id stringlengths 7 27 | domain stringclasses 31 values | text_type stringclasses 2 values | original_text stringlengths 14 42.2k |
|---|---|---|---|
human-2882 | cmv | human | I was reading an article on conscientious objectors in the IDF during the 1982 Lebanon War for a class on the Arab-Israeli conflict, and in it they interviewed Israeli veterans of the '48 War, Six-Day War, and Yom Kippur War, all of whom felt that the increasing individualism in Israeli society is detrimental to the State's very existence as the homeland of the Jewish people. Since then I've come to disagree with what America stands for: a society that ironically promotes individualism to further itself. From what I've observed, obtain a large enough group of people and eventually they'll start demanding greater freedoms (example: the movement to legalize same-sex marriage). I feel this kind of mentality of me, myself, and I and "Such-and-such is a human right!" is the greatest threat to the integrity and survival of any given society. Anyway, change my view. |
human-2952 | cmv | human | I find the possibility of life outside of Earth an undeniable fact. In short, the universe is too enormous to contain only one planet sustainable of housing life. According to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), as of 2-12-15, there are 1,814 confirmed exoplanets which have been spotted outside of our solar system, meaning if only 1 of these planets are suitable for human life, it leaves almost 20 habitable planets just within view from Earth alone. Even with these twenty planets, there could be hundreds, if not thousands, which already have a form of life occupying them who do not need Earth-like conditions to live and are outside of our viewing limitations. Just thinking of how vast the universe is, I find it inconceivable to believe Earth is the only planet capable of sustaining life. 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 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-3784 | cmv | human | I hear people talk about the current occurrences in Russia involving flight MH17, but I hardly know very much about the situation, mostly because I really don't care very much. I understand tragedy occurred, and it's very sad, but in the end, I honestly can't see a good reason to dedicate time to following this story, as an average American. I know how ignorant this makes me sound, but it's true. I don't concern myself with world news, and events happening on other parts of the globe, because it doesn't influence my life in any direct way; mere awareness of such information provides me no benefit. To me it makes no difference when I hear about politics, controversies, and tragedies occurring in the Middle East, for example, as it seems there always appears to be something bad or major happening - yet every time, it never ended up mattering to me in the slightest. I understand occurrences in other parts of the world have indirect effects on politics here in the U.S.A., and therefore on my life in small and subtle ways, but such happenings are always realistically far out of my control. Therefore, I see no reason to followcare about world news, the vast majority of the time (and this obviously does not apply to local news). And again, I know how ignorant I sound in saying this, but I truly believe it. 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-4220 | cmv | human | The internet (or at least Reddit) is filled with grammar Nazis, people who point out spelling and grammatical errors with a passion, no matter how minute and insignificant. I hate seeing a legitimately interesting comment get 100 upvotes about the current topic and the comment below it get 500 upvotes for simply pointing out that he used the wrong "there." The point of language is to convey meaning in as clear and easy way as possible. That's why we have structure. It wouldn't make sense to have no rules and no organization to English. I get that. But is our understanding of what you're trying to say really diminished because you said "loose" when you really meant "lose." At most, it took a half second to realize, "oh, he meant the other word." We're not writing a thesis for a phd, we're talking on an internet forum. It's the equivalent of correcting someone's grammar when talking with casually talking with strangers. It's pointless and most people who do it are being petty. P.S. I'm sure there's some errors in this post. I tried. 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-2352 | cmv | human | Please forgive me if I get anything wrong, I read both Steinbeck books about 2-3 years ago and I don't remember all the details. Also sorry if I made any grammatical errors, it's almost bedtime so I don't have time to reread it. I know some schools have Grapes of Wrath as a required reading, and I think East of Eden would be a much better book to study in school than Grapes of Wrath. I think East of Eden has more complex themes than Grapes of Wrath. I feel like GoW is just a story about the misfortunes of one big family. EoE on the other hand is full of literary themes such as good vs evil and father vs son. I think East of Eden is more entertaining than Grapes of Wrath. Even though I enjoyed GoW very much, I thoroughly loved EoE. EoE's plot is so much superior than GoW's. The plot moved seamlessly even through the epic twists here and there. There were ups and downs. GoW's plot felt more boring - it's just misfortune after misfortune. EoE had much better characters than GoW. While GoW had a cast of people you would meet everyday, EoE had a cast of literary archetypes. I just liked the characters on EoE so much more. The chinese maid, the evil mother, the good guy neighbors were much more interesting than a ragtag group of people. In my opinion, East of Eden is a masterpiece of writing, more so than Grapes of Wrath. Sure GoW featured classic Steinbeck writing - but I feel like it was just there to tell the story and describe the dirt filled dust bowl environment (now the ending is something else). In EoE however, the writing just felt like it transcended time. His writing in EoE made me imagine the Salinas Valley as a heartbreakingly beautiful location in a mythical world. To sum it up, I think East of Eden is a better piece of literature to study in school because it contains more literary themes, more literary characters, and a more literary plot than Grapes of Wrath. I feel like Grapes of Wrath is just a simple story of overcoming obstacles whereas East of Eden is a more "literature" type book. CMV. |
human-2665 | cmv | human | There is not much to argue about this, the reality speaks to itself. Just think of the African or Asian French domains, or of Haiti, or wherever the French colonial domination set its rules. The French governing brought no rules, no civilization but only spoil of their their territories, famine, savagery and violently discriminating laws. Nowadays, the ex French colonies are poor, uneducated and fighting to keep up the pace with the rest of the world, while the British colonies have remained endowed with reasonable political and law systems, promising social dynamics and an acceptable living standard. |
human-3661 | cmv | human | I am from Brazil, and we all throw our toilet paper in the trash. However, since I came to the USA, I am "obliged" to just flush it. For me, this seems wrong, but maybe it is because I am used to do it another way. |
human-1082 | cmv | human | It is a commonly held belief in the job market that it is bad to have a job on your resume that you have held for 10-20 years. The common reasons for this are that it shows you lack initiative and that your skills are now outdated. I view this as a ridiculous assumption. I believe there is a lot of value in holding that same job for a long time. First off, it shows that you are good at what you do and have made yourself valuable to your employer. Second, unless your company has decided to stay in the stone age, you are growing and keeping up with technology in your position as your company progresses to adopt recent technology. If I see a resume where someone has four or five jobs that they've worked three or four years or less at each job, that would be a red flag to me. It would show someone who is uncommitted and may be an undesirable employee who lacks in some key quality, such as teamwork or work ethic. I understand that to some degree, there are positives and negatives for both cases; what I don't understand is why the job market completely frowns upon one stance and embraces the other. 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-1763 | cmv | human | I don't understand what is the genius about either of their work. What has been or is Woody Allen's great contribution to cinematography? I dont have any knowledge of what advances or breakthroughs Allen has had in his field. Just to name a ranfom few, Steven Spielberg, George Lucas or Alfred Hitchcock seem to have much much more merit than Allen. I understand Spielberg's, Lucas', and Hitchcock's contributions to cinematography and I agree with the recognition they have received for it, but Allen? Why is he so revered? Is there a movie of his I should watch that would make me understand why he is such a big deal in Hollywood? Regarding Barbara Streisand, I've never heard Streisand singing in a way that made me think she was truly amazing. What I've heard was average, at best. Is she valued for her singing voice or is it for her showmanship? Or maybe she is an amazing composer? I really don't understand all the hype. Anybody here care to enlighten me and change my view? Thank you. |
human-1044 | cmv | human | Young adults today are obviously facing a great number of mental health issues. From my observations, I've noticed that many who should be getting help don't do so because they are worried about the stigma, or because they don't realize that they have an issue (although there are other reasons). I feel that implementing preliminary mental health screenings in high schools would be an effective way to identify those who seem to be at risk and may need help (confidentially of course). They could then be referred to specialists for an actual diagnosis and treatment. 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-2711 | cmv | human | My first and immediate problem with Malala in particular is that she is a teenage kid. Her views of the world, regardless of her background or the socio-political situation of her home country, are little better than that of any other teenager, yet she is still feted as being some heroine. Plus what is crucially ignored by too many people, in my opinion, is that she was getting an education, whilst thousands, if not millions of girls don't have that opportunity at all, much less the higher education she receives. I also have the issue that she, along with others, have actually done little in the way of any actual action. She's talked, which anyone can do, but she has not actually done anything. She's not raised money for a school, she's not lifted a brick to build one, she's not taught a single minute of a school lesson. There are thousands of people who actually do these things, and they are, in my eyes, doing an infinite amount better towards improving education than Malala is ever capable of doing. If she really wanted to improve education, she should become a teacher and provide that ideal education. So, change my view. |
human-2662 | cmv | human | Disclaimer: I'm not making any value judgements - just an observation. I'm wondering if I have severe confirmation bias or if many people have observed the same phenomenon. Anytime the show My Little Pony is brought up, bronies will defend it by saying that it has good plotlines, good animation, good message, etc. I'm sure that this is all true, but bronies just don't want to admit a an additional reason they like being part of that group: social acceptance that they don't get elsewhere. 99 of bronies I have seen online and IRL have looked like pariahs by society's standards. Poor fashion, overweight, awkward interaction techniques, shyness, etc. 90 are sexually frustrated guys. The 10 of girls are also quite unconventional: obese, not attractive, glasses, short-haired acne-ridden "stereotypical Japanophile" types. A recent poll was taken of over 21,000 bronies, which I think is a great sample size. The results do suggest that something about the community is socially abnormal: [76 have never been in a relationship in the last year, 85 are male, 89 are white, a vast plurality are INTJ introverted types.] During my high school days, I knew two guys who were into the show. Both of them were considered weirdos by the majority of the class for other reasons, like poor hygiene and strange social behaviors. In college, there was always a MyLittlePony club booth during club day and the people staffing it looked - you guessed it - extremely out of shape and unconventional. This was in contrast to all the other clubs, whose public face was relatively normal-looking folks. So MLP groupsclubs have basically turned into places where these kids, usually ostracized by classmates in school or college, can come together to find someone else who will like them for what they are. For whatever reason, MLP clubsgroups have slowly turned into gathering spots and safe havens for these types of people. CMV please. 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-3154 | cmv | human | Okay look. We all know that you don't actually mean all trees are made of wood. Every definitive statement is a colloquialism, and not a tautology. Except there's always some random jerk who will chime in and correct you when you use words like "never" or "always." They're never helpful either. It's a plague on CMV too. Someone makes a statement like "CMV: Cops are corrupt." And it never fails that someone points out that they met a guy whose cousin was a cop who pulled over another cop for blowing a red light. And it's always tedious to have to qualify every definitive statement you ever make. Yes, we all get it that definitive statements are always inherently false. We all understand that they're rules of thumb instead of laws. I mean, without the sarcastic italics, all of these definitive statements, if taken as generalizations and hyperbole, would be fine. You're about as helpful as a grammar Nazi. CMV: You're not enriching a conversation by correcting a definitive statement. |
human-1289 | cmv | human | In a majority of the posts on the front page at the moment, the OP hasn't awarded any deltas, and in some of them they haven't even responded to any arguments. This seems to go against the point of the subreddit - people should be willing to listen to counter arguments, not just ignore them and keep their views. In some threads there may not be convincing enough arguments to make the OP change their view, but I think that if everyone was posting in good faith and with an open mind there wouldn't be such a large proportion of posts where the OP gave no deltas. I'm not exactly sure what we should do about it - perhaps we could have a system where the number of deltas you have given is counted, or we could tag posts where the OP doesn't respond. Any thoughts? |
human-3670 | cmv | human | Hear me out before commenting, please. Over the past 24 hours I have seen so many bullshit posts on facebook about this. Being from the south, all of my old friends are posting articles from "conservative weekly" about how the verdict was right. On the other hand, a lot of my more liberal friends who I find myself surrounded with now are just ranting about racism and how fucked up the verdict was. I totally agree. The verdict was fucked up. I feel as if he could have been found guilty of manslaughter. 6 shots? YES. That is excessive. Four were to the handsarm and two to the head. That, along with the witness testimonies, for the most part, saying he had surrendered and still was shot constitutes man slaughter. Due to the conflicting testimonies though, he couldn't be charged with murder. Not to mention, this all started with Brown robbing a store. The video of Brown stealing the cigarillos shows him aggressively shoving the convenience store clerk as he attempted to confront him. This doesn't seem like the temperament of a guy who would just surrender when confronted by a police officer (not to imply that he didn't). Now to the point! I have no idea what happened on that day and how it all unfolded. I have no idea what the motivations of the police officer were. I have no idea if Brown actually grabbed at the gun of the officer. No one does. But all I am hearing about is how certain everyone is that is was somehow racially motivated. I understand it is totally possible that it was racially motivated or influenced in some way. But it is also equally possible that it was simply a matter of circumstance in which someone who had just robbed a store got too aggressive with a police officer and hasty decisions had to be made. I just feel that it is way too easy to mark up such a complex confrontation to a racially motivated slaughtering as a lot of people are acting like, especially when nothing would have likely happened had Brown not initiated confrontation with police by robbing a store. I think it is much more likely that the officer simply had to make a hasty decision and went a bit over the top. Maybe I have misunderstandings about the facts, and if that is the case PLEASE let me know. All in all, I just think that it is a cop out to pull the race card on an incident in which literally no one except the people who were there know exactly what happened. Moreover, NO ONE but the police officer himself knows what his motivations were. CMV EDIT: I've learned quite a few things about the incident that I didn't know before as well as the indictment process. 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-3050 | cmv | human | We expect those that teach our children, heal our sick, and practice law to be fully licensed. So why should we tolerate anything less from those that are ultimately responsible for the curriculum we teach, our approach to healthcare, and the laws we are asked to uphold? I think those that run for and eventually hold public office should be required to regularly show the electorate that they have a firm grasp on the knowledge required to make decisions relevant to their position and constituency. These would not be position papers, simply aptitude tests. Here's what I've come up with as an idea so far: 1. Before running for a publicly held office, each Politician must take an aptitude test to show they have an understanding of the position and the responsibilities it includes. 2. Results will be made publicly available. 3. Each polling location will have clearly displayed "grades" of these tests on the day of the election. 3. Test must be re-taken at the beginning of each election cycle. 4. Before the vote of any legislation, elected officials must take a test showing they have a firm level of understanding of the issue. 5. If the legislator does not possess an above average understanding of the topic (you know, to prove they should be GOVERNING it), they are not allowed to vote on the motion. Why isn't this a good idea? What problems would something like this cause and would they outweigh the benefits? edit: Thank you for all the fantastic answers. ucwenham get gilded as my view gets gelded! Testing of this sort would be easily gamed, the "question bias" argument would be unending, and even worse it would add additional legitimacy where activity is already questionable. 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-1255 | cmv | human | In my opinion Mandela has been a great speech writer and national symbol but a dismal leader. His policies did little for the common men and women, inequality is just as bad as when he took over. Crime has become a major problem and is only getting worse. Twice as many South Africans now live in shanty towns as they did on his ascent to power. Mandela has assumed an almost god like status in SA. Any criticism of himself or of his party, the ANC is treated as blasphemy. He has failed to wield that status over his party and has done nothing to address the corruption, his inability to govern his own party is his greatest failing and has led to the downfall of a wonderful country. He also spent far too much time on foreign matters whilst ignoring issues like the HIV epidemic that exploded during his reign. |
human-2811 | cmv | human | I may be a bit biased due to how sluts are viewed in the town I grow up in, but I've really only had close friends that are sluts. To me and most people I know, being a slut is about seeing what you want and putting out to get it, regardless of what old world religious morals say you should do. It's about pleasing yourself and others, and just having fun. Virgins and monogamous people aren't being true to their primal desires, and it's sad that they're suppressing something that would make them happy. 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-2655 | cmv | human | People are responsible for their own actions and body, IMO. If she can't handle her alcohol, she shouldn't be drinking, or drinking that much. I don't think "it's college, everyone drinks" is a good excuse or explanation. I'm just thankful she didn't get into a car and kill someone. Maybe this will prevent other people from drinking to oblivion every weekend. CMV. |
human-1628 | cmv | human | It is really rather hard to put this into words, but I'd love for you to change my mind. Basically I think the world is absolutely frightful. It is a soulless, loveless place. I'm only 15, and even though I'm a really privileged kid (middle class living in the first world) I still think the world is ugly at its core, for the following reasons. You pick up the newspaper, all you see is bad news. Yemen, mosque blown up, 137 dead. ISIS forcing girls into sexual slavery (imagine for a moment what these peoples' lives must be like). I see people in America who live in the ghetto and have such awful lives, and I think to myself there is no future for so many people. All the races and religions hate and kill each other. Even in school here in Europe, most people will go out of the way to be dicks to you. High school is a never-ending circlejerk of coolness and people bullying each other (and for what reason, I ask). However I see little point even in the lives of those who do have a future and make money. Even people like me who will probably live a successful life and have a job and whatnot, just die and get forgotten about after a few years. Everyone is causing so much trouble and strife on the world, which is really pointless if you think about it because we are so insignificant. We are just a bunch of molecules that happened to connect in the right way and now we can think about ourselves in the third person. We are infinitely small, a speck of dust that will last for a second on the cosmic scale. I really can't see a reason worth living. This doesn't mean I'll go out and kill myself, I'm just saying, I expect a boring, meaningless life, filled with people who hate me and one another. Really, the only time I personally am happy is when I'm high or asleep, because I'm away from the world, which is so low. Can you change my mind? How could anyone say the world is beautiful and mean 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-1399 | cmv | human | The moderators of CMV would like your opinion on how things are going, so we've decided to post periodic feedback threads to take the pulse of the community. Feel free to post any comments, criticisms or suggestions. Also remember that rideasforcmv is always available if you have ideas for improving the sub. Please note that Rule 2 (no rude or hostile comments) and Rule 5 (no low-effort comments) are still in effect. We look forward to hearing your thoughts. |
human-1187 | cmv | human | We span the gamut from helicopter parents to neglectful abusers, and worse. Most of the children I see don't have any parental input whatsoever, their parents are either on their damned phones or engrossed in some tv fantasy land; the one thing they're not doing is teaching their kids anything, and when they do it's inevitably to scream some incoherent babble at them. One side is coddling them into being a bunch of over-sensitive hyper-allergic hypochondriacs, and the other side's just gonna let 'em be feral. We'll see who wins, I don't know; but I can promise you this: Every single solitary problem we face pales in comparison to the issue of adequate parenting, it should be the civil rightswar effortManhattan Project of our time. 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-4032 | cmv | human | There are currently two definitions for the word "man": 1) an adult male human being, and 2) humankind. While it is still generally understood that in the proper context the usage of "man" and "mankind" are meant to include all people, men and women, the usage of the terms is still exclusive to women. "Man" despite its second meaning of "humankind" is not a gender-neutral term because its first meaning is still "male human." Words that are gender-neutral do exist - humankind and humanity - and so when faced with the option between the two sets of terms, people should use the gender-neutral term instead of the gendered term in order to be the most clear and inclusive in his or her writing. While googling this topic for background before making this post, one of the search results I found gave an interesting example situation that illustrates how the usage of "man" is not gender-neutral: Imagine being six years old and reading an anthropology primer about Stone Age Man: "After a hard day's search for food on the veldt, stone age man was probably glad to get back to the warm cave. No doubt he was comforted by the same everyday activities we are today: the heat of the fire, good food, his family about him. Can you imagine him laughing and tousling your hair? Can you see him picking up your six month old baby brother and breast feeding him At this point, the six year-old might burst into tears in sheer confusion. He? Breast feed? "Don't cry," says the teacher. "It's all right. We all get confused at first. You just have to remember that he really means he or she. See? It's easy!" But it's not easy. It makes no sense to her. Why say "he" when you mean "she?" As she grows older, she will keep asking. No one will give her an answer she understands. Her tears of bewilderment will become ones of rage. She will get tired of reading about Man the Hunter, mankind's outward urge to the stars, the exogamous impulses of man, the man on the street, one man one vote.... She will be sick to death of continually being excluded. "No, no, no," you might say gently, "she's not being excluded. He is inclusive. He means us all. She'll learn. After all, he is the generic pronoun in English." If that truly were the case, if "he" and "man" really did mean "he and she" and "man and woman," our six year old would not have been confused. But at age six, she has already internalized the real architecture of language; she knows that he means he and she means she. The only thing she doesn't know is how to pretend otherwise, the way grown ups do. She doesn't understand why she shouldn't point out what seems so obvious to her: he-man language isn't wearing any clothes. [link] So again, my CMV is (TL;DR) that if one is attempting to write a gender-neutral statement about humankind, then one should use a gender-neutral term like "humankind" or "humanity," and not the gendered term of "man" or "mankind," despite the accepted double meaning of "man." Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . 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-2545 | cmv | human | Laws that surpass their natural jurisdiction (by claiming to hold the ability to punish you if you do something that the law enforcement system cannot detect whatsoever) are dangerous. For this situation, assume that there are certain pieces of information about you that nobody in or related to an enforcement group can identify (wether you drank water, are a witch, thought about CMV, etc.). This is to model a slightly different real-world scenario The idea is as simple as an idea like this: The workplace or school you attend mandates that all employeesstudents drink exactly a glass and a half of water before coming to work. How can they enforce that rule? There is no way. How would they accuse someone of breaking the rule? There is no way. The rule as a whole is utterly ridiculous and unacceptable because of these two things. It might as easily be "No thinking about CMV posts at bedtime." If there was a ban time for this, or any other punishment, it would be unjust because of the impossibility that the justice could be distributed equally. What if I drank two whole glasses of water? Will Joe be in trouble as well, even though nobody knows he drank only one glass of water this morning? Essentially, it is what made the Salem witch trials possible. How was the law to enforce something it was as undetectable as wether or not somebody is a witch? If you didn't tell anybody "hey, I'm a witch," and acted like everyone else, you would be completely unsuspicious and would avoid all trouble. This would also apply to much more extreme situations. These laws rely on the actions of the individual to condemn themselves. In such situations, it is almost certain that society is not being harmed because if the action that is outlawed is not detectable in any way (drug tests, interviews, appearance, browsing history), it has no immediate effects on the environment. From what I understand of the bill of rights, it is unlawful to "be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" under the 5th amendment. Wouldn't this suggest that because the only path for evidence in a case against a person under such circumstances would be providing evidence for their crime (because nobody else can identify these certain unspecified facts), it would violate the bill of rights of a US citizen? How much weight does such an observation hold in the world as a whole? 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-3403 | cmv | human | So a few things out of the way. First of all, I am not religious and do believe the Big Bang is very well enough supported by evidence obtained through scientific observation, certainly enough to merit it's place as our "running theory," so to speak. However, and do correct me if I'm wrong here, we have little to no idea what existed before the Big Bang occured, nor do we know what exactly caused the Big Bang to occur. As far as I am aware, we only know that the Big Big did occur releasing tremendous amounts of energy in a very brief window of time, and from what I can tell, are fairly well versed in how the universe is formed immediately following the Big Bang. My view comes from the belief that an approach that a God of some sort, especially in Christianity , could be the "Big Bang," or rather set it into motion. Let me again clarify, I do not believe in this scenario that this God through intelligent design guided the events of the big bang along, such as with the formation of elements and galaxies, I still believe these occured as a result of natural forces from the Big Bang. However, what's to say there does not exist a God who set tipped the first domino and let them fall as they would? I understand this train of thought is essentially [Deism] , a la the "Watchmaker" idea, but is there plausability to this? While I still do not believe in these ideas, I do wish to argue that deism and to an extent a very non-literal interpretation of Genesis could serve as explanations for what existed occured before the Big Bang. So Reddit, CMV. Edit1: View changed slightly, Christian creation would have to be altered too much to support an idea that the Christian God orchestrated the Big Bang. It could be done, but as pointed out I feel it is too much of a far cry from even the most non-literal bible interpretations to be argued for. Edit2: Good responses so far, appreciate the well thought out replies. At the moment, I feel as though this topic can't be concluded in full for either side just because of how much is unknown about the exact moment of the Big Bang and what caused it. Thus, currently I maintain the fact that a deity-begun Big Bang is just as (in) validatable as a fully natural Big Bang that we aren't fully sure what kickstarted. But I'd like to remind anyone reading this particular edit of my OP: I'm arguing that both ideas are just as valid, not arguing in support of a deism based Big Bang. Still open to any further comments here though that I'll do my best to respond to tonight or tomorrow during the day, even if my view isn't changed it's a fun topic to discuss and get perspectives on.:) Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . 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-1120 | cmv | human | I'm a vegan ready to be an omnivore again, but my morals are getting in the way. Convince me, CMV. Skip to the bottom for the TL;DR. I have been vegan for over 3 years now and initially went vegan strictly for the animals and for environmental reasons. The health benefits were just icing on the (vegan) cake. For the first year I felt amazing, especially compared to the way I felt before when I was eating so much junk food (soda, pizza, deep fried foods, white flour, lots of sugar, etc.). I almost immediately shed 12 lbs. and lost another 20 or so once I worked at it. I had a lot more energy and my skin was a lot less oily to boot. But for the past 2 years I've been getting more and more tired to the point where I can't make it through the day without a 4-hour nap, despite sleeping at least 8 hours a night. Every morning I wake up feeling like I never slept in the first place and it takes me an hour to drag myself out of bed. I am constantly exhausted and I actually thought that maybe it was because of my hypothyroidism but I am on medication and my thyroid levels are normal now. I'm also almost b12 deficient, despite eating b12 supplements like candy and I can't afford the shots. I am 50 lbs heavier now than I've ever been, (despite eating healthfully; lots of raw and cooked fruit and veg, whole grains, nuts, seeds, etc.) because I am hungry all the time no matter what I eat or how much food I eat or what my fatproteincarb ratios are that day (eating more nuts, avocados, oils and beans for more protein and fat has never helped me). My doctor told me that my "good cholestrol" levels are low too, whatever that means. I've even tried low-fat high-carb raw vegan (801010) for a month eating tons of raw fruit, smoothies, juices, etc. and no matter how much of those foods I stuffed into my body I still felt this aching hunger and intense cravings for savory, hot foods that ultimately made that diet fail. I have been researching nutrition for the past four months or so and, while I am no expert, I personally feel that the healthiest diet for me and a lot of people is an omnivorous diet that is mostly plant-based with some animal products. I am personally ready to eat bivalves (oysters, clams, scallops, mussels, etc. that are nonsentient and awesome sources of b12, zinc, omega 3s and such) and eggs from pastured chickens who haven't had their beaks chopped off and are certified humane. I have no ethical qualms about this, but I'd like to be able to maybe include other types of fish into my diet as well and maybe more in the future if I feel okay about it. The health problems I have that I can't seem to be able to fix on my diet that I believe may be able to be fixed or at least lessened by including some animal products are my extreme fatigue, dizziness, trouble concentrating (work, study, tv, books, everything), sleep problems (can't get a good night's sleep), digestive issues (that might be related to gluten which I have cut from my diet now), exacerbated depression (despite being on medication that used to work for me), cold all the time (regardless of season, with house heat and a space heater on, with and without clothes on), hypothyroidism, daily headaches, monstrous hunger that causes me to binge, muscle pains, brittle nails and the huge weight gain brought on by monstrous hunger. For the most part, these are things I never had before going vegan and I am a very young woman (23 years old). But I still feel morally icky about it, despite being convinced I need to do this for my health. This is where you guys come in. Change my view! Convince me that eating animals isn't morally wrong and is healthy. NOTE: I am not saying a vegan diet can't work out; it absolutely can! What I am saying (and how I have always felt) is that a vegan diet isn't for everyone and doesn't work for everyone. Please don't use this post as an excuse to invalidate veganism for people it works for or to act like because it doesn't work for me or other people we must not be trying hard enough. TL;DR: I've been vegan for 3 years for the animals, health benefits were great the first year but I've developed a myriad of health issues in the past 2 years that my well-planned vegan diet isn't helping. I'm ready to add some animal products back into my diet (at least pastured eggs and bivalves at first, maybe more later) for my healthnutrition only but I'm having trouble feeling morally okay about it. Convince me that it isn't wrong to eat animal products!:) |
human-3952 | cmv | human | 1. First and foremost argument against this is that America refers to an entire continent. We only make up one part of it, so referring to ourselves as "America" is geographically incorrect 2. It imposes a feeling of superiority over the rest of the American countries, implying that the entire continent belongs to us and that we ARE essentially the entire western hemisphere 3. In an age where many people have an overwhelmingly negative view of the United States, it could do well to help our image of being "Imperialistic" if we stopped referring to ourselves as America So please, CMV |
human-2652 | cmv | human | I agree that they will be popular with the gamers who game by themselves but for any other activity that you normally do with other people in the same room: Wii-type multiplayer games, sports, movies, ect I really don't see it happening because the headset cuts off your communication with everyone around you. As a result, you can't share the excitement and fun of what you're doingwatching with anyone else. Your essentially trapped in your own world. What the phone rings? What if someone needs to talk to you? Sure you can have headphone and mics attachments but only the uber-gamer is going to go for that. Which as I said previously, is the only market this device will have in the first place. So unless you watch a lot of movies by yourself, or watch sports by yourself, or always game by yourself...I don't think a VR headset is going to have long-term appeal to 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-2454 | cmv | human | On reddit and elsewhere, when the topic of exotic pet ownership arises, I see a general negative sentiment expressed in platitudes like: "that animal is not tame. Wild animals belong in the wild. What you are doing is wrong." I think these sentiments are irrational and misplaced. Below, I would like to address some of the common arguments against exotic pet ownership: There's a difference between "wild" animals and "domesticated" or "tame" animals, and "wild" animals belong in the wild. First off, I don't think that the statement "wild animals belong in the wild" is, standing alone, very persuasive. What's a "wild" animal? You have a good case here if you're comparing, say, a domestically-bred species (like dogs) against a wildly occurring counterpart (wolves). We created dogs specifically to be compatible with our society. But plenty of animals commonly kept as pets were not custom-engineered by us a la dogs. Cats, for example, were just a naturally occurring species that started living around humans. They've scarcely changed at all vis-a-vis [their wild progenitor] . And other animals commonly kept as pets turtles, rats, ferrets, fish differ even less than cats from their "wild" counterparts. For species like ferrets and cats, the main factor dictating these animals' compatibility with human homes is how they're raised. Interact with a feral housecat and a hand-raised African serval, then tell me which of these animals is "wild" and which is "tame." It's cruel to keep an animal in captivity whose instincts and behaviors are honed for life in the wild. This sort of ties in with the above many animals that are commonly acceptable as pets are really not so different from their wild counterparts. Plus, even a animal that is drastically different from the usual "pet" animal could arguably have a better life with a loving owner than as a disposable denizen of a cruel, unforgiving ecosystem. When I was in Dubai, I met a guy with a pet cheetah. This is a more extreme form of exotic pet ownership than I'd endorse for most people, but I'd wager that cheetah is probably happier than the cheetahs you see being brutalized by lions in nature documentaries, slowly starving to death, succumbing to infection, etc. Exotic pets are dangerous. Sure, some are. I'm not defending that guy in Harlem who kept a tiger in his apartment. But realistically, is a serval more dangerous than a pit bull (or even a less-stigmatized breed of dog)? What about breeds of domestic cat, like the maine coon, that can grow to be about the same size as many wild species? We face plenty of dangers in our day-to-day lives, many of which are totally unregulated, and if I had to prioritize healthsafety risks that warrant our concern the risk of being bitten by [a slightly-oversized cat kept by some hedge fund manager] would be pretty low on my list. You can argue that unlike other risky activities (e.g. driving), serval ownership is totally unnecessary and recreational. But so are risky activities like bungee jumping, soda consumption, dog ownership, recreational aviation, etc. We let people engage in these activities because we're a free society. The exotic pet trade has negative ecosystemic effects. This is one of the better arguments, but I don't think you can assert it credibly unless you condemn with equal vigor other human activities that have equally bad ecosystemic effects. Even the practice of owning domestic cats can be very bad for local ecosystems (feral cats are a huge problem in some places). I would guess that the worst ecosystemic effect of the exotic pet trade comes from poaching, but this doesn't apply to animals bred in captivity (as plenty of exotic animals are). People are stupid and irresponsible and can be cruelly neglectful, and even if 1 people can adequately and safely care for a cheetah it is better to outlaw this practice so we avoid missteps by dumbfucks. This is a decent policy argument, but doesn't really justify the moral objections you often see even when an exotic pet appears to be well cared for. Also, not all exotic pets are cheetahs I've cared for savannah cats. It's different than caring for a domestic cat, but not that different. Certainly many adults would be capable. It's cruel and unethical to adopt any pet except from a shelter, since dogs and cats die in shelters daily. Is it cruel to adopt a "domestic" species of pet not often found in shelters? If not if the species you want can only be purchased, not rescued, and that makes purchasing morally defensible then the same rationale should apply to ownership of exotic species not found in shelters. Plus, it's not like it's impossible to own the above-referenced serval and a shelter cat. If you manage to CMV, you may actually make an IRL difference because I have an interest in exotic cats and and am pretty confident I have the means to properly care for one. Thinking of buying once my career slows down and I have more time to spend with an animal. |
human-1858 | cmv | human | Campus censorship is becoming an increasing problem within the UK as the NUS implements it with the goal of protecting minorities (but only some minorities, others remain acceptable targets). The Sun, a right-leaning newspaper, has been banned from sale at 26 Universities. In theory, this is because of 'page 3', but in practice similar content does not lead to the restriction of any other content on Universities. Pro-Life campaigning has been banned at 4 Universities. The NUS jumped the shark twice at their recent womens conference, where serious proposals included: Campaigning for abolition of prison. Encouraging delegates to use jazz hands instead of clapping because clapping will trigger anxiety. Banning cisgender people from crossdressing. Accusing gay men of appropriating black female culture. The NUS also busies itself with the task of restricting the viewpoints students are exposed to on Middle Eastern politics to that of being Anti-Israel. Boycotts of Israeli goods at 4 Universities no doubt have massively intimidated Israeli students. The broader views on the subject that the NUS holds have opened the floodgates for left-leaning Racists and extremist Muslims to openly denounce Judaism as a whole, and given them protection. No Platform is used to crush dissenting views on Israel. One major purpose of a university is to allow students to be exposed to a wide variety of viewpoints. The NUS wants only 1 viewpoint to be expressed: that of socialism, extreme progressivism and the destruction of Israel. They have become a parody of themselves and have been able to get away with it because nobody has formed an opposition to them. The vast majority of students do not support these absurd ideas, but lack of organization in opposition to the NUS has broadly lead to them being ignored. 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-3509 | cmv | human | I'm not a vegetarian. It's not the ethical aspect that concerns me. Beef is by far the livestock product with the biggest [environmental impact] . Cattle ranching is the [leading cause] of deforestation. Beef is one of the most [water intensive] product that we consume. The [indirect land use changes] that cattle ranching alone cause are incalculable. In short; the beef industry messes with our planet a great deal. So, is it reasonable to stop eating beef altogether? Being an extremely resource intensive product, we could get more of some other livestock product while using less resources. Some more reading: [The Guardian: Halve meat consumption, scientists urge rich world] [Wikipedia: Environmental impact of meat production] [UNFAO: Cattle ranching and deforestation] edit: Some of you have commented that scientists in the Guardian article above advocate halved meat consumption, not zero beef consumption. That is correct. I linked to the article to provide an example of conventional media acknowledging the fact that current dietary habits of the developed world are strongly linked to environmental damage in the developing world - and that radical change is needed. edit: I will try to address all your comments, but it will take me a while! |
human-3914 | cmv | human | In season one of Game of Thrones there are five main factions: The Starks, The Lannisters, Robert Baratheon, The Wall, and The Targaryens. The plots with The Wall and The Targaryens are essentially scaffolding for events in future seasons. This leaves the Lannisters, King Baratheon, and the Starks as possible protagonists. Out of these three, only the Lannisters control the plot. The Starks and Robert respond to and try to counter the Lannisters' plots. Since only the Lannisters are guiding the plot they are the protagonists, while the Starks are the antagonists since they oppose the Lannisters' decisions. If I was reducing the protagonists and antagonists to specific people I would say that Cersei Lannister is the protagonist, while Ned Stark is the antagonist. Cersie is responsible for Bran's twice attempted murder, the murder of King Robert, Joffrery's takeover, the killing of the dire wolf, and is insinuated as being behind numerous other events. Ned Stark is in direct opposition to all of these events. |
human-3837 | cmv | human | I believe that the strongest ethical arguments for veganism are stronger than the strongest ethical arguments for meat eating and vegetarianism. For the purposes of this thread, veganism is a practice of reducing ones consumption of animal products to the best of ones personal capacities (including emotional capacities) given the societal influences one encounters. My view rests upon the following assumptions: People have a choice in what they consume (e.g., they can afford it financially) People do not suffer in statistically unusual ways (e.g., large spikes in blood sugar, allergies) when attempting to practice veganism A persons choice to practice veganism does not involve leaving behind their indigenous practices at the hands of continued genocide or other atrocities (e.g., exceptions are made for the Inuit) If any of the above assumptions are violated, exceptions to my viewpoint are already granted The arguments thus far: For consuming animal products: For some people it feels good to consume animal products. For some people it feels bad to practice veganism. For practicing veganism: A practicing vegan is less likely to harm animals and the environment. For some people it feels good to practice veganism. For some people it feels bad to consume animal products. Additional Reasoning Arguments can include any number of important ethical concepts (e.g., suffering, autonomy, liberty, etc) but evidence will be ranked in the following order (from greatest strength to weakest strength). It's hard to say precisely when one argument becomes stronger than another and I'm sure that this varies from person to person: 1. Truths proven using the rules of logic 2. Empirically demonstrated phenomena 3. Scientifically rigorous explanations for empirically demonstrated phenomena 4. Subjective beliefs If an argument is correct and relates to some aspect of ethics (regardless of what ethical system one chooses to use), I'll put it into the lists of arguments above. After that it's a matter of comparing both lists based on the quality of evidence in each list. Yes this will involve value judgements, but I think these should be handled on a case-by-case basis after much consideration (i.e., I will not be listing a predefined weighting of ethical ideas). If I say, for example, I value one particular trait (like the reduction of animal suffering) more than another trait (like the loss of human liberty) then I will necessarily limit myself in the number of ways I can reconsider my view. It's also foolish to introspect too much about what I do or don't find, convincing enough. 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-3172 | cmv | human | I live in Utah, and because of that, I am surrounded by Christians. In my experience these people respect individual decisions and beliefs to a far greater extent that the posts I've seen in ratheism. I think there are similarities to religion and atheism that can be made, one of them being the desire to share knowledge that can improve the lives of others. But from there, I think that Christians are much more pleasant in their approach to sharing their views. Now these people can be pushy (Mormons are famous for it) but they are far less hostile and much more accepting of people who may share beliefs that are in-congruent of their own. |
human-2551 | cmv | human | I've held this opinion for some time, but it has come into contention among my friends recently, with regards to the impending blocking of online porn in the UK unless you decide to opt in to it. Of course, being a 17 year old male and against porn makes me a minority, but nevertheless, I have not been persuaded to change my opinion. I believe that pornography is too readily available to young children, who are viewing it at increasingly lower ages, partially due to the increased number of computer tablets children have access to now. This actually makes them able to access porn by accident and without prior knowledge of what it is. Blocking porn by default would solve this 'accident' issue. More importantly, the 'opt in' system would open up pornography to discussion. When I got my first computer, my parents talked to me about porn and how women aren't really how they appear in the films and men aren't all that well endowed. I still watched some, but wasn't so amazed by it, since I knew it wasn't an accurate replication of sex. I feel that communication is key to addressing the fixation some people have on porn and to the issues associated with that fixation. Furthermore, the fact that most teenagers don't want their parents to know about their viewing of porn suggests that they feel it is a bad thing to be doing. While I think that communication is the main solution to the problems with violence and unhealthy obsessions associated with pornography, a 'default block' is certainly the best thing to do about it right now. So, uh, change my view please. TLDR: A porn block would promote conversation about porn and its dangers and stop accidental viewing by young children. [Here's a bit of info about what's happening in the UK.] |
human-2261 | cmv | human | I work IT at a university. The females in my workplace can wear whatever they want as long as it looks professional. This could be a pantsuit or it could be a sun dress, a skirt, or any other form of dress. As a male, I have to wear khaki dress pants. Doesn't matter if it's 100 outside and I have to haul equipment up three of four flights of stairs, all pants, all the time. It seems discriminatory to me that I can't wear shorts when it's hot, or that I can't wear jeans when I spend half my time crawling under people's desks. Why is it okay for women to wear whatever they want (within reason) while I am restricted to khakis and a collared shirt? Edit: Big thanks to the one or two of you who decided to use the down vote button as a disagree button. Super productive and definitely helping me to change my view. Edit 2: Went to bed and this blew up a little bit. Let me clarify some things... all 250 people in my building are not techs. Four of us are and we are all male. the official dress code for everyone is business casual. In practice though, for men it's khakis and a polo. Ask any of the bosses how a male should interpret it, and you will be told khakis and a polo. Ask one how a female should interpret it and you will find she has many, many more options. on several other parts of campus, there really is no dress code. Many departments and divisions stopped having one in recent years and employees overall seem happier and more productive (surveys have been done to this effect), yet my department in particular still believes you have to dress a certain way to be good at your job. finally, some of you have pointed out that it's society, not my place of work, that makes the dress code sexist andor discriminatory. It doesn't matter what makes it discriminatory, what matters is that my workplace is enforcing it. I'm going to try to keep up, but it's early morning and I'm recovering from a marrow transplant yesterday and am going home today. Just wanted to thank everybody for a really great conversation, even if it has not changed my view. It has impacted my perspective in that I don't think my workplace is intentionally being sexist, but I do still believe the policy being enforced is, by it's nature, sexist. In light of that, I believe the dress code should either be tightened for both sexes equally or eliminated entirely. Thanks again, everybody. |
human-2437 | cmv | human | With the advancement of drum machines and the possibility for them to have thousands of different authentic drum sounds, there's no need for a drummer with a drum set to be on stage during performances anymore. Drummer's can be replaced with producers who can control a drum machine and a laptop that can add other synthetic sounds and effects. Drumming is still a nice hobby and an impressive skill to master, but as far as live performances go, there's no need for an actual drum set anymore. Change my view! I'm having trouble thinking of arguments so I'm interested to see what you guys come up with. |
human-3244 | cmv | human | This is Mod post 43. You can read the previous Mod Post by clicking [here] , or by visiting the [Mod Post Archive] in our wiki. Six months ago we held [our first call for users to submit their best tips and advice for making an argument] , and collected dozens of tips, some of which were [added to our Wiki] . Now that we've started a new year, and have grown to over 100,000 subscribers, we and uhowbigis1gb think this is a good time to revisit the art of persuasion to help everyone become better at making arguments and changing views. Our last post focused on how to make a good argument, and we want to hear your best tips on that for this post, too. This time, however, we'd also like to focus on persuasion and how to reach someone who isn't comfortable with changing their view. We've come up with some issues that we think are worth discussing: 1. Are are there any techniques that are good for persuasion, but that are usually ignored because they're considered invalid for formal debate? (EG: appeals to authority.) 2. How do you persuade someone to abandon a popular view? 3. How can you make it easier for someone to consider a controversial view? 4. How can you tell if someone is reluctant to change their view, or has no intention of changing their view? 5. What are the ways people do change their views? (EG: logic, anecdotes, historical examples, counseling, etc.) Which seem to work best? 6. What are some of the approaches you've seen backfire and cause someone to hunker-down deeper in their view? 7. How do you handle someone using a logical fallacy? (EG: name and shame, ignore and move on, etc.) 8. Do logical fallacies always invalidate someone's argument? 9. What was the best debate or spoken argument you ever saw, and did it change your view? (Link to YouTube if you can) Feel free to comment with your opinions on any of these questions, andor to cite examples of where certain techniques worked well or didn't work well. And if anyone has any other good questions to consider, we can append it to the list. If we get a good set of ideas and tips in this thread, we may incorporate some of the ideas here into our wiki. |
human-2579 | cmv | human | So this is something that I've been thinking for a while. I'm not denying that Tywin wasn't incredibly talented and generally good at ruling, but I feel that he makes a lot of decisions that are quite poor. 1. His plan to capture Ned, now this fails because Jaime decides attack Ned on his own. However, it's just a really poor and unnecessary plan anyway. So Cat started it, but invading the Riverlands escalated the conflict massively. Robert isn't even dead at this point, he doesn't even seem to consider what the Reach, Stormlands and Dorne might do. 2. He is pretty awful with his kids. Now it's obvious that he treats Tyrion unnecessarily badly which leads to his death, but I feel that him treating Tyrion poorly is part of the reason the he overlooks Jaime and Cersei's behaviour. Now I can understand why he is unhappy with Jaime, but Jaime joined the Kingsguard 17 years before the first book. I feel that his inability to deal with this is evidence that supports my point. 3. His decisions during the war. Now, he does ultimately win the war. However, I feel that he does it in such a way that undermines the status quo. I feel that the north is not pacified, but is more likely to now reject rule from King's Landing entirely. I am willing to discuss this more broadly that the points I raised, this was just what I had on the top of my head and from the book I had nearest to me. Generally, I feel that Tywin bought into his own propaganda and was less successful than he could have been. 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-1695 | cmv | human | Please leave the note below the following line, but remember to delete this sentence. Thank you! Alright. Let me start off by saying I'm an atheist. That, however, will play no bias in this discussion. The First Amendment states that, and I will paraphrase this, the government can not support any single religion and pass any laws promoting a single religion. So, why do the dollar bills in your wallet contain the phrase "In God We Trust"? The same goes for the Pledge of Allegiance. The passage that American students recite in unison every morning. This contains the phrase "Under God." I don't believe that "because it's tradition" is a good enough excuse to break Constitutional Amendments. It's been stated that it has "secular meaning," but there is nothing secular about it. It was added in the McCarthy Era back in 1954 because "a Communist would never dare utter it." Even if it wasn't perpetuated as a religious thing, but instead a communist witch hunt, it still gives advancement to a single religion. The fucking Knights of Columbus. Let's see if you can 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-3266 | cmv | human | This view has the potential to sound horribly mean-spirited, and that is not what I'm looking for. Let me explain. Excessive debt is horrible. It cripples you financially, and limits the options for growth and success. This is a very simple, common concept that anyone should understand. "Do not spend what you don't have." So why should the plight of young adults saddled with excessive student loans be a topic of compassion and concern? Excessive student loans are the result of extremely poor decision making. In my experienceview, aspiring college students have the following avenues open to them: Scholarships Is your work ethic, intellect, and ability worth enough for colleges to invest in providing a full or partial scholarship? If you are exceptional and can display concrete, measurable excellence...then colleges will pay for your education. Community College Are you merely average? If you aren't exceptional enough to have your education paid for, then this is a tough but necessary life lesson for you. Suck it up, you aren't special. Do what a lot of us did. Go to Community College for two years, get your AA, then transfer. If you do well enough in CC, you may even get scholarshipsfunding for your undergrad. You will save money and end up with the same paper degree. Military There are plenty of non-combat positions that act as a form of "Trade School." IT, engineering, medical, mechanical...you name it, the military has it. Not only will you get paid for on the job training, but you'll also get money for college when you leave the service. Your views on the military itself aren't relevant; you can take a non-combat job if you don't want to personally hurt someone. If you have some sort of political agenda against the military...well, recognize that many military members dislike "US GOV" more than you, yet they recognize that the military is a necessary cog in the US system. The military agenda sucks, but there's no reason why you can't personally benefit from it. Parental Support Rich parents who will pay for school? You aren't part of my argument. Also, everyone hates you. ... Some background: Raised by a single working class mother, no money for college, joined the military, went to community college, worked through school to finish education, acquired certifications part-time while furthering career. I currently make great money working for a Fortune 500, have a lovely family, and absolutely no debt. Nothing was given to me. ... A common complaint seen here on Reddit revolves around students frustrated with excessive student loans. No one forced these students to go to expensive private schools funded with loans. There are other options, and I do not sympathize. I would like to understand the frustration, and expand my perspective. Please change my view. |
human-3424 | cmv | human | The materials I have read about climate change and the actions I have observed by various organizations and governments haven't convinced me that climate change is something that we can effectively fix or stop (just slow it down). For example, several developed countries are not joining the treaties that have them control their emissions and have repealed taxes on emissions. So my thought is: instead of people wasting time and resources on trying to convince governments to help with climate change, what if they try to find ways to live with it (it is a long term change so any technologies that can be developed along the way will be a major factor). Is this sustainable? What are some of the ways this can happen? etc.. 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-2977 | cmv | human | I've been a transhumanist since before I knew the "official" term. Living indefinitely, whether it's from replacing telomeres and artificial neurons, or full on uploading, would be preferable to traditional death. Life might be difficult, annoying, and painful, but even after really bad episodes of depression, I have managed to again reach the mental state of not wanting to die. Even on the large scale, sure, nigh-immortality would cause a bit of disruption of the previous culture, but technology which bettered humanity in the long run has often reached opposition even after it became commonplace, from literacy to video games, from antibiotics to vaccines and transplants. 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-1254 | cmv | human | A brony is a non-traditional fan of My Little Pony:Friendship is Magic. This means that they are fans of the newest MLP and mostly likely none of the others (though they could be) and they are girls 13 and up or boys of any age. Given this base information, I don't believe it's possible to make a case for why it's wrong for people to be a fan of this show. If it was called "how to kidnap and murder babies; tips tricks and techniques for a pro," I could understand, but for any normal TV show, I think it's a pretty tough stretch to say that just because you're a fan means there's any kind of problem with you. |
human-2003 | cmv | human | Hello everybody! I was in a reddit thread earlier where someone was preaching the importantce of teaching personal finance in schools, encouraging people to start pension contributions as soon as they start earning, ect. ect. I'm an economics undergrad so I have a little (it is only a little) understanding of savings, but I believe that a drastic increase in savings would be a catastrophe for a few reasons: 1) Intrest rates. The current interest is LOW, if not negative in real terms. This means that there arn't sufficient (safe) borrowers to allocate the funds to. Increasing the savings more risks entering a liquidity trap. 2) Stagnation of demand. If you encourage people to save then they arn't spending (obviously). This is probably the worst thing that could happen right now (or in the next few years). 3) Asset price bubbles. With lots of savings being depositied banks will be forced to 'do' something with that money. Some of the things they will do is buy assets, or lend to buyers of assets: such as Bonds, stocks, property. ect. Rapid increases in the purchase of these has historically lead to their prices becoming speculative. It also prices out of the market the very people who you are teaching should save: Young people. So thats why I think encouraging, on mass, a new generation of young people to start savings to that degree would end badly. I want to understand why others think it shoudl be encouraged so I'm posting here. |
human-2978 | cmv | human | While I myself am no linguist by any means, I do get a little annoyed when people commit grammatical sacrelige. I usually keep these thoughts to myself. Other times, when somebody with less-than-perfect language speaks their mind, naysayers quickly draw their swords and lynch the perpetrator regardless of the contents of their argument, valid or not. So people with potentially insightful opinions who are sadly lacking in communication skills are shut down. I think that's a little silly. Besides, isn't a little rule breaking integral to language evolving? Surely in the hay days of early language people got tired of using two words to say something and instead decided to combine the words giving birth to the contraction! Again, no linguist, just a thought and a little theory. |
human-2112 | cmv | human | Like a lot of music fans, I'm fairly ambivalent about the website music blog Pitchfork. I think it's a good source for news, and their writing has definitely improved over the years. But I have a problem with its level of influence, particularly over other musics blogs. Over the last decade or so, I believe it has, you might say, 'flattened' critical opinion to the point where most indie music writers seem afraid or at least hesitant to deviate from its point of view. Looking at the majority of 'end-of-year' lists every December, and they're more often than not re-arrangements of Pitchfork's own list. At the very least, albums that are given below-average scores by PF usually end up being ignored by everyone else. In short Pitchfork has become so ubiquitous that it has closed, not opened, the ongoing conversation about independent music. 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-2897 | cmv | human | People often use the statement "we are nation of laws, not a nation of men" to justify sentences or rulings that seem unfair. I think this statement is bullshit. We live in a nation of men who interpret ambiguous laws, according to their own biases and prejudices. These men are educated and wealthy - and show a bias against people who aren't like them. [You are more likely to get parole if the judge hearing your case has had lunch] . If we were really a nation of laws, not men - then the laws would be written in computer code. Humans would input the facts of the case - decided by juries - and the computers would process the outcome according to the laws. The system we have now, the judge acts something like this computer, with the lawyers presenting cases to the judge, trying to interpret the law in a way that benefits their client. To pretend that "the law is the law" and it's beyond the judge to change it, throw it out, or modify it at his will, that he is bound by it at all times - is to do everyone an intellectual disservice. In order to get to the 'nation of laws, not of men' state, we need the laws to be written in a formal language - computer code. Juries could still make decisions about matters of fact - and these facts would be put into the computer code, to determine crimes. I'd say this is much more how a 'nation of laws' would operate. 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-1207 | cmv | human | If you identify as a feminist, I am especially interested in hearing from you in this matter. [Sexism.] [Feminism.] Preamble The following is what I hold to be true, and while all my views are up for debate, the opinions in this preamble are not up for debate right here, right now; If you disagree any of these and you can not argue under the temporary assumption that they are true, you might as well save yourself the effort. 1) Both men and women are systematically disadvantaged by American society based on gender. Men have it better for historical reasons, but not by much. To mitigate the vagueness of the previous sentence, I submit that it would clearly be absurd to say, "Men in America have it twice as good as women." Statistically, men have better, but not that much better. 2) Given 1), that both genders are systematically disadvantaged based on gender, any attempt to achieve gender equality that ignores either gender is prejudicial, and therefore by definition sexist. 3) As a clarifying amendment, I enthusiastically acknowledge that in the past, women were systematically oppressed legally and culturally to such a great extent that prejudicial treatment was not only good, not merely necessary, but absolutely unavoidable. Men had so many more rights and privileges than women that it was unarguably counter-intuitive to address any institutional discrimination against them before solving dozens of egregious offenses against women; however, we no longer live in that world, and we haven't for at least twenty years. If you disagree with any of this and you want to address it, feel free to PM me. If I find you engaging and your argument novel andor compelling, I will discuss it with you. Statement in question I think it's fairly clear that feminism as practiced in America today is a sexist ideology despite its insistence that it is not. I'm not aware of a single feminist group that has protested for or contributed financially to a purely men's rights cause, or for a men's rights cause purely for the benefit of men; this is a problem, because I constantly encounter feminist organizations protesting for and contributing financially to purely women's rights causes, or to women's rights causes purely for the benefit of women. If this is true, then according to 2) in the preamble, feminism is a sexist organization. I will easily be convinced to change my mind if many significant efforts to support men's rights that are lead by various prominent feminist groups are brought to my attention. |
human-4105 | cmv | human | To clarify my personal views, I believe that anyone who commits an offense considered a "felony" such as felony possession of any illegal substance should fall under the law like everyone else. If you possess a substance or commit any act considered serious enough for a felony, you should do the serious time and pay the penalty. That means no voting rights and all that comes with it. Call me a hard-liner, but it's what I believe and I am well aware there is the idea of "community corrections" which does have some data that supports it, as a CCJ major who has done tumults of research on the matter, I haven't found any large scale data that supports the community approach as much as deterrence aspect of the felony charge. I'm very interested as to what you guys have to say, and I would like to see some interesting arguments, and I'd love to change my views here. I don't find enjoyment in the idea of ruining a life, but in my own opinion, if you do the act that is bad enough to be considered a felony crime, you should pay the penalty accompanying it! EDIT I feel the need to make it known, and ask that we please stay on topic of ONLY feloniesfelony convictions! Please and thank you! |
human-4006 | cmv | human | On the front page today, this [thread] was posted showing people of the Islamic faith getting offended at a video (an explicitly and incredibly offensive anti-Islam video) and shoutingscreaming for it to be turned off. The video was titled "Why Multicultralism is An Epic Fail [sic]," and Reddit upvoted it over 4K times with a net approval of 65. The Youtuber who posted the video claims that the people in the audience were already aware of the contents of the anti-Islamic film before viewing that, although no proof of this was given. Thus, this premise that these people came willing to watch something attacking them and their religion is mainly an assumption. Assuming that the people did know that they would watch an offensive video, their behavior was not OK; however, if they were told the film was to be something else and acted this was in objection to what was happening, the behavior may have been an overreaction, but slightly justified. Like I said, there is no proof of the context outside of what the admittedly biased youtuber posted (Who else would title a video "Why Multiculturalism is An Epic Fail. Moving on to Reddit's response. I pulled some of the top comments and their net upvotes. "What a bunch of shitheads" - 736 points "Just boot these filthy immigrants out of the country." - 32 points "Why do people think multiculturalism is a good thing? They are fucking animals." - 9 points "Fucking savages, if that's how they are how can anybody not be racist against them? Not to mention their whole marrying 9 year old girls and whatnot..." - 58 points "If it's their "culture" they should keep it in their own stinky fucking land..." - 42 points "Fuck this religion." - 58 points "Allahu Akbar is one of the most annoying noises I have ever heard." - 1146 points "And thus why I think Islam is the downfall of humanity." - 51 points "Muslims acting like spoiled children? Never!" - 164 points Now when some people tried to respond calling out Reddit on this ridiculously racist response, they were 'downvoted into oblivion'. I'm sick of Reddit claiming to be tolerant of all people and cultures and attacking leaders, countries and policies that are racist and unequal, but then having a ridiculously ignorant, bigoted and racist response at something like this. I know that I shouldn't take this instance and stereotype it to all of Reddit, just as I would hope people not take this video and stereotype it to all people of the Islamic faith, but going through all the comments and discussion on the Youtube page and the thread is extremely irritating. EDIT: I apologize for the extra word in my title. |
human-3824 | cmv | human | In every conflict, our governments will go at length to convince us that the "bad guys" are evil, cannot be reasoned with, attempt to dehumanizedemonize them etc. I think they are simply a political Afghan group that attemptedattempts to rule their country as they think is best, according to their limitedarchaic knowledge. They have messed up policies, like all governments do, including our own. I strongly believe that invading Afghanistan to forcibly remove them from power was not a smart diplomatic option. We started bombing Afghanistan less than a month after 911. There is NO WAY that was enough time to initiate communication with the Taliban and sincerely attempt a diplomatic resolve to the situation. Analogy to further explain my viewpoint: Your neighbor is a wife beating alcoholic. What will yield the best outcome for every one involved ? A- Burst into his house and use physical and verbal violence (aka invade Afghanistan) B- Engage him in a dialogue without using a pretentious or judgmental approach. Engage him in a way that speaks of your sincere concern for his well being as well as that of his family. Being more educated, you understand that he is not a "monster," rather is is more likely a product of his environment andor upbringing and that change does not come overnight but with wisdom, patience, etc. Obviously .. if you witness him hitting his wife from your window you call the police .. that's an acute circumstance. (AKA use diplomatic options) PS I'm an not a "romantic idealist," I'm Ex-military, I do believe that sometimes you got to mobilize, but that humanity has the potential for many other diplomatic, wise, ingenious solutions besides blowing shit up... that would ultimately yield a better outcome for everyone. |
human-3659 | cmv | human | That is correct, ASPD or antisocial personality disorder, I think that he has it. Am I a professional psychologist? - No, only an armchair one. Am I endeared to this belief? - No, I don't follow politics or any other celebrity gossip. What lead me to this belief? - A couple of intelligent (and open) colleagues with the same 'trait' stated that, "we can spot each other" and "it's obvious." Why am I posting this? - I recently discovered this subreddit, found it interesting, and this is the most controversial mass appeal belief that I have. For the record, my understanding is that ASPD implies an incapacity for empathy. It does not (necessarily) mean evil, lazy, or leeching off of society. It describes how a brain works. It describes emotional regulation (or lack thereoff) in regards to other people. Have at it!; |
human-2939 | cmv | human | To quote Obama: "I think it's important to recognize that you can't have 100 security and also then have 100 privacy and zero inconvenience." I believe the type of security promised here is a fallacy. You'll always have "terrorists" conspiring against the state, but unless your goal is to monitor every single communication between two individuals (a la 1984), the conspirators will always be one step ahead, find ways around surveillance, and likely just become even more enraged by the oppressive lifestyle they're being forced to operate under. As Orwell puts it: "The choice for mankind lies between freedom and happiness." We're currently somewhere in the middle, where the government promises happiness, at the expense of some freedom, by spending billions on NSA projects which give the capability to monitor as much digital communication as possible. I think this effort is in vain, and a massive waste of taxpayer money - the only way it could be effective is if it were enacted as totally as in the dystopian future described in 1984 (where avoiding surveillance is much more than simply a minor inconvenience), which is obviously completely undesirable. Therefore we should probably just go back to the "freedom" end of the spectrum. tl;dr: Surveillance in the name of security is only worthwhile if it captures every single piece of communication. Seeing as no one would be happy with that, the government should stop wasting so much money on ineffective surveillance projects, as they aren't really making anyone safe. |
human-3702 | cmv | human | I've had discussions with people that say they prefer the company of animals over humans because people are mean-spirited and evil and animals can never be that way. They give money to animal rescues instead to charities that help humans. I find those beliefs sick and potentially dangerous and I think those people need professional help. |
human-2224 | cmv | human | The reason I think this is because the US government, especially in the last few years doesn't work. All it has been able to successfully do is provide minimal relief for natural disasters, and send troopswithdraw troops. If this was 200 years ago, the government would have been toppled, however since the US sees itself as a world leader of Democracy, there is this almost obligatory resistance to changing. As soon as the US were to lose top ranking in the world, I think somebody would start a Coup. EDIT: It's why now so many people favor larger government, back in the 50's during the red scare many would have favored communism if there hadn't been a feeling that the US was the leader against it. EDIT: To say it better, Americans and America feel that democracy is ours and if we leave it then we would take a huge hit to our ego. EDIT: to Clarify as the US were to lose top ranking in the world... As soon as we could no longer take pride in being the strongest military. |
human-1322 | cmv | human | Just seems like girls have a much easier time finding dates becuase there are a million ways for a guy to screw up, plus it always seems that girls are more wanted in social situations (hence the reason for ladies night) guys usually have to "man up" and ask the girl, but heaven forbid he gets labeled "trying too hard." There are things like ladies night where guys go because there are girls, but girls go for the cheaper drinks. If a guy hits on a girl the wrong way its creepy, or its not bold enough depending on the girl. If a guy's a virgin he obviously isn't normal, but if a girl is then thats fine. I think girls have a much easier time dating. Please CMV edit: thank you all for providing intelligent discussion and expanding my view. I would still say that the average single guy (18-30, decently fit, etc) has a harder time finding a date than the average single woman with the same conditions. However, if both are unattractive, the guy will have more options to become attractive than the girl. There is pretty much no argument that it is easier for a girl to get laid under all conditions. some new viewpoints: 1.) girls have more risk involved in dating, or at least more perceived risk. I am not sure on the actual numbers but girls feel as though every first date could go very wrong, versus guys maybe feel that every first date could just be boring at worst. It should be noted that men can get drugged and or raped just as women. 2.) Guy's attractiveness spectrum is somewhat more balanced: if a guy is hot he will not have as much of an advantage as a hot girl, but if a guy is ugly he has more of a chance to make up for himself. Similar issues with age. That being said, more a higher percentage of women fall into the attractive side than men. 3.) Girls have and easier time getting laid, but much harder time finding a real relationship. A argument came that there is no possible way for menwomen to have a hardereasier time finding significant dates if you exclude homosexual relationships, since if you compare the numbers it will by definition be equal. Some debate is still over what is harder: sorting through a number of guys or trying to convince her you are worth it. 4.) guys have more control since they are more able to ask a girl versus having social pressure to not ask a guy. Again, this may be true but I am not sure that having more control is any easier. A pilot has more control over the plane than the passengers. What has seemingly not been brought up: is it harder for a girl to know she is attractive enough? on some levels, i can see the argument - how would a girl know if her boobs are big enough (or face pretty enough or etc) to grab attention of the guys? |
human-2122 | cmv | human | After seeing an article in rworldnews about a Chinese national carving his initials into an Egyptian temple, and I got to thinking... What's the big deal? While I would never argue that anyone intentionally mar the value of a historical location, I don't thinking carving one's initials detracts from it. I think it actually adds to it. Like moving into an old house and seeing the height-marks left by the children of the previous owners on a door frame. It's another testament to longevity and history. It is an addition to the historical record. Of course, it's still a crime. It's vandalism, and punish it as such. But it's not a national tragedy, and no one should be publically shamed for it. In 500 years, his name will be read by people who will have the same argument about vandalism, and we'll all have been forgotten. |
human-2366 | cmv | human | Whilst I appreciate that developers need to earn a living, I feel that in-app purchases cheapen the whole 'Apple experience'. No longer is a free game, actually free. A lot of them use a pay to winprogress model, and for this reason, I usually don't even bother reading the description of a game if I see that it has in-app purchases. There are a few games that use the in-app purchase model well, I've seen some offer the first chapter of a game for free, and then charge for subsequent levels (e.g. The Walking Dead). This, in my book, is fair, but in-app purchases are abused so much, that I think that they do a lot more harm than good. A lot of paid games games have also started using in-app purchases, and it's got to the point where I'm pleasantly surprised if I haven't been asked to buy gemsgold in the first five minutes of playing a game. CMV |
human-3063 | cmv | human | Hello fellow Gerrymandered-citizens! Of course [Gerrymandering] has been around since the 19th century, but things really kicked into overdrive in the 2000 period. I tend to be uncommitted between the parties (this is what everyone says, I know; but it even speaks to Gerrymandering that people with strong opinions are irrelevant), but it seems undeniable to me that the Republican Party has pioneered upping the ante in this game. Of course the Democrats have been all too happy to oblige, and the blame is certainly equitable at this point in time. Texas led the way to this Brave New World of hyper-Gerrymandering the wiki article has the most charming evolution of [Travis County in the early 2000s] . There are many other things that have undermined the principles of representative government in the US money in politics, lobbyists, fear, hyper-partisan media, the rise of special interests, an entrenched political caste. But Gerrymandering is the final nail in the coffin. Allowing representatives (parties) to choose who they represent, and diluting alternative opinions by spreading them among districts, is at the root of the gridlock in the country. It totally, utterly cripples our ability to act effectively on any issue of national importance. Other problems have gummed up the gears, but Gerrymandering has blown them straight off. I worry that Pandora's Box is open and there's no way back to non-gridlock, non-crazy politics in the US. I think it's even more destructive than the endemic fear of terrorism, which we all know has fundamentally altered the country's DNA. And all the worse that it's relatively silent, it's all backroom-dealing with the only outcry coming from people educated enough to even know what it is. It guarantees no third parties, it essentially makes elections a mere formality, and has totally destroyed the country. At the risk of sounding like a crank, it's a transition form of dictatorship. I think very few people (politicos) would argue for Gerrymandering. What I'd like to see are people who believe it isn't as dire an issue as I do, and can substantially argue that there are worse developments at the core of this country's political problems, or that there's a way back, or that Gerrymandering is not that big a deal. Bonus points if you can argue for it convincingly! 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-1705 | cmv | human | My argument is simple: A lot of what the Bible says is usually taken as analogy or metaphor for a deeper truth and way of life. Most people don't think that Jesus was actually pissed off at a fig tree; they see it as a parable for how people should live their lives. Most people honestly don't even think that God literally created the Earth in 6 days, even though Genesis says that; they believe that the days are representative of a longer time span and "create" can mean put into action through evolution. The Bible is full of verses that most major Christian sects do not take literally. So why is it that almost all Christians take Jesus literally when he says that one must believe in him to ascend to heaven? Couldn't Jesus be speaking in analogies as well? The proof I have always been shown is a passage in John where Jesus says "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." I don't see why that can't be taken as a general analogy instead of literally. Perhaps when he says "through me," he means by doing good deeds and following God's ideal through action instead of simply believing in him. It would then follow that whoever lives a good life will ascend to heaven. Obviously I'm not saying this is absolutely true or anything, honestly I'm not even a Christian. But I'm surprised that almost every Christian sect I know strongly believes that you must literally say "Yes Jesus is my savior" to enter heaven. They refuse to think outside the box at all and consider it may be an analogy - even as they look at other Biblical statements and accept that they may be analogies. I hope this makes sense. I look forward to anyone trying to change my view. TL;DR: The Bible is full of analogies and most Christians accept that. They should also be willing to accept that it may be an analogy when Christ says that one must "believe in him" to come to Heaven. It's possible and likely that he did not mean that literally. CMV |
human-3259 | cmv | human | I've noticed that most of the people I've talked to feel as if the lower rung of soldiers, guards, workers, and even civilians hold just as much of the responsibility for allowing The Holocaust to happen as those who organized the genocide. Furthermore, I've often heard that the excuse that they were simply doing as they were told is not a valid reason for their actions and that they should have done something to prevent the mass killings and forced labor. I'm not underplaying the tragedy that was The Holocaust, as it truly was one of the more sickening things that humanity has done, but I do feel that the common workers and soldiers of the camps shouldn't have had to shoulder the responsibility of putting a stop to it as any dissentresistance was far too risky, likely to be ineffective on an individual level, and would likely result in harsh disciplinedeath. Even if they were morally opposed to the actions, as many were, defiance would be a fruitless effort and cause far 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-1946 | cmv | human | The title says it all. In our Reddit-friendly world, simply saying "this" when agreeing with a comment doesn't help anything. In 4chan, and some other forums, commenting with "bump" will increase the popularity of an original post. This works well for those types of forums, as bumping for visibility actually does something. Reddit works through the use of upvotes. If we like the rcatsstandingup post, we upvote it, and life is good. If we don't approve of a rspacedicks post, or its related content, we downvote it, put our phones down, and go outside. This system works very well, with a couple of hitches, mostly related to measures set to prevent brigading. The only reason one might post a simple "this" is egomania. The need to see their user name on the billboard. An upvote would easily do the job. A "this" that is hyperlinked to an Imgur picture of the posters penis would at least be original. But instead, ever day, we are subjected to a masturbatory comment that could easily be replaced with an upvote. If you were the "this" commenter, you could upvote, and, if enough people agreed with you, you could see the original commenter at the top of the thread. If you were the original commenter, wouldn't you like that? If enough people see "this," we could end "this." "This" is not an efficient comment. Change my view. |
human-2021 | cmv | human | I feel as soon as you get married and have kids, your life begins to mold itself into a big ball of boring. You cant really do anything you want. On top of that, you have to deal with screaming, kids fucking up your stuff, your wife nagging. In essence it's very selfish of me to think this, but regardless, I would rather be a playboy till I can no longer breathe. Especially with divorce rates higher than ever and only climbing, it seems nowadays that your almost setting yourself up for fAilure. Of course having kids and a wife is coined as one of the best gifts in life, but the tradeoff between all the fighting and struggles does not amount to the love and passion you get when recieving a good bye kiss or hand drawn picture from your son. Once again, I know i am selfish and naive, but hanging with my friends, spending money on yourself and partying sounds way more appealing. CMV |
human-1203 | cmv | human | So, I'm an American male, who recently went vegan. I did so based upon health concerns. While I am horrified by the torture that animals undergo at the hands of the factory farming complex, I do think that man, in the abstract, has the right to kill animals in a humane fashion. My view is based upon the following logic. Animals exist in the laws of nature, man is an apex predator, and therefore the strong have a "natural" right to eat the weaker animals. I don't think it's pretty, but that's the way I see it. A friend of mine was offended by my outlook, which I found quite strange. So I thought to myself, who better to ask then a gaggle of internet strangers. Again, just so we're clear, I am against animal cruelty, but I don't necessarily view man killing animal as "murder." Okay, let's do this! Change my view, animal lovers of reddit! |
human-1579 | cmv | human | I believe that all fat people became fat because of their greed and gluttonous habits. I also do not see why fat people take pride in being fat. I think that all fat people are fat. |
human-2732 | cmv | human | This is my first time posting, and I'm not very good at debate, but I've seen this sub actually change people's minds before, and I think I need that right now. So, as GamerGate was hitting popularity, I started to wonder why there was so many white males behind the movement. I was seeing 85 of the GG supporters weren't PoC or women. Then I realized that the same people self-identified as gamers much more than other groups. Then I thought about what actually constitutes a gamer. It's just someone who plays games, right? But millions of people play video games! Why would people label themselves something like that? That's like saying you're a reader or you listen to music. So it's basically meaningless. P.S. I don't actually really care about GG anyway, just explaining why I formed this view in the first place. P.P.S. I'm not opposed to gamers either, I play console and PC games. I only think it's meaningless to call myself or other people gamers. Hope I explained my point well... Why I changed my view: I have had this explained to me multiple times now, but calling yourself a gamer means you want people to know you treat gaming as a pastime or hobby. It says you're willing to sink time into gaming, and dedicate yourself. My entire viewpoint was based on my (wrong) idea that being a gamer simply means playing a game more than once. Thanks for all the comments, though, and I'm glad I understand now. Sorry about my really bad debate skills, they're definitely downvote worthy. 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-1424 | cmv | human | I read this [article] and I think it makes some good points. People seem to be gathering a smaller attention span and news seems to be following demand - giving snippets of information rather than looking and finding the meaning of text for themselves. because of this our understanding of things slowly becomes more cut and dry - there is less ambiguity left over for contemplation over a book or piece of writing. google actually benefits from us not gathering complete information. because we tend to gather smaller snippets of information as opposed to spending long periods of time reading and thinking over a single piece. With this in mind it is in google's best interest to have us select more superficial and easy to skim articles so that we keep bouncing from link to link so that they have the most exposure for their ads. Those are just the ones that are coming to me now. If any others occur to me I'll let you know. |
human-2827 | cmv | human | I often read argument Reddit or with my American friends (I am Canadian) where people reference the Founding Fathers and the constitution. These people always talk about present day politicians as scummy and untrustworthy, while talking about the Founding Fathers like they could do no wrong and have the ultimate perfect opinion. The way I see it...they're politicians too. Now, I don't have such a bleak view of politicians as some; I think politicians are people and as such they can do great things or make mistakes. I just don't think it's healthy to think that every word out of the Founding Fathers mouths is pure gospel. They can make mistakes, and a few hundred years is a long time for the world to change around their words. This has come up a lot with recent gun debates. Redditors will talk about the right to bear arms and cite the Founding Fathers etc. Well....CMV |
human-1986 | cmv | human | Gender dysphoria is real. I get it. Trans people attempt to fix this through surgical genital mutilation and hormone therapy. That is the choice of an individual, and I can respect anyone's decision to do whatever they choose to do to their body. I don't think the trans struggle is on the same level as that of homosexuals and racial minorities. If you get extensive body modifications then struggle to afford the hormones you need to feel like whatever gender you swapped to, I have little sympathy. I feel like my lack of sympathy stems from the "I feel like I should have been malefemale" argument. Is there a universal standard for what it feels like to be a male or female? Can any male ever truly know what its like to be a female, and express any desire for that state of mind? How can anyone "feel" like they should be something other than what they are? Can people "feel" like they should be gay but aren't, "feel" like they should be an elephant but aren't, "feel" like they should be a PhD but aren't? I struggle to understand the notion. Change my view please! EDIT lots of great discussion, thanks to everyone for contributing! EDIT2 everyone please read this reply: I think this is the best reply in the discussion and has changed my view because I realize I was misinformed about the basic definition of gender, and about the amount of discrimination levied against trans people. 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-3161 | cmv | human | This won't solve everything. Jews and Palestinians still won't like each other, but hopefully they will be able to slowly transition from bombs and rockets to parliamentary debates. The refugee issue would also still be problematic, but there would be the possibility of working it out. I don't think that anyone seriously believes in a two state solution at this point. Israel Palestine is too small, Jerusalem is too important and Palestinian territories aren't even contiguous. I know many Palestinians want all European Jews to leave Palestine, but this isn't realistic and would require really bad ethnic cleansing. North African countries ethnically cleansed the European settlers there in the mid 20th century and their economies still haven't recovered. Furthermore, many Israelis don't want to live as equals with Arabs, but given demographic and political trends they won't have a choice pretty soon. The majority of Israeli citizens will probably be Muslim Arabs by the middle of this century, and this isn't even counting the people living in Gaza and the West Bank with no rights. It seems that if Israelis want to live in peace and sustain a Jewish presence in the Holy land they are going to have to give the Palestinians rights. 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-3570 | cmv | human | Happy Cucumbers and hello. This is not a CMV about left vs right nor is it a CMV about ideologies or what system would work best, we're strictly talking principles. I see taxation as an initiation of force and theft because: A) The payment demanded was outright yours to begin with because you worked for it or it was given directly to you and you must be the sole owner otherwise you would not have it to give to anyone else such as the tax collectors. B) The consequences of not satisfying the demand would eventually result in force such as arresting you, court, prison etc. Therefore government by definition which requires tax money in order to fund itself and absolutely cannot function without it is immoral. And if 100 tax is slavery at what level is it not? How could you justify a line between 100 taxation or 100 theft as slavery and 10-50 is not? I hold this view because honestly I can't comprehend any other way to look at it, it is what it is really. You can't unsee things so that's one of the reasons I'm posting here maybe another perspective will shed light but I doubt it as I've held this view for a long time and never heard a good argument against it. So please change my view on taxation! I will not accept justification such as "it's for police and we need them" etc this is black and white definitions if someone raped someone it wouldn't matter if he did it to cure cancer they still raped someone and it is immoral in all situations. I will not accept adjectives as arguments "no taxation is utopian" you may as well say that I'm too pancake flappajackery, adjectives aren't arguments. I will not accept strawman arguments, if you can't quote me then don't post anything at all. If the conversation gets too heated or emotional then I will stop responding. UPDATE:Thank you all for all the different perspectives but sadly no-one changed my view. I may come back and clear up some conversations but I'm beat. 3 Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . 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-1864 | cmv | human | A more extreme version of that view that I believe, but am not as attached to holding, is that I think that people should be desensitized at a young age. Let me provide some backstory on what I mean. When I was around 12, I decided I would watch all the major shock videos on the Internet so that I wouldn't get disturbed by that sort of thing. The main shock videos I refer to include sexual depravity videos (e.g., 2 Girls 1 Cup) and then the violent ones (3 Guys 1 Hammer), or a mix of the two (BME Pain Olympics). As a result, I constantly find myself in situations such as watching movies with friends, and a torture scene will come up and everyone else will shriek what not, and I always stay perfectly calm. I like to think that this means that I have a much more objective view of situations, and don't do things like morally judge people just because theyre into something traditionally considered "disgusting." I think it's also important to be able to keep yourself composed in a situation where your emotional reactions are challenged. EDIT: I should point out that not reacting emotionally to something doesn't mean youre not reacting to it. While yes, I do judge people, I try to basis my judgements on legitimate character flaws (I don't think there's a single way I can possibly word that sentence without sounding self absorbed). Or for another example, if I saw a video of a murder and was asked to sentence the murderer, while I wouldn't react with, "HOW HORRIBLE, HE'S A MURDERER," I can still assess that murder is both unethical and detrimental to society. |
human-3877 | cmv | human | So I have realized that I am quite quick to jump to conclusions about people. But it seems to me that you have normal people and you have mentally ill people who get all the disorders. A friend of mine has 8 mental disorders. It seems like if you hve 1 you're likely to have more. So I've adopted a either ur fuckd or not view. CMV |
human-1477 | cmv | human | My argument doesn't stem from a human rights standpoint, but instead from wanting to punish the criminals that deserve it. If a person's crime is bad enough to deserve to be put to death, then why give them the easy way out? It'd be more of a punishment to let them rot in prison with no chance at parole. Spending endless years in prison with other high threat criminals is the worst punishment and therefore the appropriate replacement for the death penalty. If that criminal poses a threat to other prisoners, isolation is always an option, being an even worse punishment than regular prison. On the opposite side of the spectrum, getting rid of the death penalty would ensure that no innocent person was accidentally convicted and put to death before proving their innocence. The death penalty also costs the taxpayers much more than life without parole. This is due to the extra judicial matters (i.e. investigation, trial, appeals) needed and the cost of lethal injection. So not only would eliminating the death penalty provide for a tougher punishment and ensure no innocent people are lethally injected, but it would also save money. |
human-3440 | cmv | human | I see very few ways in which jewel cases are better than triple (or even double) folding paper cases are better for disc based media, namely CD albums. Paperfold cases have the following advantages: Cheaper to produce and distribute Less susceptible to breaking and damaging disc Can show more artwork Take up less space However, there are a couple of advantages of plastic that I do recognize: More water resistant More uniform Protect against bending I don't really think these advantages make it better option than paper, but give me some other ones and change my view. Edit: to clarify, I meant official releases in the CD case that was standard for most of the '00s, with the clips for artwork and the spine label, not the super thin ones. [This] is the paper cases I'm talking about. |
human-2391 | cmv | human | Ok so this "view" is a bit different than most posts here. It's not so much a philosophy I hold, just something I don't fully trust but I want to! I love the idea of backing up my computer to an online server such as crashplan, but I can't help but be a little bit paranoid that it's not 100 safe. Especially with all the NSA news at the minute, it just seems like nothing can be really safe. I'm a musician and I make my living off of writing songs, the thought that someone out there could steal my material or even just listen to products that I don't want in the public domain absolutely terrifies me. I recently had trouble restoring from a time machine backup though after upgrading my hard drive and the online backup solution sounds so good. I just can't quite bring myself to trust it. Could someone more knowledgeable than me on this kind of stuff please change my view?!! EDIT: Wow. Posted this last night and woke up to some really good answers! Thanks guys! I have to go out now but I'll try to reply to them all as soon as I can. One quick note, my NSA comment seemed to have been misread. I don't mean that the NSA cares about my data. I don't think anyone wants to steal my songs either, I'm just saying that a lot of people are completely shocked by the amount of info the NSA have had access to and are storing. Now if a company as massive as that was able to obtain so much information over so many years and only now people are finding out about it, it wouldn't surprise me if companies like Crash Plan were also making copies of everyone's data and either storing it for themselves or maybe even sharing it with others. I know it's a bit of a paranoid view, but can anyone address that? |
human-3406 | cmv | human | I offer the following reasons: The fighting in Syria has attracted many of the extremist jihadists from all over the world. It is in the best interest of the US to perpetuate bloodshed in Syria as a way to concentrate and exterminate those that affiliate with terrorist groups like al Qaeda. Having either the FSA or Assad gain full control of the country would end with a brutal dictatorship (and probably genocide) or a radical Islamist government. Neither of these results are acceptable. The US cannot get involved in the war without picking a winner. Furthermore, the Syrian war takes the heat off the US's continued killing of Muslims and occupation of Muslim land. By perpetuating constant Muslim-on-Muslim violence, perhaps it will spur a movement amongst moderate Muslims who are sick of war to take a stand for secular democracy. The enemy of your enemy is your friend. Both the FSA and Assad are the enemy of the US, therefore they are both our friend. In order to maintain this status quo, the US must refrain from intervention. |
human-4121 | cmv | human | First, to the issue of consent. Can an 4 - 10 year old give consent? that is almost a definite no. But past that, if a kid can give consent to be picked up, to be punched by his friends, to ride a bike, to ride a car, why can heshe not give consent to sex? Of course, this view must hold that those even those younger than 10, those that can speak, can give consent, but I won't go there in this, as I will get a bunch of hate mail and witch-hunts as is common in western society's irrational hatred of anyone defending the "pedos." So, what makes sex so taboo for children? I argue that it is subjective. You grew up seeing it as dirty, so you don't want your or other's children engaging in it, because you see it as dirty, and want to keep their "innocence" for as long as possible. Other crimes such as murder, assault, and robbery are much more objective, they do clear harm, and clearly violate another's right to life, their body, and their property. So, to expand on this. If a 12 year old can give consent to a 14, or something of that sort, why then, can they not give consent to someone much older? It is because you view it as icky. I will admit, in the majority of cases, the child is a victim of rape. So, clearly, if the victim speaks out soon or later, the case should be looked into, and prosecuted with the right evidence. But, it is clear to me, that if a 14 yo can give consent to a 16 yo, then he can give consent to anyone. On to the next part, sex offender's registry is complete bullshit. First of all, I fucking hate background checks. They perpetuate poverty, and only cause more crime. It makes it hard for criminals to get jobs, and they resort back to crimes. On top of that, sex offenders are treated so much worse. Why does raping someone, adult, or child, make you so much worse than someone who murdered and didn't get life? It is bullshit. There is the argument, "but then how would we know if there's a sex offender living next door to my children!" Well, that's incredibly unfortunate that you don't get to know everyone's backgrounds so you can keep your precious little critters safe, but that should be your responsibility. People make mistakes, but should be able to return to being normal human beings, citizens, when they do their time. Not to mention that the prison system does not help pedophiles change their ways at all. That needs to change as well. Furthermore, the most egregious of these I find, is the acceptance on reddit (though, suprisingly, the internet is far better at condemning this than the regular population) to pedophiles being beat, stabbed, and raped in jail. Reddit and 4chan are actually decent compared to regular society in recognizing that this is fucking insane! It happens way to often. And there is little activism against the abuse sex offenders get in prison, or even abuse in general in prison. So, I clearly feel very strongly about this, you'll get bonus points from me if you change my opinion about that last one. But, CMV about all of these I guess. If a good argument comes a long that I haven't thought of, I'll 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 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-2146 | cmv | human | I would like an informed opinion on this and not just something like "u crazy conspiracy theorist." Here is one of the videos that has resulted in my view on the subject , please ignore the stupid title, the content is very interesting. Main things that may change my view: Proof that ELF waves do not effect the ionosphere. (main one) A legitimate reason to have HAARP other than to experiment with weather altering. |
human-1828 | cmv | human | I think depression shouldn't be considered a mental illness anyway, but rather a reaction to a crappy and sick society and an unjust world. I believe that no amount of idealistic quotes, motivational speeches and medications could change it. Sure, the person might become happier from one or more the things above but the society that drove them to depression will force them back into it again. Being happy is not going change the fact that you are behind in your mortgage, or that your town's water supply is toxic, or that killings around the world continue to happen. I think it's wrong and a disservice to blind someone again, just so they can fall yet again. Want to lower the rate of depression? Sure; I'm all for it, just fix the society in which depression occurs. |
human-2924 | cmv | human | I'm a member of the marching band at my high school, and every time a football player gets injured on the field, everything stops. People get dead silent, we stop playing, and all the players on the field get on one knee. I can't bring myself to feel sorry for someone who plays a sport that has a very high risk of injury. Another reason why I probably hold this view though is because of the fact I'm in marching band. During our halftime show people will be talking, yelling, and carrying on like we aren't really there, but do the exact opposite when a football player gets injured playing this dangerous sport. CMV. |
human-1155 | cmv | human | I read a blog today about a woman who was 20 weeks pregnant with twin girls, but aborted them anyway because "she already had daughters." The author of the blog was at the Planned Parenthood counseling people, and offered the woman help, had people step-up to adopt them, and the woman still aborted her twins. And it made me sick to my stomach. Regardless of how "legitimate" this blog post was, that is a very real, everyday scenario that happens in the United States, not just at 20 weeks, but even later. I believe, unless there is medical evidence to suggest the mother has a likelihood of not surviving labor, this type of situation should be illegal, with absolutely no other exception. CMV. |
human-3903 | cmv | human | The title is fairly self explanatory, but I'll expand. Currently, in the state of California, you are prescribed a Medical Card from a doctor. This card allows you to access dispensaries and to purchase whatever strains you desire in whatever volume you want (up to a cap). This is unlike any other system of legitimate medication. In order for Marijuana's medical benefits to be taken seriously it should be prescribed much the same way prescription medication is. You should get prescribed specific strains based on their benefits, with specific instructions as to how they should be administered and with what technique. Background: I use marijuana medically to treat anxiety and lack of appetite. Before I found a method of treatment that worked I was on a course of Ritalin and then a course of Lexapro. While neither of the medications were effective for me, the method in which they were prescribed was extremely helpful. I believe the same method of prescription would help to legitimize Medical Marijuana 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-2024 | cmv | human | To be clear, I am only talking about the computer aspect of Apple. For example, the Macbook and iMac lines. I could compare spec sheets, but you can do research on your own. I feel that the innovations of the mouse and the UI were amazing, but after they were matched, they didn't have that much to offer. You can get a PC with the same specs as a Mac for half the price. Their software is interesting, but not game-changing. I feel that they have peaked, and are in a decline with the computer market. They have good products, but not good enough to constitute their respective price tags. CMV. |
human-2724 | cmv | human | Thanks to the voting gender gap , the US has had a majority of female voters in general since about 1980. In a representative democracy, the voters determine legislators who decide on law and policy. The US (and many other western nations) have a first-past-the-post voting system (predominantly), so any minority voting factions literally have no say in representation. Women, being the majority, have literally ruled the US in terms of representative selection since 1980. Possible arguments I will preemptively address: 1) Representatives are still men. True, but it's women who are choosing to put them there. For instance, Obama may not have won without strong support from women. 2) Men still control most of the wealth. True, but in terms of raw political power, which is what is being discussed here, women are still in charge. 3) Men could conceivably outvote women if they organized. True. And we could conceivably live forever if we uploaded our brains into the "cloud." Please, let's deal in reality here. The voting gap is a trend that's consistent and growing. In terms of raw numbers, it has to happen. Women usually outnumber men in terms of population. There are also more men of substandard intelligence than women as intelligence research tells us. So the pool of women voters should always be larger than the pool of male voters. |
human-1404 | cmv | human | I've heard gun control advocates argue that it is barbaric for the average person to have a lethal weapon in their possession. Many of them go on to say that only police officers should have guns. I don't see a significant difference between using a gun yourself and calling someone to come and use one on your behalf. If it is wrong for me to defend myself with a gun, why isn't it wrong to have a police officer come and defend me with a gun? Note that I see little practical difference between an armed and an unarmed police officer, since every unarmed police officer, if they think the situation warrants, can summon armed police officers. 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-2644 | cmv | human | I'm not a cab-driver and rarely a cab customer, but when I need a cab I don't want some random guy with a car. Lyft and Uber seem to think cab-driving isn't a skill, that it's something anyone can do with no training. Well, it's not. An experienced cabbie provides a reliable service that Joe Schmoe who owns a Chevy can mimic but can't duplicate. Lyft and Uber drivers offer: Questionable insurance. Questionable character. Questionable integrity. Questionable driving safety. Questionable background checks. Questionable service for the disabled and elderly. Questionable answers to questions about the city and area. Questionable coverage at other than peak commute times. Like numerous other professions, taxi service is regulated for good reasons to prevent such questionable situations. Do-it-yourself pretend-cabs like Lyft and Uber should not be allowed to ignore the rules and regulations that real cab operators must follow. Change my view. Edit: Added deltas to my replies to several comments. And I'll add that I learned a lot in this conversation, and wouldn't make the same arguments now that I made in my original post. I've learned plenty about the way Lyft and Uber operate. My original notions were based on a few newspaper articles, not even recent articles, and I appreciate the educating. I've learned that LyftUber fans are vividly enthusiastic about the joy of riding in a stranger's car over a taxicab. It's a level of adoration I haven't seen since attending a few Grateful Dead concerts in the 1980s, but I loved that spirit then so I can't judge it harshly now. I've learned that LyftUber fans in CMV view the cab industry pretty much the same as PETA members view Oscar Meyer, and seem to believe that virtually all regulations of the taxi industry serve no public good, and exist only to protect cab operations from competition. Mostly, I've learned that CMV is a fun place to hang out on a Sunday afternoon, and that most of the debaters here play fair and don't seem to hate people for disagreeing, which is nice. Over and out for now. |
human-2314 | cmv | human | Those who have gone through a psychedelic experience know that those moments are hard, if not impossible to put into words, and any attempt to convey their experience to others doesn't make any justice to what they had really felt and saw and thought. During a full blown trip one surpasses all the borders of any mundane experience. All the guys that had their first experience admitted that it had been something absolutely different from what they had ever imagined before. Still, there are people who didn't try it but still make assumptions, speculations and look like they understand what would happen if they did it. So, is there any way for a guy who didn't go through a psychedelic experience to understand what is it like? |
human-1787 | cmv | human | My doctor has indicated that throughout her reading of literature concerning the topic at hand, she is also under the same impression. I hold this view due to a medial knowledge of marijuana's long term effects on the brain based on the occassional reading of literature that holds the same view. Edit: i would love to read sourced academic material to support responses. Thanks! |
human-2467 | cmv | human | I don't see the benefit in not eating animal products such as milk. I made a tumblr post about this earlier, and it seemed to piss off alot of people. Cows will still need to be milked, and chickens will still lay eggs (regardless of whether or not the eggs are fertilized, so technically, by eating an egg, you are not eating a baby chicken). I feel bad for the animals that are mistreated in facilities, but as long as the animals are properly cared for before they are used for their products and come from high quality sources, I don't see how being vegan helps. I am really interested to see the responses, because I feel pretty strongly on this. |
human-1017 | cmv | human | First off, I want to state I am not against the idea of abstaining from harming others in the course of a struggle. Non-violence is a tactic, one of many, that can be used to effect change but is not the same as Pacifism which tends to encompass more of a world-view than a tactic. I feel that pacifism is ineffective because we have extremely few (I'm actually not aware of any) instances of it working independently of other factors that would have ensured success (Gandhi had Bhagat Singh and other revolutionaries to counter-balance him, MLK had Huey Newton, Angela Davis, and other Black Panthers) by presenting an alternative to the radical change represented by the militant other. This ties into the worst case scenario for pacifism; enabling the forces of repression. Pacifist movements give those in power an easy "out" to accept half-measures or a more favorable peace agreement by recognizing the Pacifists as "legitimate" resisters and couching more militant revolutionary forces as terrorists or something of that nature. The forces of repression also then can use Pacifists to apply pressure to the militant revolutionaries by encouraging or otherwise allowing the Pacifists to interfere with the militants. We saw this in Seattle in the 90's and we see it in street battles to this day. Pacifism also stifles legitimate militant resistance to oppression, especially when it is projected onto others. Advocating Pacifist resistance in a case where it has either been tried and failed or has no possibility of working puts lives at risk for no benefit. Additionally, Pacifists who criticize the people in that instance who do take up arms hamper the movement by undermining their legitimacy. Consider it the approach of an American or Canadian arguing that the Syrians, Rwandans, or Kurds should resist their conditions peacefully and not resort to violence. 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-3476 | cmv | human | I think that naming a child 'La-a' or 'Apple' is really harmful to that child. Not only will they grow up being teased, but what happens when they want to find a job? Who's going to take a job application seriously when the person's name is 'Apple'? Seriously. I think that there needs to be a system implemented where you can pick a name from a pre-approved list (Biblical names, names from mythology, etc). If you want to be able to name your child something else, you should have to ask a judge. CMV. |
human-1506 | cmv | human | There has been this unbelievable flood of posts and comments about how the Travyon Martin case should be only between the parties directly involved and that it should be treated just like any other murder of a black person. I disagree with that for three reasons: First, the Travyon Martin case is de facto not "just another case" because it gathered national attention. People argue that this is because of the media (which is partially true) but they forget that the reason it first attracted attention was because Zimmerman was on a neighbourhood watch. It raised questions about whether practices such as the neighbourhood watch and being allowed to carry a firearm led to the death of Travyon Martin. Second, while it is very difficult to argue that Zimmerman should have been ruled guilty for happened that night that does not mean that the fairness of self defence or gun control laws should not be debated. What is legal is not always right and, more importantly, what is legal does not reflect the views of the community about what should be allowed. Also, it is viewer and reader attention (at least in this case) that lead the media to sensationalize the story which should also raise questions about how we, as consumers of media information reacted to the death of Martin. |
human-2359 | cmv | human | After all, people with eidetic memory are allowed to roam the streets. Consequently, the records Alice would take with this would be treated like her memories: Intrusion by Bob like him using a not-yet-invented mind-reading device without her consent; deletion like him giving her a concussion. In court, Alice could speak of the contents of the recordings, but not be forced to show them; she could even lie about them, though that would be illegal. (She might even be forbidden from showing them, depending on whether it is hard to fake such recordings (we do not want courts to be able to use failure to produce recordings as evidence against Alice); alternatively, failure to produce recordings would be forbidden to be used as evidence (though we know how well that works in practice "But how would you store all that data?" This is a problem that would solve itself given time, if technology continues to advance as it currently does. But nevertheless, you might transmit recordings to a central storage where terabytes are cheap; you might make the recordings largely poor quality through lossy recording; you might tag the past hour as noninteresting enough to only store the bare minimum of data. 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-1743 | cmv | human | Note: I'm not German. I don't speak German. I have no particular ties to Germany. After WWII, it became a big no-no for Germans to express patriotism for their country. This cultural value continues in Germany to this day - as you may have seen if you saw that GIF of Merkel taking the German flag away from a guy on stage and discreetly handing it to someone off stage. I have met many Germans, above the age of forty, who do not think that it is appropriate for Germans to show patriotism. I think this is bullshit. WWII ended almost seventy years ago. I know that the Nazis were horrible and the Holocaust is one of the most important moments in human history, but come on already. It's been long enough, I think Germans should be proud of today's Germany, and they should be allowed to show their patriotism. American politicians wear the American flag all the time, and I'm sure John Boehner has a bald eagle tattooed on his penis. Today's Germany has one of the strongest economies in the European Union (if not the strongest), while at the same time having numerous environmental-friendly laws and encouraging alternative energy like wind - not to mention, Germany has universal health care! It has a great education system! Despite all these things, if I were to talk to a German person and say "Hey, let's fly the German flag on a pole attached to your house, like we do here in America with the American flag," I'd get a big disapproving look. I think this is dumb! CMV. |
human-2343 | cmv | human | I've never really believed in chemtrails, and I actually heard and read all the explanations that it's nothing but water-damp. Recently, however, I'm meeting a lot of people because of the politic situation here in the south of Europe, and there are many of them that do believe in chemtrails. Now, I've always considered these people as hippies that are completely nuts, but lately I've seen different conspiracies turning to be not such conspiracies, and also, I start to see serious sane people, that are also convinced about chemtrails, but they're very reluctant to talk about it, as you know, there's some stigma about it. Then I bumped into I still don't believe in chemtrails, but I'm not absolutely sure anymore, so CMV. |
human-3813 | cmv | human | Right now the polling for the upcoming Scottish independence referendum is around 50-50 and I think this is a terrible idea. The entire motivating factor here is outdated racist nationalism. The United Kingdom is an entirely liberalized democracy with full civil and political rights for all its citizens. Nobody is oppressed under their legal system. One out of every few prime ministers is from Scotland and they have a proportionately equal representation in parliament. Sure, historically there have been some issues, but those don't exist anymore. It seems like the overwhelming number of people who support independence is based on them saying, "huh, that would be neat." I've yet to hear any good things that would result from the split and I don't think the geopolitical future of the world should be determined by the neatness of the proposition. So what would happen if Scotland voted in favor of independence? Well, first of all, the UK, currently the fourth largest military power in the world and a country that has a permanent seat on the UN Security Council would be decimated in its strength. And this would come at a time when the world is increasing in polarity, with the UK as one of the only liberal democracies that still understands the necessity of hard military power in the world. This would harm British military security and their ability to assist in counter-terrorism operations worldwide or stand up to increasingly bold authoritarian states, like Russia. Furthermore, if Scotland is successful in receiving independence, it would very likely start a wave of secessionist movements across Europe, which if successful, would weaken all of Europe and be a threat to security worldwide, especially given the rapid rise of far-right nationalist movements in almost every country in recent years. Western democracies should be focused on consolidation and working together and political unionization that will benefit them all in the long term and realize there are still real, external threats that are more important than their xenophobia. Also, if Scotland declares independence, England will be left with a much more conservative government with a much greater chance of leaving the European Union, which again would only serve to make the west weaker and could lead to other states following the same course. In Scotland, there are many questions left unanswered, including whether or not they will even be allowed to join the EU and what currency they will use. They plan on continuing to use the pound, but frankly, there are very few reasons why England should allow them to do this. Overall, not even the Scottish Independence Party has good answers to these questions. Another argument is that Scotland is different politically than the UK (more liberal), but in a full democracy, this shouldn't matter. You can't leave a union just because you don't like the outcome of an election, that is itself anti-democratic. You just need to work harder to convince the majority to vote with you the next time around. This is different in places like South Sudan or Kurdistan, where the national government is authoritarian and the independence struggle is also a movement towards greater freedom and liberty, but this argument does not apply in the UK, where, no matter who is elected, civil liberties will realistically be preserved. The trend moving across Europe in these democratic states is that people are starting again to use elections, not as an exchange of ideas, but as a mechanism for preserving their identity, culture, or religion, which will ultimately have terrible results and cause huge divisions in society. This type of nationalism has been seen before, in the events leading to both World Wars, so before you start to get excited thinking about the possibility of an independent Scotland, just because your one great-grandfather was from there, think about the very serious consequences that could be a result of this referendum. 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-1927 | cmv | human | The biggest example of this is the Giant Panda. The thing is stupid, eats exclusively a food that doesn't grow in it's ideal habitat, and has little to no sex drive. Yet billions and billions of dollars from around the world are spent every year to save it, and why? Because it's cute? Darwinisn and survival of the fittest have gone to the wayside. We demonize poachers, not realizing that they will most likely die if they don't poach. We put their lives behind species that aren't ecologically necessary. It's not like the pandas and white rhinos of the world are honeybees or creatures on the tops or bottoms of the food chain. If they die out, we lose a species, but we as humans most likely do not suffer other than "a river dolphin died:' |
human-2390 | cmv | human | By "aristocracy" I mean the dictionary definition of rule by a small privileged class. Obviously this includes medieval Europe, but it could also mean someplace like modern Russia or even the United States Congress if you want to be cynical. For the purpose of this CMV I'll include monarchies, since they usually had a noble class. Basically I think aristocracies are inherently evil and unjust because they carry the assumption some people are "better" than others merely by virtue of birthright, which is such an arbitrary distinction as to be meaningless. Choosing rulers for more substantial reasons like their skill in a particular area or because the people elect them are fine in my view, because that way rulers are externally validated. An aristocracy is essentially self-validating and its sole function of existence is to perpetuate itself, often by preying on the common people. I think this is obvious from medieval wars, war was "the sport of kings" and the rulers could send their people off to fight and die for pointless petty reasons, even for personal offenses against the king by another king. So essentially aristocrats considered their personal honor more important than the lives of their subjects. The common people were nothing more than tools to be used and disposed of as seen fit (I think that's the number one reason I hold this view). Nobles dined lavishly while peasants starved in the streets, and if an army invaded they'd butcher everyone and claim the city for their king. Even during World War I, I bet the sons of the European rulers weren't out fighting on the front and were conveniently exempt from wartime rationing. I may be wrong but that whole war was essentially a personal squabble between kings that killed millions and wrecked a whole continent. I'm not saying all aristocrats were evil people, there could have been decent kings and nobles, but they were still part of an unjust system. Not to mention getting good rulers was completely up to chance and there was no way to remove them except to fight a bloody war (like the War of the Roses) to put some other corrupt guy on the throne. Royal courts were similar too. They're romanticized today, but all they were was a bunch of fancily-dressed people spending more time bickering with each other than working for the good of the people, and even doing that was dependent on getting the king's favor. Modern democracy is by no means perfect, there's still aristocratic relics like considering the rulers to be "above" the common peoplethe United Nations will happily deal with mass-murdering warlords and host them at fancy international conferences, and places like Switzerland will gleefully look the other way and hide their blood money. It is better though; people can protest wars started by their governments, whereas in the past the king would just have them executed or sent off as cannon fodder. Not to mention the whole "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" thing, the complete opposite of aristocracy. At least aristocratic Presidents don't have life terms. I'm sorry if I'm being hyperbolic or melodramatic, one reason why I want my view changed is to remove these strong feelings. I think everything I talked about was at least possible for aristocratic rulers to do, even if they didn't do it very often. I simply do not understand people who find royalty or nobility romantic. 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! |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.