting trophies because they are "better losers" than other losers, then you're just hypocritical.

So first in that age range those trophies are more mementos and reminders, the only reason I know the years when I played soccer as a kid is those trophies. They're like a stuffed animal you buy at the zoo. That said I do agree we should recognize the winning teams so there is something to play for. I personally like the four trophy type method. There a small trophy for just playing, and then 3rd, 2nd, and 1st get better trophies that increase in awesomeness the higher you place. This way everyone gets a memento, but they still play hard to get the 'best' one they can.

CMV: Lining up to get on an airplane is pointless.

This boggles my mind. I know that some airlines are different like Southwest because they do not have assigned seats. But why don't people relax until their seating zone/group is called when you have a reserved seat? It's not like the gate person knows that the boarding tunnel is clear or that the previous zone has almost completed been seated. It just seems more relaxing for everyone to go in a "just in time" fashion versus standing in the tunnel, then standing in the plane and trying not to make the person in front of you who is trying to get into their seat anxious. It's a small thing, but its madness and because we can only fit one lane of people in at a time it seems really inefficient for so many people to be standing around. Edit: I absolutely don't mean that I would only get up the moment I gave a completely clear line to my seat. That's ridiculous and I'm not coming from a point of laziness. It just seems there's a lot more efficient things the airlines can do to make the process faster. Edit 2: (Some reason Now for Reddit didn't succeed in saving this edit) I see that a lot of people have a great need for overhead space that I definitely underestimated. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to give everyone who mentioned this before my edit a ∆ but I sure did try. Edit 3: I also apologize to all for not being prompt in responding. Not surprisingly, I posted this just before getting on a plane.

As someone who flies quiet frequently, I used to agree with you, but now I know you are simply wrong. I used to sit there and laugh at all the people queuing up a half hour before the plane was scheduled to start boarding. I'd wait until I was the last possible person and then stroll onto the plane like I was smarter than every person who had stood around waiting. If you care about getting an overhead compartment for your carry-on luggage, you'd better hope you are boarding early. Any sold out flight is going to run out of room in the overhead compartments long before everyone is on the plane (doesn't matter how large the plane is--this has been true for me for domestic and international flights, from puddle-jumpers, to Airbus A380). There is nothing in the world worse than landing at 2AM after a 5 hour, cross-country flight and having to wait an hour for your bag to arrive at baggage claim. I cringe at the announcement that the flight is sold out and some passengers *may volunteer* to check their carry-on item to their final destination. If you do not care about the overhead bin, then you are a minority, and you're right that there is no rush to get onto the plane. But your statement that "Lining up to get on an airplane is pointless." is entirely false because there definitely is a very good point (in fact, other people on the thread have had other great reasons which I didn't consider because I usually take flights where seats aren't first-come-first-serve). So you can start awarding deltas to everyone now. :)

On crowded flights, the overhead bins frequently fill up. If you're near the last on the plane, you may be forced to gate check your bag, meaning you have to wait around at the baggage carousel when you get to your destination, plus no access to your bag during the flight.

CMV: if youre from a western culture and you save up and have your first overseas trip in another western culture, youre probably a bit of a douche.

I always have to hold my eyes to keep them rolling out of my sockets when i hear (australian) people talking about their trips to europe and canada and america. To me you have to be pretty dull and boring and douchey to want to go overseas and experience a mild variant of your own culture instead of a different one. Its classic tourist behavior but at least retarded resort-bound tourists outside of the west are pushing their comfort zone slightly. Travel isnt supposed to be a way to get away from your shitty 9 - 5 that you dont have the guts to quit, its supposed to be a journey where you explore other places and other cultures. If other cultures are so scary to you that youd save up thousands to go to a place where language and climate are the only differences from home youre probably a bit of a douche.

> its supposed to be a journey where you explore other places and other cultures. Okay, so I'm not going to get into a "who said?" version of this debate because that's pointless. I'll accept your premise. So what you'd argue is that my trip to Costa Rica is inherently more valuable than my trip to, say Dublin because I live in the United States. Fair enough. But here's my counterpoint: I am quasi-humiliated by my trip to Costa Rica because that shit was fucked up. Traveling to non-western (re: poor) countries is an incredibly morally murky process. It doesn't *have* to be but if you don't speak the language (one of your points) you're stuck with using industries that thrive off of Western travelers. And those industries can have a devastating effect on those areas. Now,we all can get behind the idea that going to Thailand to engage in sex trade is a pretty reprehensible. That's clear cut. But what about that beach resort in Mexico? Who's running it? Who profits? Whose working at it? Under what condition? What local industries/buildings/landmarks got bulldozed in order to capitalize on the beach front? Costa Rica is absolutely beautiful. But the culture is, with few exceptions, to be folksy for tourists. That's what people do. Much like parents who will amputate a limb of a child so they do better begging, this has some pretty serious consequences. No one is building anything. All the major infrastructure (the resorts, the tour packages, the skyride tours) was built by Western cultures. What's left for locals is to essentially pander to the tourists. And they *do*. And it is kind of sad. Yes, we spend money. I bought bracelets and sodas and magazines and candy. And that, I am sure, has a positive impact. But the net impact, the larger picture, is that the travel industry is pretty much holding people hostage because the money pouring in pours right back out to the people who invested in the infrastructure and only the dregs trickle down. We visited a very rural school and it was so striking because it was one of the only places we visited where we weren't being pandered to. **So here's my point**: Exploring other places and cultures is an inherently imperialist act. For more info, I strongly recommend reading *A Small Place* by Jamaica Kincaid. The idea you're espousing might actually be more imperialist, more harmful. At the end of the day I think there is value in experiencing other cultures and people, but I also know that MY gain comes at a price for their culture. It has to. But we don't talk about that. We focus on the small gains made by locals who profit off the travel money. We don't think about the bigger picture of who profits from travel and what is LOST in creating that infrastructure. Yes, if you go to rural Laos this is less of a problem, but who the fuck wants to vacation there. Even if you DID, how are you going to get around if you don't speak the language or have any help. That's simply not realistic for most people. But western tourism (visiting New York for example) doesn't come with the same moral quandaries. We are capitalizing off our own tourism. We're capitalizing off our own tourism in [Thailand](http://www.bangkok.grand.hyatt.com/en/hotel/home.html) as well, but we do so by swooping in and taking over. The whole "value" of experiencing other cultures? We're the ones that made that up. Probably to sell hotel rooms. In Costa Rica.

> If other cultures are so scary to you that youd save up thousands to go to a place where language and climate are the only differences from home youre probably a bit of a douche. You seem to have a very narrow view of why people travel. Many visit other countries to visit family, historical / architectural / artistic sites of interest, professionals in the same field etc etc etc. You will need to be a bit more specific as to why a person spending their money on a trip to a place that interests them makes that person a douche. Also as an Australian I see plenty of people spend a couple of weeks on a tour in Thailand or hanging out at a retreat in Nepal (completely failing to immerse themselves in anything resembling the local culture). When these people then claim that they are 'better' than others for travelling somewhere non-Western - now that is being a douche. Travel isn't *supposed* to be anything other than what you make it.

CMV: Coffee is overrated, the effects received are negligible and often a placebo, and people who say they like the taste are lying to themselves.

I understand the philosophy behind acquiring tastes (learned to love San Pellegrino), but I cannot for the life of me truly find myself appreciating coffee like many of my friends do. Every child growing up seems to desire coffee, but only because it's age restricted, similar to alcohol/tobacco. Now I don't have a PhD in psychology or anything, but there is evidence beyond proof that people want what they can't have. It's just human nature, and I feel like it's what's behind the longterm desire for coffee in that something I was once barred from is now freely enjoyed and encouraged. It doesn't help that many people jack their cups with sugars and creams which at a certain point require speculation as to which substance is actually fueling your perceived energy boost. I consider myself to be very openminded, especially when it comes to substances put into the body for recreational purposes (I'll leave it at that) but I can't seem to see eye-to-eye to my friends that have been religiously trying to convert me all these years. The extent of my coffee experience would be instant coffee growing up at home (parents weren't 'connoisseurs' by any iteration of the term but were both pretty addicted to), pretentious (shots fired) coffee shops that my fiends would literally drag me to, and the occasional tinder date Starbucks run in which I would just end up getting the vanilla bean frappe 90% of the time, which is delicious by the way. It seems to me like the most elite coffee drinkers in my socials circles tend to hate Starbucks. Maybe because they think it's cool to do so and are attempting to show everyone how much they know about how coffee should taste like. Could that be the reason? Have I just had bad coffee? Has my past experienced not done justice to an entire culture that is coffee? I mean people spend hundreds of dollars a year on it, and for what? Change my view. _____

>Have I just had bad coffee? I don't know, what coffee have you had? If your answer is Starbucks and the stuff from the supermarket, then yes, you have. Also, what do you like? There are different flavors of coffee, and knowing what you like, I can make a recommendation as to a coffee you may like.

If anything the effects of coffee are understated. When coke became taboo, coffee became the 'business mans' drug. Caffeine is a drug. Just like any other drug, the high becomes addictive. which is why your friends enjoy the taste so much. When I stated smoking pot, I didn't care much for the taste and thought everyone was crazy when they were talking about different strands and their effects. After years of smoking pot I get it. Same thing with coffee. Having a morning cup of coffee every morning is very similar to taking a quick hit of coke every morning. You become more alert, focused, and have quick burst of energy. 2 or 3 hours go by and your artificial high goes down, then you start to crave coffee again. So if you start thinking of your friends as drug addicts maybe some of their behaviors would make more sense to you.

CMV: Prisoners should have the option to end their life.

I believe someone who has been convicted of a non violent crime should have the option to end their life in prison. So if someone is doing 20 years for drug distribution they can choose to die. This would decrease prison population and relief funding to the prison system. Less people = less taxpayers have to spend. The prisoner would get to choose if they want to die, but the state would perform the execution. This would only apply to people 18 years or older. Prisoners sometimes have to endure very horrible things while in prison. Rape, sexual assault and violence affect many prisoners that are serving time for theft, drugs, etc. This would also apply to criminals who are terminally ill and suffer everyday from the side effects. People are given life sentences without parole for non violent offenses sometimes. link:http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/11/23-petty-crimes-prison-life-without-parole I believe it is right to give these criminals an option to end their life's so they don't have to suffer in prison if they don't want to. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

Why do they need to "have the right to end their lives"? If they want to commit suicide they can just commit suicide. Yes prisons make it more difficult but people still manage to do it. This idea also has a big problem similar to that of the death penalty. What if the government wrongfully convicts some and this wrongful conviction and the thought of life in prison puts someone in a state of such distress that they opt to have the prison end their life. Later evidence comes to light that shows the prisoner was innocent. Now it is slightly different because the prisoner "chose" to die. But the government created the situation which led to that choice being made. It is difficult to look at that scenario and not put blame on the government for the death of an innocent person. Also why non violent offenders only?

The problem here is that the "point" of prison is either to rehabilitate or punish the prisoner. Either goal is failed if the prisoner would rather die. If that option was available, I'm sure many would take it. Many take that way out already. Instead of allowing the powerless and institutionalized prisoners to end their lives since there really isn't any way for them to stay out, maybe we should look into ending privatized prisons that *want* to keep them in for business, and improving the culture and procedures for release. We shouldn't be putting prisoners in the position where they *want* to end their lives in the first place. Putting that option out there for them is a clear message: We don't care about you, and you have no way out of this life. Save us some money and let us kill you instead. Sudden changes in lifestyle and environment *can* cause depression too, which is another concern I have. If being put in prison for 15 years doesn't make you depressed, I don't know what will. Depressed people have a harder time making rational decisions, especially involving self-harm, right? So why would you put someone in a position to *make* them depressed, then offer them suicide as an alternative? Prozac or Cyanide, pick your poison. My other major concern is that this is essentially a way to cheat around capital punishment. Even if it's only available to lifers. Think about it. They seek the death penalty in court, settle for life in prison, then say "but you know, you can still kill yourself if life in prison doesn't sound like a good life."

CMV:The USA is the least trustworthy nation to possess atomic weapons

I have come to this conclusion for several reasons. *The USA is the only nation in the history of humanity to actually use atomic weapons against an enemy. From past experience alone it is the country most likely to use them again. *The main positive effect of atomic weapons, that gets brought up a lot , is mutually assured destruction. The USA dropped 2 atomic bombs, not as retribution to an atomic attack. It demonstrated a lower bar for considering using them. *The USA regularly starts new wars. It's certainly the nation among the big superpowers that is most likely to initiate a new war and, in the case of Irak, can not even explain why they went to war in the first place. A country that is this likely to be involved in wars is more likely to find itself in a position where it would consider using another atomic bomb. Edit: formatting and clarification of a point _____ > *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!*

On the contrary, the US is the country with the most powerful military in the world. Any other nation that doesn't have the weight to get what they want, but has nukes, is more likely to use those nukes because they don't have a plethora of other options. The US has the military power to bomb any other nation into rubble, without resorting to nuclear power. Sure, the US is more likely to engage in military conflict that many other nations, but nukes are also very far down on the US' list of options. The low effort refutation of your point is that there are much worse countries out there, such as most of the Middle East or North Korea. They would be much more likely to use any atomic weapons.

In addition to reasons that others have mentioned, the USA's use of atomic bombs in WWII is not directly comparable because the weapons are so much more powerful now. The US showed a willingness to destroy two cities in a war that had already destroyed many more. The nuclear weapons of today have far more destructive power, so even a unilateral attack would cause far more damage. And of course any attack by the US would unlikely be unilateral. The fact that a nation destroyed two cities in wartime 70 years ago really have nothing to do with predicting how likely that same nation is to inflict mass destruction all over the world today.

CMV: NYC sucks

I used to want to live in NYC, but after travelling there multiple times and talking to friends who have lived/currently live there, I could not be more dead set against ever moving there. In fact, I have come to despise that place. As a quick note about the perspective I have: I'm a 3rd-year law student. I grew up in South FL, and currently live in Boston, MA. I'm not a stranger to life in a northeastern American city; maybe city life in general is not for me, although I do like Boston *much* better than New York. First, it's filthy. There is trash *everywhere*, the water is polluted, and the air simply does not smell clean. Being an old Northeastern city, it's filled with old buildings, many of which are in varying degrees of disrepair. It's just generally a dirty, sad place for me to be. It's also crowded. NYC has ~8.5 million people crammed into around 300 square miles. To walk anywhere, you must wade through a sea of drab, disheveled humanity. The public transit is packed. Driving in NYC is one of the most hellish experiences I've ever had. The cost of living is exorbitant, as everyone already knows. Rent alone takes up most of my friends' paychecks, and their places aren't even that nice or spacious. New Yorkers seem like they pay through the nose for a standard of living that ain't that great. Then there's the climate. The winters are frigid and soul-crushing, complete with biting wind and extended periods of low sunlight or darkness. The summers are sweltering, and the heat only exacerbates the ever-present smell of rotting garbage. Plus, central air is apparently only for the wealthy northeasterners, because it is conspicuously scarce in most homes/apartments I've visited. I can't understand the allure of that city. The wealthy live comfortable lives while most everyone else pays through the nose to live wretchedly. People get an inexplicable sense of self-importance and accomplishment simply by moving there and living there for a bit, regardless of what they're doing. Maybe I'd feel accomplished too, if I paid $800/month to live in a cardboard box and resisted the temptation to commit suicide by antagonizing the psychotic, fascist police to which NYC is a home. TL;DR NYC is a crowded, dirty, dismal place and I cannot ever picture myself being happy there. CMV. Edit: I'm well aware of the shitty aspects of Boston life; to me, NYC's bads are more...well, *bad* than Boston's, that's my point. Also, inb4 "hurr Florida has bad things about it too." I definitely know that's true! Edit 2: FOLKS, this post isn't about "Boston > NYC"; I'm well aware that there are bad parts about Boston too. Pointing out bad shit about other cities doesn't help make the case for NY. Edit 3: For everyone who keeps bitching at me about the delta I gave to u/whattodo-whattodo - READ THE FUCKING RULES. Quoting rule 4's explanation of delta: "Please note that a delta is not a sign of 'defeat', *it is just a token of appreciation towards a user who helped tweak or reshape your opinion*. A delta =/= end of discussion" (emphasis added). I've gotten so many replies to the effect of "hurr, you're a law student and you gave up dat easy?" Those people can choke on a phallus; I'm just giving credit where it's due, per the rules. _____ > *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!*

I'm a native New Yorker. It's really not as smelly or dirty as you make it out to be, though it can be quite expensive if you want to live in certain areas of the city. > There is trash everywhere, the water is polluted, and the air simply does not smell clean. There are plenty clean and nice spots in the city. I was just at [Gentry State Park](http://cityphile.com/photo/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Gantry-State-Park-4897.jpg), where I didn't see any litter and even saw some people kayaking on the East River during sunset. I'm originally from Queens, where there are plenty of quiet, nice-smelling neighborhoods.[ Forest Hills](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b2/Forest_Hills_Gardens,_Queens,_NY.jpg), for instance, is a pretty woodsy neighborhood with a really nice suburban area. Doesn't smell like shit. You just have to get out of Manhattan. > It's also crowded. NYC has ~8.5 million people crammed into around 300 square miles. To walk anywhere, you must wade through a sea of drab, disheveled humanity. The public transit is packed. Driving in NYC is one of the most hellish experiences I've ever had. I'll admit, NYC can feel a bit crowded when you're on a packed train trying to commute to work, but otherwise, I've not experienced having to wade through crowds of people on a regular basis. And if I do, I wouldn't call the typical New York resident a member of "drab, disheveled humanity". In fact, some of us are quite good-looking and take pride in our hygiene. > The cost of living is exorbitant. Salaries are adjusted to the cost of living, to some small degree. But you're probably still thinking of Manhattan (and some trendy parts of Brooklyn). When you go out into the outer boroughs, rent can easily go down to 700/600/500 per month, which isn't terrible. When you weigh the cost of living in a small space to the availability of basically everything (i.e. food, nightlife, cultural institutions, people, schools, etc.), then I would say lots of people would give up a front yard to live in a place of diversity and activity. > Winters are frigid and soul-crushing. This is undeniably true. [But hey, at least we're not Boston, whose largest snow pile just melted yesterday.](http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/07/14/422939198/the-last-boston-snow-farm-finally-melts)

Brooklyn resident here. Moved in a few months ago from a small CT town and would like to provide my input as I have fallen in love with my City and Neighborhood. Your first point, "It's filthy and old and in disrepair." Since you don't live here you may not understand that many of the buildings that look like they're in disrepair are actually some of the most hip and interesting places. For example, My office building is an old Brass Factory in Williamsburg Brooklyn and from the outside it kinda looks abandoned, but walk in and you'll see that it has a very aesthetically pleasing interior. Don't judge a book by its cover. On top of that, yes NYC is an old city, therefor it has a rich history resulting in an overwhelming appreciation and desire for vintage styles/fashion/lifestyles/art/etc.. That's why I believe Brooklyn and other parts of NYC have been deemed a Hipster hub. Old, doesn't always mean bad. For the trash, yes, there are parts that are more dirty than others, but much of the city is really clean too. I think your experience with the trash might be a bit narrow minded. It's crowded. Yes, yes it is and thats a beautiful thing. I always get an appreciating for the human race when I'm walking through a sea of people because it's an achievement to be able to sustain so many people in such a small area. Also, those Disheveled/drab people are also some of the smartest and most innovative people in the nation. On top of that NYC is probably one of the most diverse and ethnically accepting cities in the world. With all these people comes exposure to new cultures, rituals, food, outlooks on life, etc. Cost of living is high and salaries reflect that. The average salary for a particular job in NYC is higher than other places. Rent is so expensive, but you're not paying so much to sleep in a small apartment but rather paying to be so close to all the action. There is so much to experience that if you're staying in Mon-Fri, you're not doing NYC right. Climate. Boston just had record snow falls and a much harsher winter than us. The heat, just comes with the north east. In the summer, it's always humid and hot. That's not just for NYC, thats everywhere. The smell of garbage can be a problem and it's most prevalent in the subway systems, where it can get uncomfortably hot, but this is mostly in the touristy areas of the city where non-residents think it's ok to liter. I've seen tourists litter waaaaayyyyy more often than residents who have an appreciation for their city. It seems like you're mostly describing parts of Manhattan. I invite you to come to my Neighborhood in Brooklyn. PM me when you're in the city next and I'll treat you to an immaculate cuisine and unforgettable night that you'll only be able to experience here.

CMV: Reddit and our societies standards on religious/philosophical tolerance is inconsistant and hypocritical

Im probably going to ramble on and such so i will make my point clear from the way i see it. Also my rhetoric is not going to be nice because its sort of half a rant too. I guess this is directed at a sort of liberal/progressive crowd, but can apply to right wing people too. Ever since atheism and anti-theism movement sprung up on reddit we have been bashing it. Some of those reasons was correct. I believe atheists used too much rhetoric such as "free thinker", "skeptic", "reason" and "logic" to push their agenda. And we used to (USED TO) have neckbeards spewing some obnoxious shit. And i agree they come off as cringy. But in general, mockery of religion is fun, really fun and FAIR! We laugh at bullshit ideas all the time. "im an atheist but please be tolerant, let them believe" or "People believe different things" or something similar. -We have such an agenda of tolerating christians because in the west because the majority is still christian, this also influences "tolerant atheists" subconsciously -We tolerate Islam because "that is the religion those people in them middle east believe in" so it would make us racist to criticize it. Like i get it Fox news is racist, but i dont have to be racist because i critizice Islam. Its like the people who try to tolerate Islam somehow think its racist to criticize it, failing to see that there is a diverse spectrum of people who believe in Islam and not just middle eastern people. Calling people racist for critizicing Islam is such a high level of mental gymnastics that i cant even. -We cant critizice Jews because that would make us literally Hitler. (I actually understand this one though) -Mormons are made fun of, but mostly they get the same treatment as christians "let people believe what they believe". -We dont respect the views of other-kin, astrologists, parapsychologists, flat earthers etc. Because? They are not a majority, nor taught to us before we could write. That is what i think most people choose to ignore. We dont have people spewing tolerance of religion because we have some genuine need to spare someones feelings. Its because christianity is popular, based on faslehood and people feel like their beliefs are under attack. When was the last time you saw someone going out of their way to defend a person who claimed to be a wolf? Oh, wait they get laughed at and mocked universally. Guy claims to believe hes literally drinking the blood of christ? Someone mocks him and gets labeled a fedora neckbeard. Like seriously if someone tells you they believe in unicorns you can probably laugh in their face like "HAHAHA, you believe that?" and no one would bat an eye. However, have long debates where you try to go into detail of the problems surrounding religion and trying to debunk it? Richard Dawkins and speakers like him get called intolerant. As if a desire to uphold truth is somehow wrong because people get their little feelings hurt. The way i see it religion is as fake as astrology or unicorns. But there is no one defending the latter. Religion is bullshit with good PR. I would prefer to keep laughing at people who think they are wolfs, but with a world where no one is trying to pretend like religion needs some sort of handicap from society to not "hurt precious feelings". I should be able to find religion absurd without being labeled "Euphoric" or "fedora wearing neckbeard". I wish we could call out bad ideas no matter how many people believed in it. I want eqaulity when it comes to mocking things. The way i see it now religion has some sort of taboo of criticism that is protecting it. The way i want our society to change its view is for people to watch all three videos below and laugh. Just for the sake of equality. Sincerely, i live in Norway so i recieve minimal damage from religion. I just wish religion did not have to have some protective shield and having it be taboo to criticize it because they will cry the loudest when mocked. People mocking stupid beliefs: -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtH7l-dhHZQ [1] -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlMiKrwCRQ0 [2] -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ea6w3zp-dYY [3] Penn Jillette: Why Tolerance Is Condescending -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpNRw7snmGM [4] What would change my mind is either: -A huge amount of people going out of their way to prevent people from critizicing bullshit ideas such as Astrology, para-psychology etc. (people can believe what they want, tolerance, does not hurt you) -A huge appeal to mock christianity from its own communities. -Some source proving society not having a total hypocritical view of what bullshit ideas we are aloud to mock and not _____ > *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!*

Religion is unique from the examples you listed (other-kin, astrologists, parapsychologists, flat earthers etc.) in that, at a basic level, it deals with spiritual, non-physical elements that science cannot explore. The ideologies you list are entirely and easily debunkable by modern science. The idea that there's powers that cannot be observed be humans isn't scientific, and can't be proven or disproven, so it's really up to you if you want to believe it. If you think it's ridiculous to believe in something you can't prove, hey, I understand. But either way, the fringe ideologies you mention *can* be proven wrong, so it's far more nonsensical to believe in those than it is to believe in religion. Thus, it's reasonable for there to be more tolerance for religion than for ideologies that can be factually proven wrong. And while I do understand that religion is far more than just a belief system in greater spiritual powers and actually have positive and negative affects on society, I'd argue that the negative criticisms toward those negative affects have existed. Yes, it's appropriate to criticize Islamic extremists who wish to cause undue harm, but it's inappropriate to extrapolate that group to the whole of the Islamic faith (as many are want to do). It's very easy, when we're talking about Reddit/society in general, to mix up these two actions, but both of these happen.

My only thought here would be "why?" What is the benefit. What is gained? If someone is directly or indirectly harming another person: yes. Those ideas should be shot down. Mocked. Removed. But what if I believe that God started the universe. Science cannot say how the universe started. It simply can't. The Big Bang theory does a fantastic job of telling us what happened RIGHT AFTER the universe was formed. But nothing during or before. So, my belief that a god propogated the event that forms the universe does nothing to color the way I see science or treat people. Is there any great benefit of mocking me? Is there any real negative to me dreaming about a life after death? Assuming I don't do any of the things that would normally make me wrong (sacrifice my children, not allow gay marriage, refuse to do anything about climate change, etc) then what's the point? I mock belief systems privately or amongst friends all the time. But I don't generalize that to the world en masse. I get where you are coming from. But I just don't see "religion" as the issue. I see douchbaggery as the issue.

CMV:Sniper as a class has no place in TF2 [X-post /r/tf2]

A little background, I have over 600 hours in tf2, mostly playing as pyro, soldier or medic. I don't think that anything would be lost from TF2 if sniper was entirely removed. A good sniper has no real counter apart from another sniper, making them frustrating to play against. A majority of the other weapons have damage fall-off to discourage long-range play, further separating the sniper as a class. As far as I can tell, snipers mainly exist to pick off slow moving or high value targets, which the spy already does and does in a more interesting (to play as and against) way. I can't see any way the sniper, sitting at the back of the map away from the action, adds to the game (as a side note, I also think the removal of sniper would do nothing but good for the class diversity on pubs). Please, CMV! _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

I have 1500 hours in TF2, although admittedly have fallen out with the game over the last year. Your opinion is not an uncommon one, and I believe the developers have even stated that the sniper added the least to the game out of all the classes, but I think you need to articulate your reasoning better before I or anyone else can attempt to change your view. The only point (from a gameplay perspective) I see you've provided is that the sniper is a long range pick class; and there already exists a far more dynamic pick class, the spy. However, the spy is an inconsistent, and thus ineffective, pick class. The range, preparation, patience, luck required to get a backstab on an attentive target (especially when players are actively searching and attempting to stop the spy from reaching a medic or heavy), combined with the fact that you are unlikely to survive after the pick in question is completed, again provided the team is competent enough to have a pyro near the combo to flush you out, makes the spy class hard to play and have little impact on the game. If you've ever watched competitive Highlander, you'll notice the spy does very little for most of the game; usually their role is literally that of a spy, to sit with a Cloak and Dagger and report on the enemy's movements. In 6s, spy is the least used class besides engineer. It's because as a pick class, the spy is ineffective most of the time. If you're pub stomping or whatever, then you'll obviously dominate the other team, but a halfway organized team can shut down a decent spy. It's necessary to have a class that can provide picks based on purely skill and not luck or the competency of your enemies. There needs to be a pick class that cannot be safeguarded against with little effort, at the cost of less role diversity. That is why the sniper is a very important class to have.

> I don't think that anything would be lost from TF2 if sniper was entirely removed. Well, an entire group of people would lose their main and would most likely stop playing. Also, all the cosmetics and weapons for sniper would become worthless, which will impact the economy and fuck a lot of people over. Now, I'm not a competitive TF2 player, but I can tell you that sniper adds a lot. Without sniper, people don't have to be nearly as careful with their movement. Also, Sniper has the ability to turn the game around by making important picks like demo or medic. Without him, the losing team has a small chance of recovering if they lose an important class. As for pubs, sniper fullfills the same role as he does in competitve, which makes him valuable. > A good sniper has no real counter apart from another sniper, making them frustrating to play against A good sniper can be countered by good spies, good soldiers (depends on the map) and a good scout (depends on the map). Also, if the team is careful and has good movement, average snipers will have a hard time picking them off. They're only frustrating to play against if your team sucks, which is true for the rest of the classes as well. > As far as I can tell, snipers mainly exist to pick off slow moving or high value targets, which the spy already does and does in a more interesting (to play as and against) way. He also denies the enemy certain paths, something the spy can't do. He also has different counters. > I also think the removal of sniper would do nothing but good for the class diversity on pubs You can make the same case for scouts, spies and engineers when playing on defense. Sniper is an annoying class. As someone who spends most of his time playing Heavy (inb4 n00b), Medic and other Combo classses, I hate sniper and Spy. However, they have their place in the game even though I don't like them.

CMV: It's not "creeping", "snooping", or "being a creeper" to browse social media content that presumably was put there for exactly that purpose.

**Edit:** I didn't expect this to get such a response. I've replied to some things and gave out some deltas, but as I won't have time to address everything, I'll summarize in an edit. I think that I already more or less agreed with the principle behind the issue, but I actually misunderstood what the issue was. People aren't so stupid as to think that the things they post online are *private,* but there's a social expectation that you will get information from the source rather than digging up (or participating in) old conversations/content that had nothing to do with you, similar to overhearing a conversation at a restaurant and bringing it up when you meet one of those people later. And then there are better and worse ways to bring up the information you found, if it's a good idea to bring it up at all. In a way some of you have CMV by helping me understand what the problem actually is, so I have posted some deltas. Thanks - I don't know if this is much of a phenomenon, but I see it often enough that I have to wonder whether this is the way society's thinking is turning now. Suppose Susie makes a facebook page, and posts on it pictures of herself and her friends and their activities, some personal trivia, etc. Now her acquaintance Frankie from school mentions in conversation one of the pictures, something she'd said at some point, etc. Susie reacts negatively to this, and calls Frankie a "creep" for "looking through" her profile. I'm 24, but as I've been online since sometime during Windows 95, it's been long enough that I'm allowed to have "good old days". And in the good old days, there was no such thing as "creeping someone's profile" online. Putting aside when a "profile" became a thing. We had web pages, with content we had written, that we wanted as many people as possible to see. We didn't spend all those hours perfecting Javascript mouse trailers and visitor counters and guestbooks for nothing, you know. On these web pages we might have listed all sorts of borderline personally identifying information, or in some cases, all of it. You can still find some super throwback web 1.0 vanity sites where people have straight-up posted their resumes, and more. So the same thing happens now, except on Facebook or so, and the difference I can see is that, back when I was a teenager (xanga 4 lyf yo) and we were all doing it, we somehow managed to remember what we had posted on the public internet, and we didn't lose our shit when someone happened to know something that we had told them ... albeit indirectly ... by putting it online ... I feel like I'm close to the core reason behind this new perspective, but I'm not sure. It's like these people either don't understand how the internet and social media work and are meant to be used in a literal way, or maybe their own metaphors are getting in the way of seeing the reality. Maybe they want their Facebook to be like their high-school bedroom that they've decorated with posters of Ricky Martin, and they have a little diary where they bitch about their poor tragic suburban lives, and nobody else is allowed in there and if you go in and look at their photos or remember too specifically their words, you're a terrible creep, except instead of a bedroom they have erected a large bulletin board in the town square, started posting text and images to it, and got mad when people came to look at them. 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!*

Instead of assuming that these people don't understand how the internet works, you might try considering the possibility that you haven't given enough thought to the way *privacy* works. What does it mean to have privacy? The definition I like best (credit to [Helen Nissenbaum](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=_xJfVdDBLcb_ywPdgYLoAg&url=http://crypto.stanford.edu/portia/papers/RevnissenbaumDTP31.pdf&ved=0CCIQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNGBN-P8lmftoRARQIaFC7puTCFEQA&sig2=Gt2vJs2OOigOi9cgEkJ1dA)) holds that it means having a certain degree of control over information about oneself. That control can be achieved in a number of different ways. Your home is generally a private place by default, because access is physically restricted to those who are invited inside. But the privacy of your home isn't contingent on the fact that people aren't able to get through your door without a key. The fact that it's understood as a private space leads to a generally acknowledged *expectation* of privacy that demands the respect of others by way of an unspoken social contract, so that you feel your right to privacy has been violated when someone on the roof of the neighboring building peers into your bedroom window through binoculars. Another form of privacy is that which we expect to have in otherwise public spaces, even when we're completely surrounded by strangers. Think about what it's like to have a conversation in a crowded restaurant. Although it's true that everyone around you can easily eavesdrop, you aren't speaking to them, and the social norms governing that situation dictate that they should ignore you. If someone were to sit nearby and actively listen to you and your friends without having been invited, you'd probably feel that your privacy wasn't being properly respected. Online social media spaces are a lot like that. Everybody has access, but having access isn't the same thing as having an invitation. Do you remember how upset people were when Facebook first rolled out the news feed? None of the things being displayed there were shown to people who didn't already have access to them, but the architecture of the virtual space had been radically altered. Exchanging wall posts used to be like having a private conversation in a restaurant. Suddenly, it was more like *performing* a conversation on a stage, in full view of a room full of people who were actively paying attention. Check out [danah boyd's article](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=JxdfVa2wIpDJogTet4OoDw&url=http://www.danah.org/papers/FacebookPrivacyTrainwreck.pdf&ved=0CCIQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNF8fUtm1RijtNSQnmv9HjXtSoUI-g&sig2=u9tqPkv_lOBeSGrI3-Wxbg) on the Facebook community's reaction to that event. When people call you a creep for knowing about something they've shared on Facebook, what they're really upset about is the fact that you've misunderstood your relationship with them and that information. You may have had access to it, but it wasn't meant for you. You've joined a conversation to which you weren't invited. Being able to recognize the difference between a conversation that you're allowed to join and one you're supposed to ignore even when it's happening right in front of you is a social skill that is just as important online as it is in real life.

You can't use the the fact that something is allowable online as justification for expecting people not to act negatively toward a behavior. Especially when said behavior makes them feel uncomfortable. If a person or persons views being researched online as a violation of boundaries, you either need to respect it or establish that you do not respect their boundaries. While they might not be able to stop you, they certainly don't need to like or accept the behavior in a social context. One way displaying displeasure with such behavior is to refer to it as "creeping" and those doing it as being a "creeper". So another way to word your question is: "Do people have a right to be upset that I learned things about them I found they posted online?" I say yes, why? Because people have a right to their feelings, people establish social norms and boundaries and may be upset when someone violates it. First I much address: "presumably was put there for exactly that purpose." You presume to much, something posted on social media does not imply that the poster means for it be information observed, retained, and reported by every single person who could find access to it. It might not be secret, but it is not meant to be a conversation piece either. If I go to a coffee shop and have a personal conversation with a friend about my Mother dying of cancer, it's not a secret conversation and people may over hear. However if someone, even an acquaintance, comes up to me a month later and starts a conversation with "I heard you talking about your dying Mom at Starbucks last April." I'm going to find it off putting, and likely consider that person a creep. The online world seems to become a place where people tell themselves that if a door is unlocked they are allowed inside. If someone leaves a photo album open, they are allowed to open the book make copies of all the pictures and maybe using them in Photoshop later. While legally, they are right with the second example, social norms in groups may have different rules. These rules can change from group to group and you don't have to agree to them to be held to them in the eyes of the group. Another thing to consider is that people not only take issue with the action of being researched, they also take issue with and are made uncomfortable with idea of someone taking the time and effort to research them and see what is available about them online. They may not be able to stop said activity, but they certaintly don't need to treat it as an acceptable for of social interaction.

CMV: There will never be another military draft (forced conscription) in America.

Not really an opinion so much as a prediction, but its still a view i hold. My prediction is based on a number of factors and you can address any or all of them or bring up new issues I haven't thought of. 1) Unpopular: The draft for the war in Vietnam was extremely unpopular with massive protests and draft dodging. After the draft was eliminated the protests died down even as the war continued. It seems that America will support a lot of military activity (Iraq War 1 & 2, Afghanistan, etc) as long as they are not personally forced to serve. 2) No close border crisis: Other modern developed countries have forced selective service (South Korea, Israel) but usually these countries face bordering existential crises to their very existence. America does not have this, has not ever had this, and presumably will not ever have this and so there is no need to have millions of men and women be conscripted every year for a tour of duty. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription 3) Nuclear Weapons: America may face small attacks here and there but no nation state large enough to possibly overthrow the United States government seems likely to attack for fear of nuclear weapons retaliation. While 9/11 was a tragedy, there was no hope of terrorists taking over the country or overthrowing the government. The only world forces strong enough to do this would be large nations with large militaries of their own and if they did have a mainland ground force invasion of US soil it would almost guarantee a nuclear response. 4) Women, and the out of shape: This is a minor reason but none the less I'll bring it up for discussion. In a modern draft there would be seemingly no way for women to avoid serving. Currently women face demanding physical aptitude tests to qualify for the most demanding positions or in some cases are barred from service for fear they will not be able to handle the physical requirements of the job (front line combat, Navy Seals, etc). In the 21st century when men and women have equal rights and are largely treated equally there would be pushback if those less capable of serving were thought to be more likely to get an easier or safer assignment. This would create a race to the bottom for applicants seeking to avoid dangerous duty. Furthermore the vast majority of Americans are overweight, out of shape, and would require extensive training to become combat ready. If diabetes, heart conditions, obesity, or any number of conditions would disqualify a person from service I imagine people would quickly engage in unhealthy habits (or bribe doctors) in order to avoid service. 5) Conscientious objectors: In previous generations there was a much stronger sense of duty, warrior culture, and sense of imminent danger which cultivated a value in service. In the modern world, where people increasingly distrust their government, have more access to information, and are more likely to have diverse religious and philosophical views I do not see the public getting behind any major military involvement that would require a draft. I would imagine there would be a rush to qualify yourself as a conscientious objector to the war in order to avoid combat even if that individual didn't feel that way immediately prior to the draft. Please change my view!

On your Point 3 (Nukes): We will have, in the next 50 years, the ability to defeat ICBM's. It is not unthinkable that China, Russia and India will also have this ability. In fact, I would go so far as to say that any warhead capable of delivering a nuke (at present sizes) will be able to be defeated prior to detonation. Whether this is due to anti-missile shields, laser technology or targeted EMP's, it does not matter. Once nukes are a non-factor, the single largest strategic problem with going to war with another country is gone. States that don't have to worry about their interests being nuked are much more likely to send the ground troops in. On your point 4 (Women and the Out of Shape): I see no reason that our current health problems will stop us from drafting people. The training may be longer and more involved, but where their is a requirement, there is a way in the US Military. As for women, I look forward to the day women are eligible for the draft. But just because they are drafted does not mean they will be automatically able or fit to do all jobs. They will be assigned to the jobs that they can do well at. On point 5 (CO's): You have to prove your CO status. This has always been true. Access to info will only make people more ready for it. But if 5-10 more people out ov every 1000 do qualify, you still have 990. You can play with those numbers, but I am not convinced that this is a problem that will completely negate the benefit a government would get out of a draft.

The US will revert to a draft as soon as the US deems it necessary - which is when the number of volunteers do not met the numbers required. To counter some of your points, look at this example: World War II. During World War II, [over 10.1 million](https://www.sss.gov/induct.htm) of the US's sixteen million service members were *drafted* That's right, WW2, a popular war most people today agree was worth fighting for, drafted over 60% of its servicemembers. Simply put: the US needed manpower, it drafted even when 6 million men volunteered. Keep in mind too that conscientious objection was an even bigger issue in the past than today. The US was staunchly isolationist up until WW2, and many religious exemptions existed for groups like the Quakers. In addition, those servicemembers all served overseas. In fact, Vietnam was similar - the US maintained more troops in West Germany during this time than in Vietnam. Conscripts weren't sent just to fight in Vietnam - many were sent to fill in ranks in Germany to keep our obligations there. Our obligations worldwide are smaller today, true, but they still exist and may certainly grow again in the future.

CMV: It's Moral for Parents to Abort or Euthanize Hopelessly Defective Infants Before They Can Fully Understand Their Living Nightmare

Consider a toddler is found to have Down's Syndrome, or Leukemia, or Harlequin-type Ichytosis, or Severe Autism, or Progeria. Every day of their life will be undue suffering for both them and their parents, who have to completely devote their time and money to their hopeless, terminally ill child. Unlike a healthy child, a terminally ill child has no future, no potential, no return on investment for parents. I believe it's best to quietly euthanize an infant with Leukemia before it can fully understand its situation. No child should have to suffer through a living Hell. It would be better to quickly and unknowingly die, than to lucidly suffer a short, miserable existence that gets worse with every passing day. I invite you to 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!*

In some cases yes I see where you are coming from, but I don't see it with Down syndrome. These are people who don't have a significantly decreased lifespan, there isn't a lot of pain or discomfort associated with it, just in general people with Down syndrome can go on to live long healthy lives. If you are talking about situations where an infant only has weeks or months to live and that time was spent in agony then you would have more of a point IMO

Ugh, OP, you picked some of the worst examples of "living nightmare diseases"! People with Down's Syndrome have a huuuge range of qualities of life. They could be mute and hardly able to control themselves, or they could be like [Jamie Brewer](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Brewer), able to speak and live an awesome life as a famous actress. Don't tell me Jamie Brewer is living a torturous life, go check out her interviews and clips of her acting. I've also seen many videos / blogs / interviews with people with progeria and harlequin ichthyosis and they are happy and having fun. Honestly I think you only picked those two because they result in the person being subjectively ugly to you, making their conditions seem worse than they are. There are so many cases in life where people are told they'll never walk again, and then the next year they're walking. Or someone is told their baby will never advance past age 2 mentally and never reach milestones and then 10 years later they're just like all the other kids. There are also women who are told their unborn child has a fatal / terrible disease but it was a misdiagnosis and there's nothing wrong with the baby. Your argument is based on a purely subjective opinion about quality of life. You also base quality of life on things like appearance and length of life. Think about what "living Hell" really is. Do you really think these kids who have those disease, who have friends, are going to school, acting in movies, running around the park, going to Disney Land REALLY suffering every waking moment and wishing they were dead? Of course not. We have NO WAY to accurately judge the quality of a person's life, so why risk killing someone because we THINK they MIGHT be unhappy? EDIT: spelling

CMV: "Buckle up, it's the law" is an appeal to authority, and therefore not a good slogan to get people to put on their seat belts.

I believe that "Buckle up, it's the law" is a very bad slogan, because it is an [appeal to authority](https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority) which can be rejected easily in people's minds if they aren't aware of the purpose of a law. Instead, an appeal to the motorist's intelligence by pointing out the consequences of not buckling up, and thus making motorists aware of the possible consequences of not buckling up and making it obvious why it is rather sensible to wear one's seat belt would be a lot more effective. [This German ad posted along public roads throughout Germany](http://www.dvr.de/bilder2/p3737/3737_0.jpg) is an excellent example of this. The text translates to "One is distracted, four die". A brief but concise outline of cause and effect, enough to raise awareness. _____ > *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!*

This slogan is for people who do not seem to have the IQ or common sense to take basic precautions for their own safety. There are two ways to convince these prospective candidates of the Darwin award - authority or emotion. Appeal to emotion requires some introspection and determining your own worth to your family etc. This is intellectually more involved than common sense and thus clearly beyond the capabilities of these individuals. Therefore, an appeal to authority, like law, is your only chance.

I agree that it is an appeal to authority. I still think it is a good slogan, because many people are have either pre-conventional (how do I avoid punishment) or conventional (what does the law state) morality. Against this sort of morality, it is a perfectly reasonable argument. As the goal is not to make a perfectly sound argument, but rather to convince people to buckle their seatbelts, the slogan is effective. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development

CMV: What we most hate in others are traits we have, and hate, in ourselves

This is a view I've read about from various pop psychology sources, and it has become conventional wisdom. I believe it contains some truth. Can you convince me it merely reflects the fact that every person has pretty much every trait in them in some form, so if someone says "I hate X" they're bound to have some of X in their personality. An important distinction: I'm talking about "hate" that people regularly bring up, like a person who's known for having a hate or dislike of something in particular (something non-trivial, not broccoli or crap movies): **Things that people hate which they think about regularly.** When people say they hate homosexuals, odds are pretty high they have closeted homosexual desires. This has become a running joke among gay acceptance (i.e. decent) people. When people say they hate intolerance, you'll often find they're very intolerant of views that strike them as incorrect or un-PC. Now, take something horrendously evil like pederasty/paedophilia. One of the most heinous, evil, horrible acts possible. Most people I know, however, when asked what they hate in people, don't really mention acts like that. They mention less horrifically evil things: I hate bullies, I hate hypocrisy, I hate rudeness. We may want to kill a convicted paedophile with our bare hands, but during our day to day lives we don't think about them often or say we "hate" them--we save our long-term hatreds for less evil things. (This may simply be because (say) pedos are so rare and don't show up in our lives very often, or, because people don't hate that which isn't in their own psychological repertoire, or a mixture of both.) When I say "I hate religious extremists", I don't have to be religious to say it, but the underlying trait I hate may be closed-mindedness, which I may hate in myself and which I am afraid of exhibiting. I am 100% convinced I do not have a closed mind, but I cannot easily prove it. Do diehard atheists disprove the idea that what we hate most we hate in ourselves? I also hate animal cruelty, and I've never hurt an animal (knowingly) in my life and have absolutely zero secret or repressed desire to do so. But then again I don't really think about animal cruelty very often, but I do think about other things I hate: petty-mindedness, mean-spiritedness, etc. Is it all just pop psych bs? I would like a good argument against the idea that our common/over-time objects of hate--particularly a character trait in other people--does not necessarily reflect a hatred of those traits in yourself and a fear that you will express them. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

This is only partly true. People don't talk about how much they hate paedophilia because it rarely comes up in day-to-day life, and because pretty much everyone hates it. If someone asks you what the worst qualities in a potential date are, you're not gonna say "paedophilia" because that kind of goes without saying. There's no reason to mention it. When someone complains about that arsehole Mike scratching their car, it's because they work with Mike every day and he consistently annoys them, not because they are a secret car-scratcher. It's true for certain things like homosexuality. I'm not a psychologist, but at a guess I'd say that's because homosexuality doesn't really affect you unless you're gay or someone you know is, so there's little reason to get angry about it otherwise. Again, that's just a guess. A couple of examples do not prove a rule. You'd probably hate paedophiles a lot more if someone molested your kid. This does not mean you are also a paedophile.

You're already doing a lot of projecting. You're almost cold reading yourself. For all your examples you listed a reason that might have, have been the one because it matched your idea. Do you know your linkage is a correct one? I also hate animal cruelty, and I've never hurt an animal (knowingly) in my life and have absolutely zero secret or repressed desire to do so. But then again I don't really think about animal cruelty very often, but I do think about other things I hate: petty-mindedness, mean-spiritedness, etc. You connect a person who is into animal cruelty to someone who thinks mean spirited from time to time. Are those really connected or are they because you think that they are. There is a very clear world where I can hate racists and not want to be a racist myself.

CMV: People have a moral obligation to watch ISIS execution videos to expose them to the true horrors of life under extremist rule.

Recently I have begun to fell that when news of these executions comes through on the news many people read about it, talk about how awful it is, then move on to the next news story and give the subject little other thought. I think that watching these videos would have a much greater impact on people and make them more likely to do something to help. Personally, if I watch videos like this I feel sick and it disturbs me for about half a week. I cannot forget about them easily. Just reading about these events does not have this effect and I can forget about the issues relatively quickly. Secondly I am sure some people cannot visually imagine how horrific these events are. Being exposed to footage of it will be a shock and a wake up call to how bad life can be for some people. This in turn will make them more likely to take action. I will make it plain that I do not think people should be viewing these sorts of videos for entertainment of any kind. Finally it seems I am not alone, [this article](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/sean-penn-watches-isis-beheading-videos-out-of-moral-obligation-the-problem-is-we-are-not-seeing-enough-of-real-violence-10127603.html) may help you understand my argument better than I can express it. EDIT: Some of the responses have made me realise that what I am suggesting would have different effects on different people and as such viewing these videos may not always cause people to act in a positive way as it has with me. _____ > *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!*

> I think that watching these videos would have a much greater impact on people and make them more likely to do something to help. Personally, if I watch videos like this I feel sick and it disturbs me for about half a week. I cannot forget about them easily. Just reading about these events does not have this effect and I can forget about the issues relatively quickly. Having watched them, what have you done to help that you would not otherwise have done? Also, what more do you think can be done that is not already being done? Wars on such groups aren't like wars on countries. You can't just hit them and call it a day. It's a war on extremism, ideologies, and perversions of cultures. There is no specific ethnic group you can reasonably target (since these things span many such groups but encompass none of them entirely), no region you can unreservedly attack. Saying we should get people to do more sort of implies there's something else to do.

>Just reading about these events does not have this effect and I can forget about the issues relatively quickly. My small anecdotal contribution: When I read of the executions of James Foley, Stephen Sotloff, etc. and what ISIS was doing to the local people of the areas they controlled, I had multiple nightmares. Even stumbling upon pictures from right before an execution scared me and it was difficult to get the image out of my head.

CMV: Lining up to get on an airplane is pointless.

This boggles my mind. I know that some airlines are different like Southwest because they do not have assigned seats. But why don't people relax until their seating zone/group is called when you have a reserved seat? It's not like the gate person knows that the boarding tunnel is clear or that the previous zone has almost completed been seated. It just seems more relaxing for everyone to go in a "just in time" fashion versus standing in the tunnel, then standing in the plane and trying not to make the person in front of you who is trying to get into their seat anxious. It's a small thing, but its madness and because we can only fit one lane of people in at a time it seems really inefficient for so many people to be standing around. Edit: I absolutely don't mean that I would only get up the moment I gave a completely clear line to my seat. That's ridiculous and I'm not coming from a point of laziness. It just seems there's a lot more efficient things the airlines can do to make the process faster. Edit 2: (Some reason Now for Reddit didn't succeed in saving this edit) I see that a lot of people have a great need for overhead space that I definitely underestimated. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to give everyone who mentioned this before my edit a ∆ but I sure did try. Edit 3: I also apologize to all for not being prompt in responding. Not surprisingly, I posted this just before getting on a plane.

As someone who flies quiet frequently, I used to agree with you, but now I know you are simply wrong. I used to sit there and laugh at all the people queuing up a half hour before the plane was scheduled to start boarding. I'd wait until I was the last possible person and then stroll onto the plane like I was smarter than every person who had stood around waiting. If you care about getting an overhead compartment for your carry-on luggage, you'd better hope you are boarding early. Any sold out flight is going to run out of room in the overhead compartments long before everyone is on the plane (doesn't matter how large the plane is--this has been true for me for domestic and international flights, from puddle-jumpers, to Airbus A380). There is nothing in the world worse than landing at 2AM after a 5 hour, cross-country flight and having to wait an hour for your bag to arrive at baggage claim. I cringe at the announcement that the flight is sold out and some passengers *may volunteer* to check their carry-on item to their final destination. If you do not care about the overhead bin, then you are a minority, and you're right that there is no rush to get onto the plane. But your statement that "Lining up to get on an airplane is pointless." is entirely false because there definitely is a very good point (in fact, other people on the thread have had other great reasons which I didn't consider because I usually take flights where seats aren't first-come-first-serve). So you can start awarding deltas to everyone now. :)

On crowded flights, the overhead bins frequently fill up. If you're near the last on the plane, you may be forced to gate check your bag, meaning you have to wait around at the baggage carousel when you get to your destination, plus no access to your bag during the flight.

CMV: A minimum wage increase will hurt the poor and the economy, not help it.

Over the past year, the idea of raising the minimum wage in Canada (where I live) and in the USA has gained popularity. Many states and provinces are either mandating, or in the process of mandating a minimum wage of ~$15/hour. While on the surface, this seems like a good policy for strengthening the poor/middle class I believe this will ultimately HURT, not help the public, and especially the poor. Here are several common arguments made in favour of the raising minimum wage and my response: * "Average wages haven't increased despite an increase in production and profit in the economy" It's a common misunderstanding that wages are/should be directly tied to production. In reality wages are determined just like prices of anything else, through supply and demand. Most minimum wage jobs are unskilled and easily replaceable (through either humans or automation) making the supply of labour far larger than the demand, which equals a lower wage. The rise in technology that has resulted in higher production from labour has little affect on wages. * "Current minimum wages are so low that they do not pay a livable annual salary, keeping the working poor in a perpetual state of poverty" I would challenge the idea that most minimum wage jobs were ever meant to be sustainable for living. Most minimum wage jobs are unskilled labour (ex. factory work, assembly lines) or service industry jobs (cooks, janitorial staff, retail jobs etc..). At least to me, these seem like temporary work done by people in the process of finding higher paying employment (students, recent graduates, new immigrants etc...), and not intended as a career at all, so a livable wage is not required. * "A higher minimum wage would increase the income of many in the population, boosting spending, saving and the overall economy." As I said previously, the vast majority of minimum wage jobs are easily replaceable, outsourced or automated. If large companies are forced by government to pay high minimum wages, they will seek cheaper alternatives and replacements instead. For example, a McDonald's hamburger could very easily be made faster, cheaper, cleaner and better by a machine, [like this one, which makes a burger every 10 seconds ](http://www.businessinsider.com/momentum-machines-burger-robot-2014-8). If the minimum wage gets high enough that it costs McDonald's more to pay 10 people to flip burgers than one machine, they will simply replace the human labour altogether. This will result in an increase in unemployment. So while those who retain their minimum wage jobs will be better off, many will simply be replaced, leaving the unemployed workers in a WORSE position than before. Here are some things that would change my view: * Research evidence that demonstrates positive impact from countries/states that have already raised minimum wage * A justification that the minimum wage must be a "living wage" * Evidence that a wage increase would not result in the loss of unskilled jobs to outsourcing, automation etc... * Any other reasonable justification of minimum wage Please 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!*

> Evidence that a wage increase would not result in the loss of unskilled jobs to outsourcing, automation etc... Different studies show different effects in both directions. However, [an analysis of 64 studies](http://www.cepr.net/blogs/cepr-blog/studying-the-studies-on-the-minimum-wage) regarding minimum wage and teenage employment concluded that most studies, and the most precise studies, showed raising the minimum wage had little or no effect on employment levels. Also, a different meta-analysis, from [here](http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdf) (PDF warning): > Paul Wolfson and Dale Belman have carried out their own meta-analysis of the minimum wage, focusing on studies published only since 2000. They identified 27 minimum wage studies...They then produced a range of meta-estimates, controlling for many features of the underlying studies, including the type of worker analyzed (teens or fast foodworkers), whether the study focused on the supply or the demand side of the labor market, who the authors of the study were, and other characteristics. **The resulting estimates varied, but revealed no statistically significant negative employment effects of the minimum wage.**

how about this (the conclusion of the study): ["Economists have conducted hundreds of studies of the employment impact of the minimum wage. Summarizing those studies is a daunting task, but two recent meta-studies analyzing the research conducted since the early 1990s concludes that the minimum wage has little or no discernible effect on the employment prospects of low-wage workers. The most likely reason for this outcome is that the cost shock of the minimum wage is small relative to most firms' overall costs and only modest relative to the wages paid to low-wage workers. In the traditional discussion of the minimum wage, economists have focused on how these costs affect employment outcomes, but employers have many other channels of adjustment. Employers can reduce hours, non-wage benefits, or training. Employers can also shift the composition toward higher skilled workers, cut pay to more highly paid workers, take action to increase worker productivity (from reorganizing production to increasing training), increase prices to consumers, or simply accept a smaller profit margin. Workers may also respond to the higher wage by working harder on the job. But, probably the most important channel of adjustment is through reductions in labor turnover, which yield significant cost savings to employers."](http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdf) So yeah, it doesn't cause job losses to increase the minimum wage a reasonable amount.

CMV: Abraham Lincoln was the best President in all of American History.

From his personality to the way he handled Southern Succession there is nothing to dislike about him. He had intelligent, moderate religious views, he was compassionate and held the moral high ground (He criticized the American annexation of Mexico) and he literally died for the preservation of the United States. I think if he lived we would have avoided the problems of Reconstruction. To top it all off, he literally is the highest rated president among scholars on history. So 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!*

I think you can make a good argument for George Washington. Regardless of whatever else he did, he made the most important decision in the history of democracy when he decided to only serve two terms as president. He could have easily decided that he wanted to be President for Life and ruled America with an iron fist. Instead of becoming a dictator, he peacefully handed power over to the system and to the people. Without him as the first president, modern democracy could have just been a failed experiment that some crazy people tried a few hundred years ago.

George Washington easily had the popular support to be installed as a King, but decided to gracefully step down and set the precedent of peaceful transition of power. This may not seem like a huge deal now, but at the time a fully representative government had not existed in over a millennium. Lincoln may have saved the Republic as it is today, but had he failed there still would have been a republic called United States of America, just smaller. Without Washington, there would have never been one to begin with.

CMV: Women are inferior to men in most aspects of life.

I understand that this is a very controversial thing to say. Perhaps my view comes from the women I am surrounded by, which is quite a small sample size. I look forward to hearing another point of view. My main points: 1.) Physically. Men dominate sports and physical events. I can't think of one sport that women are better than men at, in general, and if there are a few, that's only a few, and men dominate the rest. 2.) In the work place. This is the most controversial part. Women want equal pay, but from what I've seen in my limited 8 years in industry, is that women are not as good as men at their jobs. My industry is oil refining. 99% of the plant workers are men, why? I work in the Engineering office. There are no women engineers, only secretaries, and some of them baffle me at how incompetent they are. (Admittedly our one secretary is excellent at her job, and does far better than I ever could. But my point here is that a man could do that job just as well.) 3.) At home. This is where most of my point lies. It could just be a gender roles thing, but why am I so much better at everything than my girlfriend? I'm not saying I'm great, but rather most of the girlfriends I've had are completely incompetent at a lot of things. Things like building an Ikea cabinet, she can't do it. Small, mundane challenges like un-stacking and re-stacking a sleeve of solo cups. We had to do it as part of a challenge, and I was much faster at it. She couldn't figure out how the gear shifters worked on a newer mountain bike after riding it for 10 minutes. I had never seen this type before, but figured it out in 10 seconds. Not because I'm clever, but because it is simple and something I believe should be easy for any adult to figure out. These reasons are why I hold this view. I look forward to being completely flamed for this view, and also for another perspective. 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!*

OK. I'm going to look specifically at your points in turn. 1) **Physical**. Absolutely, men at their peak are stronger and faster than women. But a woman at her peak can be stronger or faster than the vast majority of men; look at [Katrin Tanja Davidsdottir](http://espn.go.com/espnw/athletes-life/article/13337513/katrin-tanja-davidsdottir-plays-mental-game-win-crossfit-games), I'm fairly certain she could take most men on and win. To further expand on your point; so what? So women are on average less strong. I'm not convinced that in the modern developed world this is a huge issue. 2) **Industry**. I really think your experiences have biased you here. [Oil refining is 18% female](http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat18.htm) (actually higher than I expected). This means that there will be default be a higher chance that the 'shining stars' will be male. Some of the issues you've seen are down to culture; we have only recently started to accept women in formerly 'male' lines of work such as engineering, so a lot of women who could perhaps have made excellent engineers would never have thought of it as a career option. As for the women who aren't good at their work- I wonder, do you notice the men who aren't good at their work too? 3) **At home**. This one's awkward. There are a few different possibilities here and, I'll be honest, none of my suggestions make you look good- I hope you don't get too offended. * First, I noticed that the issues you mentioned were all practical. You're an engineer- that's your bag. So you notice when your girlfriend isn't good at physical things. But I wonder if you've noticed your own failings? Perhaps she's always silently annoyed that you put your foot in it at social gatherings. Maybe you're not very good at art or design. Are these problems, are you possibly less good at them than she is? **Possibly, yes**. But this is not something for which you should be blamed. They aren't part of your skill-set, but you can learn. * Perhaps you're impatient. When you were looking at the gear system you used your previous knowledge and applied it to the situation at hand. There's no parallel for your girlfriend; it's the same as asking someone who's only ever driven an automatic car to move to a manual. It's possible, but they will kangaroo down the road for a while before they get the hang of it. I remember that it was only a few years ago that my mum was terrible with computers. She's an intelligent woman, a teacher, but they weren't her thing. Why? Because she was trying to learn from me, my sister or my dad- all of whom would just say "oh give it here" when she was struggling. Our impatience meant she didn't learn. She did a 1-week course and came out knowing everything she needed to know because the teacher there has the patience to let her learn. * Maybe you date stupid or physically inept women. This is possible; I can imagine that if you show this 'women are stupid' belief in the real world, intelligent women may be less likely to want to spend time with you. -- So what does this mean? my TL;DR is that I think you're focussing on things at which you are good, measuring some women against these, then using this to judge women as a whole. We could talk about how [more women than men graduate college.](http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/news/story/2012/feb/21/edu-women-overtake-men-in-earning-degrees-at-all/71196/) I could show you that in the [developing world women make up a growing percentage of new entrepreneurs.](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/15/female-entrepreneurship_n_1149393.html) But I think the most likely argument I can make is about environment. The men you hang out with are engineers. They are likely to be above average intelligence. Depending on where you meet women, they are more likely to be average. A very good friend of mine is an engineer, working for one of the top companies in the world designing airports. I like to think she'd be able to show you a thing or two!

I think most of this comes down to exposure. Because you used your girlfriend(s) as an example, I will use mine current girlfriend to answer all of these points. 1) Physically, men are in general more superior to women. I am about 6'2" and 195 pounds and my girlfriend is 5'5" and most likely 105 pounds (heaven forbid she sees this and actually weighs less). I am significantly stronger than her but she is a much faster runner than me. 2)In the work place, my girlfriend whoops my ass in this category. We are actually both engineering students and her GPA is better than mine (and mine is pretty good). She also is a better and harder worker than me. 3)At home, I would say I am most likely better than my girlfriend. I am incredible at caring for children and while I am not sure if she how good she is at something like this, I can assure I am better. She is generally a better cook than me but I am better than her at things like cooking and cleaning. All in all, we are pretty split in terms of things we each are better at and these traits span across various categories. I have an extreme amount of respect for her which is maybe why I am willing to admit some of the things she is better at. Sidenote: My ex girlfriend before her was not as good of an employee, not as intelligent, not as athletic, and not as good at any home tasks as me. I was better than her in pretty much every sense of the word. But like I initially said, I think it all comes down to exposure.

CMV: The hyper-rationality of our age is detrimental to humans.

Let me begin by defining what I mean when I say hyper-rationality. Hyper-rationality is the social expectation and pressure that every human action and institution must be teologically justified by rational means, rather than a mixture of reason, emotion, tradition, religion, evolutionary instinct etc. I will use one clear example, for the sake of focus, while knowing that there are other examples of this as well. I will talk about producing off-spring. In my experience, people against procreating articulate 3-4 arguments against having children. Firstly, that having children will detrimentally affect the environment (1). New humans means more consumers of the Earth's resources and more producers of waste. The long term viability of the earth with exponentially more consumers and producers is uncertain. Secondly, the cost of having children can be astronomical (2). Thirdly, you become isolated to your social circle and to your spouse due to the time need to take care of your child. I present these arguments not because they uniquely matter, but because they seem valid. They are, shall we say for the sake of argument, true. However, in the pursuit of being rational, these arguments have contradicted one of the most basic and scientific principles of life, namely that animals produce off-spring to survive. It is basic evolutionary biology. We observe this in every known creature; we observe our own instincts to sexual activity and pleasure; we observe people's special fondness to babies (3). Yet, despite this obvious teology of humans, the rational arguments are given preference. This seems to play out on the societal level. Education levels and industrialization (a proxy for culture/rationality) correlate with lower birth rates (4). In conclusion, this is but one of many examples where hyper-rationality creates a social pressure that contradicts human instinct. _____ 1. http://green.blogs.nytimes.com//2009/08/07/having-children-brings-high-carbon-impact/ 2. http://money.cnn.com/interactive/pf/cost-of-children/ 3. reddit.com/r/aww 4. http://www.earth-policy.org/data_highlights/2011/highlights13 > *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!*

I don't think the dropping fertility in the industrialized world is due to this "hyper rationality", because this "hyper rationality" doesn't seem to be manifesting in other domains. For example, are humans even remotely rational when it comes to voting? Most seem to vote for whoever seems to be "of their tribe" (intellectuals, or go-getters, or soldiers or southerners, etc.) with very little analysis of policy. Or heck, just vote for whoever is tall and has a convincing smile, a nice suit, and a slogan with a couple feel-good words. Or how is watching dreck on TV "hyper-rational"? Or spending money on an impressive car or handbag, or doing drugs, or arguing with people on the internet, etc.? To get back to the birth example, I think it can be explained perfectly well witjout "hyper rationality" - people respond to incentives, and the incentive in the modern world (especially in a city) are very different from those of most of our more fertile ancestors. Put in our shoes, they would probably also choose to have less kids, for the same reasons we do: contraception is available; living space is very expensive; education is expensive; women work; there are many more other things on which one is tempted to spend money; hardly anybody has a job at which kids can be of any help, etc.

There is a different between someone's proposed reasons for doing something and their actual reasons for doing something. A person who doesn't want to have a child might justify their decision with all the things you mentioned, but due to social pressure might fail to mention that they dislike children and that's why they're choosing not to have them. The other considerations like finances are just a plus. So, when you say that people have a special fondness for babies, you are not taking into account the fact that many people don't, or that there are other things they value far more highly (like a commitment to the environment that brings them fulfillment and purpose). ... As a source for the assertion above: https://www.reddit.com/r/childfree/comments/3gif1d/ranimalaww_all_the_aww_none_of_the_kids/ A relevant comment from the post: >[–]SickRosecats not brats! >^..^< 6 points 20 days ago >Technically kids and babies are allowed on /r/aww, but they generally get downvoted to hell which I find kind of amusing. Once in a while kids can be cute or do cute things, but the newborn baby pictures are kind of gross. ... I also suggest r/childfree for a celebration of people who are following their instincts by NOT having children. They are bucking a strong societal pressure to live their lives like they actually want to. Is this due to an increasingly rational society? Possibly. But they are not fighting their animal nature. There is still a strong social pressure to procreate even if your circumstances make it an irrational choice, and you'll find examples of that on the subreddit. To say that higher education and industrialization (your rationality proxy) results in a lower birthrate because people are making a rational decision to not have children despite their desire to doesn't make much sense in light of Sweden. They put a lot of effort as a country into supporting parents and children http://www.oecd.org/els/family/swedenssupportforparentswithchildreniscomprehensiveandeffectivebutexpensive.htm yet they still have a birthrate comparable to developed nations that supply far less support to parents. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN ... Rationality doesn't seem to be causing people to completely dismiss their emotional desire to have children in most cases. All of the other factors of emotion, tradition, religion, etc are still very much at play. Perhaps more people now value the environment more highly than religious doctrine in their decision to have children, but to say that people all people who choose not to have children for an environmental reason are contradicting their instinct to do so is demonstrably false.

CMV: Uber should be allowed to operate in a city only if it is willing to follow the same (or comparable) regulations as the city's regular taxis.

Uber is having a very public fight right now with NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio, basically arguing that they should be allowed to compete with yellow cabs in a free market and that consumers should have a choice. I would find this argument much more convincing if Uber weren't exempt from almost every rule and regulation by which the TLC governs traditional taxi services, on dubious legal grounds. Yellow (and green) cabs in NYC must comply with many rules, including car safety inspections, emissions checks and other environmental regulations, and driver background checks. Whether you agree with these rules or not (and I certainly have some questions about some of them), the fact remains that they are expensive to follow and that cost is of course passed on to the consumer by the cabs. Uber is not competing in a free market at all, in the sense of operating more efficiently to offer a lower price-- they're just gouging their competition by flouting the law. If Uber (or anyone else) disagrees with these laws (such as the regulation of fares), they can of course use the political process to try to get them changed, but in that case they should be changed for regular cabs also. There should never be a situation where there is one set of rules and regulations for regular cabs and a separate set for Uber. Uber is not and should not be above the law, no matter how cool and "disruptive" they might think they are. **TO BE CLEAR: I am not arguing for or against any particular regulation.** My argument is that, whatever the level of regulation you favor, Uber and yellow/green cabs should be held to the same standard. _____ > *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!*

>There should never be a situation where there is one set of rules and regulations for regular cabs and a separate set for Uber. Right, there shouldn't be. There are some places where Uber is lobbying to get itself exempted from existing regulations, and that's wrong. But I think pretty much everyone agrees with you there. The question is what should happen in the cities where, due to old or poorly drafted laws, Uber isn't covered in the first place. Is it really their responsibility to follow the regulations anyway? Shouldn't the government have the responsibility to write fair laws?

>My argument is that, whatever the level of regulation you favor, Uber and yellow/green cabs should be held to the same standard. They don't provide the same service, so the same regulations are not applicable. No street-hail is the biggest difference. Uber already does background checks, etc., and they are very strict about banning drivers for bad behavior. Can you provide evidence that cabs are better or safer in any way vis-a-vis specific rules that they have to follow, while Uber drivers are "getting away with" skirting those rules? They recognized an inefficiency in the market as it relates to taxi licensing and took advantage of that by offering a similar service that avoids those issues. About that part you are totally right. And for all the years and years of people trying to "use the political process" to get those inefficient laws changed changed with no success, within just a couple of years things are closer to changing than they ever would have been otherwise. There is no reason why they should have to handicap themselves by following laws that don't apply to them just because their service is similar to that of a taxi.

CMV: it is clear that I am meant to be alone

I am a 23 year old male Indian American male. I have never held hands with a girl, been kissed, or obviously had sex. I have never even asked someone out. I do not think a girl has expressed even the slightest interest in me. I graduated from college last year and am about to start med school in a month. I had been fat for years but lost all the weight over the past year and am pretty fit now. I am only 5ft 4 tall however. I do think facially I am slight above average and I wouldn't call myself ugly. My family struggled financially and I focused on academics like a madman and was able to go to a great college and am headed to a great med school. It is my ticket to a better life. Yet I believe strongly that life will be one of loneliness. Internally I am angry and bitter even as all my friends think I must be so happy to start this next chapter of my life. _____ > *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!*

You've formed this view based on less than a quarter of how long you're probably going to live. And you hadn't even reached puberty for at least ten of those years. You're likely to be well off, financially. You're recently taken steps to reduce your weight. These are very attractive things, and women do value them very much. You really shouldn't let your height (or lack of experience) dictate your views on this /u/ShortieMS1.

A fit, decent looking, young doctor - sadly, guys like that never get any girls. Especially in a hospital full of nurses (women make up the vast majority of nurses). You're probably right. Women just don't go for successful attractive doctors. And at 23 you're simply too old to meet new and interesting women.

CMV: The victims of the majority unjustified police shootings could have prevented it by simply complying, therefor I don't believe they deserve any sympathy for their behavior.

I'm not sure at what point people stopped thinking about the ramifications of their actions and became so head strong that they believed they were invincible, that officers judgements were infallible, that their rights would keep the blood inside their body. I have practiced civil disobedience in my life. I have been arrested more than once. But I'll tell you one thing, I have never failed to comply with an officers orders. I nearly ever incident of a person involved in a police shooting, they have one problem. They are not being compliant. The United States offers you rights, but your rights can't keep you alive. This often turns into a matter of "you're victim blaming." I'm simply saying that right or wrong, the behavior of these victims can most often be described as "exercising outrageously poor judgement." For one simple reason, I value my life. It's not a matter of principle, it's a matter of practicality. I don't want to die. And I don't feel sorry for anyone whose ego is bigger than their brain, whether or not their shooting was justified. CMV

It seems like you're under the impression that sympathizers believe these victims did nothing wrong. But that's not what they're saying. They're saying the reaction to what the victims did wrong was radically disproportionate, and that if the same scenario occurred with a white person it would have ended differently. Let's think of this in terms of three tiers: 1) punishment for the original crime; 2) punishment for resisting arrest or otherwise compounding the original crime; 3) straight up killing the person. Nobody is arguing (well, *most* people are not arguing) against #s 1 or 2. They are arguing against #3 exclusively. There's an acknowledgment that these men did something wrong, and then something wronger, but that neither of those justifies getting shot. For example, Garner earned #1 for selling loose cigarettes, and #2 for swatting away the officer trying to handcuff him (even this is debatable, but I'll let it go for the sake of the bigger issue). But #3 shouldn't have even been on the table. The maneuver used on him wasn't authorized; he didn't need five different officers swarming him. That's the part people are mad about. No one thinks he should have just gotten off entirely. Is it a practical reality that they might have avoided death by being entirely submissive? Probably, sure. But most people aren't arguing against that either. Instead, they're arguing that 1) Changes need to be made to alter that practical reality and 2) An altogether *different* practical reality exists for white people. You say that it's not a matter of principle, but the debate you're watching *is* one primarily concerned with principle, as a means to effect a change in practical necessities down the road. Don't think for a second that the black community is somehow unaware of the best practices in dealing with the police, or surprised at what these actions bring on. What we're seeing is just cases where people get particularly scared, or frustrated, or whatever. And sure, their reactions are mistakes, both legally and practically. But they're very, very minor mistakes compared to people who earn their death, like a hostage taker or a mass shooter. TL;DR — Having sympathy is distinct from expecting exoneration. You can both acknowledge their wrongdoing and be angry at how their wrongdoing was handled, which is what most people are doing. This controversy is mainly dealing in principle, whether or not principle is important to you. Everyone is already aware of what should be done practically; they're protesting that necessity itself, and calling for policy changes that would alter it.

People aren't "so headstrong that they feel they are invincible," they just believe they live in a country in which there is a Bill of Rights guaranteeing they won't be executed for rudeness. You, I and everyone else in this country have the right to be rude to cops, be angry with cops, to insult cops. White soccer moms avail themselves of this right every day in the USA without being shot in the side of the head. You don't generally have the right not to comply with the police orders, but you *do* have the right to have your non-compliance charged and brought before a judge before you are punished, and you *do* have the right to have that punishment be within the range provided for by statute. Here's *exactly* what you're saying: I am totally okay with there being a different set of rights for young black people. I am perfectly okay with cops being able to Judge Dredd someone for being rude. I believe people forfeit their civil rights by being pissy. Think about that.

CMV: People Should Have Freedom of Religion

I support gay marriage, abortion, etc; however, I also believe that people should have the freedom of religion, meaning, that their religious beliefs aren't as big of a 'joke' as angry liberals make it seem. What I'm trying to say, is that people should not be forced into believing and supporting gay marriage, gay/lesbian/transgender/pansexual and all that—they should be allowed to express their freedom of religion without the oppression of liberalism the way they expect not to be oppressed by conservatism. Seems very hypocritical, no? The point here, is that staunch liberals have a very high tendency to be hypocritical towards religion, but get really offended when a conservative does the same towards them. It all makes no sense to me, and I want to be open to changing my belief about this one way or the other. It's a big mess that aggravates me, because no one on the far sides of the spectrum sticks to their word very well. I'm a libertarian, so I have my likes and dislikes toward each side, and I would like to understand these specific viewpoints better. EDIT: This blew up a lot more than I thought it would, which is good. I got a lot of clarification, and I've awarded some ∆'s. To be more specific (if you're trying to step in my shoes), I USED to be a devout Catholic, until I thought some of the teachings were immoral and 'behind the times.' I just don't think that religion is a bunch of crap as some make it out to seem; however, since my view has been changed, I believe that as people should have freedom of religion, that freedom of religion can only go so far before it becomes a legal issue. I believe that freedom of religion already has a more bigoted starting point than the opposite viewpoint which is more 'realistic' shall I say.

>What I'm trying to say, is that people should not be forced into believing and supporting gay marriage, gay/lesbian/transgender/pansexual and all that—they should be allowed to express their freedom of religion... People are already free to practice their religion, they don't have to support LGBT people and they're not being forced to either. What they can't do, is impose their religious beliefs on other people, they can't get their religious beliefs enshrined into law. Religious people are in no way being oppressed by two gay people getting married, they just aren't allowed to dictate the rules on who gets to get married based on their religion.

Ok freedom of religion does not entail a number of things, first and foremost, you are free to practice your religion and others are free to criticize you or yes make fun of you for it (which makes them assholes, yes, but they are free to do so, just as you are free to mock non-religious people) Second, denying a service of public accommodation to someone on the basis of religion is not allowed. This does not constitute an act of oppression. In which ways are religious people being oppressed by liberalism?

CMV: I think hardcore (punk) music is boring.

It all sound the same to me. And to be clear, I know this is what people tend to say about any music they don't "get." People say this about rap -- it's just noise, etc. But I like rap, and I think you can make a pretty good argument that there's a ton of variety in rap. From voice to lyrics to production to rhythm, there's really no reason to say Aesop Rock sounds like Mobb Deep, or a track off Illmatic sounds like a Drake mixtape. I like a lot of types of popular music but don't like punk/hardcore. I looked up hardcore on wikipedia and it seemed like the songs had to fall within a pretty narrow range of genre conventions: short length, driving bass rhythm, simple chords, heavy distortion, shouted lyrics. So my question is: what does a punk/hardcore fan listen for? What kind of stuff makes a good punk song if the songs are very similar in key respects, or am I missing the boat and there's a lot of variety out there? Anyway, I am not trying to be a hater, I'm just out of the loop on this music and its appeal. Thanks.

I don't have a good verbal argument for this... but compare Black Flag to The Bad Brains and you'll find tremendous differences. I think your rap analogy is pretty solid. I friggin love NWA and the Wu Tang but a LOT of people even ones who really like rap think most of the Wu Tang songs are weird and boring experimental nonsense... they've got over 100 tracks and maybe 20 of them are phenomenal while some of the others leave you scratching your head. Mostly for Punk / hardcore you're listening for a hook that grabs you. A lot of it is emotional resonance... My War by Black Flag absolutely falls in the category of Fast, loud, no melody... but it grabs you and holds you for the whole song if you've ever had a period in your life where you were just pissed off... It's actually really similar to gangsta rap... it's about a feeling... often one of anger or trying to get over on "the system"

how did you learn to tell the difference between rap artists? Did you listen to a handle full of songs once and you were done? Or did you spend a lot of time exploring different tracks from different artists? Invest as much time in punk as you have in rap and you might start to notice more of the nuance. That being said, you're in luck, because punk is long dead.

CMV:The criticism of "nice guys" (as seen in r/niceguys) is not valid.

The reasoning behind this view is that everyone is entitled to human companionship, and that these guys are frustrated/critical of flaws they see in our current cultural mating patterns. Single guys suffering deserve as much respect and empathy as women who may face different challenges. Also, these guys are often being vulnerable to their crushes and trying to start a romantic relationship. Even if the other party isn't interested, it's brave of them and they shouldn't be mocked for their courage. _____ > *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!*

> everyone is entitled to human companionship Why? Everyone should have it and society should endeavour to provide it but by what laws of nature are people *entitled* to it? Further, what if by claiming entitlement you’re taking away someone else’s freedom? You’re entitled to not want to be someone’s companion. Now that is a real entitlement. > Single guys suffering deserve as much respect and empathy as women who may face different challenges Yes and I don’t think anyone denies that. > Even if the other party isn't interested, it's brave of them and they shouldn't be mocked for their courage Conversely, it’s cowardly because they did not just make it clear, they waited until the girl developed a bond of friendship, thereby effectively stabbing her in the back when it turns out Mr. Nice Guy wasn’t being a friend, he was just pretending this whole time because he wanted something intimate. Considering their approach is the worst approach for both themselves and the counterparty, yes I feel like I should be able to mock their methods.

>The reasoning behind this view is that everyone is entitled to human companionship Companionship is reciprocal, meaning it has to exist between two people. The implication of somebody being entitled to companionship is they have the right to expect others to be obligated to be their companion. Nobody has a right to expect companionship from somebody who doesn't want to reciprocate the feelings.

CMV:As a society, we should not use public resources to cure or treat children with chronic illnesses.

* As a society we have limited resources. We have to decide how to best use those resources. Spending thousands of dollars on a child that is unlikely to recover is a net loss. I understand that an argument can be made to the effect that these children grow up to be geniuses, and great innovators. However this argument falls apart when we look at expected returns from spending. It is extremely unlikely that our sick child is the next Einstein or Trump. They also are just unlikely to be the next Unabomber or sociopath. * Children that die of hereditary diseases usually will have not procreated before their death. Although genetic defects are not preventable, eliminating individuals which carry a higher risk of passing the trait to their child will improve the overall gene pool of our species. Look at the Black Plague. Northern Europeans are more resistant to infections now as their ancestors were able to survive the epidemic. * Ends unnecessary suffering. The child won't have to suffer anymore, as they are dead now. * I want to point out that public dollars should not be spent on treating the child. If they parents want to go broke trying to keep their precious child alive on the respirator, then go ahead and let them. Poor families can seek donations to cover the cost. Donators receive the "warm glow" associated with donating to a good cause. Healthcare expenditure increases, and with it GDP. Its better for the economy in the short run. Governments would have to reduce spending on other government projects, increase sources of tax revenue, or go in debt to cover the large healthcare costs if public dollars were used. * Letting the child die helps with population control. Malthus may have been wrong in the 1800's when he proclaimed the doom of humanity as he predicted the growth of humanity would outstrip our ability to grow agriculture. Because of climate change, and the overuse of farmlands we may reach that point in the near future. Further information: Examples of diseases or ailments. •Congenital Anomalies •Malignant Neoplasms •Heart Disease •Cancers which meet the definition below. •Live disease Diseases associated with high mortality rates and high treatment costs Thanks for the comments. I think I have critically changed a lot of my view. I haven't gone full circle, but I have been given enough to consider thinking my stance more. _____ > *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!*

Your entire argument sees human life from an instrumental perspective. If life were just dollars and cents followed by investments for more dollars and cents then your argument would be pretty ironclad. But what if government's role is *not* to mimic business? Instead government intends to create sustainable societies where all members have an opportunity for a life worth living. The thing about that statement is that *all members* means **all members**. If life has not just an instrumental value, but an intrinsic value then it is our duty to protect it. Inversely if life only has instrumental value, then we do not need to protect it in other senses either. If it's cheaper to send 40x as many soldiers as it is to build better weapons then we just throw soldiers at the problem. If it's cheaper to threaten the lives of workers than to demand that they wear protective gear then we just throw people into the machine. Most people would agree that life itself has a value. You are attempting to draw the line at the types of lives which have value while disregarding the rest in some sort of culling.

All of your points are rooted in a broadly utilitarian philosophy, which holds that whichever action increases utility is the morally correct one to make - in the case of your argument, it is mainly economic utility. It fails to take into account a number of things. Firstly, there is another definition of 'utility' - the maximisation of pleasure. Letting sick children die is an exercise in cold pragmatism, and not an action (or consequence of deliberate inaction, more specifically) that anyone would relish or enjoy. There is undeniable value in allowing and encouraging a society to feel good about itself, and failure to take that into account would result in a society that has less esteem in itself, and therefore a society that functions less efficiently, and is more likely to descend into dysfunction. Indeed, Jeremy Bentham, considered the founder of modern utilitarianism, said that, "it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong". And while your suggestions would probably provide a small economic boost, this does not make up for the inevitable loss of happiness that such actions would cause. To look outside of utilitarian philosophy, I would also hold that your suggestion runs contrary to the entire point of government, which is look after its citizens, to safeguard their lives and livelihoods. A government should - and most, thankfully, do, to at least some extent - look after the needs of its most vulnerable citizens, *regardless of whether or not this is of any economic benefit*. Taking a ruthlessly pragmatic approach to the lives and well-being of the citizens in their care is not the mark of a functional government trying to foster a stable society, but of a government trying to trim society down to its bare, self-sustainable bones - in other words, not a government trying to its best for the people, but a government trying to make itself obsolete in one of the most brutal ways possible. As for your Malthusian argument, I think the number of sick children being kept alive in the ways you describe is low enough to have a negligible effect on the total human population.

CMV: China is Not Currently a Serious Challenger to Western Dominance Because of its Lack of Cultural Influence

It appears to me that when people talk about the rise of China as a global force, all they talk about is political clout and economic strength. However, one thing which I believe is important and not many people are talking about is *cultural influence*. I'm not talking about GDP or lobbying power, I'm talking about blue jeans, pop music, the idea of social mobility, emancipation and suffrage for all. These are all concepts born in the West and exported all around the world, causing social changes in the cultures of the countries they take root in. More and more young Japanese are breaking off from their country's own traditions to follow Western culture, before their radicalization (also, unfortunately, facilitated by the West) blue jeans and pop music was taking the Middle East by storm, African nouveau riche seek to emulate the Western businessman lifestyle ideal of sleek cars and fat cigars. The whole *idea* of the Western way of life has bled into the cultures of countries all over the world, and has likely changed them almost irrevocably. However, I cannot see that the same thing has happened with regards to China. The biggest cultural exporter in the East as far as I can see is Japan, despite its smaller economy and shrinking population: people still can't get enough of Manga and anime, of Japanese fashion (the trendier edge of which is mainly a Japanese take on Western fashion), of Japanese cuisine, of the whole idea of the Japanese society as one of politeness and civility in any situation. Heck, even Japanese bands are some of the most globally popular Eastern bands (though South Korea might take the crown with regards to this one after PSY). The point I'm making is that apart from cuisine, I cannot see of any real cultural impact Chinese culture has had on the rest of the world, especially when compared to the influences of Western culture as well as Korean and Japanese culture. Because of this, I find it hard to take China seriously as a social threat, although politically and economically I accept that they are strong.

I believe that what you are referring to is called Soft Power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_power). You can oppose it to hard power where a country spreads its influence through economic or military power. The US and Europe have historically used both: soft power is the cultural influence you're referring to and hard power would be colonialism (amongst other methods) China has hard power: The US is highly dependent on their economy and they can dictate terms in many industries (lobbying as you mentioned). My point is that perhaps as a westerner, you won't be appealed by their lifestyle now, but further down the road, other generations might be. Your example of African nouveau rich is my counter argument: First, Europeans colonized Africa with hard power, and many generations later, Africans have started to be influenced by Europeans' soft power (cars and cigars). Who knows? You don’t feel any relation to Chinese culture right now but perhaps your grandkids will!

If hard power is the ability to make people do what you want, soft is the ability to make people want what you want. Cultural influence/ soft power comes after hard power. Once it's clear that you're the the top dog, people will ape your ways. China will probably never have the sort of cultural influence the US does at its peak, but the US was second in that category only to the USSR, so that's whatever the opposite of damning with faint praise is called.

CMV: Elements created in a lab that cannot exist in nature or in quantities greater than a few atoms for microseconds at a time have no place on the periodic table

I'm no chemist, but I do study science as a hobby, and in reading up on elements such as [ununpentium](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ununpentium) or [ununtrium](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ununtrium), I got the feeling that it's almost cheating to call these things elements and add them to the periodic table. The atoms are created in a lab, usually by slamming two other heavy atoms together in a collider. The resulting atom decays in microseconds and does not naturally occur outside the lab. Calling these things new elements strikes me as the same thing as grabbing two random objects, (say a water bottle and a book), holding them together in your hands and saying, "Look! I've created a bookbottle!" The object will only last until you let go of it, and then be torn apart by the stronger force, in this case, gravity. It's not a new tool or object and you can't file a patent for it. Ununpentium and its ilk are not elements if they can't be found outside the lab, cannot exist as more than a few atoms at a time, or last more than a few microseconds. They are interesting experiments to be sure, but they are not new elements. Change my view. EDIT: Wow, I really didn't see how many gaping holes my argument had. What I've learned: >Short half life It's short by our human standards, but that means nothing on the universal scale. Our lives are nothing on the scale of the universe, that doesn't mean we aren't alive. >Very few atoms at a time This is just a limit on what we're able to synthesize. Massive quantities could theoretically be created in a supernova. >Not outside the lab. Where it is synthesized doesn't matter. The lab is still in the universe, so it could be said that the universe is creating these atoms. There are lots of convincing arguments here, and I'll respond to all of them and delta the ones I feel really swayed me. Thank you for the discussion.

If we can make them then it's highly probable that there are natural processes that can also produce them. The problem is that we very rarely see or can measure the conditions that might possibly produce them. So, we don't (rather, can't with current capabilities) know if, when, and where these things might exist in nature. I know it strokes our ego to think that these things are completely artificial and could only possibly exist due to human activity, that is probably not the case. Our understanding of these subjects are so lacking that we don't even appreciate how ignorant we actually are.

You've already addressed a bunch of points here, but I don't think anyone's yet addressed the Island of Stability, a proposed group of superheavy isotopes (possibly around element 126ish) with extraordinary stability relative to their neighbors (no telling whether they'll be able to exist on a macroscopic scale). If you decided to declare more ephemeral nuclides "not elements" (a view I am very glad you have abandoned), then you're cultivating an artificial gap between stable natural elements and "stable" transuranics.

CMV: Reddit and our societies standards on religious/philosophical tolerance is inconsistant and hypocritical

Im probably going to ramble on and such so i will make my point clear from the way i see it. Also my rhetoric is not going to be nice because its sort of half a rant too. I guess this is directed at a sort of liberal/progressive crowd, but can apply to right wing people too. Ever since atheism and anti-theism movement sprung up on reddit we have been bashing it. Some of those reasons was correct. I believe atheists used too much rhetoric such as "free thinker", "skeptic", "reason" and "logic" to push their agenda. And we used to (USED TO) have neckbeards spewing some obnoxious shit. And i agree they come off as cringy. But in general, mockery of religion is fun, really fun and FAIR! We laugh at bullshit ideas all the time. "im an atheist but please be tolerant, let them believe" or "People believe different things" or something similar. -We have such an agenda of tolerating christians because in the west because the majority is still christian, this also influences "tolerant atheists" subconsciously -We tolerate Islam because "that is the religion those people in them middle east believe in" so it would make us racist to criticize it. Like i get it Fox news is racist, but i dont have to be racist because i critizice Islam. Its like the people who try to tolerate Islam somehow think its racist to criticize it, failing to see that there is a diverse spectrum of people who believe in Islam and not just middle eastern people. Calling people racist for critizicing Islam is such a high level of mental gymnastics that i cant even. -We cant critizice Jews because that would make us literally Hitler. (I actually understand this one though) -Mormons are made fun of, but mostly they get the same treatment as christians "let people believe what they believe". -We dont respect the views of other-kin, astrologists, parapsychologists, flat earthers etc. Because? They are not a majority, nor taught to us before we could write. That is what i think most people choose to ignore. We dont have people spewing tolerance of religion because we have some genuine need to spare someones feelings. Its because christianity is popular, based on faslehood and people feel like their beliefs are under attack. When was the last time you saw someone going out of their way to defend a person who claimed to be a wolf? Oh, wait they get laughed at and mocked universally. Guy claims to believe hes literally drinking the blood of christ? Someone mocks him and gets labeled a fedora neckbeard. Like seriously if someone tells you they believe in unicorns you can probably laugh in their face like "HAHAHA, you believe that?" and no one would bat an eye. However, have long debates where you try to go into detail of the problems surrounding religion and trying to debunk it? Richard Dawkins and speakers like him get called intolerant. As if a desire to uphold truth is somehow wrong because people get their little feelings hurt. The way i see it religion is as fake as astrology or unicorns. But there is no one defending the latter. Religion is bullshit with good PR. I would prefer to keep laughing at people who think they are wolfs, but with a world where no one is trying to pretend like religion needs some sort of handicap from society to not "hurt precious feelings". I should be able to find religion absurd without being labeled "Euphoric" or "fedora wearing neckbeard". I wish we could call out bad ideas no matter how many people believed in it. I want eqaulity when it comes to mocking things. The way i see it now religion has some sort of taboo of criticism that is protecting it. The way i want our society to change its view is for people to watch all three videos below and laugh. Just for the sake of equality. Sincerely, i live in Norway so i recieve minimal damage from religion. I just wish religion did not have to have some protective shield and having it be taboo to criticize it because they will cry the loudest when mocked. People mocking stupid beliefs: -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtH7l-dhHZQ [1] -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlMiKrwCRQ0 [2] -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ea6w3zp-dYY [3] Penn Jillette: Why Tolerance Is Condescending -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpNRw7snmGM [4] What would change my mind is either: -A huge amount of people going out of their way to prevent people from critizicing bullshit ideas such as Astrology, para-psychology etc. (people can believe what they want, tolerance, does not hurt you) -A huge appeal to mock christianity from its own communities. -Some source proving society not having a total hypocritical view of what bullshit ideas we are aloud to mock and not _____ > *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!*

Religion is unique from the examples you listed (other-kin, astrologists, parapsychologists, flat earthers etc.) in that, at a basic level, it deals with spiritual, non-physical elements that science cannot explore. The ideologies you list are entirely and easily debunkable by modern science. The idea that there's powers that cannot be observed be humans isn't scientific, and can't be proven or disproven, so it's really up to you if you want to believe it. If you think it's ridiculous to believe in something you can't prove, hey, I understand. But either way, the fringe ideologies you mention *can* be proven wrong, so it's far more nonsensical to believe in those than it is to believe in religion. Thus, it's reasonable for there to be more tolerance for religion than for ideologies that can be factually proven wrong. And while I do understand that religion is far more than just a belief system in greater spiritual powers and actually have positive and negative affects on society, I'd argue that the negative criticisms toward those negative affects have existed. Yes, it's appropriate to criticize Islamic extremists who wish to cause undue harm, but it's inappropriate to extrapolate that group to the whole of the Islamic faith (as many are want to do). It's very easy, when we're talking about Reddit/society in general, to mix up these two actions, but both of these happen.

My only thought here would be "why?" What is the benefit. What is gained? If someone is directly or indirectly harming another person: yes. Those ideas should be shot down. Mocked. Removed. But what if I believe that God started the universe. Science cannot say how the universe started. It simply can't. The Big Bang theory does a fantastic job of telling us what happened RIGHT AFTER the universe was formed. But nothing during or before. So, my belief that a god propogated the event that forms the universe does nothing to color the way I see science or treat people. Is there any great benefit of mocking me? Is there any real negative to me dreaming about a life after death? Assuming I don't do any of the things that would normally make me wrong (sacrifice my children, not allow gay marriage, refuse to do anything about climate change, etc) then what's the point? I mock belief systems privately or amongst friends all the time. But I don't generalize that to the world en masse. I get where you are coming from. But I just don't see "religion" as the issue. I see douchbaggery as the issue.

CMV: Common Core (esp. Mathematics) is a system that is fundamentally flawed and does not prepare students for the real world.

To my understanding, Common Core is a set of standards of skills that a student should learn before graduating high school. Though I am still quite some years before getting there, what I have observed in my school's mathematics system shows that these skills rely heavily on memorization and calculation, much less on reasoning, and virtually none on application. I've looked at the Common Core website and seen that these accurately reflect the standards put out. Let's take the [Common Core Algebra standards](http://www.corestandards.org/Math/Content/HSA/introduction/) as an example. If you scroll down to the Overview, you see that almost all of the skills listed are to solve equations or something of that sort. This is calculation. Common Core currently spends too much time on this, something relatively easy such that computers can do it. Some of this time needs to shift to the other branches of mathematics. I believe that algebra, as well as much of the rest of mathematics, should be used as a medium through which logic and reasoning are taught. Though computers can use logic to some extent, the human brain is much more capable and should be used for what it is needed for. [Here is a purely algebraic problem.](http://www.artofproblemsolving.com/wiki/index.php/1981_AHSME_Problems#Problem_30) Despite the concepts being purely algebraic, it requires high levels of critical thinking and reasoning in order to solve. This is the type of multi-step problem that should be taught in high schools, but is almost always not. Common Core does not require students to display this level of critical thinking. Let's take [Geometry for another example.](http://www.corestandards.org/Math/Content/HSG/introduction/) If you scroll down to the Overview, these standards are somewhat better, since they introduce the notion of proof. However, on close inspection of the Congruence section, only a few basic proofs spanning a few basic proof types are necessary. These do not cover the important proof by contradiction and proof by induction, two kinds of reasoning that can be much better applied to the real world. It is also never required that the student prove any algebraic concepts, such as the quadratic formula. Most theorems in Geometry and all in Algebra are not proven, and the student is forced to memorize them. We have computers for that. We need people to prove and reason. It’s also important for concepts like Geometry to be taught in conjunction with other areas of mathematics, such as Calculus. I took Geometry in 8th grade, and though that is a bit early for Calculus, the idea of limits and things like that should have at least been touched upon. Why is it that the volume of a pyramid is Bh/3? The idea of taking some function to the limit makes it easy to prove this. Common Core does not cover this. So far, I’ve touched very little upon the idea of application, and mostly because that’s the most difficult one. We know that mathematics is applied in all sorts of STEM subjects, but what if the student is already set on taking a liberal arts major? They shouldn’t be forced to study engineering with math. So, I think that the application of mathematics needs to brought back to its roots, being the application of logic. Programming is great way to apply this, and though maybe math class isn’t the right place for this, every student already has a programmable graphing calculator anyway. Instead of forcing students to not use programs on tests like they do at my school, I think that the use of programs should be encouraged, since they demonstrate understanding of the basis behind all mathematics, which is logic. Maybe this is straying a bit far from the purpose of Common Core, and it shouldn’t be implemented as a guideline, but perhaps as a suggestion it would be great. I’ll be going through Common Core for a few more years, and I want to know if it’s effective. Please CMV. EDIT: Forgot to mention that I think reasoning is much more important than having formulas memorized for the real world. _____ > *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!*

I'm a university student in engineering. I had a requirement of 2 years worth of lower division math courses: single and multivariable calculus, differential equations, vector calculus, and linear algebra. None of these courses used devices like calculators or computers at all. So in my opinion, that means common core is a good way for high schoolers to prepare for college classes. And college classes are the "real world" for anyone taking more than the basic HS graduation requirement, which did not involve that much math. For me in California, it was 2 years, namely Algebra 1 and Geometry. Odds are the 8th grade Geometry class you took was similar to this requirement.

Common Core standards might in fact prepare students for the Real World, but don't take this as an endorsement of the Real World. If being a STEM drone is what it takes to survive in the new economy, so be it, but that doesn't a whole person make.

CMV: Teaching personal finance in schools and encouraging saving would end badly

Hello everybody! I was in a reddit thread earlier where someone was preaching the importantce of teaching personal finance in schools, encouraging people to start pension contributions as soon as they start earning, ect. ect. I'm an economics undergrad so I have a little (it is only a little) understanding of savings, but I believe that a drastic increase in savings would be a catastrophe for a few reasons: 1) Intrest rates. The current interest is LOW, if not negative in real terms. This means that there arn't sufficient (safe) borrowers to allocate the funds to. Increasing the savings more risks entering a liquidity trap. 2) Stagnation of demand. If you encourage people to save then they arn't spending (obviously). This is probably the worst thing that could happen right now (or in the next few years). 3) Asset price bubbles. With lots of savings being depositied banks will be forced to 'do' something with that money. Some of the things they will do is buy assets, or lend to buyers of assets: such as Bonds, stocks, property. ect. Rapid increases in the purchase of these has historically lead to their prices becoming speculative. It also prices out of the market the very people who you are teaching should save: Young people. So thats why I think encouraging, on mass, a new generation of young people to start savings to that degree would end badly. I want to understand why others think it shoudl be encouraged so I'm posting here.

You raise two points, but really only address one. * Teaching personal finance * Encouraging saving Teaching personal finance you mention, then pretty much ignore. I think teaching personal finance is essential. It is a life skill that will impact everybody. There aren't many high school subjects that can make that claim. How many people will have a credit card during their lifetime? Shouldn't we explain to them things like what an APR is and how much paying only the minimum due actually costs? Perhaps help kids understand how much a car really costs beyond just the money they need to put up for a down payment? How does a bank account work and how do I open one? How does paying taxes work? How many deductions should I claim on a W4 when I start a new job? What is a credit rating and how does it affect me? These are important life skills that we don't even attempt to address in high school. A separate question is whether such a personal finance course should encourage saving. I maintain it should. At an honors level I'd consider going further and teaching basics of investments. US savings rates are low. Very low. Here's a chart from the St Louis Fed showing the US personal savings rate over the last 60 years: https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/PSAVERT Here's a list from the World Bank showing Gross Savings as a % of GDP: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GNS.ICTR.ZS?order=wbapi_data_value_2013+wbapi_data_value+wbapi_data_value-last&sort=desc For us to increase savings from this baseline to a level where the drop in consumption was enough to cause a problem just isn't a realistic concern. On the other hand, we continually expect people to be more capable of taking care of themselves with less help. Defined Benefit Plans are a thing of the past, replaced by Defined Contribution Plans. Retirement savings in vehicles such as a 401k or IRA require the individual to do at least some management of their own assets. As an econ student you know the power of compounding, but not everybody does. Beginning your retirement savings in your 20s has a massive effect on when you can retire and how well you can live in retirement. http://www.businessinsider.com/compound-interest-and-young-people-2015-4 Not everybody can afford to start saving at a young age, but why not explain to them in high school what the effects are and why it helps to try?

You seem to be conflating "saving" with "putting wads of cash under the mattress." A saving account accrues interest (albeit very slowly), because it's not just a storage place for your money but rather a very very low-risk investment. Investments are by definition driving economic growth. Every piece of value that anyone has ever made is the result of an investment of time, money, or both. We should *absolutely* be teaching young people about investing, both for their own personal return and for the sake of communal economic growth.