id stringlengths 7 27 | domain stringclasses 31 values | text_type stringclasses 2 values | original_text stringlengths 14 42.2k |
|---|---|---|---|
human-2625 | cmv | human | In the comments section of [this] post, I noticed a heavy bias towards the idea that taking pictures of people in a public place is somehow an immoral thing to do. I Don't understand this. As far as I see it, when entering a public place, an individual can be seen by those around them. It is also true that in many public places, you are likely being recorded on CCTV in various points anyway, so objecting to others taking images seems irrational. I should also add that I obviously don't advocate photographing people for criminal means such as blackmail or libel, but in most other cases I see nothing immoral about taking photographs. I am looking forward to learning about the counter arguments, so thank you in advance |
human-1431 | cmv | human | Hello Reddit, First of all let me start with my story. I was raised Catholic, or should I say brainwashed catholic. I did the whole thing right up to conformation. I strongly believed in the teaching in the bible until I was about 12 years old. Up to that point in my life I had simply taken the adults in my life at their word, and had faith in God. This brings me to the real start of me leaving religion, and fairytales behind. Around the time I was 12 several scientist, most notably Stephen Hawking's, said there is no God. Now of course because I had been brainwashed into believing all this non-sense, I of course thought they were the crazy ones. Because let's face it one of the things religion ask you to do is to not think. However, I did eventually start to think, as I had always had a deep fascination with science. Little by little my faith, brainwashing, and conditioning was washed away by simply thinking critically. Now throughout this journey I actually read the Old and New Testaments almost in their entirety, which actually does more to discredit religion then support it. Anyways, by the time I had all but given up on the Church, I was still holding onto the last shred of faith. Why you ask? Because of the fear, will I go to hell if I'm wrong? Will my family hate me? Will I lose friends? Am I going to be alone? So this carried my up to about the age of 16. At this point I started listen to Atheist such as Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins, Bill Nye, and countless others who made it seem okay to be smart enough to think for yourself and not rely on what a book has to say. So after that I decided that it was okay for me to say I didn't know, essentially becoming an agnostic. However after a year or so I realized that, that wasn't really even a proper stance supported by the evidence. Part of being intelligent, and what makes us human is the ability to think critically, and reach conclusions based on the evidence presented. As it currently stands there is zero evidence to support the notion of anything supernatural, including a deity. Once I realized that I was truly able to come to terms with the fact that there is in fact no God, no supreme being, no ghost, just like there are no fairies, or easter bunnies. Let me be clear this extends past religion, to all things supernatural, including natural healing techniques such as reiki, or similar practices. I am not unhappy, my life does not lack purpose, I have very strong morals, I have many friends I have met at university with similar views, as I still have friends who are part of a religion and my life has more meaning now then it did when I was brainwashed into believing an invisible man in the sky. So Reddit what I am asking you to do, is try and change my view. You can try and shift me in the direction of any religion or other belief system you wish. As a man of science if you can present to me strong evidence that would be able to stand up to peer review I will have no choice to to believe it. Because science is true wether I like it or not. I strongly doubt anybody will be able to change my view as I have already gone through much of the so called evidence for religion (which there really is none of or else I would not be an atheist). However, as I stated before I am open to any real evidence you can bring forth. P.S I do consider Richard Dawkins, Bill Maher, Bill Nye, and Stephen Hawking to be some of my biggest heroes. This does not mean I necessarily agree with them on everything. For example Bill Maher is anti-vaccine, I strongly disagree with him on that point, as I'm sure the other men on this list would. That is what makes Atheism different, it is not a religion, in fact it is anything but. We are all free to think for ourselves and reach our own conclusion based on the evidence presented to us. So while trying to change my view keep in mind that Atheism simple means we think there is nothing supernatural, everything can be explained in the natural world and what we can't explain yet does have it's answer in the natural world. Other then that don't assume we all share the same views on everything. One of my Atheist friends is anti-abortion, while I am pro choice. Just a little hand for you guys so you know how to approach this properly if you truly think you can change me 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] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! |
human-2097 | cmv | human | To me, it goes like this: When anyone says "no offense," they're trying to give you helpful criticism. I thought this was just widely accepted, but it's not, and I'm trying to understand why. If I pulled my friend aside at a party and said "dude no offense but you're being really obnoxious out there." Then I'm not insulting him. I'm letting him know he's being rude. I would want anyone to do that for me as well. I think getting offended at that, when they're specifically trying, and telling you they're trying, not to offend you but to give you advice, is pretty petty. It's like getting mad when a teacher edits your writing, you know you're putting yourself out there to be judged, why wouldn't you want to get better? Anyway, please help me understand why this is, I would appreciate it greatly, up until I learned people got offended by this, I said it once and a while, when I felt it was necessary, and now I feel about bad. (And sorry about any spelling mistakes or choppy sentences, I'm on my mobile.) |
human-2242 | cmv | human | Hello CMV I believe posts on the deceased's wall (often in the form of an image of the poster and the deceased together captioned with "R.I.P" etc.) are crude and attention seeking. They are not to deal with the loss but rather an attempt to garner sympathy from those who might read the post. I feel even more strongly about messages of condolences posted on the walls of friends and family of the deceased. This is a watered down Munchausen by proxy, I am cynical of their intentions, especially if they contain phrases such as "let me know if I can help in anyway." True mourning is not something that is so easily displayed in a public forum. Real condolences are private and are delivered in person or over a phone call, even a text message is acceptable. I want to make it clear that I think "let me know if I can help in anyway" is a beautiful thing to say to someone in mourning. To post it on a mourner's facebook wall, however, is like shouting it across the room as you make ready to leave after the funeral. edit: I remembered what "Munchausen by proxy" was. edit 2: I have changed my view on displays of mourning on Facebook walls of the deceased but not the public displays of condolences. (I also wish I could edit titles now) edit 3: I have removed the reference to Munchausen by proxy. I intended to convey some cynicism, which I still hold, but this is not the right term for 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] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! |
human-3644 | cmv | human | I think it's rather self explanatory. The same way that you cannot hold to a person that fact that he's Black, or Jewish or American or German, a person shouldn't take pride in these facts as if chose it. Of course, this raises questions like: "Can one be proud of the moon landing?" or "Can I be proud that my nation's team won X event?." And in my opinion, these constitute a different kind of pride - in the first case, you express your pride with facts that are completely out of anyone's control and in the second case, it's actions, that while hard to influence are still within your reach (i.e. donating to a sports team, or even being part of said team yourself). And while I know this is CMV, does this even make sense to anyone else? Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! |
human-2863 | cmv | human | Really, it's not the '50s anymore. I know that switchblades were originally outlawed because they were a gangsters knife, something he could hide and whip out in a flash. However I can purchase a perfectly legal folding blade pocket knife thats far better than a switch blade and draw it just as fast without effort. Since we can already buy knives just as concealable as switch blades while being of far higher quality, we should be allowed to buy switchblades again. They're neat, nifty little knives that plenty of collectors would love to get. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! |
human-2777 | cmv | human | It has long been my opinion that our current system of 'law' should be replaced with a more simple, easy to read, and most importantly easy to access code. In a way this means common law should be replaced with civil. It's 2014 - there should be a very simple and straight forward legal .gov website that has the be all and end all to the law. What you see (read) is what you get. This would lead into the next step - getting rid of lawyers. If the legal system is simple and straight forward, the need for lawyers would be none. We live in a society where the rich benefit because of higher lawyer budgets. But no more. The law should be structured in a way where silly semantic and other dirty 'tricks' cannot be used to manipulate the law in the traditional hollywood way. (I said hollywood, but these things happen in reality quite often, especially when dealing with large corporations). Answers to some possible concerns: 1) What's if you're deaf, blind, slow, injured, etc? Obviously hand-picked provisions should be made. Public defenders could be utilized for this purpose specifically. 2) How about suing a company, who gets to represent it in the court room? I would say the CEO but that probably isn't always fair. Whoever is most responsible for the accusation. 3) Wouldn't this system favour more intelligent or more law-informed people? Given my fair and straight forward system, it should be every citizen's job to be aware of their countries laws. Of course none of this will ever happen, but I think it could be a massive improvement over the current system. With some tweaks, surely. |
human-1525 | cmv | human | So to start, this isn't about gay people being bad parents. I am gay myself and gay people obviously have every right to have a family. However, I feel like going through extreme measures to conceive children that would be biologically "yours" in a gay relationship (or even in straight relationships where conception is not a possibility) is immoral. I think the world is overpopulated enough as it is, and that there are already far too many children who would love a good home. In fact, I would go as far as saying that I think it's shameful that so many people in heterosexual relationships choose to conceive children naturally instead of adoption or fostering. Maybe it's harder to think in those terms when it can be easier to conceive of your own child, but it still seems like a tragedy that so many children grow up being shuffled between foster homes or in poverty while couples go through extreme measures (like hiring surrogates or IVF) to have a child born with their own DNA. I think children without homes should take a much higher precedence for all couples wanting children, and I think it's an embarrassment that most couple only start considering adoption when they have no other options. CMV ETA: Damnit, I should have googled amoral vs. immoral before hitting send. Let this be a grammar lesson for us all The adjective immoral means contrary to established moral principles. Immoral actions are corrupt, unethical, sinful, or just wrong. Amoral means (1) neither moral nor immoral, or (2) lacking moral sensibility. So while immoral and amoral might share a little common ground, there is a clear distinction: immoral things are bad, and amoral things are either neutral from a moral perspective or simply removed from moral considerations. |
human-2632 | cmv | human | With the recent government shutdown there have been a lot of people who've been put on furlough and a lot of programs that have been slowed or shut down entirely. One statistic that particularly jumps out at me is that 93 of EPA employees have been labelled as non-essential. Now don't get me wrong, I think we should have the EPA and be looking for ways to be more clean and energy efficient. At the same time, however, I don't see the need for the size of these branches. On the flip side of the coin some branches of the bureaucracy need to be restructured. For example, the NSA had a large group of people labelled non-essential. I think that we do need some sort of counterintelligence gathering from them (Though not necessarily with the methods they have chosen to employ as of late) but that it needs to be restructured because if a large percentage of their employees are seen as non-essential than there needs to be more essential jobs for them to do. Put them to work doing things that get them "essential" status. The way I see it, if we can re-structure, cut and re-organize parts of the government that have been effected thus far we can effectively help prevent such a thing from happening. TL;DR The government shutdown is giving us an opportunity to restructure to where we're not spending as much money because of twisted bureaucracy and bloated non-essential programs. |
human-1118 | cmv | human | I know this is a very specific topic, but its extremely important to the future of Africa right now, especially because of plans outlined by conservation groups internationally. Eco-tourism is a relatively new practice of helping the economies of African regions by allowing tourists to personally visit rare species in the forest or small groups of primates (and so on). The large problem now is that disease spread has increased at an alarming rate, putting species at risk like the Bonobo and Mountain Gorilla. Alongside disease, deforestation is a must for establishing infrastructure and roads for the tourism, which all harms the very land they intend to protect. I want to hear if anyone has any specific good reasons that Eco-tourism is overall more good than harmful. |
human-2968 | cmv | human | Let me preface this by saying that rape is horrible. I do not condone rape, there is no justification for rape, "she was asking for it" is not an excuse, and rapists are the worst of the worst. I am 100 anti-rape and anti-rapist. BUT. I think as with any risk, there are certain factors that can increase or decrease the odds of something bad happening. I believe that if, say, a girl gets raped at a high school party, it's not some kind of evil taboo to look at what she was doing for the purposes of learning how to decrease the risk of being raped. For example, was she blackout drunk? I don't believe that asking this so I can point to this poor girl and tell the girls I teach "going to a party and getting blackout drunk will increase your risk of being rape" is such a horrible thing. I know about the whole "instead of teaching girls to avoid being raped, we should teach boys not to rape" argument, and I believe it. But until I can teach every male on earth not to touch my hypothetical future daughter (s), I'd like to look at what factors contributed to a rape so my future daughter (s) can try to avoid them. I don't know, it seems like a lot of people think I'm a horrible person for this opinion and I'd like to hear the counter-argument. Please CMV. |
human-2399 | cmv | human | This is mostly in reaction to the release of BattleBlock Theater, a long-awaited downloadable Xbox game by the creators of Castle Crashers. Like most games, especially indies, it has its fair share of bugs, and from how I understand it, it costs quite a bit of money for developers to patch their game on Xbox live. This issue, combined with the greater opportunity for building a community around things like custom content on PC, leads me to wonder why, If a dev team's budget can't support developing for more than one console, they would choose one that hinders their game's growth and improvement. |
human-4111 | cmv | human | I feel like people who accuse the United States of having a large Ego solely on the fact that it self-references as America have no basis for their accusations. I don't want to point fingers but, it is largely from Latin American countries, and sometimes Europeans. First off, why can't a country call itself anything it wants. If I claimed an asteroid, set up a base, and had a permanent population couldn't I call it Nacholandia or Polis Massa if I wanted to If not, why? Secondly, try coming up with a better name, that sounds alright. USAers sounds a little stupid IMO. (We don't call them UKsese, although we should) UnitedStatesians is a mouthful. Third, why does Micronesia get to call itself that? Or the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Or any other name for that matter. China has part of the Mongolian region in it. Fourth, we didn't just pull the name from nowhere. We were known as the British American Colonies. So when we were no longer British we just became American. We had no other identifier than American. Fifth, it's the Peoples Republic of China, therefor China. It's the the Republic of Ireland, therefor Ireland. United States of America, therefor America. It just really bugs me, can you please tell me why it shouldn't. |
human-1145 | cmv | human | I understand this might be suited to a different subreddit, and that it's a bit unconventional for a post here, but I thought I'd try here first. No idea what the response will be to this. I've become dissatisfied with the model glorified by the pornsex industry that paints women as hairless, and to me it seems odd to sleep withgo down on a lady who is bare down there. This has not always been the case, there were times when it excited me (as in when I was in my late teens and newish to sex), but pubic hair simply seems like the natural way of things, and I prefer a woman who trims over one who shaves. These days, I'm more attracted to a woman who doesn't even trim over one who waxes or shaves entirely. Bare vaginas just look unnatural to me, and it has evolved into an actual turn off to get into bed with a partner who has one. Perhaps it's a disillusionment with the disconnect between the real women I interact with (wink, wink, nudge nudge, know what I mean, know what I mean?) and the prevailing (male-dominated) sex industry's image of "perfection," but I find myself labeled as a bush "fetishist" by many men I bring this up to. I don't regard this as a fetish (I have a few real ones, I know what a fetish is), simply as a realistic view of sex and the female body, and I find myself actively turned off recently by images, videos or depictions of entirely nude vaginas. Please, change my view - in your opinion, am I simply talking to the wrong people about this, perusing the wrong sites, looking at the issue in too much blackwhite, or am I actually a bush fetishist? |
human-1316 | cmv | human | (If necessary, assume I'm talking about American society, although I think the same applies well enough to all first world countries.) On the female side, my basic premise is that the assumption that women will take off more time for work follows from the assumption that women generally are going to be the primary caregivers to the children in a family. The fact that women historically have been the primary caregivers is why we think this will happen and also why we assume women are the more nurturing and emotional gender (not the other way around I do not think my view can be changed on this point). In other words, the assumption essentially is that "motherhood" defines "womanhood" or at least a woman's "natural" abilities and expected performance, and this is what is both holding back our ability as a society at large to loosen the gender normsrelax the expectations (this affects men and women alike see the end) and also why things like maternity leave are seen as "special rights for women." No matter how many women end up in high level jobs, as long as "family issues" are seen as predominantly "women's issues," the view of women as caretakers will not change. Family issues are just that: family issues. If we assume that we want to encourage people to have children (a relatively stable population is good for the stability of society), people who want to have childrenare planning to have childrendo have children are the ones who are affected by these issues and are the ones who should be advocating for them completely separately from gender equality. At the moment, they do predominantly affect women, but that is essentially because we assume women will be the primary caretaker of the children. Obviously women carry and bear the kids and have to deal with the whole lactation business, but this is both unavoidable and a relatively short period of time in the life of the child. If we're supporting family issues on the whole, the extra needs of women in these acts will already be taken into account. The view that women will not be as good at their jobs after they have kids comes from the expectation that they will divert their energy disproportionately to the rearing of the children until the child is grown. On the flip side, this is also a reason why men traditionally are expected to perform their jobs better upon getting married single people have to do all the mundane stuff that life entails for themselves, which sometimes requires time away from work. If you have a traditional-gender-roles wife, she does all that stuff for you, so you get to be more dedicated to your job. You also have the incentive to be more efficient during the day so you can go home to be with them in the evenings. (This makes more sense to me then the "motivation" argument.) If babies were grown in tubes like in Brave New World and everyone had nannies to do all of the annoying child-rearing tasks like chauffeuring kids to appointments and recitals, we wouldn't assume that women need to take off work to do these things. But we could still argue for parental leave on the basis of it being good for parents to bond with and teach their children. Framing issues like parental leave as "family issues" rather than "women's issues" is good for men too. The rearing of children is not solely the purview of women! It is important for our society for children to be raised with a lot of exposure to a lot of variation in gender. Aggressive men and women, gentle men and women, sensitive men and women, intelligent men and women, artistic men and women, and so on (including non-binary people!), so that they learn to not see the sex of a person as something that rigidly defines characteristics that person should have. Men have (usually much) less flexibility in their gender role than women do because the stereotypically "male" traits are seen as "good" (as in, it's good when girls like boy things) and the stereotypically "female" traits are seen as "bad" (as in, it's bad when boys like girl things). If family issues are seen as not gendered, then the "male" gender role will naturally be able to expand to include more emotion, sensitivity, and the raising of children. Normalizing child-rearing as a gender-neutral process will also help us to stop assuming that any man in the presence of children must be predatory (as it is, since taking care of children is seen as "abnormal" for men, we assume there must be ulterior motives). TL;DR: Not having maternity leave isn't what's keeping women from succeeding. Not being able to separate "family issues" from women is. |
human-3674 | cmv | human | Every episode of Death Note just seems to be L and his protegees listing off how they are going to catch Light, and then Light being like 'but I figured out that I made that mistake last episode plus Shinigami so I win again!'. Also, his plan to kill L didn't make any fucking sense. I watched that episode twice and I don't understand any of it. In the end, it seemed like the creator must've been like 'I want to take the most Anime shit about Anime, ramp it up to 11, and ramp down the plot advancement to 0'. And by god if they didn't do that. |
human-3093 | cmv | human | While I totally agree that the amount of student loan debt in the US is obscene, I don't believe that it poses a systemic risk to the US economy that would warrant the label 'bubble'. The fundamental characteristic of a financial 'bubble' is it's tendency to 'burst' and wipe out capital, and for many reasons - this is impossible with student loans. Furthermore, the massive level of student debt is skewed by borrowers who take out gigantic loans: the amount of debt accumulated by the average student is totally manageable with a college-graduate income. A bubble bursts when investors or creditors are forced to write off debts or are otherwise unable to recoup their investments. When the 1990s dot-com bubble burst, investors were unable to realize projected gains on their investments and creditors had their loans dismissed in bankruptcies. In the 2000s housing bubble, houses were purchased at an inflated value and either 'short-sold' or foreclosed upon. In both bubbles, debts were discharged and lenders received less than they loanedinvested. This is impossible with student loans. There is no asset to be repossessed and re-sold: at a loss or otherwise, and residual debt cannot be discharged (except in the case of the borrower's death). The aggregate student debt amount is high, but the average debt per borrower is fairly low: [about 29,400 per borrower] . [The average starting salary for a student with a bachelor's degree in the US in 2013 was 45,000] . Obviously, some students borrow far more and some far less: some earn far more and others far less. But if an average graduate were to only put 10 of their monthly income toward paying off loans, he would be paid off in about 8 years (assuming 6.8 interest, which is what I paid - I understand it's much lower now). 8 years of sacrificing only 10 of your income may delay large purchases, but it's far from 'crippling'. A borrower who commits 25 of his income and lives off the other 75 will be debt-free in 2 years - giving him much more time to save for large purchases. The student loan system is far from insolvent. Last year, the student loan program made a profit of 41.3 billion dollars. Even with default rates at historic highs, there are still enough borrowers who are repaying (or having their wages garnished and tax refunds withheld) to keep the system solvent and profitable. The circumstances that would cause the student loan system to become insolvent would have to be: massive unemployment (so much so that wages could not be garnished or tax refunds withheld) and a drastic increase in interest rates. These would crash the economy long before the insolvency of the student loan program would. I think the student loan program is working exactly as intended. The college degree still has demonstrable economic value in the market, and most students borrow a manageable amount of money and pay it back before their prime income-earning years. The doom-and-gloom handwringing over the slowing of the credit markets, housing markets, and new-car buying has more to do (I think) with Millennials' aversion to debt after coming of age during the Recession. I think I speak for many members of my generation when I say: I have enough money to put a down-payment on a house, finance a car, or have a credit card and pay it off each month - I don't because I've seen what happens to people in debt when the economy takes a dive. Look at it this way: [the average car payment in the US is 471.00] , and 70 of Americans buy cars with debt. By comparison, about 9 of Americans have outstanding student loans, and only 60 of students come out of college owing anything in loans - the average monthly payment for those who do is 375.00month. There is definitely a student debt problem in the US, but it's part of a larger debt problem that includes cars, mortgages, medical debt, and consumer spending. Student loan debt is certainly not a 'bubble' that poses any systemic problem to the economy, and it's certainly not going to burst any time soon. 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] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! |
human-3922 | cmv | human | In the status quo, the vast majority of U.S. college freshmen arrive straight from high school. [However, an increasing number of students are electing to take a "gap year, which involves taking a year off from school prior to enrolling in college. A gap year can be spent doing any number of things. Individuals can join a national service program, gain work experience (saving money for college in the process), enroll in a vocational program, travel, volunteer, explore hobbies, or pursue any combination therein. While many students choose to apply to college as high school seniors and defer admission for one year, students may also delay applying until their gap year, which would be after they have already graduated from high school. There is a very obvious disadvantage to taking a gap year - in theory, students' earning potential is delayed by one year. But I think the benefits can make it worthwhile. Here are just a few reasons: 1. Countless studies show that high school grades are the best predictor of college performance, and the senior year of high school is typically the most rigorous for students. Yet most colleges typically make admissions decisions with incomplete data about applicants' senior year grades. Mandating a gap year would both incentivize high school seniors to work hard and not slack off as well as allow colleges to make more informed admissions decisions. 2. Another admissions-related factor is that students would be able to use their gap year to strengthen their application. "What are you doing during your gap year?" could very well become a standard essay question on applications. This could particularly benefit students whose socioeconomic backgrounds inhibit them from participating in extracurricular activities in high school, putting them on level footing with their peers. 3. College preparation - a gap year allows students to explore their interests in a manner that can prepare them for the college experience. First, students can gain a better idea of what major and what coursework appeals to them, avoiding the freshman year "undeclared" trap that often leaves students making inefficient coursework decisions. As such, delaying matriculation by one year would not necessarily delay college graduation by one year, particularly for freshmen who would otherwise be indecisive about their goals. [The literature also suggests] that gap year students are more adaptable and demonstrate greater maturity than non-gap year students, making them less distracted by college life and reducing the likelihood of them dropping out. 4. Workforce preparation - a gap year allows students to gain valuable skills and experience. [There is an empiric preference for gap year students among employers] : A survey of members of the Association of Graduate Recruiters conducted by Community Service Volunteers, for example, found that 88 of respondents believed that a well-structured gap year could help to furnish graduates with the 'soft skills' that they often lack on leaving university, while 79 felt that students already in possession of these soft skills would progress through an organization more quickly (Community Service Volunteers, 2002). Obviously, significant changes would be required if the gap year became mandatory - national service programs like Americorp would probably have to be vastly expanded, for example. But these changes themselves could be highly beneficial. On balance, a mandatory gap year seems to be worth the while - CMV. |
human-4103 | cmv | human | I believe in smaller government. But I also believe in pragmatic government. That is, I recognize that in our complex, interdependent networked world the necessity of government involvement in our economy. In light of that, I recognize that government will manipulate the economy (putting it poor terms, but I can't think of a better word). But I think all investment of new money should come via government expenditures and 0 interest loans to the government (for the above purposes), direct payments to people in need of assistance or other public works rather than large banks at the fed window for capital investment. The money will end up in banks once it's spent either way (right?) for investment. So why give it to them directly, why not let it start out being spent by to build a new bridge in downtown whateverville. |
human-2674 | cmv | human | Yes. There is no relationship without possessing selfishness. We all assume that mother's love for their children is the purest love on earth but if we dive into this relationship, the selfishness will appear. For example, when a baby cries, herhis mother feels pain inside that push the mother to take care of baby. This act is because of the mother's wish to decreasing her pain. Mom does it for herself. It is obviously selfishness. We are all selfish humanbeing whether or not be aware of it. Change my view or change yours. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! |
human-3017 | cmv | human | First let me clarify what I consider a "conventional wedding" to be (from the wikipedia page): A wedding is the ceremony where people are united in marriage. Most wedding ceremonies involve an exchange of wedding vows by the couple, presentation of a gift (offering, ring (s), symbolic item, flowers, money), and a public proclamation of marriage by an authority figure or leader. Special wedding garments are often worn, and the ceremony is sometimes followed by a wedding reception. I must stress that my opinion has nothing to do with cultural or religious differences Now, to my point.For context, I am a twentysomething woman from the US who is not married but in a committed relationship. There are three main reasons why I think having a wedding in the traditional sense is detrimental to a new marriage: 1. Today's society places a greater emphasis on the importance of a great wedding than a great marriage. This is compounded by the abundance of television shows, movies, magazines, and websites that serve the multi-million dollar wedding industry. Couples who plan on having a wedding are constantly inundated with ideas to make their wedding better, and social media creates pressure for them to construct the most appealing event. Example: I saw on facebook that Jane Doe had a chocolate fountain at her wedding, so I should have a chocolate POOL at mine. There is very little appeal and popularity towards putting this much care and attention into the relationship after the wedding. 2. Conventional weddings in the United States cost an average of 18,000, placing significant financial strain on a new married couple. I think this point speaks for itself. If the parents of the couple offer to pay for the event, than this is not potentially a negative factor. However, whoever pays gets a say in how the wedding goes, and this can cause more stress. If the couple is paying for it themselves (which is becoming more prevalent) this type of financial strain can lead to many unnecessary arguments, and bring a lot of negative energy into the relationship that may have been avoided with a less traditional approach (i.e. elopement). 3. Conventional weddings redirect the focus of event away from the couple getting married, and make it more so about the family and friends of the couple. Couples planning a wedding are tasked with impossible: pleasing everybody. Many couples may try to deny it, but the ultimate goal of a conventional wedding ceremony and reception is to provide an enjoyable atmosphere for all who attend, when ultimately it should be all about them. For example, a friend of mine who is getting married sent out a google survey asking all of her guests which date, venue, and dining style would be preferred. She is trying to cater everyone's needs other than her own. Another source of conflict can be in wedding parties, and try to please future in-laws. Any animosity that is built up from not pleasing a future in-law can carry over into the marriage, and that sort of pressure can be damaging. While alternative options for marriage can be just as upsetting for families, the couple is asserting themselves as the sole focus of event and thus taking back control. Overall, I am a believer in true love and marriage. I think marriage is beautiful and should be celebrated. However, I believe that today's standard for a conventional wedding is damaging to marriage and it should not be this way. Edit: I really appreciate a lot of the feedback so far, it's been very respectful and has gotten me to think more about it. This link illustrates a lot of what goes into planning a wedding and what I consider to be what can strain the relationship . I guess another question I have is, WHY should this sort of ostentatious display remain as the "conventional" way of getting married? |
human-2345 | cmv | human | Amazon currently offers a [Professional] seller method. Amongst other things, it allows sellers to specify the price of postage, as well as create new item listings. For those who don't know, Amazon has a set shipping credit for sellers to sell items. For video games it is 2.03 in the UK, for electronics 4.59. Once you're a professional seller, you can specify this. Take for example [this item] - Companies are selling it for 75p, whilst individuals have to use the [set shipping] Bear in mind that Amazon still take a cut of all sales, so it's not like the 40month that professionals pay is the only income for hosting. |
human-1643 | cmv | human | Think about it. If they have no means to pay the copyright holder, either because they have the money but not the compatible payment media (for example, Sony doesn't accept debit cards, at least from many countries), or they have no money at all. All they're doing is downloading something that is available on the internet. They would not have been able to pay the copyright holder even if they wanted to, and thus they are causing no loss to the copyright holder. Whether it is moral to enjoy something without paying for it is questionable, I would allege, as much as overcharging for goods and services, as is the practice. However, that is not what I want a discussion on. I want only to discuss about whether and if yes, then how loss is caused to the copyright holder by people who illegally download copyrighted content without paying, as they have no means to make the payment. |
human-1829 | cmv | human | I would like to preface this post with the statement that I am a man and also a feminist. My political views tend to be utilitarian, libertarian (anarchist), and structuralist (Marxist). This kind of puts me in the tradition of classical liberals who thought that people free to converse and act produced the freest (and therefore best) society. In real life, I tend to be more feminist than almost all the people I know, at least in appreciating feminism in the same tradition of other civil rights activities and in consideration of gender politics in social and cultural contexts. What I would like to consider for a moment is an evaluation of feminism from a purely structural focus. I'd like to discharge the ethical and factual context of feminism and look at the endgame of a feminist society. This society, I am concerned with is something like this: Women and men have equal access to wealth, education or if you'd like privilege generally. When it comes to asymmetric laws such as those affecting childbirth, the laws are consistent with what feminists want. That is, free access for contraception, abortion, etc. I'll not consider some of the social goals of feminism. I'm not sure if feminists think that rape would disappear in an ideal feminist society or which mechanisms they think would cause this to happen. Neither am I sure whether feminists think that gender ratios would all go to 50 under equal access to privilege so we can ignore this focus. The point is that under these circumstances, it seems like men have been stripped of just about every biological advantage. Women choose whose genes get passed along almost completely. Women have more access to contraceptive action: Morning after pill, contraception, etc. Since men aren't aren't allowed to use physical force, the way matters are settled are through social interaction where women have strong biological advantages. Furthermore, reproductively, almost every man on earth has become redundant. One man is enough to satisfy the reproductive needs of at least ten women. Without privilege, that makes at least 90 of men biologically irrelevant. This seems to imply a strongly uneven power structure. I honestly don't see any biological advantage to being a man in this context whatsoever except perhaps that men can usually masturbate more easily. And while masturbation is great, I can't see it as the basis of a free society. I can see no structural reason for men to advocate feminism. What am I missing? I'm not asking you to defend feminism. I'm pro-feminist so your attempts to defend feminism by definition cannot change my view. I'm asking you to change my view about the particular consequences of a feminist society. Read the damned post. People, I am trying to understand the important issues better. Very frequently, I am the only feminist who has to represent it to other people. It would make my job easier if I could represent how feminism makes for a better society and how it isn't emasculating. I am a very rational analytical person who can take any argument seriously if it's adequately supported. Even if an argument is difficult or goes against my beliefs, I will give it full consideration. Thanks to those of you that have stayed with me even in the face of a difficult topic. I apologize for using a bad title for this. A lot of people have a very hard time understanding why someone would want to discuss something theoretically instead of in practice. But by practicing, maybe it will become easier for both of us. |
human-1865 | cmv | human | Practically speaking, all three do the exact same thing, capture or kill "enemies" of the entity that employs them in exchange for a paycheque. Now one may argue that cops and soldiers believe in what they do while a mercenary only cares about money, but that is bullshit for a number of reasons. 1) Cops and soldiers do not necessarily believe in what they do. Some do, to be sure, but the fact is that the military recruits in highly marginalized and impoverished areas for a reason. There aren't a whole hell of a lot of people chomping at the bit to sign up for the military when they have other options. The poor and marginalied people who make up a large part of the military generally don't do it because they shit red, white and blue. They do it because, for many of them, it's the only way they can feed their family. That is to say, they do it solely for the paycheque, even if it's not a huge paycheque. Some soldiers may even harbour deeply anti-government views (Timothy McVeigh). 2) Mercenaries may care about the causes they fight for Some don't to be sure, but many mercenaries employed by the likes of Haliburton or Xe express high levels of patriotism. I don't see any evidence to believe that the average mercenary is less patriotic than the average cop or soldier. At the end of the day, there is no reason to lionize copssoldiers while demonizing mercenaries. Each individual cop, soldier or mercenary has his or her own motivations which may or may not be entirely about money. 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] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! |
human-2330 | cmv | human | The US military uses [psychological operations] ( (UnitedStates. The military is know to use fake on line accounts for gathering information. I think that Reddit is being manipulated by these emotional posts. |
human-1087 | cmv | human | I am a climatologist and since I started my job at USDA about a year ago, I've run into two types of people who make my life a living hell: There are government employees from federal and state agencies who deny climate change because "man doesn't have that much control over god's creations." Even worse, there are some who say they simply don't care what happens on earth because it's only "the first step" of their eternal lives. They plan on being dead and in heaven, and whatever happens here on Earth is inconsequential. When I run into kinds of colleagues, I try to explain to them the science of what's happening. However, their responses ultimately lead them to some sort of anomalous thought patterns where their logic clearly breaks down, and science doesn't matter. I believe religious people at some point in their thought processes are not capable of logic, or choose to believe things their scientific minds tell them is clearly false. CMV. |
human-3994 | cmv | human | I have been having doubts about Christianity recently, due to the stupid 'system' so to speak, but I just can't get that little voice in my head that says 'What if there is a hell and you will be doomed to burn there for eternity.' Prove to me, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Christianity is wrong. |
human-4157 | cmv | human | First off, you don't get depressed, you ARE depressed. You usually don't have to do anything to get there, it just happens, like a cold. Adding some kind of incentive to killing yourself is a very bad thing. If you think, "If I do this people will understand and feel empathy for me... finally. People will tell my story, I'll have WORTH." that's not a good thing. If the stigma is that you're a shit person no matter what you did for throwing your life away, maybe it'd save a few people. I get the notion that a truly miserable person, like someone in chronic pain - be in mental or physical - should be allowed to end the pain, but it should still be seen as the most humiliating defeat if you didn't do everything you can to stop the pain. There's people out there that have been tortured, seen their children raped and murdered and worse that keep on pushing. I think it's horrible and sad when someone commits suicide, but glorifying it makes the problem worse. It's like mass murderers getting famous, their manifestos posted and their story told that get's more hopeless people to follow through. Awareness of how horrible depression is is great and all, but when the message is "if you end it we'll forgive you" that's extremely dangerous. Again, I think it's extremely sad and we should have empathy for these people, but the goal should be prevention, not good feels. Change my view, I feel like kind of an asshole about having this view. I think I have a good counter argument- If you knew that your shame from killing yourself could prevent someone else from following your path you may feel even more like a martyr. I appreciate you're arguments on such a sensitive subject. I don't mean to come across as callous, but this is a subject I care about and wouldn't feel right unless I defended my position, because I strongly feel that it can prevent further tragedy. If I'm wrong right now I'd like to hurry up and stop being wrong, but it will take some convincing. this went on longer than expected... see you in the morning. |
human-1168 | cmv | human | I like musicals. When I was little, I watched High School Musical and loved it. I sing, I dance, and I'm in a show choir that performs showtunes. Just from being around theatre geeks, I know most of the words to Can You Hear The People Sing...they all LOVE this musical. I've only seen the first five minutes of it, and I want to motivate myself to watch it again, but it just seems so....bland. Dull. Please CMV and convince me that I NEED to watch this. (I am, of course, referring to the 2012 version.) Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! |
human-3672 | cmv | human | In the interest of full disclosure, I am Christian, although not your traditional one. That being said, this has nothing to do with my stance. My reasoning is simple: Throughout the western world, the Bible and Christianity have been far and away the most significant influences in culture, literature, art, philosophy, law, etc. That being said, how can someone in the western world considered themselves educated without a basic familiarity and understanding of the Bible, its stories, and philosophy? It has nothing to do with teaching religion, but examining the bible as a piece of literature and philosophy. Such a class should be required of all students, as it is their responsibility as citizens that get in the voting booth to possess a rudimentary understanding of culture, philosophy, etc. Should other religious texts be taught, or atheism? Sure, but only as electives. For example the Koran, while increasingly relevant, has not had nearly as much influence as the Bible and is simply not as important to understanding the western world. Should I live in Saudi Arabia, the Koran should be mandatory and the Bible and elective. It's a simple matter deepening your understanding of the society you live in. Would this violate a separation of church and state? No, because it's not an endorsement of any religion. It's a simple acknowledgement of the text's importance in western society. The point is not to teach a religion as right or wrong, but to examine it the same you would examine any other religion from an anthropological, historical, and philosophical perspective. EDIT: Deltas awarded to Hmkay and pporkpiehat. Both made very good responses so give them a read. |
human-4125 | cmv | human | I am talking about TV stations, newspapers and websites. I believe these are corrupt in giving accurate, truthful and non-bias information to the public for the following reasons (I'm sure this is nothing new to you guys): Marketing - they will inflate stories or jump to extravagant conclusions to sell more papersgain more viewers. Commercial sponsors - this will influence the outcome of stories involving a particular industry, person or company Political alliances - news organisation are often owned by larger companies that have interests in other industries. This will influence what news organisations output if it increases political and commercial gain. Funding - smaller, independent news organisations are underfunded and thus cannot afford to cover as much news or gather all parts of a story meaning most of there reports are under researched. Please CMV! |
human-2507 | cmv | human | First I am writing this from the perspective of an American. I realize we get a free legal defense if needed for a criminal case. However, but I don't feel they give their 100 all of the time. Recently I have heardseen more people I know needing legal advice or representation. However, most of them barely have the money for this and in many instances have had to give up their legal fights due to the cost. Normally I would think taking the task on yourself would be the next logical step. However, in researching how to file in small claims court I believe that it is too difficult for the average citizen to do anything beyond small claims and for some that is too difficult. I'll admit I was originally not for the idea, but with the introduction of PPACA (Obamacare) and the extensions of unemployment insurance I believe if the government is going to provide the current level of socialfinancial services that it does then this should also be included. I am not sure how it should be handled state vs. Fed, forced purchase of legal insurance vs. single payer system, or if there would be financialusage limits. I believe that as long as the systems is adequate to well designed then it would be a success. |
human-2654 | cmv | human | Edit: I evidently haven't thought this through very much, and my argument is criticising the wrong group of people. I think the bulk of my argument is a knee-jerk reaction to Tumblr-folk who misuse the term "trigger" to mean being offended or not happy about a trivial thing. I recognise that this is clearly not the same thing as a genuine trigger, for someone who has been through PTSD or suffered a genuine trauma. If people are unclear on terms, a "trigger warning" is a quick notice given before a speech, video, body of text etc., warning the audience that its content may trigger certain traumatic memories. For example, if a video talks about rape, it might have a trigger warning so that victims of rape can avoid it if they want to avoid painful recollections. I don't think this is healthy, and should not be encouraged as a practice. The victim of a trauma is always, eventually, going to come across stimuli that might be "triggering," it's not the responsibility of society to avoid giving those stimuli. They might end up studying rape in psychology, or law, or ethics, or a variety of classes. Should the professor start his class with "By the way, today we're going to be talking about rape, and if anyone's uncomfortable with that, you're welcome to stay out of the class"? No; there are potentially infinite possible things that could trigger a person, and a professor shouldn't be expected to account for all of them. Some considerations. Firstly, if the lecturer was showing something that would reasonably upset a lot of people (violence, abuse, suicide etc,) then yes, please put a notice at the start of a class. Secondly, I think the professor in this situation should be accommodating, and if a student specifically approaches or emails him about content they find uncomfortable, then the professor ought to make accommodations within reason. But, it's not the professor's job to foresee any possible triggering content - picture the sort of people you find on rTumblrInAction who are triggered by trees. I'm being silly, of course, but some people can't tolerate things that most people are perfectly okay with, and when that's the case, the person shouldn't expect teachers, friends and family to accommodate for them. And if a psychology student came up to the professor in the scenario and told him she found the Millgram experiment disturbing and didn't want to see any content relating to it, then the professor is entitled to raise eyebrows as to why the student is taking the class. I've perhaps not worded the argument very coherently, so, tl;dr, people with triggers shouldn't expect people to accommodate their behaviour, and should learn to deal with those stimuli. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! |
human-3285 | cmv | human | As I said in the title I think that 100 of the things that happen fall into one of these 3 categories: - completely random - completely predetermined - partly predetermined, partly random In order for Free Will to be "free" in any meaningful sense, it has to be neither random, nor predetermined. - If a choice was random, it was not "willed" - If a choice was predetermined, it was not "free" - If a choice was partly random and partly predetermined, nothing about it was both free and willful That makes a free will as possible as 2 2 making 5. CMV |
human-3537 | cmv | human | I've been playing in bands for a handful of years now, and i seem to hold the unpopular opinion that gigging is always beneficial. I don't need an exaggeration to change my view. I understand that I, as a canadian, would be unwise to fly to australia to perform an unpaid gig at a poorly attended convention for the deaf. I also understand that sometimes people are ill, and sometimes people have prior engagements. What i don't understand is the following: "we shouldn't take that gig on a thursday, because we have a show this saturday," or "we've been a band for over two years now, it's time that we only do weekends." Yet this is precisely what i hear from the majority of bandmates. I've seen bands who gig all over for their first year, acquire a decent fan base, and then decide that their best business decision is to play one show every two months in an attempt to not oversaturate the supply of the music. Thinking that this is the way to consistently sell out shows. I've seen these bands fold up in year three, with the odd person saying "i used to like them." I've heard a lot of reasoning, but it never rings true. Do i think that if someone sees my band for five bucks on wednesday that they're less likely to see us for 10 on saturday? A hundred times no. People are paying for a saturday night out, and if it's ten at the door so be it. I think it's way more likely that we pick up a fan or two that wednesday, and stay fresh for our saturday gig. Thanks dudes. Good luck. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! |
human-3965 | cmv | human | In spite of the cries from some media sources that Obama is a socialist and that socialism is bad, I firmly believe the opposite is true. Obama is definitely not a socialist and that a little more socialism in the U.S. will help our country prosper. In addition to the socialized institutions we have now: police, fire department, public schools, postal service, etc. we should also have socialized health care, higher education, and utility services that everyone depends on like electricity, natural gas, and water. I have heard interviews that expanding the Medicaid program for more families to be eligible to 'buy in' would be much cheaper than the 'Obamacare' bill as it stands now. New York already had a similar program in place with Family Health Plus and Child Care Plus, but I think broadening the income eligibility would be a great solution, even if buyers had to pay the full premium. I had to pay the full premium as part of a child support order (78week) and would gladly pay that for myself or other members of my family. Some communities already have co-ops (publicly owned utilities) that are much more reasonable in price than private or corporate-owned utilities. I have yet to find someone in the service area of a co-op complain about their service. The city I live in sold their publicly-owned (municipal) water company to a private entity. No change in service, yet the cost of water and sewer service has literally tripled since the change. I think these are essential to public well-being and should not be monopolized by a for-profit corporation. The only compelling argument against this I have heard so far is that private corporations will spend more money on RD and innovative technologies. I think advancements and new technology will still happen in the universities, grant-funded research, and so on. Not paying profit margins for these things would give people more liquid assets to spend elsewhere, which in turn would benefit privately owned companies in the long run, just in other places, and ultimately stimulate the economy into a boom. [Edit: I understand that this isn't exactly socialism... but it's a lot closer than what we have now.] [Edit 2 - Clarification: My idea of "publicly-owned" is more along the lines of a [Utility Cooperative] where "Each customer is a member and owner of the business with an equal say as every other member of the cooperative, unlike investor-owned utilities where the amount of say is governed by the number of shares held." I am not necessarily advocating utilities be "government-run |
human-1536 | cmv | human | When the technology permits reliable detection of and intervention in (medicallyphysically) the genetic disease of addiction in newyoung children, I believe it should be permanently excised, and doing so should be legally required. I believe addiction is one of history's greatest scourges, and modern science offers very poor hope of recovery for many people and even when recovery is possible, the physical yearning will never truly cease (see the movie Pleasure Unwoven for a scientific explanation for how addiction works: ). Therefore, I believe that when it is possible, we should physically alter peoples' brains to not have the disease of addiction. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! |
human-2298 | cmv | human | I was wondering if there are any serious cons to reclassifying ISP's as common carriers. I'm not necessarily interested in arguments against network neutrality (although if there are some good ones, please share them), but rather interested in the negative effects of title II common carriers. I believe the government is pretty good at screwing a lot of things up, but I can't seem to find any solid list of cons to go with the title II common carrier reclassification which every article and post against the recent FCC rule-changes seems to advocate. 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] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! |
human-2701 | cmv | human | I think that, if you are someone who ultimately wants to be in a relationship, it is impossible to be single and happy. The notable exception to this would be persons who genuinely wish to remain single. For those who wish to be in a relationship but cannot accomplish this task, being single is a step below going without food. We wouldn't tell someone who had no food to be happy, right? Would you tell someone who is dirt poor to just be happy? No, you tell them to work hard to not be poor. Unfortunately, you can't say that to a single person. There is no hard and fast formula for finding a partner. The cliche line is that you have to be happy with being single before you can be happy being in a relationship. I often hear this uttered by happily partnered people who I know for a fact would be miserablebat sh insane if they weren't partnered off, but I suppose that is besides the point. Why do we lie and say things like this? Being single is an implicit acknowledgement that something about you is off. It is an acknowledgement that something is so wrong with you, that you cannot find another human being who wants to partner up with you, which is a fundamental thing that humans do in order to continue our species. If no one wants you, and that is your fundamental purpose as an animal, how are you supposed to be happy? Please change my view that, even if you never find your soul mate and desperately want to find that person, it is somehow possible to have a modicum of happiness. EDIT-I meant highly likely to be single forever, not just temporarily single, but withthe likely possibility of finding someone when one is ready. I meant more someone with a genetichealth condition who is highly unlikely to find someone. Is it possible to be happy when the odds are heavily against you and it's virtually impossible that you will find someone? Tl;dr-is it possible to be happy with being single if your ultimate goal is to not be single? |
human-2573 | cmv | human | It seems to me that the prevailing American attitude is that it is wrong and unrealistic to expect 18-21 year olds to live adult lives. I may be mistaken here, as I have never actually been to America and my view is largely informed by discussions on Reddit, such as [this one] . [Most countries have an age of majority of 18, whilst only 15 countries have decided upon 21] . Most of the world's youngsters manage just fine with adult life at 18, I can't think of any plausible reason why American youth would be any different. I think allowing youngsters to remain in childhood (eg financially dependent, not responsible for running their household and life, being bailed out of sticky situations they get themselves into etc.) is harmful to both the young individual and society as a whole. The youngster fails to learn life skills, and, through an absence of challenging circumstances and general life experience, fails to develop character. This stuff can be picked up later, but it's great to have it before living with a spouse, moving country, or popping out a kid. Further, a sheltered life makes it difficult to appreciate what life is like. I think that this leads to a diminished level of respect for others and a lessened sense of duty to one's community. Of course I can understand the instinct to want to protect your kids for as long as possible, but I believe that it ultimately does more harm than good. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! |
human-3025 | cmv | human | DISCLAIMER: I am not saying he is being falsely accused nor am I saying he is guilty I've been thinking a lot about how I would react if I was falsely accused of a heinous crime, and I'm currently of the opinion that "no comment" is the best way to go about it. Here's how I see it: 1. The media is dying to find more to print, and anything you say will add to their word bank. If you'd like them to move on to a new topic or target, defending yourself in public will just make that take longer. It'll pop back up every so often, but if you respond each time it'll prolong the episode. 2. Yes, staying silent will make it so you won't get "your side" of the story out there, but there's really nothing you can say that can't come back and bite you in the butt. In my experience, the media frequently gets a quote wrong, and that can sink your odds of winning in the court of public opinion. But there's also a decent chance that you'll misspeak and have to correct yourself (either on the spot or after the fact). That will certainly knock you down a few levels instead of helping you climb out of the pit you're in. 3. Denying the allegations puts you in the awkward position of calling someone a liar. And not just someone in the abstract, someone who everyone knows and feels sympathy for. Personally denying the allegations are true puts your face and your voice in front of the "these people are lying" message, and that's not going to do you any favors. So there it is! Convince me that I don't understand how PR works and set me straight! Edit 1: My assumption is that people generally equate not saying something with having something to hide. I'm not trying to make a judgement call as to how effective this strategy would be if he was guilty. The inspiration for this post mostly came after I reflected on how I would handle being falsely accused and I settled on this course of action for now. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! |
human-1691 | cmv | human | This is something that I can't really get over. Here is my view essentially: I have worked hard in my life to allow myself to acquire an income that allows me to be comfortable, and have savings, but why should my would be savings go to someone who may not have worked anywhere near as hard as I have? I understand that there are lazy people and hard working people in both the highest tax bracket, as well as the lowest, and so I understand that not everybody worked very hard to become affluent, however there are also plenty of people who are as lazy, and are living off of my hard earned money. CMV |
human-3736 | cmv | human | I live in the U.S., and have been thinking about this for a while. I can see a definite problem coming along if not all governments participated, but what if all governments had to become open source? What ill effects would this have? What good? edit: For a better idea of what I mean by "open source," i'll add my comment here as well. "Open Source in the sense that there are no real "secrets" in how the government works, because every aspect of spending is open to the public. Voting systems are based on Open Source, and the logs are allowed to be viewed and scrutinized." |
human-1633 | cmv | human | The King should absolutely not have let that Horse Statue into our great city. I understand that his intentions were to please the Greeks, but I fail to see how we owe anything to them, they've been holding us on siege for ten years just a few days ago! Now, just to be clear, I don't have anything against the Greeks, but that statue is of such ugliness that it plagues our city. We have one of the nicest city in the world architecture wise, why must we endure the sight of that horse in our city? It was made from junk they found on the beach for Zeus' sake! It even smells like Greeks (no racism, let's face it, all Greeks have that particular scent to them)! Ugh, I can't take this, I'm off to getting drunk, in hopes of forgetting the presence of that piece of rotten wood in the middle of our beautiful central courtyard. Hello, people of the past. This is a footnote from the moderators of this 'internet forum'. I'm afraid to say that some wannabe scientist, while looking into time travel, has caused a temporal distortion field. It should dissipate in the next 24 hours. In the mean time, feel free to [message us] about a view you hold while you're visiting the present, and remember to have a look through [our rules] . |
human-3371 | cmv | human | MtF Trans. Cis Woman. Gender fluid. The solution to various sorts of oppression seems to be coming up with new nominalizations, instead of focusing on the fact that all parties involved are under the umbrella of "human person." If the entire point is that people wish to be thought of as more than their genitalia, it seems bizarre to me that the solution is to be thought of primarily by "gender identity." It seems more sensible to have an approach more like Martin Luther King, Jr.'s approach to race - a "gender blind" society, rather than an increasingly fragmented one. |
human-3904 | cmv | human | Guitars can just play a couple octaves lower and produce the same backing effect as a bass. Why should bass guitars still exist? |
human-1966 | cmv | human | I should start by saying that I live in the state of Florida, specifically in Miami Gardens (otherwise known as Carol City) which is one of [the highest crime locations in the city] Which already has a pretty bad record] . I've lived here all my life and have had my house burglarized on several occasions and throughout my life, I've lived around gangsters, drug dealers, junkies and thugs. I've been robbed at gunpoint and I personally have had friends and neighbors murdered. In summary, I live in a pretty horrible place, but I have no choice, as I don't have the funds to leave. I also own a handgun, as well as the appropriate legal permits to carry them. I believe that anyone who attacks me or threatens me is literally out to kill me, and I believe it is within my rights to shoot them immediately if they attack or threaten me. I don't start trouble, but if someone threatens to hurt me or my family, I will respond accordingly and shoot them dead as I believe it is within my rights and because I believe that if I give them the opportunity, they can kill me. How am I wrong? 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] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! |
human-1103 | cmv | human | MAJOR EDIT, PLEASE READ uOzimandius has officially changed my view permalink to his comment] Ultimately my view is now not that individuals should have some control over where a portion of their tax money goes, but that at a minimum people should at least be able to know where their tax money goes (and then we have all the people discussing the solutions of voting and 'pressuring' our representatives First of all, when I refer to individuals, I am not including corporations or the such. One discussion I have seenheard is that there are problems with taxes paying for something with which one disagrees (I know some people disagree with taxes altogether but that's not what I am here to discuss). This notion does make sense to me - if I disagree with the death penalty (which I do, but that is not the subject of this post, I am just using the death penalty as an example), I would not want my tax money to have funded a state's killing of another individual. Since, as far as I know, I have no control over this (I live in the US), it makes me upset that my views are not accounted for just because I do not have the same opinion as the majority. So how does my view work? Well, first of all, when I say "some" control I mean that I should be able decide where it is that a certain percentage of my tax money goes. This percentage can be, let's say, 25 (I just put in a number for ease of discussion, I don't have a specific number in mind). So 75 will be allocated without me having control over it. This may cover things like defense, national debt, education, social security, and other programs. The remaining percentage I will be allowed to allocate to various programs including but not necessarily the ones I mentioned above. This, I believe, will allow individuals to better represent themselves in the country, giving more money to programs one believes are "worthy" and less to ones which one believes are not. How will this be done? There are several possible ways, one of which might just be a form that can be mailed or a unique code one can input into a government website when receiving annual tax forms. Not filling out the form will mean that one accepts the default (which will be defined in this case as "money will be allocated the way it already is being allocated. Allowing for this system will let taxpaying individuals be at least more satisfied knowing they pay to support something they support show politicians what the general feel of their constituents is. Note: all of this does not mean that people will have the option to pay less taxes overall. The amounts people pay will be the same. The difference will be how much of one's tax money goes to specific locations. Overall, I think this idea is pretty reasonable. As a reminder, the 25 figure I gave earlier is not an exact figure I have in mind; it is just used for ease of example. So yeah, CMV. General edit: I have awarded a few deltas to some individuals who I agreed were right in the difficulties in implementing such a system. There will indeed be issues with budgets and a fair way for the system to work. While I still think that people should have some form of control, I have had my views changed regarding the format of implementing this system. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! |
human-2734 | cmv | human | Why don't we give Bill Cosby a pass? He may very well be innocent. 1. We don't know what happened behind closed doors. I wasn't there. You weren't there. 2. But we do know that the accusations are highly suspect. Some of these accusers have had over 30 years to get their story straight, and the best they can come up with is "he gave me a pill and told me to take it, so I took it?" And then, some of them add ..."and the next time I was alone with him, he drugged me and raped me AGAIN!" Really? REALLY? 3. And ALL of them waited years and years and years before reporting it, and not one, not one went to a police station or hospital? 4. And the reason is because they thought he'd quit getting them job auditions and quit giving them money to pay for housing, cars, tuition, etc? There IS a word for exchanging sex for material goods, and that word ain't "rape." 5. Shouldn't they at least have the decency to offer to refund his money before they accuse him of rape? 6. Isn't it at least possible that these women are trying to cash in? If not via a direct settlement from Cosby himself, then by selling their sordid tale to the highest bidder? Or maybe getting a role in the inevitable Lifetime Movie "Tears Behind the Laughter: Inside the Huxtable House of Horrors." Or at least a walk-on part in the equally inevitable LO, SVU episode. 7. Speaking of "Settlement," someone should make the one accuser who accepted a settlement look up the word "settlement." I do not think it means what she thinks it means. 8. Speaking of definitions, the definition of "rape" has certainly changed in the last 30 years. Back then, it meant literally forcing someone to have sex with you. Since then, the meaning has been stretched almost beyond recognition, to include next-morning regrets, retroactive withdraw of consent upon finding the guy turns out to be a jerk, and "I was too drunk to give consent." It's unreasonable to hold someone to today's standards for an incident that took place decades ago. He probably also didn't make his kids wear bicycle helmets back then. Should we shame him for that, too? 9. In America, people accused of a crime are presumed innocent until proven guilty. And short of a confession or the surfacing of a very old video tape, I think we all know there is never going to be any proof that he raped anybody. 10. BEFORE America became a country, in Salem Massachusetts and elsewhere, "Witches" were convicted and sentenced to death (without proof - obviously), based on the testimony of multiple women telling similar stories. But even if he's NOT innocent, we should STILL give him a pass. 1. He may not have realized what he was doing was wrong. 2. He did, by all accounts, compensate the accusers in some way. 3. And they did get to have sex with a famous celebrity, something that many women (especially these types of women), would certainly do willingly and for free. 4. Whatever harm he may have visited on a small handful of women, is outweighed a billionfold by good he has done over many decades of erasing negative stereotypes of the Black Community. Including being the ONLY Black celebrity to urge black youths to both pull up their pants, and learn (and use) proper English. 5. His son was MURDERED. Any bad karma debt was paid by that. Overpaid. Why seek to punish him more? 6. Plus, he was punished by the Box Office receipts of his movie "Leonard, Part 6." 7. If he's guilty, it means he cheated on his wife at least 15 times (probably more). If SHE can forgive him, what right do YOU have to be angry at him? 8. Still more punishment: Cancelled concerts; Lost TV-Land royalties; Withdrawn network deal for new sitcom; Bye-bye Netflix contract. How many rapists pay a multi-million dollar fine for their crimes? 9. For every woman he's accused of having raped, he's made a million people laugh. Hysterically. 10. He's pushing 80, and shows signs of the onset of dementia. At some point, it's time to recognize that you're just kicking the shit out of an elderly guy with brain damage, who honestly can't understand why your boot keeps clobbering his face. So c'mon, people! Let's cut The Cos a little slack, huh? CMV, if you can! [Edited for improved formatting. No words were changed.] Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! |
human-2376 | cmv | human | Many American schools have adopted a campaign known as "Spread the Word to End the Word," advocating for the removal of "retard" and "retarded" being used in everyday conversation. The argument is that it is offensive to those with mental handicaps. I agree that using it derogatively against another human being is wrong. However, I don't see why we shouldn't use the term to refer to other things. "Ugh, Facebook's new design looks so retarded." Nobody saying that is thinking "Huh! You know, these CSS elements look like they may be suffering from Down Syndrome. I think I'll point out its cognitive disabilities." I think we should continue to use "retarded" in this manner, and make it lose its intellectual handicap form of use, thereby removing the insulting, hurtful nature. No campaign will stop people from calling things retarded. If we shift the use, it will take on new meaning and stop offending human beings. There's a precedent for this: Moron, Idiot, and Imbecile were once distinct terms to refer to people within particular IQ brackets. Now it just refers to someone foolish. I think we should encourage the use of "retarded," outside of a mental handicap context. CMV Edit: spelling |
human-2887 | cmv | human | Shops like Topshop have been forced (through public opinion) to stock clothes for plus size women. I just don't think this is right. Clothes designed for certain sizes should be sold in those sizes and I don't see why they should have to stock plus sizes if they don't want to. I myself, have fluctuated in size anywhere from size 10 to 18, so I don't have a problem with people buying plus sizes, but there are companies which soley stock plus sizes, so why can't there be companies which choose not to supply them? If you want to buy clothes from these shops, but can't, then maybe you should do something to be more healthy, rather than shaming the companies who don't want to stock larger sizes. I feel this attitude just adds the problem of obesity, as society is forcing people to accept it, instead of making a change. CMV. EDIT: On my phone, so corrected typos. Also the title is supposed to say "stock" not "stick." EDIT 2: To clarify, I want to know why they should stick plus sizes when the don't want to. Why is it wrong that they don't? Not just because they will make more money if they do. Why should they? |
human-1638 | cmv | human | I posted [this pic in rpics] . In the post title, I gave context for the picture. I also posted the pic in three relevant subreddits that I thought would enjoy the content. I am now aware that what I did is classically referred to as 'Karma-whoring'. However, when the actions were undertaken, all I was trying to do was share what had happened in my life with a society of like-minded people in an online community. I had no intention of attempting to accrue undue karma. I subsequently deleted the x-posts, and, only after a discussion with the top-comment holder in the original post via pm, did I not delete the original, as we determined it would most likely eliminate their comment karma. This turn of events kept me away from reddit for some time, and still, to this day, leaves a dark spot in my good cheer. I have come to love reddit for all that it can do and do well. However: I believe that the community's desire to self-police has turned into a situation where, much like 'racist' in public sphere, or 'PED user' in sports, 'Karma-whore' is a label that get thrown around with impunity, and individual people are hurt more by the possibility of false accusation than the community could possibly be hurt by the actual action. Change my view. |
human-1392 | cmv | human | So the essential premise of my thoughts on the subject are that if you want to live overall, and will still want to live if you lose something, it's not worth dying to save it. The example that immediately comes to mind is military service. If life is really worth living to you it makes no sense to sacrifice it for anything you can live without. Just to clarify, appeals to altruismmorality are irrelevant to my question. I want to know if you guys can come up with a reason a self-interested person would want to sacrifice himhernon-gender-specific-pronounself. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! |
human-1414 | cmv | human | First of all, I want to say that there is room in this discussion for personal preference. Obviously music enjoyment is not some scientific enterprise. There is music that I don't enjoy listening to, but understand how others could or see quality that I can appreciate. Likewise, everyone has those guilty pleasure artistssongs where we know they're bad, but love them anyway. In either case, there is something about the music that we find good, whether an infectious melody or well-constructed lyrics or a wailing solo. Which returns me to trap. I find nothing about it aesthetically or musically appealing. I can't relegate it to "I'm not into it, but can see why others do" because I can't see why others like it, which is why I turn to you, Reddit. My objections are as follows: (1) Minimalism works against it. Minimalism in music is not always bad. I listen to other Electrohouse or DnB artists who use it to great effect. It creates a great tension-and-release element to a song and when used well is orgasmic. This tension is a staple in the Trap "sound," replacing the forceful Dubstep drop for a super low drone with a high minimalistic melody (generally speaking). On an subjective level, this is musical blue balls, but I think I can make a case for this on a more objective level. The reason the EDM staple of build-drop works is because of the tension-release cycle. It's like those amusement park rides that take you up 300 feet and then, well, drop you. The exhilaration and force of the drop is sharpened by the slow buildup. Trap, on the other hand, employs an almost identical build, and then the contrasted lack of sound at the drop serves as a different kind of experience. Imagine if instead of dropping the full 300 feet, the ride drops you 50 feet. You dont expect the stop and theres this juxtaposition of released tension and even more anticipation. Trap as a genre embraces this latter example as its core, never rleasing the tension fully. As a result, instead of effectively building a proper tension-release cycle, Trap leaves the listener unfulfilled. Possible rebuttal to (1): The amusement park model doesn't work for Trap. In that case, what is a better model with which to consider Trap? (2) Absence of complexity. I'm not looking for Mozart the DJ. Just something that gives the illusion of compositional knowhow. 1-3 note melodies are firstly boring and secondly a sign that the producer has no musical talent. I would like skill in my music. Trap as a genre feeds the instrumental-fetishist argument that electrobic music takes no skill because they don't play a "real instrument." EDM can do so much more, and I've heard it do so much more. Just never in this genre. Possible rebuttal to (2): (a) You're just being a snob and using it as an excuse for your subjective dislike. Possibly, but I don't think so. Even if the bar were set really low (like One Direction low) maybe the best choruses of Trap (that are distinctly Trap, not simply elements of other EDM genres which automatically set the majority of trap above 1D) could surpass them in terms of quality. Maybe. (b) Other genres have plenty of unremarkable musical complexity. Agreed; however no genre (aside from Ambient Drone) makes melodic simplicity a defining feature of the genre itself. (c) Simplicity is not always bad. Agreed. Some composers use simplicity very well and for a variety of aesthetic effects. My argument is that Trap does not. It's likely that I won't enjoy Trap music after this thread, but I do want to understand those that do like it, and if they like it, whether they actually think it constitutes quality music. Thank you. Edit1: Formatting Edit2: This is not "CMV: We can make objective judgments about aesthetic matters." My view includes as a presupposition that there is an objective (but limited) element to the appreciation of music. Edit3: I am referring to "Second Wave" characterized by heavy electronic music influences, rather than the original Trap which was a Hip-Hop offshoot. Edit4: Examples incoming Example 1: This is a fairly standard (in my mind) example of Trap elements. 808 steady drone with high-hats composing the background for a melody of, lets face it, one note with some ornaments. Example 2: Remix also including elements mentioned above. Better than most, but only just. Example 3: Changing up the formula a little with this one. The downtempo nature brings something different to the table, and its minimalism actually contributes to its overall feel. Definitely not the norm, though. Example 4: 10 songs that could serve as an adequate standard for what I mean by "Trap." Note that my argument is not that all sound the same, but that the similar features are the defining features of Trap, and that those features in themselves constitute poor music. |
human-1494 | cmv | human | I'm from the UK and so this view is largely derived from the football (aka soccer) here. The England team frequently have managers from nationalities other than English. This seems wrong to me. All members of a national team, including background staff, such as coaches, managers, trainers etc should be of the English (and whatever other country's) nationality.I believe that a country's national sports team is them representing themselves in that sport, on and off the field. So, by having someone of a different nationality influencing the result, even if they're not the actual sportsperson and part of the background staff, this seems unfair as it is not entirely that country. For instance, just like you wouldn't have a Swedish football player playing for the England squad, you equally wouldn't have a Swedish manager managing the England team. All positions in a national team should be like a duty, not a job, and they shouldn't be applicable to anyone. This should be mandatory for all nations and applied to all sports. |
human-4141 | cmv | human | Please don't give me "they have the right" or "two people that love each other" pitches, I've heard and understand those. My view on gay marriage does not entirely come from my Christian religion. Maybe 25. Please don't make this about religion. I have heard that there are case studies showing that children raised by same sex couples are developmentally disadvantaged in several ways. Ex: A child without a father has a high chance of becoming involved in crime and ending up in jail. A child without a mother may lack emotion and empathy. These studies suggest that there is something that both a man and a woman bring to the table and that not having both a mother and father changes a child's development, personality, etc. I'm not an expert and I can't cite these studies. CMV strictly on whether or not gay couples should be allowed to raise children. I'm not interested in whether or not they should be allowed to marry. EDIT: Some have mentioned the fact that I can't cite the study I referenced above and therefore have posted the below message to them. My father had sent this to me a while ago and I held onto the link. It mentions a couple studies, the ones I referenced, especially one by Mark Regnerus. The article summarizes his findings, but I can't find the actual study. |
human-4128 | cmv | human | When a soldier from an invading nation shoots at someone from the invaded nation, we call this 'conquering'. When someone from the invaded nation shoots back, we call this 'resistance'. To call this action 'reverse-conquering' can only serve the interests of the invader. Likewise, when a white person, for instance, calls a person of color by their object-name, we call this racism. When a PoC calls a white person by their object-name, I call this resistance. To call it 'reverse-racism' can only serve the interests of the dominate privileged culturerace. To elaborate more, My thoughts on the issue have been guided by [Franz Fanon's] writing on westernwhite culture and those it has colonized in [The Wretched of the Earth] : As soon as the native begins to pull on his moorings, and to cause anxiety to the settler, he is handed over to well-meaning souls who in cultural congresses point out to him the specificity and wealth of Western values. But every time Western values are mentioned they produce in the native a sort of stiffening or muscular lockjaw. During the period of decolonization, the native's reason is ap pealed to. He is offered definite values, he is told frequently that decolonization need not mean regression, and that he must put his trust in qualities which are welltried, solid, and highly esteemed. But it so happens that when the native hears a speech about Western culture he pulls out his knife - or at least he makes sure it is within reach. The violence with which the supremacy of white values is affirmed and the aggressiveness which has per meated the victory of these values over the ways of life and of thought of the native mean that, in revenge, the native laughs in mockery when Western values are men tioned in front of him. In the colonial context the settler only ends his work of breaking in the native when the latter admits loudly and intelligibly the supremacy of the white man's values. In the period of decolonization, the colonized masses mock at these very values, insult them, and vomit them up. To me, when the colonizedoppressed 'mock at these very values, insult them, and vomit them up', this is not racism, but a form of resistance to the continued imperialism of westernwhite culture, and to quote Montaigne on the the tendency of western culture to cannibalize others, whose "eyes are bigger than our stomachs, and that we have more curiosity than understanding. " CMV Edited for a word for more semantic accuracy, and elaborated on my thoughts. |
human-3434 | cmv | human | Many shower products, including shampoo, conditioner, and liquid body soap, come in plastic containers with some sort of cap. There are many variations of bottle designs, but overall we can group these into two categories: "cap on top," where the cap is at the top of the bottle and as far from the base as possible, and "cap on bottom" where the bottle actually sits on its cap. Cap on bottom designs are a fairly recent invention, made possible by the use of arbitrary plastic shapes for liquid packaging. So I understand that cap on top designs are entrenched, culturally. Some products (often shampoo and conditioner pairs) actually use the same packaging, but with labels in opposite orientation to suggest that one end our the other is the top. I don't care about that: my only concern here is that the product can sit stably on the cap, regardless of whether the text is now upside down. I would count that as a "cap on bottom" design because the bottle can sit on its cap without concern of toppling. My argument is very simple: cap on bottom designs are better, because as the remaining liquid gets to a low level, it remains by the spout and can easily be ejected. Otherwise, high-viscosity liquids require a lot of shaking and squeezing to eject from the bottle, as they have settled to the end furthest from the spout. I believe cap on top designs (defined here as designs where the bottle cannot rest on its cap without being at risk of falling over) are functionally inferior, with no functional advantages. The only advantage to them at all is that, by having no concern for stability, the cap can be artistically shaped for visual pleasure in arbitrary ways. I don't think this is anywhere near as important as being able to easily access the contained product, and this I believe I would be happier if all liquid shower products had cap on bottom designs. Please try to convince me that the "cap on top" design has redeeming qualities, so I can stop being annoyed by them. CMV! |
human-1676 | cmv | human | Well, while I was discussing the effects of feminism on another CMV post, a reddit user made a very good point in saying that female-only gyms and shelters are discriminatory. That was something I never thought about! I could honestly see how it could be discriminatory (men might like to have their own private workout areas, too, and they also can be victims of abuse). I can't refute that it's discriminatory, of course, because it is (or at least, I think it is). But I also believe it's important for women to be and feel safe. As I mentioned to this particular reddit user, my sister was harassed by her gym so badly that she ended up having to quit, so obviously I'm conflicted in my opinions! Now, while I consider myself a feminist, I consider myself more so an egalitarian and I believe that all people should be treated equally. So I would like to CMV to better my practice of that philosophy. As it stands, I would say that I still do think that female-only gyms and shelters are good things, but if someone can CMV and help make the issue a little clearer, I would greatly appreciate it! Thank you! Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! |
human-2266 | cmv | human | Whenever the need for lawyers come up, the complicated legal system comes up as a reference. How would you as a non-professional know all the laws that pertain to your situation? Well, why are there so many laws that a jury of your peers can't use common sense to judge you? I'd like if the conversation goes beyond "peers can only judge trivial laws like obvious revenge murder." Why is a system of thousands of laws concerning [the size of fish] and movie copyright better, when only a small lucrative class of lawyers can be the true judges? How can anyone follow tens of thousands of laws? What is the point of lawyers? |
human-3397 | cmv | human | Serious attempt to understand the logic and come to a final conclusion here. Backstory: there's women that have been in my life over the past few years that have accused me of being a misogynist for a variety of reasons. I had a discussion today that resulted in me, again, being called a misogynist. As of right now I tend to assume it's just an insult that's being cast at me because I've "won" an argument, thus being used as an easy-out. However, what if it's true? If so, I should probably work on some self-improvement right? Here's why I think I might be a misogynist: Let's just start by saying I absolutely despise the mother of my child as it seems to be a frequent reason I'm interpreted as a "woman hater." It would be false to say that I haven't let my experiences with her have an affect on me, but it would also be false to say that because I hate her I must hate all women. Second: perhaps what I would see as my closest-to-misogynistic trait. It's more difficult for women to gain my trust. This generally only applies to women who I'm considering a relationship with. Probably leads into my next point. However, I don't have a problem being friends with women or associating with them because how much do you really need to be able to trust a friend or associate? On that level, I think distrust everyone fairly equally. For that matter, I don't really try to get into relationships with men so... maybe I would distrust men in the same way? Not sure. In all likelihood because of the above point I don't usually give two flying fucks about having sex or especially getting into a committed relationship that extends beyond dating. On occasions outside of the above: I do from time to time partake in "no strings" or "friends with benefits" arrangements. I make my intentions clear from as early as possible, but when asked about escalating to a legitimate relationship I tend to back out of the arrangement and put an end to it. I see this as my best effort to not "lead someone on" or "tie them down" because clearly we don't share the same end-game. If I wanted a relationship that's what I would have aimed for from the beginning. I have standards. The few times I have been in relationships my significant other has been attractive and, since the break-up with my son's mother, had some level of intelligence. I won't consider a relationship, even a no-strings one, with someone who is overweight or I perceive to be, for lack of a nicer way of saying it, an idiot. My immediate reaction to someone announcing they are a feminist is a negative one. I'm not a fan of the MRM either, but that's mostly because of all of the whining and lack of motivation to actually accomplish anything. At least they acknowledge some of the same issues that affect my life. I feel like feminists as a group are actively fighting against what I am. Not saying I can't eventually respect a feminist or that I would suddenly dislike someone upon finding out that they are a feminist, but if part of my first impression of someone is that they are a feminist it's a red mark, so to speak. I realize they're not all bad, I really do, but my experiences with people who are willing to speak up and say they are a feminist (outside of Reddit) have always been bad ones. I have put my hands on a woman once. A knife was involved. I've had two relationships where I was punched, kicked, bit, and verbally abused. One of them was, you guessed it, my son's mother. On no other occasion have I hurt a woman. (sex accidents excluded) EDIT: Adding this point, as I didn't think about it at the time of typing. I've been called a misogynist for believing that prostitution should be legal and admitting that when I'm older and I have less options plus more money I'll probably be willing to pay for sex. I also occasionally go to strip clubs with friends. That being said, here's the main reasons I think I am NOT a misogynist: I don't cheat out of respect for my partner, I would think this kind of mentality is the opposite of a misogynist. However, I'm told that the fact that I have zero tolerance or forgiveness for a cheating partner means I see them as an "object that I own." Wtf? I'm not controlling, one of many traits that probably led to the demise of the relationship between my son's mother and I. In spite of that, when I'm in a relationship I don't make it a point to "lock down" my significant other. Again, I'd think the fact that I don't see women as objects to be controlled is a pretty clear indication that I'm not a misogynist. I'm respectful as fuck to women, especially compared to how I interact with other men. I make it a point to watch my mouth more and I'm much more likely to shrug off an offensive comment. I'm more than willing to honestly answer any questions if more clarification is needed, and if I get no responses I'm going to be sure to use an empty thread as a reference the next time one of my female affiliates decides to call me a misogynist. I say I'm not, CMV. FINAL EDIT: I knew I could count on you guys to make me feel like a horrible person! In all seriousness, though, thank you everyone for your input! As a TL;DR for curious individuals: I had never considered the fact that misogyny was anything beyond hating women given the context in which it's typically used. I do have some misogynistic tendencies: the prime one, ironically, being something I listed as something that I thought was the complete opposite of misogyny. Fuck me, right? Anyways, I've also been made well-aware of the fact that my presentation could use some work. I don't honestly know if I'll ever be able to "lift the veil" any faster with women than I can with men, but I'll work on it. Again, thank you 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] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! |
human-3198 | cmv | human | I believe ambulances should have forward facing cameras that are fed into a system that identifies motorists who forced an ambulance to slow down, and fine them. As I was commuting today I witnessed 3 separate instances where a driver had significant amount of time to pull over and let an ambulance pass at full speed. Instead each time the driver chose to wait until the ambulance was directly behind them to pull over. To pull over they had to slow down, which forced the ambulance operator to slow down. Had they reacted when there was enough distance for them to safely slow down and pull over, instead of waiting until the ambulance was right on top of them, the ambulance could have proceeded at full speed. One instance the ambulance even had a police escort, which was following a car for at least quarter mile at very close proximity, WITH HIS LIGHTS AND SIREN ON. The motorist still did not pull over, slowing both the police escort and ambulance down. They were going in the direction on a long straight stretch, and I could see the car, the cop, and the ambulance all right on top of each other as the motorist entered a part of the highway where they could not even pull over. Even after going past a stretch of at least a quarter mile where it was safe to do so. This inattention, or inconsideration, or whatever it is, for the person in the ambulance is just awful. At least, that's what I think. |
human-3262 | cmv | human | Supposedly, you should avoid discussing religion and politics (or other controversial topics) on a first date, because if your date holds a differing opinion, this could cause conflict and prevent a relationship from developing. I think that's stupid. If your beliefs are incompatible with your date's, doesn't it make sense to know as soon as possible? If it's going to be a deal-breaker, it's going to be a deal breaker. Why waste time, money, and emotional investment on a relationship that's destined to be a dead-end due to irreconcilable differences? I think it makes all the sense in the world to discuss controversial topics that are important to you, to "weed out" incompatible "candidates." 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] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! |
human-3596 | cmv | human | Plenty of people live a vegetarian lifestyle and seem to be in a good shape and health. To my knowledge no studies have proven the contrary. Also plenty of cultures lead an almost vegetarian lifestyle due to different reasons. |
human-3944 | cmv | human | I'm 17 in a NYS school, where slowly the change over from the old curriculum is being phased out, with the Freshmen of this year being the first in the high school with Common Core. I have a younger sister in the 8th grade, and she has struggled quite a bit with school in the past, but she always got by with low Cs and high Ds. In her first year under Common Core, she failed 34 core classes in the 3rd quarter, and in the rest of the year kept a few points higher than a 65 average, with 2 classes failed in quarter 1 and two. I made an attempt with tutoring her, and that seemed to click with her. I showed her, in math, my methods of doing things, which I learned from the old curriculum. She received a take home test over the Christmas break. A specific example I remember from this was a density question. We all know the Density formula as DMV. I showed her this and the Density Triangle which I was shown by my math teacher in the 8th grade. She understood it, and I even gave her some sample problems that she blazed though. We were confident in her receiving high marks on this test. She got it back a few days after the end of the break with a 52. This specific density problem was marked entirely wrong due to the incorrect sequence being used. I don't remember the specifics on what she wanted, but I was furious. Another point, the way in which they are taught to solve equations for x (As you can see, I'm mostly angered by the math aspect.) The way I was taught was to get the X alone on one side (3x24x-12 2x-12). She is taught to completely ignore x (3x24x-12 3x4x-10 x 43x-10 something like that) I helped my sister with her homework and one of these problems. Walked her through it with this method. Clicked. Done and done, she was getting it just fine. She hands it in, gets no credit since it's done incorrectly. But she still gets the exact same answer with both methods. Finally, the new NYS reagents exam in English was to be given state-wide next year. However, it was stated that in order to get a sample of the new test, this year's juniors (me) would need to take this new test. Blindly. None of us would know what was on the test, other than how many essays we would have to write. We would have to take this on top of our regualar reagents. There was no opting out. They would take the higher grade, but it piled enormous amounts of stress. It was later discovered that if the test was administered in one school, they were required to release the entire exam, and our school withdrew from this test. Well, there you have it. Half rant, half explanation on why I hate the common core. Her lowering grades could be due to her, or her teacher, but it does not change the fact that I currently despise the common core. So please, so I don't yell at my sister's teacher for being a bitch, CMV. Edit: won't be answering posts from here, got an AP tomorrow and I need sleep. I'll put responses tomorrow. Edit 2: Damn, got quite a few responses to go through now, good way for me to cool off from that AP I guess! Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! |
human-1513 | cmv | human | People ask me if am against gay marriage and I tell them the same thing: yes I am, but am also against straight marriage, the government should play no part in love, or choosing who you want to spend your life with. The fact that we must seek the government's approval seems insane to me. I understand the different tax reasons and others like it, but marriage should not be guiding that, love is not the governments business. I believe this is just the government trying to legislate morality. The government should be involved in other business than telling people whom they can and can not marry (love). If there really is a slippery slope as to people are going to start being polygamous, so what? Who are we, and who is the government to tell anyone of us whats good or bad for us, are we not capable of making our own decisions. |
human-3141 | cmv | human | Genderless January has come to a close, and as promised, we're now looking for feedback from the community. In terms of traffic, it looks like the number of visits dropped a little but not dramatically. Here are the past 4 months: date uniques pageviews January 379,369 1,436,927 December 400,616 1,610,041 November 353,641 1,534,565 October 378,826 1,608,060 The fact that there weren't any particularly debatable happenings in the news probably also contributed. In terms of moderator actions (removing posts or comments, or approving those that have been reported either by users or the automoderator) the data is almost eerily unchanged. [Note, data was only available for 3 months] monthremove post approve post remove comment approve comment Total January 702 244 1035 1264 3245 December 705 236 1378 1280 3245 November 620 234 1311 1078 3243 But beyond the statistics, what did you think overall? Was it a nice change of pace, or a horrible stifling of views? Should we "rest" other topics as well? Is there a way we could have handled it better? Please, let us know what you think. EDIT: Including [LINK] to original post announcing Genderless January |
human-3723 | cmv | human | Now, I am not talking about emergency situations when a climb must be made without safety gear. I am only talking about climbers who choose to climb with no protection. I am also not directing my argument at climbers who use proper equipment and safety techniques. There is nothing necessarily wrong with placing your life in danger for amusement. After all, all activities humans engage in have a risk of death. Driving a car, for example, is inherently dangerous. But, what crosses the line for me is the fact that a climber would deliberately throw away a chance to use equipment that would prevent his or her death. There is no reason to make a dangerous activity artificially even more dangerous. I feel like deliberately engaging in a dangerous activity, while deliberately choosing not to use equipment literally designed to save your life - is an equivalent of playing Russian Roulette - placing your life in danger to simply place your life in danger. And I simply can't feel bad for someone who lost his life voluntarily playing Russian Roulette. I want my mind changed because on some level I know that I should feel bad for people who die in accidents. CMV. P.S. Out of respect for families, I will not link to any stories of actual climbers dying, and I would ask people responding not to name any specific names either. Thank you! Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! |
human-3991 | cmv | human | With all this controversy over [lethal injection] lately. It seems that it would be much better to just use bullets. I'm not really a huge advocate of the death penalty to begin with, but if we have to do it, it seems it should be quick and painless. I'm no neuroscientists, but a bullet moves pretty fast and if aimed at the head is taking out the pain perceiving organ, it seems like bullets meet the earlier criteria. In addition you circumvent the dubiously ethical position of having doctors purposefully "doing harm," the purity of the lethal drugs, etc. I don't want this to become a debate about the death penalty itself, but the method that seems to be such an issue. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! |
human-2244 | cmv | human | While I like ACA overall , I think the employer mandate is a mistake . If I'm a business owner and I employ 70 workers full time , I'm now motivated to move most if not all of my low skilled employees from full time status to part time status . This doesn't only affect full time workers , since anyone over 30 hours a week is now considered full time . This creates anouther problem , instead of a low wage worker being able to get by with 33 hours a week at one job and maybe 10 hours at a side job , he has to go out and find a 3rd job (which is near impossible since his jobs will not care about resolving schedule conflicts). This isn't about what is right or what is wrong , or what a business can afford to do. (Keep in mind most restaurants close within 3 years of opening , its very hard to make a profit) It's about what's the most logical . Even if a business has an absolute need for full time workers, they can move the company up to Canada , pay workers a bit more , and still come out ahead of if they stayed in the states . Higher paid jobs will have a benefits program already in place, but this should be between the employer and employee. The employee mandate only will make it harder to find work for low skilled workers . CMV As a side note I don't really like the employee-employer healthcare system as is , since I have to surrender my personal medical information (what pre-existing conditions , etc) to my employer . The healthcare exchange seems like the way to go since it takes employers out of the equation entirely. |
human-1793 | cmv | human | I believe that all sports should be open to both sexes. We don't separate any other competitions by gender, why sports? If women ever want to achieve equality we have to stop separating the sexes and start letting everyone play with everyone else. |
human-1670 | cmv | human | Perhaps this is only a reddit, but something I've noticed in many political debates is how much the points of view differ between (for example) Libertarians vs Socialists, or Anarchists and Statists, and how pointless and circular the debates become. Typically when someone tries to debateargue, one side will talk about how everything in their system is completely right and pure, and can't be damaged by flawed humans, and the other side will say that's all garbage because of human nature. Everyone says that people will act like the logician's perfectly rational person, and handwaves any kind of flaw that could appear. A highly paraphrased but typical argument about taxes: Libertarian: Taxes are stealing Socialist: They're the cost of living in society, and we should take care of as many people as possible Libertarian: That's what the free market and charity is for Socialist: Not enough people can or will give charity to compensate Libertarian: Yes they will Socialist: no they won't (Ad nauseum) The thing is, it's not like we can model any of this system scientifically, or have two similar countries with Twin A in one country and Twin B in the other and see the outcome from the two politicaleconomic models. So at the end of the day, trying to argue about it just seems pointless, and no one is going to change their mind. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! |
human-2856 | cmv | human | Washington Redskins, Chicago Blackhawks, Atlanta Braves, Cleveland Indians. The list goes on, and that's just at the level of professional sports. There has obviously been a lot of controversy surrounding these names, and there are movements with varying degrees of popular support to change some if not all of them. I believe that movements to change these names create racial tension where there was none before. When a team chooses and name to represent them, they usually look for something that (a) connotes superiority, or (b) ties to the local heritage. Generally, the names I referenced above meet both of those criteria, and the very fact that an organization adopts a name indicates that they view it in a positive light. It could be said that it would be more racist to deny the impact of Native American heritage on our present culture. That's what I believe, but I'm genuinely curious to understand the views of the opposition, and I am completely open to having my view changed. |
human-4167 | cmv | human | Bit of a challenging topic to disagree with. I'm just curious to hear any opposing arguments. I think that all internet data should be treated equally by ISPs and government entities, with no discrimination by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, and modes of communication. That's the Wikipedia definition of the topic. What prompted me to post this was [this post] sitting on the front page. The title is a bit sensationalized, but obviously this idea of "fast lanes" for higher-paying customers seems like a despicable cash grab. It's no surprise to me that Comcast was named the worst company (in America) for the year 2014. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! |
human-1875 | cmv | human | In the Arkham video game series the Joker has been the main villain in every game. While it's arguable he shared the spotlight with Hugo Strange and Bane in Arkham City and Arkham: Origins, respectively, both games ended with Batman confronting the Joker. In all three games Joker consistently outsmarted and in some cases outmuscled various other super-villains most notably Black Mask who was completely made a fool of and his threat totally neutered. In the popular and acclaimed Scott SynderGreg Capullo on-going comic book series Joker used Two-Face, Riddler, and Penguin in one of his schemes and then captured them in a cage and left them for the police. In the most recent issue, spoilers ahead, Batman had to ask for the assistance of several other members of his rogue's gallery (including Scarecrow, Mr. Freeze, and Bane) to defeat Joker. In the Brian Azzarello's "Joker" graphic novel Joker humiliates and press gangs Penguin into laundering him money. Later he forces Two-Face to seek Batman's help because the former is scared for his life after Joker murdered his gang. Famously, Joker also displayed immunity to Scarecrow's fear toxin. When the Scarecrow attempted to poison him the Joker literally laughed in his face and beat him nearly to death with a chair. These are just a few examples off the top of my head. As my cmv title says, I think portraying the Joker like this, making him look cool at the expense of the rest of Batman's rogues gallery, diminishes and marginalizes the rest of Batman's rogues gallery to the detriment of Batman's mythology overall and the other stories writers and creators can tell. When Joker is always the scariest, the most deranged, the most in control, the most out of control, the slickest, and the coolest why should I read about Batman's other adventures against people who are less than? If Batman beat Joker we know he can beat Two-Face. If he survived Joker's mind games we know he can survive Scarecrow's fear toxin. If he got out Joker's death trap we know he can get out of the Riddler's too. How much better would Batman's Universe be if when, say, Two-Face was revealed in the first issue as the bad guy for a particular arc it was immediately an "oh, shit" moment rather than a "well, let's see what this writer has in mind" moment? Needless to say, I think the Joker is being Captain Jack Sparrow-d. I think Joker is being Wolverine-d. I am suffering from Joker fatigue. Can someone c my v? Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! |
human-3588 | cmv | human | I am not saying that I condone what Klebold and Harris did, but it was really the aftermath of the shootings that helped America. Without the Columbine massacre, there would not have been an inquiry and a revolution of the way people think about bullying. I'm not arguing that the response to this murder prevents more murders, I'm arguing that it changes a culture of bullying where assault and intimidation are part of the daily reality of thousands of children's lives. CREDIT: GreenStrong There needs to be a small activating event in order for something to be revolutionised, therefore, I believe that the Columbine massacre was a good thing in the end. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! |
human-1221 | cmv | human | I think that nature has given us humans nothing but trouble. That all the good thing we have gotten from nature are things we have either stolen or coerced out of it. I think that when people say we should go back to our nature, or that we should live more in accordance with nature, they are mistaking a fantasy version of nature, where all the animals are friends, with the real deal where every day is a life and death struggle against hunger, disease and predation. I think that the nature of nature is cruel bordering on evil and that the less we have do with it the better. That instead of embracing our place in the natural order of things, we should seek to remove ourselves from the system entirely. bedtime... i'll check in again tomorrow |
human-2325 | cmv | human | First of all, I'm not a pacifist. I'm skeptical of the value of the right to bear arms, and though I'm not necessarily against it, I do believe disarmament is ideal. I won't get into the political ramifications of the gun debate here in America, I just want to focus on one aspect of it: that we requires guns, specifically conceal carry guns, for self-defense. I've studied self-defense arts like krav maga for a bit now, and everything I've learned about guns tells me they are terrible for this purpose. First of all, the [21 foot rule] teaches us that a man with a knife will almost always win against a man with a holstered gun. "Holstered" is the only reasonable scenario for what I'm talking about here. I assume you're not going to be walking past every dark alley or through every crowded bar with your weapon drawn. When do you get a chance to see a mugger or home invader coming from 30 feet away? And if you're defending yourself in a crowded bar, your bullets can only add to the danger of everyone around you, even if you're skilled. All of this assumes you have decent training and are physically and mentally unimpaired. World-class police officers with years of experience adhere rigidly to the 21 foot rule. Amateur conceal-carriers are going to fair even worse, I'd imagine. I agree that guns are a tool like any other, that can be used and misused. I also believe guns are a completely inefficient tool for anything other than combat with intent to kill, and the idea that we need to guns to stop muggers and rapists is a fallacy we use to excuse our love affair with weaponry. Obviously we can craft scenarios where a gun is the best possible tool for self defense, but that's just my point: these scenarios are almost always completely unrealistic. Far more efficient options include good aggressive unarmed self defense techniques, conflict avoidance, investing in home security that prevents home invaders from actually entering the building, and options like tasers which can still be misused but are less likely to cause loss of life. Certainly we can't eliminate risk. There will always be failures and tragedies, guns or no guns. But guns make wholesale slaughter a lot easier because that's what they're designed for, and the [rebranding] of weaponry as a viable self-defense tool is just irresponsible. I don't hate guns or people who own them, but I think people think guns will protect them, and I think that's a lie. To change my view, I'd like proof that guns are a viable self defense tool. Statistic are often [unreliable] on this topic due to the highly political nature of the argument, but I'll accept any strong logical arguments. EDIT: This has been a fantastic discussion. I've got a lot of research to do. I've awarded two deltas: one to uforealdudes for informing me that my notions about the 21 foot rule are incorrect and that according to military training the man with the firearm will still frequently maintain control of the situation even if the attacker is very close, and another to the appropriately named uGunDefender for providing a CDC article I won't pretend to be qualified to disagree with that specifically states crime victims who defended themselves with guns fared better than those who used other methods. I still maintain two beliefs: one, that people massively overvalue guns as self defense tools such that they neglect other forms of training. Self-defense requires a well rounded regimen, putting all of your faith in one tool is lazy and oftentimes dangerous. And two, that we as a culture all suffer from the misinformation surrounding guns. The fact that guns might be useful as a crime deterrent does not mean we shouldn't be extremely skeptical of the people who shill them or the culture they create. But overall I think my original V is C'd. By all means keep the discussion going. I'll be checking back in to see if anyone else has raised some good points. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! |
human-2966 | cmv | human | Definition of [Inverse totalitarianism] These are some media Shareholders [Disney Corp] [Time Warner] [CBS] [News corp] These are some banks and their Shareholders [Goldman Sachs] [Bank of America] [CITI bank] [Deutsche Bank] These are some major tech and communications companies and their shareholders [google] [apple] [att] [verizon] The names that always come up in these companies and many more are Vanguard, Blackrock, State Street, and Fidelity. Look up other fortune 500 companies for yourself. [These companies are the ones who are trying to get even more control of internet with CISPA] Its important to know that the banks not only bribe our congressmen but have direct control of the Federal Reserve Bank which gives us the federal reserve notes that is our money (pull out a dollar bill and tell me what it says.....not U.S. Treasury Note). When you look [how the Fed creates money] it makes sense that....... [Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region. The stockholding commercial banks elect two thirds of each Bank's nine member board of directors. The remaining three directors are appointed by the Federal Reserve Board. The Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks, but direct supervision and control of each Bank is exercised by its board of directors. 12 U.S.C. Sect. 301. The directors enact by-laws regulating the manner of conducting general Bank business, 12 U.S.C. Sect. 341, and appoint officers to implement and supervise daily Bank activities. These activities include collecting and clearing checks, making advances to private and commercial entities, holding reserves for member banks, discounting the notes of member banks, and buying and selling securities on the open market. See 12 U.S.C. Sub-Sect. 341-361.] There is actually a story in the bible of all places that is relevant to this. Jesus when he throws out the money changers in the temple. Whether or not you believe in godreligion or not does not diminish the value of that story. It shows us that the monopoly of money was an issue thousands of years ago. TLDR there are tangible reasons for the sayings Follow the Money Money is the root of all evil CMV |
human-2849 | cmv | human | To go along side the WTC 911 post. To date: 1) the "magic bullet" theory has been proven possible by multiple independent testers. Its not only possible, but recreatable. 2) Firing that amount of shots with that rifle is not only possible, but easy, especially for a trained marskman like Oswald. 3) To date, there has been 0 evidence for any other shooters. No shell casings. No recovered bullets. No pictures of a gunman. No reliable witnesses of more than one shooter. Nothing. 4) LHO killed a cop later that day. No one seems to ever bring that up. He killed him with a pistol he had ordered through the mail. Ballistics matches the gun. You don't kill a police officer on a whim. 5) "Back and Away" - A head is going to react like that when shot from behind (as in consistent with the lone gunman theory) There is nothing I love more than a good conspiracy theory, but there is absolutely no evidence suggesting more than one shooter, only a shitload of suspiciousfishy shit that went down. |
human-2354 | cmv | human | This is a quandary of logic that I discovered a while back. Put simply the idea is put forward that any religion that calls for the sharing with and converting of others not in your religion means that your deity unfairly punishes certain people. While this is primarily targeted at Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, it can apply to any religion where humans are judged and then receive an eternal rewardpunishment. When you have a religion that calls for a "spreading of the gospel," to use the Christian term, you have a deity that has whether or not you're a member of his church in his list of qualifications for getting your eternal reward. Most religions explain that it is necessary (or even mandatory) for receiving the reward. This is when I would ask what about people that never knew your religion? My usual example is people that lived in either Ancient Egypt, Greece, or other prehistoric societies, or native populations that live far remote from your church. Most explain these as either "They get a free pass" or "They never knew My Deity, so they receive eternal punishment." This leads me to say this: Either you have a deity that is willing to punish whole civilizations that never got a chance to view "the truth," or one that let's anyone in who never had to make a choice. If it's the first, why would you want to worship someone like that? If it is the latter, why tell anyone if ignorance is a free pass? TL;DR: Either you have a massively unfair deity, or one that you wouldn't want to share the religion about. CMV Edit: Reposted because my last was removed due to the typo "CMW" |
human-1463 | cmv | human | Let me preface this by saying that I'm currently a junior at the University of Illinois and I'm a fairly liberal thinking person already. I have plenty of friends with more conservative views and we discuss politics all the time and they tell me that they wouldn't dare share their views in the classroom. They have seen what happens when a student tries to express an opinion that isn't shared by the professor. I was in a class one day and somebody raised their hand and explained why she thought that giving out free condoms would encourage teens to have sex. The professor embarrassed the poor girl. The professor got the rest of the lecture hall on her side and humiliated the girl for thinking differently. Now I don't agree with that girls view point on condoms at all, but nobody deserves to be embarrassed in front of their peers like that just for trying to explain their point of view. College is supposed to be a place where people with all kinds of different cultures come together to share ideas, beliefs, and customs. However, at todays campuses, we gather all these people with different views and try to make them all think the same. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! |
human-1746 | cmv | human | I want this discussion to follow the axiom "language diversity should be mantained." I don't really care if you don't think that to be the case. So "everyone should learn English as a first language and all other languages should be disregarded" is not going to be taken as a valid argument here. I might make a different CMV for that, but that's not what's being discussed in this CMV. (Edit: I figured if I'm really asking you to change my view, I don't get to set that kind of conditions so forget about that) I've seen a huge amount of postsyoutube videospodcasts, etc. supporting these two ideas: - The USA should stop forcing so much foreign language learning to its students. - Non-English speaking countries should still teach English because it's beneficial for its population's economy. The second point bothers me quite a lot. My problem with it arises from the fact that doing so only worsens already existing problems of social and cultural inequality. Why? - Only the upper and middle classes are able to learn English. Jumping from a lower to an upper class is already quite difficult. If we were to impose a language barrier (as we are currently doing) the gap between the lower and upper classes would widen. Learning a language takes a lot of time and effort. People from the lower classes usually can't afford to waste that much time learning a foreign language. Trying to teach everybody English only widens the gap even more for those who can't. I think all the effort many countries put into teaching their kids English should instead be put into making information available to them in their native language. Let's look at my country, for example. Here we all have mandatory English classes in both middle and high school. Of course most people don't learn the language because as most of you who have taken forced classes on a foreign language it takes interest to learn a foreign language. That leads to most jobs asking for a Cambridge certificate in English as a proof that you speak English. And, guess what? They cost money. While it's not too much, it's well beyond the reach of the lower classes. In my country school and university are both free. The best university in the country according to most international institutions is the free public one. We even give our poorest students (those whose parents make less than US 2'000 a month) a scolarship for studying at university. Our poor students could have equal opportunities but they don't. Because nowadays having a Cambridge English certificate is almost as important as a university degree. - People who speak languages similar to English are at an advantage. This is a simple one. I just think it's unfair that people who speak another Germanic language or another Indo-European language have it so much easier learning the "world language" than those who speak, for example, Japanese, Hawai'ian or an Uralic language. Supporting language as a lingua franca in such countries is readily accepting something that puts your population at disatvantage. What's even worse is that people who speak Indo-European languages are already at a better economical position when compared to the rest of the world. Why widen the gap? It's just making rich people richer and poor people poorer. - Of course, native English speakers have it easier than the rest. Native English speakers have automatic job opportunities everywhere. Of course you'd be better off also learning the language spoken in your target country if you plan on living there but you're still much better off than, say, someone who only speaks Finnish or even Mandarin, the language with the most speakers worldwide. Native English speakers also have automatic access to a lot of information. But that's not only because the US is a superpower. Non-natives also write their scientific work in English so even if I'm looking for a paper written by someone from my country, I need to know English to have access to it. Again it seems that instead of making sure to translate relevant scientific journals most governments are willing to "solve" this problem by teaching "everyone" English. But of course, that only widens the gap between those who can speak English and those who can't. And also encourages loss of linguistic (and therefore cultural) diversity. Now, reddit, ChangeMyView! Edit: View changed! Thank you everyone! I'd still support any movement trying to make a simple conlang the global lingua franca but you've made me realise that not teaching English right now is probably even worse than teaching it if equality is what I'm looking after. As even if a conlang would be a much better option and using English or any other natural language has a lot of disadvantages, it's probably the only thing we can do to help more people have access to all the information we have access 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] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! |
human-2208 | cmv | human | I was in the middle of writing a paper on the current state of ethnic affairs in America and after doing a lot of research I came to a very unpleasant thought: that the current upswing of right wing orientation among young whites may stem partially or largely from talking points on these issues that are more aimed at instilling fervor than any form of comprehension. I believe that current news coverage of any racial issue is almost always geared towards exciting the consumer and thus avoids any issues that might lower the perception of racism in the white community. I believe that because it is socially and economically advantageous for them, some communities take advantage of this to ensure that dialogue on immigration is unlikely to flow into an area that covers less savory complications from their interests. This is most notably the case with immigration. For instance, mentioning that cultural changes make people uncomfortable and require acclimation is absolutely unheard of in the immigration debate, much less that allowing one ethnic group to change the makeup of a state by more than 40 (California) may actually make even non-racist whites unhappy. Sadly, I have never once seen a prominent pro-Hispanic source ever work up the gall to even mention this, much less actually dig into it. I sense that a massive bulk of the immigration movement in particular, and other ethnic rights campaigns, actually rests on using social pressure and fear of being called a racist rather than actually encouraging a dialogue on the topic. Here are three main issues weighing on my view, but not necessarily informing me. I kept details out of them to keep them malleable because I figured I could dive into the details if someone wanted to focus on one of those clear issues. As for where I currently read my news, I generally read the Huffpost and Reuters to start and move my way to the LA Times, with additional sources if they look interesting on Reddit. I wouldn't trust Fox news any sooner than I'd trust Salon. The issues that are currently weighing on my view are: The MAS Program in Arizona, from what it originally taught to the attempt to ban it. It appears that the classes were originally taught with extremely and deliberately racist material. Trayvon Martin Case I wouldn't be shocked if racial bias played a case in Zimmerman's belief that Martin was a "thug," but this seems utterly irrelevant in the face of how the African American community responded to this. The edited 911 call, baby pictures of Martin instead of the ones showing his actual appearance and the avoidance of using photos of Zimmerman that showed any sign of injury are a start of the problem. The main reason why this one weighs down today, however, is that I do not recall a single member of the African American community commenting on the incredible amount of bias that led to the trial debacle. Immigration in the South West I lived in SoCal for a pretty long time. I recall people telling Republicans in the 1980s that the belief that a little amnesty would somehow lead to Mexicans taking over the state and implementing their own immigration laws was racist. It was a big deal there at the time. There was even a very funny SNL skit about it. The lack of historical context and understanding in the debate today seems clear in the current debate: accuse white people of being immigrants so that they simply cannot bring this up. The sheer demographic change and the lack of interest in talking about how people view change in their own community, favoring instead discussion on race and fairness, are significant to 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] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! |
human-4023 | cmv | human | I think that [moe] ( (slang is probably the most uninteresting and boring trend that's sweeping anime. If you're unfamiliar with it, It's "cute" characters who serve no purpose but to be cute and annoying. It's making anime into a mess where most of the most popular shows are exactly the same. A supreme example of Moe is the show K-On! which is about literally nothing. A plotless show about some cute high school girls who form a band and never have any real conflict or problems. Moe is terrible and it's really irritating that more and more shows are becoming moe to cater to its large audience. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! |
human-313 | cmv | human | Fiction merely provides entertainment. It doesn't help us grow at all. There are other sources of information that help us grow much better. If that is so, what is the point of fiction apart from a source of entertainment that may or may not help us in the long run? If all it does is provide short-term joy, what is the point of it? Is our time not better spent trying to grow ourselves? Why waste our time trying to entertain ourselves when we could just use other forms of relaxation between sessions of growing ourselves? Is that not the goal of life? To improve and advance our lives and those of others? Or am I wrong? Is fiction truly of some use? Or if it isn't of any use, then should we still consume it? If so, why? Why not simply just exercise, meditate or sleep instead of reading fiction? What makes fiction a better alternative to those activities? |
human-1021 | cmv | human | Obviously everyone has their own unique definition of hipster. It's an especially difficult word to define because of the stigma, no one wants to claim to be a hipster. But I will define several areas that I usually see people refer to when discussing hipsters. I'm not saying that some of these things aren't annoying (though I don't find them so bad) but that they are just mainstream aspects of millennial culture instead of some weird subculture. Therefore hating 'hipsters' just means you hate people 20-30 years old 1) Fashion. Aspect of supposed 'hipster' fashion include skinny jeans, fake glasses, tattoos, flannel and other work clothes for men, as well is facial hair such as beards or mustaches. In my experience most of these style clothes are sold at huge national chains such as H and M or Urban Outfitters. All these fashions are just mainstream, not some special subculture. 2) Music. Indie rock is usually described as hipster music. But indie rock is anything but indie these days, indie artists sell millions and millions of records therefore it is quite mainstream. Or hipsters are mocked for listening to underground bands and saying they "liked them before they were popular" or something like that. The internet makes it much easier to find out about underground bands, therefore it is only natural that it is more popular to listen to these kinds of bands for young people today. 3) Specialist food. Hipsters are often mocked for liking organic, or local grown food. Or weird specialist food such as mini cupcakes. I have been to almost every city in the United States, and several cities in Asia and I have seen these kinds of specialist food stores everywhere. If it's that popular it can't be some weird sub-culture, but just part of mainstream food culture in 2014. Also I would argue that the popularity of things like the Food Network indicates that everyone is interested in eating bettermore unique food these days, not some special category of people called 'hispters.' Maybe I missed something but you get my point. Everything that people make fun of hipsters for is just a mainstream part of millennial culture, therefore it is meaningless to use that word. 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] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! |
human-2233 | cmv | human | Swear words are a natural part of human language, and we shouldn't be intellectually shamed for accessing powerful language in order to convey powerful emotions. Even if we're not trying to convey powerful emotions, swear words contain meaning just like any other more socially acceptable word. A person is not necessarily less articulate by using swear words. I think people who are offended by swear words are afraid of being accused of having childish sensitivities, so claiming the person is inarticulate is their way of not having to listen to swearing by taking a "grown-up" intellectual stance. The principle of least effort dictates that people will generally attempt to convey an idea in as few words as possible. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, and people don't have anything to lose by doing so. CMV. Sorry if this is too long. A bot said my original post was too short. |
human-1843 | cmv | human | Before I begin I want to be clear that I am referring to a love that you actually feel. Like your stomach knotting up or anything like that. Not just a love you have for family or friends, but a physical feeling that many call love. (usually happens between two significant others) So before humans were conscious there were other animals, some being very similar to humans today. These animals can't just be programmed to have sex with another, they have to want it. Being an animal, they may have had some emotions help guide them like love. It felt something that made it want to do something. I see many people today say that they love another because they can just feel it, or it's just right. But we are just humans still being guided by many emotions, such as love and we need to recognize this so we can progress as a whole. I think too many people feel love and just go with it before thinking if it is the best choice for THEIR life. We are taught that love is good and something we "find." But I believe it is just an old emotion passed down evolution to help keep animals reproducing. CMV edit-somewhat quickly my view has been changed. Thanks to all who responded though, I read everything. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! |
human-1190 | cmv | human | First off: I believe medical marijuana should be legal. Everyone in the comments are defending the guy by saying " weed is just frowned upon because of the war on drugs" NO. In a profession that requires you to think fast and make decisive choices, you should not be under the influence of any mind altering drug. I will defend the guy when he said that the Mounties don't have a good PTSD screening program, but you must realize that in the chance that he receives a call for an armed robbery or a gun man, that he is not working at 100. He was also approached by Mounties, after he was fired, who offered him the idea of getting mental help. I know reddit is all "blaze it when ever you want to, it isn't as bad as alcohol and other drugs" but it would be very scary if a officer of the law was tasked with quickly defusing an hostile situation while high. |
human-2960 | cmv | human | I had a difficult time coming up with a title for this...let me clarify what it is that I'd like for someone to CMV for: Opponents of welfare programs state that though many people on welfare are able to live a financially stable life wo assistance, they choose not to. Essentially that we are coddling them and that if we stopped giving them hand-outs, they would be able to carry on with their lives without it and maybe even lift themselves out of their situation. I think that welfare programs (in the US, at least) are already structured in a way that incentivizes work. Can someone convince me that cutting people from welfare may actually lead to those people, now without assistance, moving on to better financial situations? Is there any data that supports the idea that gov. welfare enables poverty? edit 1: Sorry if my word choice is poor. uDystopiamorph suggested encourages rather enabled and I feel that that word is closer to what I'm wanting to discover edit 2: (copy and pasted from a reply to ucaw81) An example of something that could change my view would be if the following study was done: Randomexample State votes to cut food stamps for X number of families. One year later, get information on those X number of families and see if they were either a) Around the same or better financial condition as a year ago or b) deeper in poverty. If the study shows that it is 'a', that wouldn't match up with what I already believe to be true and it would change my view |
human-3211 | cmv | human | Yes you pay a bit of a premium, but you get what you pay for. I'm a technical user but only order Macs for the following reasons. 1. Mac OS X. It's much simpler than Windows 7 and 8 and I just prefer it for an OS because I've found it to be more reliable. Yes, I realize you can run OS X through a Hackintosh PC, but it's never as reliable as Mac computers, plus you can't really update reliably. Or at least it wasn't several years ago, I don't know about now. Plus it seems to be more efficient. I'm typing this on a 4 year old late 2008 MacBook Pro. It still feels as fast as the day I got it. Meanwhile, my Windows performance has slowed down. 2. Customer service. You order a Windows PC from Best Buy and when you go in to get it serviced, they tell you to fuck off or charge you an absurd fee. They even charge you to look at your computer. Apple has great customer service. Not only are they great at replacing things under warranty, but they check out your computer free of charge even if it's out of warranty. Recently, my motherboard failed. On any other computer, it would have been a death sentence, but Apple offered to refurbish it for 300. Not only did they replace my motherboard, but they replaced my keyboard that had a few loose keys, my faulty disc drive, my battery, my RAM, a dent in the body (I did have to hassle them for this bc they wanted to charge me extra and wouldn't fix anything without fixing the dent), and my trackpad for the same price. 3. Build quality. I'm not a fan of the plastic design of many computers nowadays. I love the unibody design, it just feels solid. 4. AccessoriesParts. It's easy to order replacement parts and accessories for a Mac. I easily found a new AC adapter and a new battery through Amazon. Meanwhile, it was a nightmare trying to find a decent AC adapter for my older Toshiba laptop. One of the ones I ordered almost caught on fire when I tried to plug in an S-Video cable. 5. Processing power. The Macs on the market now has as much, if not more, processing power than the top of the line PC's out now. Yes you pay a premium, but you gain the other benefits I mentioned above. 6. Reliability Knock on wood, I've had fewer issues with this computer than any other computer I've had. Like I said, really the only issue in 4 years is a motherboard failure, which is pretty good considering it's used constantly and carried around in a backpack. And if you search around or order from the refurb store (which I tend to do), you pay even less of a premium. Look [here] . This is a 2 year old model, but it's still as powerful as many new laptops for a significant discount and all the benefits I mentioned above. By all means, prove me wrong and change my view, I'm curious to hear your thoughts. |
human-1854 | cmv | human | Recently, Shia Labouf did an art installation where he invited people to come and do whatever they wanted to him. He laid out various utensils, some pleasant and some unpleasant, on a table in front of him, and put a bag over his head in a room of complete privacy. He could have stopped it at any moment, and chose not to. He also gave (some form of) explicit permission for the person to do as they pleased. The fact that he is using the same word to describe this as forced sex using violence or drugs is, to me, appalling. Rather open to hearing other sides of this, though, so please change my view. Link: EDIT: Because of all the comments saying "Not saying no doesn't mean yes" I agree. However, he did more than not say no. He made the exhibit inviting people to interact however they choose without restrictions. That is the point of his exhibit. He DID say yes, to anything. EDIT 2: A lot of people are saying that the point was not to use any of the items on him, and consent of any kind was given. I can't find the original rules for the exhibit anywhere, but this is an interview with ellen where he seems to imply that he was absolutely ok with more than just talking to him... Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! |
human-3205 | cmv | human | I take a look at most of the controversial issues and see both sides appealing to poor-logic arguments that tug at heartstrings but have no substantial backing. Both sides of the abortion debate are probably the worst. Pictures of dead babiesfetuses vs "you can't control my vagina" signs. The argument basically boils down to "I believe life starts here, you believe life starts there." Gun control is another one. Gun violence is declining, mass shootings are declining, and yet people are using the victims of a tragedy to push their agenda. Assault weapons are basically never used in crimes, yet all of the most recent legislation has been targeted in that direction. Yes, a bunch of kids got shot in Connecticut by some sick asshat. 20-something people should not revamp an entire countries policy. I'm against stricter gun control, but if you're using the notion of "less guns less casualties," you'd want to restrict handguns, which are used in a vast majority of gun homicides. Gay Marriage is another one. People are using model couples like NPH and his partner to propel their beliefs, but one couple shouldn't affect how anyone thinks on that topic. "How am I supposed to tell my children" is just another shitty appeal to emotion. There are a lot more, those are just the hotspot ones. |
human-1635 | cmv | human | I think this one might be quite unexpected on reddit. As a typical redditor I am 100 pro-vaccines. Both my parents are doctors and they have always told me how ignorant and stupid people who did not vaccinate their children were. I agreed with them and did not try to make any further research as it seemed quite right to me (and also because I was not profoundly interested in that topic as a childless old teenager). I have been with this girl who is a total hippy! Things are going great and we tend to agree on most of the things. Yesterday we talked about that topic and she told me how anti-vaccine she was and how it seems there is no way she could change her mind. She is a very open minded person and I know that she has reasons to believe in what she believes. I have been doing some research and had a hard time finding arguments anti vaccine. Reddit, I know it is going to be hard for you but, change my view! I want to be against vaccines Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! |
human-2635 | cmv | human | So this topic was inspired by today's [GameFAQS Poll] , and I found myself thinking about my answer more than I usually do on the poll. Games are the only major media format that requires a specific piece of hardware to use. I should clarify that I think generations of consoles are fine, as they are merely improved and updated machines. However, CDs (not so relevant), mp3s, dvds, blu rays, apps, are all largely fluid and run on nearly all machines. You can run iTunes on any computer, watch a blu ray on any blu ray player, and run most apps across both Android and Apple phones. But why are games restricted by the machine you own? I think the industry would greatly benefit from a single console or games that played on all consoles that were practically identical in terms of specs (blu ray players, dvd players, etc), and the publishers focused on the games instead, and used that as the focus for competition. Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo all sell their hardware at a loss and make up the sales in software, so shift the focus to the software rather than what the console can and can't play. I don't play PC (I know. I'm a filthy casual.), but Steam seems to, undeniably, be the most sound gaming concept there is. A host site that has all games from different publishers that can run on any PC, and play any game, provided your machine is powerful enough. I believe a similar model could exist in the console space. You can probably tell that this is hard to put into words, but I can't help but feel that console exclusivity is a largely dumb concept that anyone outside gaming would quickly say something like "Why not have all games everywhere." It would help broaden the market and not confuse people with which game needs which system. 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] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! |
human-2773 | cmv | human | I just don't think masturbation is an addiction. Nor do I think it affects people sex lives negatively. Please CMV on rNoFap. |
human-2111 | cmv | human | Throwaway account. No, I myself am not a catcaller. But I don't see why it bothers females so much. It's a compliment, isn't it? But apparently that makes me a mysogynist, so please, CMV. |
human-1840 | cmv | human | I just heard on CNN the head of the Harlem Children's Zone tell a story about his black son getting arrested in NYC by hostile police who suspected him of being a criminal. He asked the cops why they suspected his son (who was innocent), and the cops said, "he fit the descriptionhe's wearing a cap and baggy pants." Like with women who wear revealing clothes and get lurid looks and worse from creepy men, the harassment could be minimized (if not removed completely) by wearing what most people in society considers "respectable." I've worn both respectable and non-respectable clothes, and the way I'm treated in shops, at banks, by people on the street, and so on has made me wear much more respectable clothes. So, why not put on a collared shirt and slacks, or less revealing clothes? CMV? |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.