id stringlengths 7 27 | domain stringclasses 31 values | text_type stringclasses 2 values | original_text stringlengths 14 42.2k |
|---|---|---|---|
human-2578 | cmv | human | I just want to say,first-off, that I liked Pacific Rim, it was fun and action-packed. But it was average (and yes, I like a lot average or worse movies). I feel like (and I may be wrong about this) there was a ridiculous amount of hype on reddit and the internet at-large about this movie. How it would be the anti-transformers. How it would be totally different from other action movies. How Del Toro would be the one to do it best. I just didn't get this from the movie, I am hoping that I am very wrong, and that I missed something in the plot or in the movie. I am ready to admit that I did, if that is the case. The movie was average. Big robots fighting against godzilla's cousins. And not very much robot fighting at that. Two awesome-looking robots got introduced and talked up, but then lasted on the battlefield about as long as it took to introduce them. Seriously? You're not gonna show me some cool move that the three-armed robot can do?? Also the plot-holes galore, the miserable back story, and the no-reason martyrdom at the end? Average. On the same level as Transformers. But if I'm wrong, tell me why. Thanks folks. EDIT: I also forgot to add that, even though I LOVE Idris Elba, I felt like his ridiculous one-liners brought the movie down. EDIT 2: Alright folks, just got home from school and I will start working on responding. Thanks for all of the great responses so far. Every time I post here on rCMV, it reaffirms to me how awesome of a subreddit it is. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . 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-3042 | cmv | human | Here's something I see on Reddit all the time. A user spoils the ending of a classic film or book for everyone completely out of the blue. When somebody (usually me) tells him to remove the spoiler, he says: "the bookfilmplay has been out X amount of years. If you haven't read it by now, you probably don't care much about it." I think this argument is absolutely ridiculous. The argument seems to presume we all have infinite time on our hands. Now I consider myself to have read a comfortable amount of classic texts, and seen a comfortable amount of classic films, but the classic or popular booksfilms I have readseen are absolutely dwarfed by those I haven't. I've been on this planet 22 years, but I only read Moby-Dick last year. I only saw Apocalypse Now two years ago. I only read Crime and Punishment a few months ago. My point is that if it were possible for me to experience every story I wanted to experience, the common argument I have mentioned might have a shred of validity. But as it is, I do not believe there is anyone on this planet who has experienced every popular or classic story that exists, and so everything and anything can be a potential spoiler for someone. So if you post a spoiler out of the blue with no warning whatsoever and try to justify it with "but it's been out X amount of years! You have no excuse not to know the story!" your argument is absurd and by refusing to cover up your spoiler, you're simply being an inconsiderate jerk. CMV P.S. - for the record, there are certain stories whose twist endings are so well known that I can forgive people for 'spoiling' them. I wouldn't spoil them myself, nor would I encourage anyone to do so, but I can understand that they're too much a part of the public's collective consciousness to completely censor. I'm referring to The Empire Strikes Back, Fight Club, The Usual Suspects, Citizen Kane, Soylent Green and The Sixth Sense. |
human-3574 | cmv | human | PLEASE READ THE ENTIRE ARGUMENT BEFORE POSTING Firstly, let me say that even though the title explicitly names two races of people, this argument can be applied to any group who meets the criteria I am about to lay out. Secondly, this argument only applies to people who actually believe in the concept of affirmative action in any sense. I understand not all people even believe affirmative action is necessary andor ethical. Even though many have nuanced and differing views of what affirmative action is, my argument only relies on the general, and almost unanimously accepted definition of what affirmative action is. To me, affirmative action is: The policy of providing special opportunities for, and favoring members of, a disadvantaged group who suffer from discrimination (straight from Wikipedia) Here is my argument: 1. It is clear that African Americans do face discrimination, lack of opportunities, negative systematic and historical racial bias andor a number of other negative factors which affects them in the game of academic college admission. 2. Affirmative action seeks to 'balance the playing field' by providing proportionally equal special consideration andor opportunities to these people who face some amount of discrimination. To explain, if -X is the difficulty caused by discrimination, lack of opportunities etc, then X is the amount of consideration affirmative action seeks to employ into the college admission game for that group of people. 3. Asian Americans face similar, yet probably not as extreme discrimination andor cultural tropes (scrawny smart nerd vs. big, black footballbasketball player), lack of being taken seriously athletically (similar to what women experience when in positions of power compared to men - they aren't taken as seriously, or when blacks report actually being made fun of in school for performing well in classes), and pushed at a young age into a non-athletic role (super-majority of Asian men expected to become doctors, lawyers, engineers vs. Blacks expected to become athletes, musicians, and entertainers). So again, if -Y is the difficulty caused by discrimination, then Y should be applied to this group of people in the area they face -Y in. If you don't believe that this discrimination exists in D1 BasketballFootball recruitment just look at Jeremy Lin. It is pretty much factual that some amount of very significant discrimination does exist for this race of people. A good article about it: 4. There is nothing a priori that makes educational opportunity more important than athletic opportunity. Both are valid and legitimate ways of enriching your life through and pursuing a career and future. People should have equality of opportunity to choose for themselves which path they wish to take. 5. Thus, proponents who call for African American Affirmative Action to equalize and account for the amount of discrimination Blacks face in regard to academic opportunity should concede that the only fair and proper way to implement college Affirmative Action is to equalize and account for the amount of discrimination other races (namely Asians) face in regard to athletic opportunity. Note: My argument only proposes that an equal amount of positive discrimination be applied to the group facing an equal amount of negative discrimination. It is entirely possible, and probably likely, that the amount of negative discrimination that Blacks face in regard to academic opportunity is more than the negative discrimination Asians face toward D1 FootballBasketball recruitment. However, it still holds that however much amount of negative discrimination Asians face should be equalized by Affirmative Action just like it is proposed to do for African Americans. Thanks for taking the time to read my argument. Sincerely, ScrotumOfStalin 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-3701 | cmv | human | I haven't been around too long, but as far as I know, military propaganda has been around long enough. Exhibit A: Take a look around you. They're in high schools, commercials, sports events hell, even Katy Perry has a music video where she glorifies becoming a marine. There are many movies that are arguably propaganda, while others are more blatant: the new superman movie [National Guard sponsored], battleship[Navy], etc. It's obvious that they are there and what they are trying to do. But what makes it imoral is that the military is funded by tax money. Essentially, citizens are paying money to have ads shoved in their face to 'trick' us into believing that armed service members are badasses, that we should join, and that there is a certain nobility to it. Whether or not we are committing genocide on an entire population, or building schools around the world... whether or not we are making the world safe from terrorists or are in on an ugly imperialistic reign for control, what is happening right now with ads is wrong. CMV. Edit: I'm going to bed. Thanks for the replies. I will look over anything else that comes in but I might not continue replying unless someone says something profound. Feel free to do any arguing for me though if you happen to agree with me. |
human-3987 | cmv | human | EDIT: stupid typo in the title. It should obviously be "funds." I have a BSc in Finance and Accounting so I think I have some idea what I'm talking about. The idea of an investment fund is to allow other people to make financial investments using your money. The assumption here is that fund managers are more knowledgeable than the investor and are therefore capable of achieving better rates of return than the investor would if he were to make the investment decisions on his own. The thing is, I don't think those assumptions are true. Let us assume that the interest rate of 10-year American treasury bonds, which is currently 2.61, is the "risk-free" rate, at which our investor could be investing his money without resorting to the help of fund managers or any other financial market professionals. The point I'd like to make is twofold: - are investment funds really better than individual, non-professional investors? I don't believe so. If anybody can show me an example of an investment fund that has had above risk-free (2.61) annual returns on a consistent basis (say, for at least five consecutive years), I'm convinced. - if they're not better, what's the point? What's the point of giving somebody your money so that they can earn less than the risk-free rate of return (or even lose money) if you can do the exact same thing yourself, without having to pay any fees or losing control of your money? |
human-1703 | cmv | human | They have one goal and one goal alone: to increase profits. There are many companies that do this by making customers happy and giving themselves a good public image, but any "good" that is done by a company is an amoral action. Likewise, any "bad" that is done by a company is also an amoral action. Companies will do bad things if they are shown to be more profitable. The only way to stop this from happening is to make bad things less profitable. Legislation is a great way to do this, but, like everything, has its caveats. As long as it is profitable for companies to influence legislation against the good of the people, it will be done. They will fight against others to keep it profitable and to make it more profitable. The question is, how do you keep bad things from being profitable and at the same time prevent business exodus? That really is the only issue. We don't need to keep them happy, we just need to keep them from leaving. The USA still needs to be an attractive place to do business, but not at the cost of the well being of it's citizens, as being an attractive place to do business is only wanted because it increases well being of the citizens of the country. Businesses are tools to increase the well being of people. Having empathy towards them is a wasted endeavor and only helps to hinder progress toward a better market. This definitely applies to all publicly traded companies, as they have a responsibility to their shareholders, and the only thing that the shareholders have in common is that they want their shares to be worth more. I don't know if it can apply blanketly to every outfit, as the smaller a business gets, the less people there are in charge, and the business becomes more susceptible to human emotion. 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-1357 | cmv | human | I have always taken evening showers and I'm thinking about changing that. I know many people take them in the mornings but while doing it for a week I just don't understand the point. What I like about it is that if it's cold you can take a hot shower and feel better and energised. Your hair is wet though and you can catch a cold when you go outside. You don't sweat (nearly as much) during the night. If you take a shower before going to bed you feel clean, you sleep better and you smell nice. If you sleep with somebody even better. If you take the shower a bit earlier you can have a nice calm evening with a glass of wine. You wake up in the morning still clean, bed sheets clean as well. You get up 10-20 minutes later and there's no hassle, just take on your clothes, drink a coffee and get out. If you take a shower in the morning that means you pretty much need to spend all your day more or less sweaty. I'm not talking dripping with sweat, just the amount of uncleanliness that makes you need to change your underwear daily. You go to bed dirty, you don't smell as nice and it might get noticed. In the morning it's worse than ever as stuff builds up in your sheets which, if not changed often will get a smell as well. If you own a bath, you can't really take a bath in the morning. If you want to shower before going out with friends it's unpleasant to need to take two showers a day. Two showers a day are a no-no. I wouldn't be comfortable with wasting so much water. I hope you understood what I'm getting at. None of this is game breaking, of course, it's just that I know many people shower in the morning and I can't figure out why. So... CMV please! edit: since nobody seems to understand my changing the underwear daily idea allow me to explain: I was afraid that you might say "oh well it doesn't matter you don't get that dirty during the day anyways" so I used the underwear thing (of course you change your underwear daily!) so I can show that it is unpleasant and it is to be avoided. 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-1975 | cmv | human | Well i think you got my point but i will talk about it more. Almost everybody have smart phones these days. People can take photos, add filter to them and upload them. I know it's their choice to take whatever photo they like and whatever filter they want to add to but when they do it their followers say "omg you have 'the eye', you're the best." I don't understand this. There are people out there who uses professional dSLRs with amazing lenses but they're not appreciated enough. I love taking photos but every time i see, read this kind of situation, i just hate it. Can you change my view on this ? (btw sorry for my english:) |
human-3182 | cmv | human | I usually hear the main argument for adopting computer science as a compulsory subject in early school is that it teaches kids to use logic to tackle problems but isn't it already covered by learning mathematics? I see no other compelling reasons for it except that we are living in a software dominated world and learning coding in such early age may become useful for someone later in their lives. Also if you can direct me to studies regarding this matter, that would be great. Sorry about my English. Thanks |
human-2694 | cmv | human | The basic idea is to tax all land and natural resources at close to 100 of their rental value. This would essentially eliminate real estate speculation. At the moment, a lot of valuable land is held idle for speculative purposes. This tax would free up that land so that society can gain the economic benefits from its use. In the US, vacant houses outnumber homeless people. By making it expensive to hold on to land without using it, we could force those homes on to the market and make housing more affordable for everyone. Socially, this would be a way to resolve historical injustices. In the US, land was taken from the Native Americans. Countless countries all across the world have seen the exploitation of peasant farmers by wealthy landlords. In Zimbabwe, the issue with the white farmers shows the disasterous consequences of simply redistributing that land. At the same time, the new distribution is not necessarily more just. With a land value tax, we could use a percentage of the proceeds to create a basic income, so that all people will share equally in the land wealth of a country, regardless of history. EDIT: Forgot to mention that it's the least disruptive and most enforceable method of collecting tax I can think of. Land can't be offshored or hidden. It doesn't require a huge bureaucracy to spy on everyone's income. And if there is a "capital flight" away from the land of one country, that will just lower the value so someone else can use 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-1441 | cmv | human | I'm talking specifically about transgendered people and people who have gender disphoria. I think those people who are born one gender but claim to identify as another gender do so purely out of social understandings of gender roles and confuse enjoying traditionally opposite gender roles with actually being the opposite gender. I also believe that so-called "otherkin," or those who identify as another species, are no less valid than those who identify as another gender because a person's species is just as concrete as their gender and they those who criticize "otherkin" while simultaneously accepting gender disphoria are hypocritical. Furthermore, if someone feels so strongly that they are another gender that they seek to have surgery, I believe that should be treated as a serious mental illness that should be treated rather than reinforcing their belief by physically alerting their body permanently. |
human-2452 | cmv | human | After watching 4-6 again with my 7yo daughter, I came to the realization that it was more likely that George Lucas was messing with the geeks who love Star Wars than he was actually serious. He's not an (apparently) idiot and he had to have known that the superfluous burp jokes, Jar-Jar Binks, horrific dialogue between Anakin and Amidala I love you more" "No, I do, alternation of Jabba (walking, his band, and more), etc....would be received in the worst possible way. Even if he had not realized this, then surely someone else would have said something if they weren't in on the "conspiracy." So, change my view please. If you can do this and show that he seriously believed these were positive additions, then I can give up Star Wars entirely in good conscience. As it is right now, I think I'll skip showing 1-3 to my kid anyway. |
human-3741 | cmv | human | Fireworks pollute the air and water with carcinogenic sulphur compounds and arsenic. They can cause property damage and injury, especially when handled by amateurs. In 2012, U.S. hospital emergency rooms treated an estimated 8,700 people for fireworks related injuries [source] . They scare nearby pets, as dogs and other animals have much more sensitive hearing than us. They are obnoxious due to noise, odor, and aforementioned pollution. Their main appeals are tradition and danger, so I don't think making them illegal would get rid of them, as the backlash would shadow the normal use. I don't see, however, why society disregards their negative consequences. 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-3794 | cmv | human | A while ago I got into an argument with some people online over the professional MMA fighter Fallon Fox. Fallon is a transexual woman who fights, yet failed to disclose that she is a transexual woman to her opponents. I argued with these people against the fact that she should be able to fight regular woman and I found that at the very bottom of it all we just had differing opinions, and that there was no way of changing that. I believed that there is a difference between transexual women and people who were born a woman, and that a transexual should have to disclose that fact in certain situations, while they believed that transexual woman are 100 equal to woman, and that they should never have to disclose that fact because it is embarrassing. Why do I believe this? because in some situations it matters, just like in some situations it matters whether or not you are a man or a woman, it matters if you are a transexual woman or a born woman. I am not against transexuals, but they are not the same as women or men. |
human-2774 | cmv | human | All my life I have been told to get good grades, just so I can make it to the next grade, and so on, eventually leading to doing well in high school so that I can go to college, earn a degree, and get a good job. More often than not, I see and hear people talking about how they do not have a job pertaining to their degree, yet everyone seems to be pushing college on their children. What is the point of spending thousands of dollars and building up debt just so that I can get a job in a field that doesn't require my degree? To go further than that, it seems to be the norm in America to get a job and work 8 hours a day just so that you can have money to live comfortably andor buy things to enjoy in the time you are not working. Seeing as you are asleep for roughly 8 hours, that leaves 16 hours that you are awake per day. If you are working the 8 hours mentioned earlier, then you are left with just 8 hours for free time. The only thing is, your only duties are not your job, so you have to spend time taking care of your house and children if you have them. It's important to know that I make music. That is what I enjoy doing, performing music. I can get gigs, and they will probably only ever cover my rent and living costs, but I get to spend all of my working time doing what I love, as opposed to some random job. I would much rather skip college and just live with my band, splitting rent and living off of what we love to do. Why should I pursue anything else? |
human-2092 | cmv | human | I want to stress first that I'm only talking about higher education here. I can understand the use of an elementary school writing rubric, because at that age they are still working on developing very rudimentary writing skills, and can often be graded fairly in a binary, right-or-wrong fashion. College is a whole different animal though. I'll disclose any possible biases first. I am a Physics student at an engineering college in CO. I consider myself a fairly good writer. I understand that writing is important, regardless of what field I'm going into. I acknowledge that writing is "humanizing," and can be incredibly enlightening if done correctly. I agree that an argumentative paper can be just as analytical as any math problem. But I absolutely refuse to believe that a point-value grading system and its corresponding tools (GPA, rubric, extra-credit, etc) are useful at all for my learning; in fact, I would say that they often do the opposite. - Points make me more cynical. I can't tell you how many times I've come across rubrics with sections that are nonsensical. For example, in an American History class I took at my old college, we were often required to write essays; on the rubric, there was a grammar subcategory that awarded us 8-10 points for "perfect" grammar. What the difference between 8-point perfect grammar and 10-point perfect grammar was, I never managed to find out. In a class I'm currently taking right now, I was awarded 2125 and a 2225 on two different one-page "papers" - no individual feedback whatsoever. I know that my writing isn't perfect. I know that I need to work on it. I'm actually fairly happy with those two grades; in fact, I bet if my teacher was perfectly honest, I would have been scored lower. Currently, my attitude is that I'll write something, get a grade, and not understand why I got the grade I did. That leads me to my next point. - Points have been grossly inflated. In a perfect world, the average GPA would be a 2.0, and employers would be happy to employ an average student. But neither of those things are true - not even close. Looking at gradeinflation.com, we have seen a nationwide increase of .2 in GPA over the past 15 years. The same website shows almost a point increase over the past century. I think perfectionism is running rampant, and students are getting a lot of anxiety because of it. - Points give a false sense of precision. Realistically, the difference between 3.9 and 4.0 is almost nothing. But it can often be the difference between a full-tuition scholarship and nothing. I still find it incredibly ironic that teachers are constantly hounding on me to include error bars and use sig-figs on hw in their classes, and yet the final grade that they give me does neither of these things. To give a personal example, I lost 3 of my grade in Linear Algebra for missing a minus sign in a row-operation question. This was the difference between a B and an A-. Can points really define how good we are at something, down to a mistake as small as a minus sign? I don't think so. - Points discourage creativity and risk-taking. This is especially true for writing classes, I feel. It sways my focus from making a really good paper to making an A paper. Often times, this amounts to doing exactly what the rubric asks - no more no less I don't really sympathize with the common "What else are we going to do?" argument, because I don't see why a 19 year old couldn't just start writing technical papers, novels, news articles, plays, etc. for actual professional review - no "points" attached. If the whole purpose of higher education is to serve society with acquired skillsknowledge, why are we still using an inflated and imprecise simulation, that ultimately makes a student more cynical and less creative and "risky" with his own writing? Why not just skip the simulation altogether? |
human-2807 | cmv | human | Attention My View has been changed. Stop Replying Anyone who takes it upon themselves and makes the decision to drink and drive or text or talk on the phone should be shot at the time of the accident. I don't mean should as in a law, more like an unwritten law that everyone follows. Also, you should be hit with heavy fines and or jail time that fits the situation. We should scare people out of doing these things and shaming them when it occurs. Im sick of seeing some asshole on their phone just texting away looking down obliviously veering into my lane then jerking away. I know this is wrong i just don't feel that a warning or even a ticket means anything when you could have killed somebody |
human-1387 | cmv | human | Hi, I'm new here on Reddit, and I badly need some help in changing this view of mine.Though there is some part of my mind that constantly tells me that this view is silly and shallow, I can't find enough reasons to challenge this view. In the job market today, those majoring in math related fields always get the higher pay than those majoring in the arts. It seems to me, though I may be wrong, that only the most talented writers, artists, actors,etc get a very high pay. Those that are about average can't really get a stable job, whereas average engineers can get a stable job. It just seems to me that society values mathematical intelligence the most. Also, I think that all those technological innovations like cars, internet,etc have impacted society and it's economy the most. So when I see people with good language skills, when compared with people with good mathematical skills, I tend to view the people with good mathematical skills as more intelligent. Since those in math related fields earn on average a higher pay, I conclude that they are more valued by society, and therefore have more worth than those that are not so mathematically inclined. Basically, I need help changing this two views of mine that are interconnected, because those are the roots of a problem that I have. I will be very happy indeed if anyone here can help me in my problems, since you all seem very intelligent. Growing up, my parents and teachers place the utmost importance on academic achievement and I seem to get the message that if you are not smart enough, then you are just not good enough. Smarter people are just better in some absolute sense. So I place my entire self worth on my intelligence and naturally, because of that, I would like to be smarter than average, because it boosts my ego. Although, I'm well aware that I'm not even clots to the smartest people out there,I find this constant comparison with my peers extremely narcissistic. One part of my mind wants to view myself as equal to everyone else, while the other doesn't because it diminishes my own self importance. So, I don't know how to deal with these two very conflicting thoughts of mine. I do hope that you smart guys can help me out on my problem, though I know it is not a view. Otherwise, just comment on my view above. Thanks in advance.:) 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-1988 | cmv | human | I know a lot of people complain about Obama and hate on him, even the fairly "liberal" people. However, in the US, realistically, Democrats and Republicans are the only ones that are capable of taking the seat in the Oval Office due our (seemingly) two party system. If Romney or McCain was elected into the office, we would (more than likely) still have the PRISM, NDA, etc. But not only would we have that, we would have strict abortion laws, no progress for gay rights, women's rights, etc. So I'd much rather have a PRISM supporting president that supports equality than one who is a social conservative. Whenever I hear people complain on Reddit about Obama (and the majority Reddit is pro-equality), I always point that out, but get downvoted into oblivion. Please tell me why that is? EDIT: To clarify, I don't mean complain about his actions. complaining about his actions is okay, I mean to complain about him becoming president overall is pointless. UPDATE: A lot of you guys raised a lot of good points. [This post in particular] changed my view. |
human-3845 | cmv | human | Classical music has survived for centuries, people still listen to Bach or Beethoven, and most certainly everyone has heard of a snippet of a classical piece somewhere in their lifetime. But I believe this is because at the time, this type of music was not high in supply. In other words, there was not very many composers producing music. It was certainly not available to everyone either, mainly the upper class. But today is different. Music is so ubiquitous, we listen to pop on the radio, download albums on iTunes in seconds (or pirate it), hell, we don't even have to go to an actual brick and mortar store to enjoy an album. It has become so common that the appeal of songs today will not have any relevance to the next generation (s). The music of 100 years future will overshadow the greatest hits of today. Everything from Frank Sinatra to Pink Floyd to the latest Taylor Swift album. Yes, even your obscure pk4 album. This obviously doesn't include music as a historical element, that will still be relevant, what is mean is it will no longer be listened to as a sort of cultural enjoyment. CMV. |
human-3700 | cmv | human | I believe in animal rights not necessarily as "animals should have legal rights" but simply that they should have the right not to be used, abused, and exploited by humans. Even if they aren't intelligently equal to humans, they still experience fear, pain, and suffering- therefore, industries that treat animals as commodities (the fur industry, factory farming, etc.) are ethically indefensible. It seems contradictory that we have animal protection laws that protect domestic pets from abuse and harm, but corporations are legally permitted to use animals however they please. Dog and pigs, cats and cows- I don't see why they are considered different insofar as we protect some from pain and suffering, but not others. I have never heard a good argument against animal welfare, and the defenses people use against animal rights are usually rooted in selfish desires (e.g. "But bacon is so good," "Humans evolved to eat meat and wear leather," etc.). I'm open to hearing some good arguments. |
human-1679 | cmv | human | I'm talking about the type of condemnation voiced consistently by certain users of rpolitics, certain members of OWS, and [Gawker's Hamilton Nolan] . It is a viewpoint I will paraphrase roughly as follows: The mere fact that we live in a system where some people can amass vastly more money than others is, itself, immoral; if you do amass wealth under this system, you are quite arguably a bad person. Hedge fund managers are sitting around spending tens of millions of on embalmed sharks...don't they know that a tiny fraction of their daily earnings would make a huge difference in others' lives? Would be enough to pay off the average redditor's student loans, for example? Every time I've heard this shitty argument, I've heard it from activists or internet commenters who hail from the middle- (or, perhaps, working-class) tier of an advanced Western economy. Here's the thing, though: you, too, have vastly more resources than most people worldwide. If you could save 100 by not upgrading your smartphone, by walking home in the rain instead of taking a cab, by eating lentils or beans for a few weeks or by foregoing that new item of clothing you wanted, you could donate that 100 to save the lives of dozens of kids who would otherwise die of Malaria. Is your comfort, convenience and entertainment more important than other peoples' lives? And, btw, I will not tolerate deflections to the effect of: "but charities might not use the money responsibly; charitable donations could have negative effects on local industry in the long run..." As a premise of this CMV, we must stipulate that if wealth could be redistributed, that redistribution would, indeed, benefit the recipients. We must further stipulate that if the average American wanted to donate in a genuinely-beneficial manner towards a worthy cause, he'd be able to do so. I don't think these are crazy assumptions to make. So, my view is that people who rail against "the rich," purely on the ground that they're rich, are hypocrites for overlooking their own relative economic standing in the world. If they believe others' wealth should be redistributed to curb inequality, they are hypocrites for not redistributing their own wealth to curb inequality. Now, I don't donate much to charity. But nor do I regard people richer than me as innately evil human beings. I can acknowledge the preference revealed by my decision-making, which is: I'd rather upgrade to business class than save 500 lives in a developing country. For this reason, if some billionaire would rather upgrade his yacht than dissolve all his assets to promote communism, I don't really blame him. It seems quite a few people disagree with me, so I'm curious to see if anyone can 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-4219 | cmv | human | There are two major methods of identifying highway exits in the United States. One is to identify them by mile marker, the other is to use a simple ordinal system. The state of New York identifies highway exits by simply choosing one end of the highway and starting to count exits up one at a time. For example, exit 1 on I-90 is located in Yonkers, while exit 61 is the last before the Pennsylvania border. [A list of the exits.] This has a number of significant problems. First, the addition of new exits results in the addition of extremely confusing "A" and "B" exits. It's much easier than renumbering all the exits on the highway, but it's also extremely confusing. Second, portions of the highway not on the main line need a separate system. The NYS Thruway uses B1-B3 for the connector to the Massachusetts Turnpike. And third, there is no way of knowing how far it is to the next exit. I know I got on at exit 12 and need to get off at exit 20, but I have no idea if the distance is 20 miles or 120 miles. The second option is far superior. States like Ohio and Pennsylvania identify highway exits by the mile marker. If you get on the highway at exit 20 and plan to get off at exit 120, you know that you will be driving 100 miles. This is very sensible. Also, adding a new exit is simple! If there is no other exit in that highway mile, adding a new number is trivial. In the case of multiple exits in the same mile, A and B is easy to understand and also alerts drivers to the fact that multiple exits will be happening in a short space of road. Finally, states like New York are already numbering the miles on their highways to use in support of law enforcement and emergency crews to identify the location of accidents. It would be relatively easy to change the system and there would be only benefits to adopting the mile marker system. CMV. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! |
human-4095 | cmv | human | Shaking hands is very unhygienic. You don't know what your coworker was doing with his hands before you got there and there could be germs all over his hand. Considering many people don't wash their hands after they go to the bathroom and the presence of sweat, shaking hands is quite disgusting. I understand that the action lets you interact with someone at a more personal level but surely this could be replaced with some other action such as a shoulder tap or air five which is cleanlier and could convey the same introduction. I don't think think a social gesture that requires us to carry hand sanitizer should be used. CMV |
human-2214 | cmv | human | This opinion came about mostly in relation to drugs, but I think it applies to nearly all walks of life. It's totally unfair to judge someone for smoking weed if you have never tried it yourself (for those who read that sentence and write me off as an rtrees idiot, I've tried it, but I don't smoke). You don't have any personal experience on which to form your opinion. For all you know, it's nothing like what you're judging. This line of reasoning can also be applied to music. It's amazing how many people judge Justin Bieber and Miley Cyrus' music without really listening to it. I'm not saying they're great artists, but imagine their fans telling you the Beatles suck even though they've never heard a Beatles song. Totally unjustified. Where it's impossible to go through similar experiences (Men judging women for abortions, for example) I feel that you can form opinions about the act, but not the people doing it. I'm eager to hear your perspectives on the matter. We'll see if you can CMV. EDIT: When it comes to crimes like rape, murder, etc. What is being judged is the effect these have had on other people, which we can relate to because we are all people. I think it would be unfair to judge people for having murderous or sexual thoughts until they act on them. |
human-2895 | cmv | human | I say this for 2 reasons: 1. Automatically raising the torch against pedophiles sends them into hiding and makes them harder to detect. If we offered some sort of societal acceptance, maybe we would better be able to tract and identify those who haven't yet committed a crime. 2. It must suck to be a pedophile. Many are victims of trauma themselves, and cant control their desires even when they know that society wants to murder them for it. It's probably like being driven to rape kids when you don't want to hurt kids and you know everyone's going to try to shoot you in the face afterwords. 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-2295 | cmv | human | I know there is a theory that boredom doesn't exist. Is an excuse for discomfort with a situation that you don't like. Or anguish. Something that you need to think through but you prefer to say you are bored to not think about the problem. In a similar manner all the people have to make some sort of effort to leave the comfort zone in order to know strangers. And the lack of energy or just plain laziness to do this make you hide under the word shyness. I know this is not an argument, but a lot of people I know use this word as an excuse to don't even try to make social progress. Every time I want to do something that is out of my comfort zone there is a debate in my head. I try to understand the reasons why I'm not asking that girl out, or why I'm not doing a public act. I think this people I know prefer to say that they are shy and that's a perfect way to stop thinking. I don't think is a good idea to stop thinking stuff and hide behind words that conveniently other peoples accept like a proper reason. edit: From this I get I met people that probably are not shy, and call them selfs shy, and that provoke me my deal of anger. And that's all there is. I should probably evolve to think that I really don't like people that use a word as an excuse. Thanks for all the responses, this is fun 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-3077 | cmv | human | This obligation in my opinion could seriously damage relationships for the officer. I feel as though they shouldn't be constantly expected to report on any tiny offense. For example, if an officer goes to a party on a Saturday night that he is rostered off, he might see a few guys smoking weed. If the officer reports on this, he might very well lose friends. And if the party and the offending users were caught, the police officer might be in strife with his department for not reporting on it. I believe it often stops people from being free, or they would be living in fear or guilt of not reporting on these offences. CMV |
human-3817 | cmv | human | I've seen countless kids just lounging around all day reading instead of tilling the fields or helping around the house. My own son just brought home a copy of the Bible. The Bible. He said it's the same as the one our priest reads in the church, but how can we possibly know?? I mean, there could be just anything on there, and he's reading it like it's the actual holy Word of God. I'm concerned that kids will value recreation over work and won't be able to make something of themselves. I want what's best for him, but I'm worried all this reading will go to his head. Hello, people of the past. This is a footnote from the moderators of this 'internet forum'. I'm afraid to say that some wannabe scientist, while looking into time travel, has caused a temporal distortion field. It should dissipate in the next 24 hours. In the mean time, feel free to [message us] about a view you hold while you're visiting the present, and remember to have a look through [our rules] . |
human-1994 | cmv | human | Galt's Gulch Chile, Free State Project, and other libertarians attempts to implement AnarchCap ideals are failing or failed due to the unpersuasive and unimplementable nature of AnarchCap ideology. Whether intentionally attempting to defraud AnarchCap believers of their money or inability of the idealogy to move into the space of currently functioning (functioning enough at least) of mixed economy that exists in rack of those spaces. In the case of Detroit, the mixed economy (light handed pseudo-democratic socialism) that already exists there has as close as imaginable failed yet AnarchCap ideologues haven't swarmed to the city to implement their ideals in a space that not only is open to radical departure from the conventional wisdom but also abandonment of expectations of what could be done. The reason that I believe that AnarchCap ideology hasn't made Detroit the mecca and demonstration market for their ideals, is because even believers latently believe that AnarchCap beliefs would fail spectacularly and discredit their criticism of stateinvoluntary regulations that provide a floor of economic benefits to the population even though the majority of population in Detroit live incredibly near such a economic floor it is better than likely absolute failure of that AnarchCap would provide as an alternative. Whole square miles of Detroit have been forsakened by the city government, and AnarchCap innately understands and acknowledges that actually attempting to implement its ideology would assure rejection of it forever, left on the dustbin of history. As long as AnarchCap is never truly attempted, believers are able to criticize the current economic status quo without ever venturing an actual attempt and never capable of real world implementation that would receive justifiably criticism. |
human-2236 | cmv | human | I don't understand how this became the symbol of Christianity. For centuries it was a device to care out a slow and agonizing death. Edit: I think people are getting the wrong impression, maybe i wrote this up wrong. idk. I just think in all honestly Jesus and God wouldn't appreciate us remembering their legacy through a device used to kill people. Back then I'm pretty sure people were scared to death seeing a group of people bearing crosses walking towards them (I know times have changed, and the people have grew to accept it) that was a death sentence back then. I can understand some answers here but the logic of it is what i don't get. Maybe one day. Thanks everybody for your time and answers. |
human-1771 | cmv | human | I believe the uproar over PRISM and NSA are well intentioned but misguided in that it is based on nostalgia for a kind of "privacy" that is no longer possible because: 1) Moore's Law will soon end privacy in any case- The revelation that dozens of tech companies already have exactly the metadata that the NSA is collecting is not trivial. As computation power expands, reconstructing a person's entire digital trail will be a trivial computational problem for literally any software provider. To ensure domestic tranquility and provide for the common defense, the government needs access to at least the same level of information available to ventures with names like Kabloodle.com. 2) Threats are about to become far more dangerous. As fabrication technologies increase, incredibly dangerous materials will become available at the touch of a button. Already, 3D printed weapons are being produced. Moving forward, it will soon be possible for a large number of people to fabricate bioweapons using simple DNA sequencing, to deploy "DIY drones," and ultimately to weaponize nanotechnology and advanced physics with little material investment. Because the line between bits and atoms is becoming so blurred, surveillance will be one of the only lines of defense against events that threaten not just thousands, but millions. CMV |
human-1374 | cmv | human | Was it worth the wait? Hell no. But it was still a pretty alright game if not a bit forgettable. |
human-2905 | cmv | human | I think that most people get tattoos to show off a persona to other people rather than display artwork of personal meaning. This is not to say that all people do this, but I think a vast majority get them for attention because tattoos are taboo or trendy or hardcore or whatever else. To be clear, an image of interest is not the same as an image of personal meaning because the canvas is inked for different reasons (the latter being more important in my opinion). For example, a sleeve of spiderwebs is different from a family crest or memorial. This is evident as well with the people who willingly receive tattoos of corporate logos they themselves are not otherwise affiliated with. "But, it's my body, so it's all personal..." True, but your meaning behind the tattoo is what makes it personal, not just that it is literally on your person; if this is your argument, why not wear a t-shirt instead? In shot, Change My View that most people get tattoos for others instead of for themselves. |
human-1174 | cmv | human | I'm in a foreign country for a few weeks, and this weekend I went clubbing with some other people from my program. We got very drunk and danced, which included grinding. I don't think I should tell my partner for several reasons: 1) It's not going to happen again; I'm returning home in a few days and I only go out with my partner in my home country. 2) I'm in agreement with Dan Savage's idea that confessing to cheating is more about absolution for the guilty party than emotional consideration for the person who was cheated on. There's no risk of disease from grinding; telling my partner about it would just upset them with no possible benefit. Why upset them over this? |
human-2819 | cmv | human | Money's just money. If money can be anything then it is essentially nothing. If the main thing about money is that it is fungible (that is, money can be exchanged for a fancy new car or a great house or a pretty wife, etc.) then it essentially has no inherent value. And people who have a whole lot of money have a whole lot of nothing. How does it affect my life? Well, I just don't worry about it. When I have money then I spend it or give it away. And when I don't have money, then I just don't spend any. I don't worry about paying my bills, or savings, or my credit score or anything like that. TBH, it drives my family crazy. I figure as long as I have enough for a cup of coffee and a little bit of food, with enough left over for some art supplies, then I'm happy. I have a vague sense of worry over what happens in the future, but not really. I just can't bring myself to care about money. CMV |
human-4193 | cmv | human | In most of my teenage and young adult life, I have been a stringent skeptic and atheist. Then one day I started exploring the possibility of intelligent life within the stars. I knew it was there by simple logic but I explored the possibility of it already being here, among us, reachable. I began exploring this possibility through diving into a moment of insanity by trying to telepathically reach extraterrestrials by simply calling with my mind. After my attempts, I began to get overwhelming and unexplainable sensations: Painless yet potent magnetic-like pressures in my forehead and upper head and sudden feelings of orgasmic-like pleasure vibrating down my body. Random lights started streaking across the sky. Through a course of a few months, I began seeing dense golden sparks of light in windows in various places sporadically... as if the phenoma were deliberately hinting to me that there was something beyond this world. In response, I started researching this phenomenon and came upon fantastical materials that were purported to be messages from extraterrestrial beings relayed through the mind's and voices of individuals in a trance-like condition. A lot of it seemed to be shoddy religious garbage but one set of material stood out called [The Law of One] . It is many years of purported sets of contact with a extraterrestrial intelligence that called itself Ra; Intense, effortful dialogues created diligently with purported events so dramatic, yet innocent with great naivety and quirks... It's seemingly so honest in its form that I cannot feasibly see this material as completely staged. I've explored the lives of the authors and at the very least, I am convinced that they are convinced that they have actually scribed real transmissions from extraterrestrial life and that they do this out of a love for their work since they gain little income from it. Through the combination of the material and what I have seen, I believe ETs exist. I believe they attempt to reach us but do not impose themselves as to directly change our existence entirely, as implied by the material linked above. I believe if humanity united in calling such life to our planet mentally with unequivocal permission, without dissonance from our governments and religious institutions, it would be here. Change my view. Convince me that I am insane and that it's unreasonable to believe what I believe with my current axioms. Convince me what I saw and read wasn't real. |
human-2889 | cmv | human | I work for clients in the security industry, and used to work in the security industry myself. As far as I've seen, securitythe police do not increase our safety at all. No matter how far they take it, there will always be a way to hurt people or steal from them. I see all the money spent on police and security as an opportunity cost, and believe that we are actually making ourselves less safe by choosing to give that money to them rather than spend it on education programs, job training programs, mental health programs, etc. |
human-1125 | cmv | human | Coors light tastes like beer-flavored piss-water. Labatts tastes like a pond that 80-year-old canucks had sex in. Budweiser is for retards who don't know what beer is. But Yuengling is mass produced and... actually pretty good. It's not the best beer, mind you. It's good, but it's not like, king of beers or anything. Craft brews are getting a lot of attention in recent years, especially in America, and a lot of beer snobs go to parties. These guys are not easy to please, but they will settle for Yuengling. It's just good enough to not offend, and just shitty enough to please the unwashed plebs. Change my view. |
human-1242 | cmv | human | First off let me reiterate that I am talking about the ACADEMIC study of religion. I could give a fuck about theology and dogmatic tradition. What I care about is the philosophical core of religion: understanding and bringing about religious experience. The first thing that brings me to this idea is that, contrary to popular belief, science in no way has ever claimed it was truth. People have decided that it was, but all science does is create a model to make predictions. If those predictions work, then we can create tools with the model. We know very well that quantum mechanics and relativity theory are not "true" because they are incompatible. What they do is allow us to make predictions and therefore tools. These tools have helped us out, no doubt. But I believe that we need to shift our entire way of thinking from an understanding nature to an experiential nature. My favorite scientist, Werner Heisenberg, has this to say about it: "The existing scientific concepts cover always only a very limited part of reality, and the other part that has not yet been understood is infinite." The other part is infinite. We can either keep going down a path of trying to figure out this fractal-like void of knowledge, which we are not capable in the least of doing biologically, or we can try to experience rather than understand our existence. This is done through the study of religions. Religions are all an attempt to explain an experience or set of experiences that people have. This includes Judeo-Christian, Pagan, Eastern, any sort of thought. What they are all attempting to do, at their core, is bring about the experience of something. Judeo-Christian thought wants to bring about heaven, and as Jesus says in the Gospel of Thomas (which is just as legitimate as any other text) the kingdom of heaven is here. The Qu'ran says turn your head in every direction and there you see the face of Allah. Buddhism speaks of Nirvana, Hinduism speaks of Moksha, Taoism of the sage, all of these are experiences of the one-like nature of the universe. That brings us back to Heisenberg "There is a fundamental error in separating the parts from the whole, the mistake of atomizing what should not be atomized. Unity and complementarity constitute reality." Science, religion, they all talk about the unity. What we cannot do, according to Heisenberg and science, is understand. We can, as he says "speak of it in images and parables." Sounds a lot like religion. We can understand that the big picture is completely unfathomable, and realize that what we really should do is experience the big picture through the study of religion. Maybe this is Judeo-Christian charity. Maybe this is Eastern meditation. Maybe its a good fuck or a nice view or dancing around. I don't care what your method of experience is, but religions are the study of this experience. They provide ways to bring about the experience. These experiences are just as "real" as anything else. You simply cannot say that I have not had religious, unexplainable (other than what I would call magic) experiences with the love of my life on top of a skyscraper in Tokyo 15,000 miles away from home. You cannot say that Ayrton Senna did not "see god" as he says all the time about him winning F1 races. You cannot say that someone dancing around losing themselves completely on acid at a Grateful Dead show did not have an unexplainable religious experience. These experiences are all real, and are all attempted to be explained by religious studies. Maybe Senna did not see a Christian god. But he had a religious experience, he experienced something and attempted to explain it with is home tradition that he had heard his entire life. The academic study of religion is important to this entire realm of experience. We need to study these experiences, and maybe even make them our goal as a culture. I am not saying science sucks and we should abandon it. It creates great tools and has helped us immensely. But it is an upaya, (in the Buddhist term) a tool. It is a great thing, but we cannot lose sight of the equally sized realm of experience that is studied through religion. Religious study is also upaya, and we should use it where it is helpful. A final quote from Heisenberg: "The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for 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-1466 | cmv | human | This afternoon I went to the grocery store to pick up a few things for dinner. The song playing when I walked in was a Christmas song with an overtly religious theme about worshiping the Christkind. As an atheist, I was annoyed and offended that they would turn a grocery store into a church. I think stores that aren't catering specifically to a religious audience should not play songs with such overtly religious themes since it sends a message of disregard for others' religious beliefs or non-beliefs, something a little more personal than merely disliking a store's usual selection of ambient music. I bet many Christians would feel offended if they walked into a supermarket with Islamic hymns playing or perhaps Jewish carols too. They'd certainly be offended by Satanic verses or Wiccan and neo-pagan songs. I see this as another example of the Christian majority showing it's insensitivity towards minority views. If you want to sing about Jesus, go to a church. Don't feel that everywhere you go has to be playing Christian-themed music from November to January. |
human-2296 | cmv | human | What I mean is when people are given a free pass for something because it is 'part of their religion,' when somebody else with the same beliefs and practices would get more criticism. For example, many people are vegetarian and vegan for moral reasons. They believe that animals deserve more rights than they are given. I see people sometimes expressing the view that you shouldn't be expected to cater to vegetarians or vegans, unless it's a health restriction... or a part of their religion. Why is the religious person given more respect for their dietary choices? To be clear, I'm not talking about law at all, I'm talking about being polite and respectful. 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-2996 | cmv | human | Recently, the Coalition have tightened up laws challenging surrounding the promotion of Islamic fundamentalism. The Tories have also promised new ones in their 2015 manifesto, including 'Banning Orders' and 'Extremism Disruption Disorders' which basically ban people from broadcasting these views. The idea is that with less people vying for Jihadism, less people will hear about it and then become radicalised. But it seems to me that without turning the UK into a police state, these views will continue to be spread regardless (although probably at a lower rate). The difference here will be that any teenager considering radicalisation won't be able to openly admit this, discuss it with others, and eventually change their mind. Instead, this teenager would face arrest if they spoke frankly about their concerns; and most likely the only person they could discuss this with is a hate preacher, who -for obvious reasons- wouldn't exactly give them both sides to the argument. Britain has always done things the democratic way, knowing that the only way to find solutions to issues is through open and honest debate. This has lead to society in which people are far more likely to resolve issues through dialogue, not violence. To give you an example of this, at the turn of the 20th century Britain became more democratic than ever before by handing more power to its elected assembly (the Houses of Commons); and despite two world wars, the rise of socialism and fascism, and the Great Depression, the country has never faced any major internal conflict (i.e a civil war) since. Conversely, at around the same time the Russian government was tightening its grip on public opinion, and since then has faced three revolutions, a four-year civil war, endemic Islamic insurgency and an almost unbroken reign of tyranny. I don't believe sticking your head in the sand over an issue can lead to its resolution. Reddit, change my view. |
human-1012 | cmv | human | As Americans in a capitalist economy, we are "socialized" and educated into an unrealistically individualistic view of how things are, to a point that obvious truths become politically invisible. It starts in the classroom - when the students from wealthy families do well and happily show up every day, they are good, smart kids. When the poor kids are humiliated in school every day, they are bad kids. If they decide that the system isn't looking out for their best interests, exercise their autonomy, and reject the system, they are seen as horrible dropouts instead of astute observers of societal indifference, insanity, and cruelty. Future generations will look back and wonder at the absurd lengths we have gone to to preserve the cruel and insane illusions of individualism so that the rich can preserve their idea of "individualistic meritocracy." That pure "rugged individualism" is an American social insanitydisease is obvious to children, sometimes obvious to people who communicate with one another across the globe, and blatantly obvious to teachers who create non-excludable benefits for countless people which the wealthy are then able to then capture and "monetize." Right now, I could teach you sooo many things that would change your life forever, just because you're a human being, and we're living on the planet together, and I want you to be happy. (But I'm not going to out of learned socialeconomic prudence and supplydemand. I.e., "fuck you, pay me" I've learned not to care about you.) It's only the people who make themselves utterly fucking obtuse and deny all the benefits they are always receiving from everywhere all the time who thrive in a capitalist system, because they are taught to claim (and believe the lie) that they did it all by themselves. Just ignore all the amazing non-excludable benefits you're getting from everyone and everything all the time and, yeah, you really did do it all by yourself, dipshit. And people will viciously attack anyone who calls them on their individualistic bullshit, because that's capitalism. Even education and healthcare are seen as private goods now, not public goods. Because being surrounded by smart, healthy, educated people obviously has nothing to do with my own wellbeing. It's a purely private, economic affair s Capitalism and our educational system teach people not to look out for one another unless they get paid for it, because we are trained to live in individualistic thought bubbles in which the happiness and wellbeing of every other person on the planet has nothing to do with our own. In fact, the more stupid and miserable you are, the more money I can make off of you. So instead of looking out for you and caring about you, I will happily keep you ignorant, stupid, and miserable forever, because that makes you my bitch, economically speaking. And of course no one teaches you how to escape the thought bubble so we eventually forget that it's there. So in people's perception, the other people they pass by every day really don't have anything to do with their own wellbeing, so they learn to be cruel and indifferent instead of freely creating non-excludable wellbeing for everyone. "Rugged individualism" is a highly unrealistic view which turns people into rigid sociopaths who believe their wellbeing depends on money and not on living in a compassionate or healthy or empathetic or intelligent society. I believe this is evidenced somewhat by [this study] showing that young people have been becoming less empathetic since the 1980's with the steepest decline in the 2000's. We kill people's natural compassion with "rugged individualism" and try to replace it with money, which reminds me of some things someone once said about being unable to serve both God and Mammon. If you try to remind people of the compassion they naturally had as children, they look at you like you're crazy because they've become dead inside. Because that's what living in an individual thought bubble where the rest of the worlduniverse has nothing to do with you will do to you. 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-3755 | cmv | human | I really get annoyed when people say that humans are some sort of deviation or disease. It is common for people to say things like, "are we smarter than animals if we ruin the environment?" or "animals only take what they need and they establish a balance in their ecosystems." In the Big Friendly Giant Roald Dahl even said that humans are the only species that kills one another (which is demonstrably false). Agent Smith from the Matrix calls humans a virus because we don't establish a balance with our environment. I think these views are false. Humans aren't inherently more selfish than animals we are just more successful. Animals rape and murder each other all the time. Chimpanzees even have full fledged wars with actual weapons. Animals don't choose to find a balance in their ecosystems, they take as much as they can but their environment forces them to limit themselves. Do you honestly wish to tell me that hippopotamuses, who bite each other's tails off to stop each other from reproducing, are somehow morally superior because they don't burn fossil fuels? Groups of male dolphins gang up on and rape female dolphins regularly. A group of termites doesn't care that it is in balance with the tree population, trees have just evolved to resist them. I don't blame animals, they lack the capacity to understand morality. To me it is not shocking how horrible and evil people can be. I am constantly shocked and pleasantly surprised by the incredible capacity people have to be good, which is actually unprecedented in the animal kingdom. For my point in hilarious comic form (credit to Zach Weiner of Saturday Morning Breakfast cereal) click [here] . Edit The most common objection was in my use of jerks in the title. When I wrote this I was being informal and what I mean is that by our standards animals are jerks. However, it is not fair to use our standards to evaluate animal morality. The view I have is that people who claim animals are somehow morally superior (for some of the reasons I listed above) are wrong and animals are not morally superior to humans. 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-2286 | cmv | human | I fully believe that society as we know it will not last beyond the middle point of this century. The economy keeps getting worse and any and all alternatives to capitalism are impractical. People will never become more longsighted and cooperative than they are right now, which is not very. The environment is irreversibly damaged and the rich and powerful will keep on destroying it and since most of them are elderly, they will laugh themselves to the grave as everyone else is raped, eaten and starved. I have struggled with loneliness all my life and always had trouble connecting to people (a near decade of bullying severed my connection to the human race). I had very few friends and never had a relationship at the age of 33. However, that might be a blessing in disguise. If I were to pursue a relationship, that would mean I would have a family to defend. I want the freedom to be able to kill myself when the chaos erupts. If I had a family, I would be bound to a hellish world (the only alternative would be murder suicide, which I could never do). I have never mentioned this to anyone and I hope someone can convince me otherwise. Please help me. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than 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-1280 | cmv | human | So, a friend of mine was talking about how he thought it would be a good idea to start a religion. Many boring min's later, he goes "and everyone could take Mondays off because that would be our day of worship." and it sparked this idea in my head that, you shouldn't be excused from school or work because of religion. it is a choice to be religious and it should not be something that gets you out of your daily duty's. Now, I left the catholic church because I didnt beleive and it all seemed like a sham to me (im not trying to insult anyone, its just my view). Am I just being insensitive? (sorry if its god awful spellinggrammar, im on a smartphone) |
human-3087 | cmv | human | As the title says, one of my coworkers thinks she's the greatest parent in the world because her child is doing straight-As in school, the child is happy with their hobbies, and the child doesn't complain in the slightest. On the other hand, the child is thirteen years old, roughly 5'3" tall, and their BMI calculates to around 32 or so. They're so out of shape and, frankly, obese that they huff and puff for breath after walking up a single flight of stairs. I almost feel like it's child abuse, because allowing a child to get to that point requires months of neglect. Am I wrong? 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-4207 | cmv | human | Equality is one of a number of concepts referenced regularly in Western political discourse (others being freedom, fairness and so on), but I'm increasingly troubled by the pursuit of it in politics. Usually people dismiss this objection as a confusion between equality of outcome and equality of opportunity. The former is something I rarely hear supported, but is at least unambiguous in its meaning (everyone has the same life quality in terms of health, wealth, education etc). Only people with a view of the world heavily slanted towards nurture believe this is possible, and most accept it is beyond the remit of government to achieve it, so far as I can tell. But equality of opportunity, despite appearing to be meaningful at first glance, is actually nonsense, or at least as ambiguous as "equality." Does this mean starting everyone from a same footing (which would involve compensating for background and genetic discrepancies), or simply applying the same provision to everyone? I don't view it as within the power of the state to arrange human affairs so that every child can have an equal chance of prospering at school, and even if it was possible I think the destruction of freedom and family life it would entail would be deeply wounding. On the other hand spending the same resources on every child seems equally callous: squandering talent at the top while potentially not allocating enough to the disadvantaged at the bottom. As for the legal system, equality could seemingly apply to equal rules applied universally regardless of background factors (class, character etc) or attempting to compensate for those factors in the name of fairness. I think there's probably elements of both approaches in our legal system, which limits equality to a principle of not being spuriously discriminatory on grounds of race, sex and so on. I suppose I'm more of a "basic standards" kind of guy, believing there should be a minimum amount of education, health and housing that the state should endeavour to provide, but otherwise citizens should be left to it. That seems to me to be justifiable for reasons of decency rather than equality. 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-3996 | cmv | human | I completely understand supporting students with learning disorders through high school. A high school degree is so incredibly vital that a learning disorder should never prevent someone from obtaining it. I can even understand helping them out in undergraduate university. However when it comes to graduate school I believe the school has a responsibility to produce good graduates, not pander to those that can't handle it no matter the reason. I know we have people from different parts of the world so by graduate school, I mean a professional level school like medical school, veterinary school, law school, anything after you get your first university degree. I'm in veterinary school right now. There are students that have to take exams by themselves and they also get twice as long. That just doesn't make sense to me. If you can't take an exam with everyone else, you sure as hell won't survive in a stressful situation in which you have to make life and death decisions with tons of people around you. I just don't believe that we should be making exceptions for learning disorders when a huge part of graduate school is proving you can handle the stress. So reddit, change my view. Why should graduate schools bother helping those with learning disorders? Edit: I'm here and reading responses and responding when I can. I don't have much more time (need sleep) but I will certainly get through everything when I can. I wanted to make a few clarifications... i'm not calling anyone stupid. Many of you have mistaken my post as claiming those with learning disabilities are for some reason intellectually inferior. This was not my intent. My post is purely about performance. I certainly did lump a lot of disorders together and this makes the debate quite difficult. I also failed to mention that I will really be looking at this from a medical profession point of view. Yes, I'm sure there are professions out there where many of these disorders wouldn't be a hinderance towards performance, my apologies there. I also put far too much weight on the "stress" aspect. That's just one particular example. Many disorders have various problems and stress isn't always one of them. Edit 2: I wanted to share the one delta i've given out so far. The general point was that on true timedemonstration based exams that occur later in clinical type years of schooling, they are not allowed to accommodate if it will fundamentally change the exam. Edit 3: THANK YOU! I forgot that part earlier. Thank you everyone who tookare taking the time to respond. Edit 4: Second delta given. The post was a story of a man's wife and how she became a computer programer, was good at it but took a lot longer than everyone else because of her disability. She stayed in jobs long enough to get promoted and then was fired pretty quickly for not meeting deadlines and such. She went back to school and truly learned to work with her disability and figured out a field it would work with (service working). For this field she also would need accommodation in school, but it would work out. Much better in the end. He ended his post with this I think there are many accommodations that are useful, but there are instances were no amount of accommodation will help. Having professionals realistically discuss options based on skill set is best for everyone involved. My tl;dr response to this was that in the end, the laws are far too broad. However more good is likely to come of them than bad. Those that fail in the profession do just that, they fail. But more are likely to succeed if they chose a proper profession than than fail. It would likely be far too difficult to change the laws in a way to diminish the failures, they're going to happen. I should really be focussing on the successes. Just because they will likely fail in my profession doesn't mean the laws are overall a bad thing. I wouldn't necessarily say view completely changed, (I still think in my specific school the accommodations are a bad thing) but my overall view has certainly widened. |
human-3754 | cmv | human | So, here's the deal. As an individual, I'm relatively liberal-leaning in my views, politics, and philosophies: I support equality for all races, sexes, genders and sexualities under the law, and I should specify right now that I do not believe that people should not have the right to change their gender. That being said, I do not believe that people who elect to undergo sexual reassignment surgery, or even just those who identify as another sex should receive any special treatment. Ultimately, I see sexual reassignment surgery as plastic surgery, an elective procedure to bring one's mental image of oneself in line with one's physical image of oneself, and a supreme expression of vanity. I am allowed to criticize, say, a woman who gets breast enlargement surgery but not a man who does that, takes hormones, and gets his genitals mutilated to superficially resemble a vagina. I admit to being a layman in the field of psychology and neurology, but gender dysmorphia seems to be a mental illness, but the only one that I know of that's treated with elective, cosmetic plastic surgery. And yet, in the circles I run in (generally liberal in the American sense of the term, and including a smattering of GLBT individuals- and I am in no way complaining about that) trans individuals are afforded some form of protected status where they are above criticism and I am to not only treat them gingerly but modify the entire way I speak about them due to a cosmetic change, and yet I am not expected to do the same when someone I know gets a new haircut or nails. People have told me this is an intolerant view, and, moreover, that this intolerant view is surprisingly out of place considering my other values- but I cannot see anything wrong with it and, to me, it makes sense (perhaps not necessarily being airtight). I hope that someone can, at the very least, explain to me some notion of the debate that I simply am not seeing, because I fear my view may cost me friends and opportunities in the future. |
human-1624 | cmv | human | First of all, let me clarify what I mean by communism. There is a lot of misinformation and a lack of understanding regarding the philosophy. It isn't the totalitarian despotism of Stalin, and it isn't a welfare state where people are paid uniform wages. Communism is anarchic; it is stateless, moneyless and classless. Personally, I consider myself a Marxist - by way of Proletarian revolution, to socialism to communist along with things like the materialist conception of history and the labour theory of value - but only because I see the distinction between Marxists and Anarchists as a total redundancy - as both lead to communism. A communist economy would be decentralised and democratically run by workers operating in a horizontal, free association of workplace - syndicate - federation. People would not get paid, driven by a desire to contribute and a psychological indifference between producers and consumers. People would be given access to a free, communal store of goods for them to take. I do not find any criticisms of communism to be disestablishing. The idea of human nature being incompatible by way of selfishness isn't logical. Selfishness is an expression of a desire to improve one's lot - which is universal. In a society based around free association and cooperation, the expression of this desire would alter to a mutually beneficial state among individuals through economic federations. I hold this rather extreme philosophy because I believe it to be the ultimate destiny of humanity. It is egalitarian, and ultimately free. The word idealist means nothing to me, because if I didn't strive for a better world, I couldn't be able to look myself in the mirror. I am going to stop here, because I can't really think of much else to say. I have only acknowledged one of the 'mainstream' arguments against communism, so I'm not against anyone bringing another up, but I hope this to be productive. |
human-1143 | cmv | human | I believe that both the macro-level historical patterns of war, technological innovation and political upheaval and the micro-level patterns of argument, love and personal attachment will continue recycling themselves with an increasing rapidity until some sort of major unprecedented catastrophic event occurs. Population growth is unstoppable, education can only be improved so much in accordance with this rapid growth, and human nature has remained fundamentally unchanged throughout history. Those base 'caveman' urges, while capable of being repressed, will continue revealing themselves until our innate capacities for sex and aggression are potentiated by our technological capacity and we make a massively un-fixable mistake. Imagine Cold War pt 2, but not so cold. Please change my view. |
human-4012 | cmv | human | I always thought the people who live with less are people who are too lazy to adapt, to succeed, or to, I don't know, actually work? Sure materialism may be bad, but so is poverty. In fact, I think "Simple" living is just poverty made by laziness. Hell, many people who think "simple" living think that the Internet is useless and unimportant. If you think that the Internet is useless and unimportant, then why the he'll are you still using it?! Besides, since the Internet is becoming more and more important every damn year, the Internet should be a right. I think that everyone should have a right to a computer and the Internet. Back on topic, you think home-gardening would be sustainable to your community if anything bad ever happens? First of all, your garden would be ripped out by gangsters, the police, your neighbors, or all three. Second of all, many people who own a garden would keep their gardens all by themselves. Hell, it's not like your garden would feed your entire community, which means that gardens are just as pointless as Justin Bieber. Blame Monsanto for screwing up farms, not the GMOs as a whole. I could go on about how much simple living is pointless, but damn, people still think that we need to revert back into pre-industrial times despite the fact that life got better since WW2. Truth is, we shouldn't bother to revert back into pre-industrial times, or any time, for that matter. So, I think that "simple" living AKA learning to live with less is just an excuse for the lazy to be, well, lazy and do nothing. Please CMV. |
human-3252 | cmv | human | I don't deny, that curtailing unnecessary and excessive police force is a right of the citizens. But I feel that opinion is vastly different from the bankrupt and often counterproductive FCK COPS movement. I many justifications. Here's a short list: I was raised to cooperate with police. I have never, and don't plan on experimenting with drugs. I'm blackAfrican American Alternatively, I am, from a relative standpoint, socioeconomically advantaged. Despite this, I have had run ins with the police. Three involved African American officers, and while I don't count those (esp two since they involved rental cops) the last was a more tense pullover, in which i was told to turn my lights on, but left with a warning because I guess he was in a good mood or something. Also, maybe my appearance and demeanor [having been told to cooperate, shy away, etc, hands on the wheel type crap.] In two that I remember, the officers were white. In one of the traffic stops, I was speeding, and the officer whipped his car around the four lane highway before pulling me over. All my white friends were in the back being goofballs, shouting "cops are pigs and fck cops." I hushed them, while having the ins and outs about driving with the officer. After being released, I was told I grossly bended to authority, though everything I know and understand previously would have me feeling otherwise. Longer Explanations of some things Like I said, My parents, from a young age, taught me to cooperate with officers whenever in an unfavorable situation. To this day it has worked without incident. I also can't help but feel that Trayvon's aggression in part, played a role in what happened. I watch countless youtube videos in which (mostly) white boys film the cops and skateboard throughout building entrances, and I empathize with their courage, but consider it otherworldly and irrational. Also, It should be said that my parents are well off, having successful careers and what not. We deviate strongly from the "typical black family" (as our entire neighborhood seems to (considering the minority families). I have no siblings, we vacation a lot, etc (lol personally, I consider myself a penniless leech and understand my position fully,). We are by no means the one percent, but If you need me to explain anything else, just ask:) Please, CMV Reddit! |
human-3648 | cmv | human | A have a friend who desires everyone to be happy and comfortable. So much so that she sometimes has difficulty formulating opinions because she is worried it might offendalienate groups of people (even if it's a popular opinion). Personally I enjoy controversy and feel as though people need to feel comfortable and struggle with sadness in their lives to appreciate happiness and come to terms with controversial issues. I feel as though people who are always comfortable and happy aren't much of people at all. However, I can see how a person can reach a perpetual state of happycomfort, but it's most likely because they've struggled greatly. Edit 1: Adversity and sadness create character. |
human-3972 | cmv | human | I believe the mechanisms of our elections create unrepresentative, unresponsive, and nonfunctional governments. For instance: [Campaign donations forces candidates to court money, not votes] . During presidential elections, [issues that matter to swing state voters get more attention] . [Gerrymandering] and the [electoral college] allow parties to lose the popular vote but win majority representation. [First past the post voting prevents the US from maintaining a third party] . [Even with exceedingly negative opinions] most incumbents [will likely be reelected] . Even after elections, congress consistently disagrees with national opinion on multiple issues 1] , [2] , [3] , [4] . In order to achieve whatever it is you want in government, I believe the first step is making representatives more representative of the interests of the people. I strongly believe that the officials we get are those selected for by our election system (IE, if the winner tends to hold certain combinations of opinions, only people of those opinion combinations will run), and that those selection mechanisms are deeply flawed. |
human-3997 | cmv | human | This "new" racism does not try and racialise people but concerns its self with the promotion of ones self - or nationalism. I believe this is a leading factor for the negative attitudes that are emitted in the UK towards immigrants and immigration. |
human-2763 | cmv | human | I realized this was a controversial view yesterday while driving with my family to Thanksgiving dinner. My sister was speaking about leaving her money to her kids after her passing, and I casually mentioned how I don't believe I'd leave any. This was met with much more vitriol from both my mom and sister than I expected. Since my sister only seems to argue by using mindless platitudes (she just kept saying "you take care of your own" over and over) and my mother just kept telling me "that is wrong" without explaining why, I'd like to have a discussion on it here to see if I really am mislead in my views. Consider the following scenario: I have amassed a large fortune and have grown to be about 80. I had my kids in my 30s, and so they are now in their 40s. My assumption would be that during the first 20 or so years, I have taken care of their educational costs, provided for their basic needs, and hopefully shown them the value of a dollar while still allowing them a life not bound by severe monetary constraints. After their 20s, when they have begun providing for themselves, I will be there as a back-up should something truly catastrophic and unforeseen happen, but they would be largely left to their own devices. After 20 or so years of that, when I die, I would plan on leaving all my wealth to charities of my choice. I don't even think I'd leave anything for the grandkids' education as I believe that falls under the responsibility of the parents or even the children to properly finance and plan. The reasoning: Statistics: 60 of the second-generation blow all the inheritance money during their lifetime. That statistic climbs to 90 when you move into the third-generation. To me, this indicates that leaving a large inheritance to children who did not work for the money leads them to invest it poorly and blow it on frivolous spending (I'm not saying this happens in all cases, as I know medical bills and a billion other situations could arise that would necessitate the costs, but I'm saying it is the most common reason). Ethics: I don't believe that people should benefit simply by being born into a beneficial situation. Being born to wealthy parents shouldn't be like winning the lottery for your entire life. As I mentioned, these kids would not feel the claws of poverty during their entire childhood; why should they be guaranteed these "lottery winnings" well into adult life, when they are supposed to be responsible for themselves? Moreover, leaving this wealth to the children will actually negatively affect their lives, as it will foster laziness and lack of ambition. Nearly every tycoon, from Carnegie to Buffett to Gates has noted that leaving anything more than a small sum of money to their children would be terrible for their ambition and their motivation to make something of their lives. Some final comments: I understand that this is putting the cart WAY before the horse. I don't have considerable wealth. I don't even have kids. This is just how I believe I'd behave in this scenario given my current mindset. Furthermore, I really don't want to come off as miserly, but if I do, please tell me. Anyway, beyond that, please try and 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-3059 | cmv | human | In 1996 California passed Proposition 209 which banned state governments from considering race, gender, or ethnicity in the public sector. Most famously this was important in college admissions. An example of the affect this had on public policy could be found at Berkeley, where the Asian population before the bills passage was approximately 25. After the Bills passage the population rose to about 45 of the population. Here are two data tables I found specifically in california pertaining to the matter: (General data for all schools which exist in the university of California public system) (data specifically at the university of California at Berkeley) In the first data table make sure to include Indian Pakistani, and Filipino as "Asian" because Filipino is typically considered Asian, and because Indian Pakistani students are also hurt by Affirmative Action. In the case of California, after race wasn't considered the number of Asian applicants accepted into the university system nearly doubled. A conclusion that one could draw from this (in my case the conclusion I did draw from this) was that Asian Americans are harmed in the admissions process when race is considered as a factor. Counter arguments that I predict include: " What if the gain after the ending of affirmative action policies in California was the result of a growing number of Asian applicants?" My Response: After 1996 the number of Asian Applicants started growing in total, and the number of applicants who were admitted began to grow. However, the number of Asian counterparts who were admitted began to exceed the number of white counterparts admitted, and the proportion of admitted Asian students was greater than the proportion of admitted white students, indicating that Asian students had a higher admission rate in proportion to their population than their white counterparts. This allows us to see that if one takes a rising population into account, that there was still an increase in the percentage of Asian students in colleges in California after elimination of race based policies. Another counterargument I forsee is: " Asians are over represented in colleges anyway, it shouldn't matter if affirmative action causes them to have higher admission standards" My response: Reducing a student down to their race, and using said race as an excuse to deny them an education when they may have been perfectly capable had they only been judged by their academic merits is racism, because it offers negative consequences for an individual based off of their race. In an academic environment, I want each individual to be judged on merit, and scholarship, not on skin color. I forsee another argument that while Affirmative action may be racist against Asian students, that it's a good thing, because it offers academic opportunities to minorities, and is therefore acceptable. Although it's disturbing to think that somebody could justify racism against people, I will respond to this criticism. In addition to affirmative action being racist against Asians, it also negatively effects Black students who enroll in colleges as well. This paper outlines how black students at universities fare in comparison to their white counterparts, important data is on pages 4,8, and 18, although the entire paper is useful. On page 17, there is a data table that shows how in STEM and business based fields, black male students are most likely to change majors halfway through. However, I will concede that Black Females have a lower chance of leaving their field than white females in that respect. I will also concede that the data compiled in the paper applied to Duke university, and may not be universally applicable, however, it does indicate that there is at least a problem with respect to student performance and race based admissions processes. Affirmative action will do little to help people, if people aren't prepared academically for the environments which they enter. By lowering the bar for individuals who preform sub par in an academic environment , we put an unfair burden on them by not putting them in an environment where they can succeed. Additionally, we imply that Black (and Hispanic) individuals as races will preform poorly by requiring less of them as students, which is a self fulfilling prophesy at competitive institutions. This insulting policy not only perpetuates ignorant stereotypes, but also reduces students down to racial quotas. To summerize my main points: 1- Asians are unfairly discriminated against in college admissions due to the color of their skin when affirmative action is in place. 2- In California when race based policies were overturned Asians were given equal opportunity, and managed to out preform their white counterparts when judged only on merit 3- Students admitted into competitive institutions because of racial preference preform worse than their counterparts who are admitted on merit, because they aren't prepared for the competition they will face in College, and as such are denied education that is more suited to their needs 4- By lowering the bar for certain races we perpetuate the stereotypes of ignorance, and cause individuals who are qualified to face more scrutiny because of associations with said race. 5- Diversity for the sake of diversity is racist, because it reduces individuals down to skin colors and genders, and fails to judge by merit. I welcome constructive criticism, and I will do my best to respect differing opinions, provided that people respect my opinions. Thank you for reading, discuss. |
human-3012 | cmv | human | When I started reading HP, the first four books had all been released and I caught up with them by the time OotP came out. By the time I finished GoF, I was in love with the series, but always had reservations about The Prisoner of Azkaban. In my opinion, the best books in the series are the ones in which Harry's life is in direct danger from Voldemort or his forces, most obviously in The Chamber of Secrets, The Goblet of Fire, and The Deathly Hallows. At the time I read it, and ever since, I found the third book to be absent of danger or risk. Harry spends most of the book in fear of Sirius Black, who ends up being a misunderstood ally. Voldemort pretty much does nothing to hurt Harry (they hardly talk about him IIRC), leaving 400 pages to introducing characters and fleshing out teenage angst. Now, I'm not saying it's a bad book. I think every HP book is a great achievement in its own right. But I had, and still have, a lot of friends who thought the third book was by far the best in the series, and their reasons were never very convincing (there are werewolves, there is time travel, there is backstory, therefore it's cooler than the rest). Please CMV. |
human-2913 | cmv | human | So in the game of poker, the only way to get a straight while holding an ace would be an A, 2, 3, 4, 5, or a 10, J, Q, K, A. This provides a little bit of frustration in the gameplay because the ace is the only card that does not allow for an open ended straight. For instance, a straight could not be achieved by having a Q, K, A, 2, 3. The argument I could foresee coming up would be that since the ace is the highest card in poker, making it the it the lowest card in a straight does even it out a bit. For instance, if the flop shows a 2, 3, 4, 5, then a 6 would be more beneficial than an A whereas 6 is not as valuable of a card otherwise. That may be the reason for this rule, but I doubt it. Anyone want to shed some information and CMV? edit: Two users have given great counter-arguments that have indeed changed my view. I have awarded deltas to both. |
human-3295 | cmv | human | The standard pro-life argument is that a fetus is a person with the same moral status as any other human, and that killing one is therefore murder. Inversely, a murderer has voluntarily given up his right to life by choosing to kill someone else. I don't believe that killing a convicted murderer and killing someone who has literally done nothing are morally equivalent. Note that I am pro-choice and oppose capital punishment; I just don't think people who disagree with me are necessarily hypocrites. 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-2831 | cmv | human | I'm not an angry mother,i'm actually 17 years old currently finishing school. I'm not very wealthy nor poor. Weed has spread in my city since I moved here 7 years ago. A few years ago the people around me and almost the whole part of the school started smoking on weekends,some during the week, some smoke before school has even started. I smoked on the weekends as well for quite some time until my brother talked to me (after busting me) and that was the first time i realized how much you fuck your life up smoking weed. People stop doing hobbies,they stop going to school regularly,they become shadows of what they used to be. Those are no exceptions which im talking about im talking about regular people (most of them 18),who used to have a busy life until they just stopped doing anything. They seem to become dumber,they care less about everything and spend their whole time on weed. Of course,there are people who can control their consumption ,but that's the minority. It's something you don't notice,you smoke on the weekend,just in the evening,then behind the mall and then you buy your first weed on your own. And that is the crucial point why i think weed should be illegal and it's just right that alcohol is allowed. Becoming an alcoholic is a complete different process,which is more obvious and you can control the consumption,there are obvious side effects. You don't notice you're addicted to weed since the addicts don't care unless it's way,way too late. They just accept it and laugh about how stoned they are everywhere. They use boredom or other things as an excuse and miss most of their life. Legalization would just support the idea that it doesn't do any harm and getting high everyday is ok. It is not,when you need something to make your life okay,change your life,not the drug. to clarify: I think somebody is addicted to weed when he stops doing the things he loved to do,he neglects his surronding friends and family and smokes every day,all the time. Note I don't want to hate on weed and don't think every person who smokes it is a total loser. I'm just sharing my experience with you. |
human-4003 | cmv | human | Time was back during the earlier days of the 360 and PS3 consoles were a legitmate alternative for someone who didn't want to spend an arm and a leg on a good gaming PC and just wanted a simple plug 'n' play experience for the living room. I'd say that time has come and gone and falling PC prices plus the increasing simplicity have made PCs by far the best gaming choice over the PS4 and Xbox One. Console's biggest advantage has always been a much more compact and easily accessible gaming experience than the traditional big chunky PC tower wedged inside an unmovable desk. With my old 360 I could take it anywhere I wanted it, plug in an HDMI, and be playing splitscreen with my friends in just a few minutes. But the PS4 and XB1 have made that less friendly, especially given the near universal middle finger that split-screen coop has been given lately the console has become much more of a static living room object. Meanwhile PC's have become more and more mobile with less cords to worry about. Move it over to the TV, plug it in, plug in a controller and set steam to big picture mode. Done. And of course the cost of PCs has gone down drastically, and it doesn't take an electrical engineering degree to build one now days. Given that you can build a PC with equal or superior performance to a next gen console for about the same cost -plus you'll save significant cash on games- and how easy it is to rbuildapc nowadays, just throwing together a PC is a better financial option than a console. Going with the cheaper cost of PCs is the lack of any fee for online play and the higher security of PC gaming networks. While PSN and XBL have been infamously taken down for long stretches of time, PC networks have proven far more robust. Another thing of course worth mentioning is the lack of backwards compatiblity with new consoles, a significant disadvantage to them that makes buying a PS4 over your old PS3 much less of an upgrade than it would be otherwise. Meanwhile PCs can play everything from Pong to Battlefield Hardline, and through emulators can run much more for free. Frankly the only advantage consoles really have is exclusives, and even that's debatable whether it's worth buying a 400 dollar machine just to play a few games, plus that if it comes down an exclusives war then PC has scads more exclusive titles than all the other consoles combined. So yeah, consoles just don't hold a candle to PCs anymore. CMV. EDIT: My view has been changed, older generation consoles such as the 360PS3 are still viable alternatives for people who want a cheap simple gaming system. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! |
human-3047 | cmv | human | This is from my personal anecdotal experiences There are exceptions, but 98 of gay men prefer a lifestyle of casual, multiple sexual relationships; A partial cause of this is the trauma of being marginalized and demonized by society; but given the choice and freedom to choose, a gay man will overwhelmingly choose a lifestyle of multiple partners over a monogamous committed relationship I support gay marriage, but our portrayal of a gay family unit is a rarity from what is actually happening, statistically |
human-3733 | cmv | human | So there's this carpenter guy from Jerusalem and he's going around and telling everyone how good they are and how God loves them. Plus he does a lot of really neat magic tricks! I saw him once get everyone fucking HAMMERED on a big bucket of water! WATER! He hangs out with hookers (which is awesome) and then when we were playing kickball and it flew into the lake he just walked out and got it for us. But I see a lot of people getting all pissed off and hating on his swag and I think it's all jealousy and nonsense. The carpenter from Jerusalem is a cool guy. CMV. Hello, people of the past. This is a footnote from the moderators of this 'internet forum'. I'm afraid to say that some wannabe scientist, while looking into time travel, has caused a temporal distortion field. It should dissipate in the next 24 hours. In the mean time, feel free to [message us] about a view you hold while you're visiting the present, and remember to have a look through [our rules] . |
human-1160 | cmv | human | I don't believe there is anything innate within us that makes us different, like a soul or similar. Thus all our actions are determined by both our environment and our genetics, neither of which we have any control over (to a appreciable degree). So although it will be infinity complex to compute what someone will do, their actions are still predetermined. Also the first philosophy major who comes in here and points out that if our actions are predetermined then any discussion will have nothing to do with the truth and therefore it is pointless to discuss, gets a slap upside the head. |
human-3040 | cmv | human | Today the Supreme Court rejected an appeal by two prisoners to enforce the EU's ruling that prisoners should have the right to vote. Under current UK law they do not. I believe that the right to vote is an inalienable right for all citizens of a country whether they be imprisoned or not. Prisoners are residents of the country and are affected by the government in power both internally and externally. For example tax rates on things such as inheritance tax measures affecting their family outside of prison. I do not believe that the right of the prison population to vote would result in a rise in extremist votes - only those prisoners politically motivated to do so will. Turnout at the last election was around 35. The U.K.'s population is 65 million people and prison population is around 90,000, meaning that prisoners can have their right to vote under European law without impacting heavily on electoral statistics. |
human-3629 | cmv | human | All through history there have been conflicts and stealing land from other people, most famously from the Native Americans, but also in literally every country's history. We put on a show of giving them reserves but we all know that we stole their land and it's ours now and there's nothing they can do about it. So why is Israel so terrible for doing the same thing? They were attacked, they won, now they have more land. Edit: Further explanation Everybody acts like Israel keeping the land that they won by war is a terrible thing, yet literally every other country has done so. I find it hypocritical to complain about Israel, and especially to expect Israel to change anything, while living in Canada or the US, or even in Europe where every country was formed out of the blood of war. |
human-2582 | cmv | human | There are people, on the internet especially, who "ship" certain character pairings in TV shows. Fans or "shippers" will go to amazing lengths to show their dedication to that "ship." I feel this is mostly harmless with animated shows, but when it happens to a live-action show's fandom, it's incredibly disrespectful to the actors. The prime example I will be using is the TV Show "Supernatural" and the "Destiel" ship, where the male character Castiel played by Misha Collins is portrayed to be in a romanticsexual relationship with Dean Winchester, played by Jensen Ackles. I can understand fanfiction and fanart, but when the sexually-invasive questions show up in many convention panels where they ask if Misha will kiss Jensen, or when photo manipulations of Misha and Jensen kissing show up on the internet, I become increasingly uncomfortable and wonder why this is allowed to go on as far as it has. Not taking legal action against it is understandable considering the pervasiveness of the internet, but it seems these fans have absolutely no idea that what they could be doing is inherently disrespectful. When it clear the actors themselves are not that orientation, it should NOT be okay to portray them in those situations. Or at the very least, it should be looked down upon. Change my view. Edit: I decided to give some references to what I am talking about. To those unfamiliar with the Supernatural TV show, Dean and Castiel function more or less like battle buddies and there is ambiguous sexual tension at times. Dean has been portrayed as heterosexual and Castiel as (more or less) asexual. I googled "destiel" to pick out some photo manipulations of what I view as incredibly inappropriate and disrespectful to the actors that portray these characters. Keep in mind that none of these situations actually happen in the show. Also all of these photos are homoerotic in nature but don't show the lower half of the body, so if that's NSFW, then be aware. edit2: I would also like to note my view spans across all live-action shows. I only use Supernatural as an example as this problem seems to be the most prevalent within that specific fandom. |
human-1616 | cmv | human | First off, no I am not suicidal. Please think of this as a philosophy, rather then any depression, related situation. I believe that if you take the sum of the average person of Earths life most of their experiences would be negative. I believe this is mostly due to human nature, as humans, like any other animal, are competitive and will try and set each other back whenever possible, so as to appear dominate in a situation, become more appealing to the opposite sex and pass on their genes. I believe there are a great number of compassionate acts a person can and will do in there lifetime but for the most part these are outweighed by selfish acts one will do to advance their own circumstance. Thus, I believe, it is human nature to make things harder for other humans. Couple with that the possibilities for sadness, such as death of loved ones, famine, war, disease, etc that people suffer and this increases the negativity of living. Finally, add to this the omnipresent comparisons to an unobtainable perfect life the media pushes on the populace and you have a global population who are continuously reminded of their shortcomings. These are three main reasons I believe that, ultimately, existence is preferable to existence. Please Change My View! |
human-1826 | cmv | human | Hey, I'm from Germany and my English is not so good so ill just work with bulletpoints. This is why i think the death sentence is wrong and should be abolished: Innocent people have been convicted and executed. The death penalty is incompatible with human rights and human dignity (Even the guilty have a right to life) Killing is wrong There is a better way to help the families of murder victims (executions do not help these people heal nor do they end their pain) Capital punishment goes against almost every religion. Thanks for all the comments ins advance:) 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-2018 | cmv | human | I've researched many world religions and read many atheistic and religious apologist treatises, as well as browsing relevant sources on the internet to get a glimpse of the philosophical climate of the vox populi. Having read the philosophical and scientific approaches to thought by notable figures such as Bohm, Dennett, Dawkins, Jung, Lashley, etc., and having read a handful of discussions pertaining to the "universe from nothing" argument (as well as discussions of the phenomenon of abiogenesis), I still don't quite think that an entirely mechanistic cosmology can account for the phenomena of life or existence. Am I thinking rightly, or are my new-age leanings affecting my rational thought? Would love to see some opinions. Thanks. |
human-4139 | cmv | human | Setting: I am currently a college student finishing up my last year. Age 22. Background: I am a typical Asian-American and I grew up in a traditional Asian family. My parents immigrated from Asia to give their children (me) a better future in America. Because of my parent's pressure wanting me to succeed and obtain a successful job with high income so that they can retire early, i have instilled a mindset that "time is money." Unused time means lost of potential money. Problem: I started having this mindset near the middle of high-school. During that time I realize why am I wasting my time playing games? Why I am wasting my time hanging out with friends? I could be spending all of this time to further develop my skills and gain new experiences. In college, that mindset has hit me even harder. I see all of these college kids socializing, having fun, "wasting away their time" that could have been used to study or work or to do something productive. As I grew older and learned more about what's available in the world, I decided that my interests and work ethics match me well for a Chief Technology Officer career. I like the science and technology side of how things work and I have done much RD research in college. I also like the business side, leadership skills, and challenges involved. Since I am already working as hard as a CTO, i thought this dream position would also fit me as well. I am considering a PhD as well since many CTOs do have it. But PhD students also work 70 hrs a week so they can graduate on time. Because I have been so heavily invested in this mindset, reality just hit me. I am incredibly tired, internally as well. I have not had any vacations in the past two years. During Christmas break, I stayed at school and worked on my projects. I worked as well during spring break. As soon as summer started, I started my internship. And as soon as my internship ended, I came back to school to continue working on my project. This negative "time is money" mindset of mine also repelled a lot of friends. They want me to go out and have some fun, but I pessimistically reminded them that they are wasting their time having fun and could be doing something much more productive. So now I also feel quite lonely with not many friends to reach out to. Not only that, but my social skills are lacking and I still have not had my first girlfriend or my first kiss yet at the age of 22. (I have tried to pursue girls actually, but my mindset was, I need to get a girlfriend so I can get this over with and continue focusing on my career which let to numerous downfalls.) Now that I am reflecting, I have focused on my career so much that I gave up everything else in my life. It is really hard for me to swing out of this mindset that I have had for the past 7 years. I am starting to think CTO is not something I want to do if it means sacrificing another 10 years down the road. I want to convert my mindset to live a working 9-5 life and come back home worry free to enjoy other aspects of life that I am currently missing out on. I hope someone can help me. I feel so miserable right now although I'm not worried about my career options after I graduate. Thanks so much! Update Thank you everyone for helping me to clarify the problem with my current views. This is not something I can turn 180 on with a flick of a switch, but hopefully I can transition to a more balanced person because rewards and happiness can come in all types of form. 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-1084 | cmv | human | I'll firstly head off a common argument I've heard- the niqab is not actually as common as people would care to think. In France the total number of actual women wearing the niqab is less than 400, in a Muslim population of 200,000. The ban therefore affects a minority of a minority, and it seems odd to my mind such a minor issue has reached the highest heights of government. I also feel the ban also contradicts the principles of religious freedom which exist in Europe and in the West. The ban seems to have involved little consultation from the actual veiled women themselves, and rather seems to be fuelled by the mass of right-wing sentiment which seems to have sprung up in the West in more recent times than any real concerns. I also find the idea that the State can mandate the clothing choices of people abhorrent, and it seems hypocritical to my mind that whilst the average European recoils in horror at the sort of mandatory niqab rules, the same people can then put in place an almost identical reverse law. No state body should have any say in the clothing choices of the citizenry. Regarding security, this is a non-issue to me. If there is some need for identification or security, I am sure that provision could be made that niqabed women would be required to remove their niqabs for this purpose infront of an appropriate female, and identification made. Plus it must be said that if it were really a security issue, then the ban would not prevent women from walking down their own front streets (where the niqab presents no security risk whatsoever). So, CMV otherwise. |
human-2382 | cmv | human | I realize this sounds super obvious, but my point is to include test essays or prompts into this. I feel that when a test includes an essay section, the assignmenttopic should be given at least a day before it's due so students have time to prepare. This isn't like a multiple choice or short answer when there is only one correct answer that they can look up on the internet, essays are meant to portray a viewpoint where is no correct viewpoint. If students are given an essay against their viewpoint, then they have time to gather enough reasons to successfully play devils advocate. With at least a day, they can look up things to support their position and let them write a better essay Sometimes students are slow at brainstorming and can't think of what to write, but are still good at writing and with the current system, they will be penalized for something relatively irrelevant to the skill tested. Sometimes with a response to a reading, students simply do not have enough time to read the entire section because they are slow readers. Reading is already a section in learning separate from writing, and students good at writing should not get a bad grade, once again, for something fairly irrelevant to the skill tested. Writing grades should be based on the quality of writing, not the ability to write a good essay within an hour. edit-Hi! Thank you all for your interesting points! But to be honest I haven't seen one argument that has really come close to changing my view. If I see a new point, I'll debate it, but I've been repeating the same points over and over to different people and I just don't see it going anywhere. Although I haven't changed my view, I think it's important for anyone to seeing opposing arguments. So I think I'll stop answering now. Once again, Thank you for responding! 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-1318 | cmv | human | For more information on these types of games, please see: [MOBA definition] [Dota2] I've been captured by the intense enjoyability of playing video games for over 6 years. I've drained thousands by thousands of hours through the years on such different games. These games have huge replay value and I find true enjoyment when I'm playing them. The availability of so many different heroes and champions to play never makes these types of games boring, and I feel casually playing them is comfortable. |
human-3054 | cmv | human | Let me preface this by saying that I am not very familiar at all with feminist positions on things. Most of my exposure to feminism has come from a few feminist acquaintances and random stuff I've seen on the internet. I'm well aware that my sampling of feminist thought is probably not representative of most feminists. With that said: I have often heard it said that the major factors in the incidence of rape are something along these lines: The media portrays women as sexualized objects, thus discouraging boys and young men from seeing women as fully human. This leads men to think that it is okay for them to rape women. We do not teach our males what consent is. Alternatively, we don't teach them that it is not okay to rape women. Now, I don't think that the first reason is a totally invalid point. I agree that the media sexualizes women to an obscene degree, and I'm sure that that has deleterious effects on the psyche of both males an females. The second point seems totally absurd to me, though. I believe that rapists know that what they're doing is wrong, but they choose to do it anyway. This goes for all kinds of rape, too. I think that both the violent rapist and the frat guy who pressures a girl into getting wasted at a party and then has sex with her while she's semi-unconscious know that what they're doing is wrong. Rather than these two points, I think that the main contributing factors to rape are psychological issues that occur as a result of trauma in childhood. I don't have any statistics to back this up, so please lambast me if this is wrong: I believe that the majority of rape victims were the victim of some sort of major abuse in childhood, most likely sexual. I also believe that the same goes for the perpetrators of abuse. People who were abused in childhood almost always reflect the repercussions of their abuse in their demeanor, and abusers can sense that. I'm not talking about anything magical, either. In my experience, victims of abuse carry themselves differently and can have personality traits that indicate that they were abused. Abusers recognize that and seek those people out as victims. In summary, I think that the main contributing factor in the incidence of rape is childhood abuse of both future victim and perpetrator. I believe that dehumanization of women through sexualization in media is a much smaller factor, and that media influence alone cannot take a boy who grew up in a healthy and supportive family and turn him into a rapist. I think that if media does have any significant effect in the incidence of rape, it is only because it reinforces the already sick foundation of someone who was abused. |
human-1167 | cmv | human | For a long time I did not understand why Vegans were against eating eggs, but eventually I learned that the reason for this is because the chicken egg industry kills male chickens en masse because they only need a few of them in order to keep producing more chickens. For this reason alone, some vegans will not eat eggs, no matter the source because it will support an industry that harms animals. This makes sense, but I believe that anyone who purports to not eat eggs for this reason could not morally eat at a restaurant that offered vegan options, as by offering your business to a restaurant that also serves meat you would be contributing to the livestock industry in a similar way. 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-1162 | cmv | human | CMV: View to change: Russian entertainers should not use, parody, copy, or otherwise incorporate English language media from American entertainers because point 1) it is done with little or no understanding of the original material and point 2) when they do the execution is pathetic and loathsome. Attempts by Russian speaking singers, talk show hosts and others to talk about the American entertainment industry are poorly done. Most of the time the singers are terrible because they do not speak or understand English. Talk show hosts do not have the correct information about celebrity news or do not understand the context in which events take place (for example: asserting that point A. Jennifer Lopez is from Spain and point B. that some contestant on a song trial show sounds exactly like J.Lo). While the idea about globalization of culture as part of Globalization may apply here, I am asserting with confidence from personal experience that what Russian entertainers do is done without context or understanding of the subject matter. Maybe a poor understanding or an odd expert exists but I have not seen that as a major or permanent feature. It is not an example of cultural appropriation because everyone understands the rightful ownership culture (USA). Instead, incorporation of English language American popular media is seen as "American" and separate from Russian artists or performers. In fact, its otherness is seen as an attractive feature. Russian entertainment industry has changed somewhat since the '90s but featured and well known artists are still present on the scene. Addition of American material is seen as an addition to variety but in my view that is not a good reason if the execution is terrible and no one understands what is being sung or discussed. If there is a "demand from the public" to incorporate routines, songs and popular culture from abroad, more specifically America, then it serves to belittle and marginalize the Russian entertainment industry by exaggerating the lack of variety, stale material, lack of new original artists, etc. If this is the case, which is my view then Russia's entertainment industry should bring in more new artists and try to find a new sense of purpose. Although this discussion may touch on Russian identity, global savvy and citizenship, and what have you, nope, I simply think that Russian entertainers are really bad at copying American cultural properties and that improving their performance is the wrong way to go. 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 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-1448 | cmv | human | RISK is nothing more than a game in which players slowly collect cards and try outlast their opponents just long enough to cash in those cards in exchange for a massive army they can use to run the table in a final push toward victory. By the time the game reaches this point, the outcome is nearly inevitable, draining any suspense out of the game. Moreover, the "last man standing" format means that players who come in 3rd, 4th, or 5th place are forced to idly sit on the sidelines before the game is even over. This adds up to an experience that is not inclusive nor engaging, which strongly favors "luck of the draw" over any real strategic thinking. I know that RISK has many fans out there. Please change my view. |
human-4043 | cmv | human | So in light of a lot of things being said about the Lone Ranger movie, I've found myself very conflicted about the subject of critique, specifically about creative work and cinema in particular. Basically, I have always assumed that the final measure of artistic worth was the ultimate internal reaction to the piece, i.e. how much did you like it. And with that in mind I find it hard to see how a lengthy write-up of the flaws of some summer blockbuster can outweigh the fact that some people found it entertaining, and whenever I try to think up arguments they always come off as "stop liking things I don't like." I'm hoping someone can introduce some clarity to this discussion. On one hand, the idea that commercial success is the prime factor for finding a movie's worth disagrees with me on an instinctual level. On the other hand, the idea that a one person can be more "correct" about an artistic work seems to imply that there is some intrinsic measuring stick involved in the evaluation process, which also doesn't seem right. |
human-3127 | cmv | human | I work in EMS, and the amount of over weight practitioners in all the above mentioned professions is horrifying,Police and fire have physical fitness tests to gain employment but aren't held to any kind of standard once they have the job, kind of makes me think what the hell is the point? Sure you could run a 5 minute mile and lift your body weight when you were hired 5-10 years ago but now you're 50 lbs over weight and have no muscle mass what so ever. Kind of defeats the purpose of having physically fit practitioners eh? |
human-1848 | cmv | human | To clarify, I am in an environment where promise rings are a commonplace item i.e. an average American highschool. A few of my friends and I have discussed before the concept of a promise ring, that is, a ring given prior to engagement to symbolize a future marriage between the person giving the ring and given the ring. I found out that in my circle of friends, I am the only one who has this view on the rings! My best friend even got upset with me for implying that it meant something less than what it is portrayed as. I apologized, but my view still holds. I find that, to quote a post I saw in AskMen earlier, the concept of a physical sign of a promise that one day you will give her a physical sign of a promise to one day give her a physical sign of your promise to stick with her forever is asinine and convoluted. It seems almost as if it was a contrived marketing strategy by a big jeweler. Pass something off as tradition, and sell it marked up ridiculously. If you love someone, tell them. Stay with them. You do not need three different rings, each one symbolizing the same promise, to tell someone that you need them in your life. |
human-2022 | cmv | human | Disclaimer: I've searched the sub and none of the other posts regarding otherkin address this as I intend to. For those who aren't familiar with the term, here is [the Wikipedia article on otherkin.] I believe this identification comes from one of two possibilities. First, it might come from the person actually believing themselves to be non-human, which would be the case of having some kind of mental disorder as, differently from trans people, identification as human or not doesn't involve any kind of sexual hormones. If the person really believes they share their body with a non-human entity, it would be the case of having a multiple personality disorder. The second possibility would be that of the person pretending to have that other personality. This would be similar to a child having an imaginary friend and, although mostly harmless, it is nonetheless childish. If the person is faking it, though, it would be similar to a kid who lies about having something that doesn't even exist my cousin from japan already got me a PS5!1!! in order to try and make themselves special in a group. |
human-3470 | cmv | human | I believe that the Social media enables the spread of unreliable and false information. This causes people to believe false information. I also believe that it causes Students who are heavy social media users to have lower grades. Most importantly, i believe that Social mediaSocial networking sites facilitate cyberbullying. Another big thing that comes from teenagers and social media, other than cyber bullying is the idea of sexting. Many teenagers now sext more often with apps like snapchat and the sorts. Identity theft is a large problem in our world and the use of social media and the hacking of social media sites causes identity theft. But what i think is the most negative impact is the idea of cyber bullying. 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-2170 | cmv | human | First of all, this is an all-encompassing opinion, not a statement of fact. I am in no way saying that Chrome is technologically superior or anything of that nature, it's just.... well..... better. My reasons Chrome is more secure as far as I can tell, this is basically undeniable fact. Tab sandboxing being the most obvious feature, but there also hasn't been an vital exploit (that I'm aware of) in years Better technology support I haven't checked in a while, but Chrome always seems the fastest to adopt new technologies, which is great as both a consumer and a developer Ease-of-use As an end-user, this one is key. I install Chrome, I'm good to go. Get an Android phone with Chrome; Log in on both, now everything is synced. Want to see currently opened tabs? Great. It's just so simple and streamlined. (Coincidentally I'm a Linux user who hates Apple for the exact reason of making things "just work Chrome AppsExtensions From what I can tell, Chrome has a lot more people developing for it's web store, while Firefox's add-ons site is dated and minimally supported. Also, from what I understand, Firefox completely lacks any "Apps" and while I understand why not everyone can agree that this is an inherent con, I regularly use apps such as SSH, VNC, Google Play Music (for the mini player), and Hangouts. Development I know FF has a lot of developer tools, as does Chrome. I honestly haven't used FF for development in years, so I have no basis as to which is better. 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-2705 | cmv | human | This is a common assumption in todays society and I can't think of any reason why it is right other than the fact that I can't think of any reason it's wrong, so why not? In other words, unless there are good reasons that mutually consenting adults shouldn't engage in an act, then there is no reason why we should voluntarily prohibit ourselves from engaging in such actions. The second part is that since there are no good reasons for us to inhibit our number of sex partners, therefore a person who negatively judges any individual (even silently) is wrong in their judgement. Remember, this is all based on assumption that the person is engaging in safe sex. So, can anyone change my view that people should (1) have as many sex partners as they want, even if its over 1000, as long as they practice safe sex and (2) no one should ever be judged for how many partners they've had? |
human-1642 | cmv | human | In this, I am particularly looking at two recent cases where a separation referendum has been or will be brought to voters: Scotland and Quebec. My point centers around the idea that federalism or devolution provides a sufficient avenue for local control of local matters, and that as long as national parties seek and obtain support within the jurisdiction of the area to secede, there is not a strong case that the people there are failing to be represented at the national level. In the case of Quebec, the Liberals, Conservatives and NDP all actively seek (and often win) seats in Quebec ridings. Many prime ministers hail from Quebec, including both Liberals (lots) and Conservatives (Mulroney - but they've also not had a lot of PMs) The current Liberal and NDP leaders hail from Quebec ridings. In the case of Scotland (which I am admittedly not as familiar with, not having lived there), the national parties do campaign there, and while the Conservatives haven't had a lot of success there to put it charitably, there doesn't seem to be the kind of evidence of regional balkanization one would see if Scottish interests were truly divergent from those of the rest of the UK. Of course there are long histories as to how both Quebec and Scotland came to be a part of the UK and Canada respectively, but where, as here, citizens in Quebec and Scotland have meaningful representation in national parties, are accorded representation proportionate to their population, and are fully equal under the law to all other citizens, I don't see the case for carving out new nation-states. All borders are artifacts of history, many of those histories full of evil. But when a country is free and democratic, and where there are strong local institutions with broad capacity to deal with local problems, I don't see the case for carving up borders. So to CMV, I want a good reason why a country with the following would be better off splitting in two: 1. National parties compete meaningfully and represent districts from the area to secede. 2. Local government which has meaningful authority over a broad range of areas (obv not all areas like foreign policy). 3. Free, fair and democratic elections. 4. Fully equal status under the law for all people from the region to secede as compared to all other people in the country. 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-2171 | cmv | human | As you can tell from the title, I think Commnism can be successful with a very democraticly-setup (Meaning everybody has an equel opinion and power) government system. I had to do a report on Communism so I did some research. Before this, I knew very very little about what Communism was at all. All I knew was that it was supposedly bad. Then, I researched it, and I'm like "Is this what all the fuss is about?." It seemed that it could be a Utopia where everybody works togather, towards a goal, and everybody is equel, and everybody has an equel shot at promotions and moving up in the system (i.e. rewards for their effort). I turn on the TV to see celebrities like the Kardasians that have no talent what-so-ever, get paid for stuff 99.99999 (repeating 9) of the population would have to pay to do (spend money, relax, live a very nice life). So a lot of you probably drink coffee a lot, especially in America. So the coffee industry is huge, profitable industry, but then I look on the internet and see the people who grow the coffee beans, and they and their family live in horrible conditions. So to me Communism looks like it could be a very successful economy as long as everybody is incharge of the money distributes (or it will just get more like Capitalism) through a democratic government where one person cannot get too powerful, and everybody has a say in what goes (According to wikipedia, [The working and lower classes make up 55 percent of America] so why does it seem the government is always working for the rich?). Sorry that I didn't really discuss the fundamentals and such in the description, but don't worry that will be in the comments. Change my view:)! EDIT: Sorry that I havn't responded yet, I have been busy playing some MC. Well anyway many people were talking about what kind of Communism are you talking about. So to me, a good Communism would be one with coin money just to make stuff easier and less complicated, everone works for the government (of course), and its a government of the people (meaning the people have all the say in what goes on), and rewards and promotions are possible and equell, there would be no competition (so if you and bob were fishermen, you guys are co-workers not buisness rivals) since everybody works for the government, but the prices are based of equivelent exchange so the workers would still get a profit, but the price is affordable for all the other people. Although there are other forms of it I would agree with (I never stated what the "ideal" communism would be before now). Thank you all for the upvotes and the comments:D! 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-1158 | cmv | human | Actually, it's a little more complicated than that. I believe that anyone who needs treatment should be able to get it, and without putting themselves in absurd amounts of debt. But I also believe that people should be able to do pretty much whatever they want as long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else. Clearly, there's a contradiction here. If I do something stupid and hurt myself, why should you have to pay for it? Before you tell me about how awesome the free market is and how it will solve all our problems, I should warn you that I'm pretty familiar with that argument, and it hasn't managed to convince me so far. What I'm really looking for is a compromise, where you don't have private companies trying to screw over their sick customers, but I don't have to pay for some guy's heroin addiction. I have some thoughts on the matter myself, but I want to hear what other people think. |
human-1058 | cmv | human | I've recently read [this article] about how the Norwegian military integrated its troops so that they had unisex dorms and bathrooms. The women in the military report a drop in sexual harassment. It makes sense to me that if "separate but equal" does not apply to races, it shouldn't apply to genders. This is for several reasons: 1. It leads to disparities. Athletics teams receive vastly different treatment based on gender. 2. It leads to "othering" as evidenced in the military and gender specific schools. In the real world the genders will have to interact in pretty much every facet of business and social spheres, so it makes no sense to divide genders to educate or train. 3. Even if there are average differences between the sexes, there are always outliers. Certainly, boys learn differently from girls at different ages, but the differences within a group will always be greater than the differences between groups. Instead education should focus on educating the population as a whole and teaching students to navigate through these differences. If anyone can prove that there is some benefit to separating genders at any point for any reason, I would love to hear 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 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-1271 | cmv | human | The idea of someone believing a book is literally a message from an omnipotent being intended for them and not even bothering to read it is just too fucking difficult to wrap my head around. If I believed such a message existed I would be reading it every day and attempting to learn as much as I could about it at the highest level possible. What can possibly explain these incongruent supposed beliefs and actual behavior? |
human-1035 | cmv | human | If they were really so torn up about it, they wouldn't be exploiting their grief for fake internet points that don't mean anything. People are literally whoring their fake emotions for karma. I absolutely hate it, and I don't really understand why somebody would post something like that other than to rake in upvotes. I could maybe understand wanting support from the community, but what does a hundred "hang in there"s from faceless entities on the internet mean in the wake of losing a loved one. CMV |
human-1903 | cmv | human | I've watched all of Anita Sarkeesians videos, and I even enjoyed and respected some of the points she made. That said, I think that it's pretty clear that her arguments rely on very skewed examples, and as such, her arguments hold little ground. .1. The crux of her arguments, all of them, rely on the statement that media and pop culture influences how we behave. For her videos, this 'influence' manifests as 'misogyny' and a 'sexist culture'. Yet, when I look to her videos, I don't see any established and respected articles that make claims that back up her argument. In fact, I've never seen any articles that establish this, and have always found it to be the opposite - the society inspires culture, not the other way around. .2. Very obvious cherry picking, and, at the very least, directly misleading descriptions of game mechanics. The most obvious ones to my mind, and for the sake of brevity, are those of Hitman, and Red Dead Redemption. In her discussion of Hitman, she makes the following statement: "players are meant to derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies from unsuspecting female characters, it's a myth concocted mix of sexual arousal, connected to the act of controlling and punishing representations of female sexuality" This is deliberately dishonest on her part. Her video shows the player character (presumed to be her), moving these female bodies around whilst she makes the above statement - as if the game encourages and supports the act of you killing these women and playing with their corpses. Even if we ignore the fact that, playing as the titular Hitman, you can move all corpses around for the sake of hiding them from view - the game actively incentivizes not killing innocent civilians via a penalization for every "mistake" you make in your mission. Sarkeesian states that these women were: placed in the environment for that singular purpose Whilst ignoring the contextual plot elements they give if you choose to listen to their dialogue, whilst ignoring their (mechanical) purpose in game as a segment to sneak past, to ignore the justification they give for the actual "assassination" due to the targets mistreatment of them. Sarkeesian states that gamers are: invite to explore The ways in which they could 'derive perverse pleasure' by 'desecrating' the womens bodies. This is like saying that game developers invite you to explore the thrill of falling to your death in any game where you can fall from large heights - just because you can do it in a game, doesn't mean it's something that the developers, makers, and larger culture at hand, support. For Red Dead, the only segment's she chooses to represent this game is one in which a 'whore' is being attacked by a drunkard - in which Sarkeesians character stands and watchs the women die, representing this as the 'de facto' way that scenario plays out. Again, like Hitman, she ignores the wider mechanics, the fact that the player is encouraged to stop the above happening via a reward system and so on. By cherrypicking examples like this, Sarkeesian represents these games as incredibly misogynistic and violently anti-woman. And this is something I find in her videos all the time. .3. Relying on faulty, unsubstantiated, subjective arguments. For example - she denoucnes Princess Peach as a 'damsel in distress' and a weak character, relying on the men around her to save her. Yet, ironically enough given the purpose of her videos is to examine cultural and gender problems, the way she measures Princess Peaches worth as a character is by comparing her to the men around her, and as such, to a limited list of 'positive' character traits. Princess Peach is a weak character because she isn't physically 'strong' and 'capable' like Mario - but this is a comparison that draws on very 'masculine' character traits. Why doesn't she praise Peach for being incredibly mentally strong for being able to so easily and capably withstand the problems life throws at her? Why doesn't she recognize the very clear power Peach holds as a 'Princess' in her kingdom - a kingdom, that by all accounts, love and admire her as a princess despite her penchance for being kidnapped? How does Peach not being a playable character make her a worse character? Why aren't the games in which Peach is playable recognized? Are only male characteristics worthy of applaud? The only way to be a 'good' female character, it appears, is to be a female with all the stereotypical characteristics of a male. I think this is a very flawed and damaging premise. Again, these sort of comments are things I find commonplace in her videos, and I'm using the example of Peach for the sake of brevety. .4. Ignoring other arguments. Sarkeesian uses 'tropes' to examine the various ways in which female characters are presented in videogames, in a very general way. These tropes, she argues, highlight a 'trend' in the way women are treated in stereotypical and sexist ways. But to do this ignores the very obvious, very well established, male tropes that make up in videogames. I have no problem with complaining or criticizing these tropes as overwrought, but I do take the statements that these tropes are 'harmful' with a lot of doubt. The idea that a 'trope' is a bad thing is one I find falacious - many tropes are simply easily identifiable, relatable, recognizable mechanics of storydesignfunction that help set a groundwork for whatever is aiming to be achieved. .5. Refusal to open dialogue. I understand Sarkeesian has suffered harrassment, but I do not believe that is justification for the complete lack of dialogue towards her critics. So, CMV! Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . 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-3853 | cmv | human | Why do liberals want to make people feel bad about their privilege rather than trying to uplift people so that everyone is privileged? Why not focus on the underprivileged people? The whole concept is all about making people feel guilty for something they weren't responsible for. The fact that the whole concept is based on "you can't see this because you have privilege" is also a problemthis makes it impossible to disprove the concept, rendering it meaningless. It used to be a good thing to have privilegesDriving is a privilege, not a right." Now, instead of focusing on giving privileges to everyone, liberals want everyone to lose their privileges. The liberal privilege discourse is explicitly about bringing people down rather than lifting people up. |
human-1564 | cmv | human | I've always been a massive fan of the steam system and was really excited when xbox announced they'd do it. Now I do think they could of worked on their offline play a little better but it's 2013 and the dvd drive HAS to go. Dvds are outdated and create complications and limitations with developing a game. They're slow to process and hold barely any space compared to a hddsdd. Why us everyone so obsessed with cddvds? People do need to remember when purchasing a game you aren't buying the game, you are buying a license to play the game and the developer can add whatever terms they want to it. EDIT: To avoid confusing, by DRM, i mean the system where you purchase a game, it's downloaded and locked to a single account. |
human-3951 | cmv | human | OK so I know this is controversial, but genetics are the things that make up a person. Thats why personalities and traits run through familys. If we constantly only let the smartest, most social, most athletic, beautiful and creative people breed, in a few thousand years, we will have an entire world full of Eisensteins that look like Brad Pitt or Halle Berry. In a way it's already happening. The smartest men marry the most beautiful women, aka trophy wives, and have children that are usually both smart and beautiful. Why is it that rich neighborhoods usually have the smartest and best looking people? Its natural selection at work. Yes, I know there are outliers, but only allowing the best genetics to transfer on will increase the probability of another George Cloony, Will Smith or Nicholi Tesla. Dog breeders have used the same methods to create smart, powerful and awesome dogs. Take a noble German Shepard vs a Corgi. They are both dogs, but bred for different traits. Corgis are the stupid clowns of the animal kingdom while German Shepards are smart, can lead a pack and are super athletic. Also, natural selection is already happening. Our current society values social skills above everything else. Thats why leaders are leaders, and followers are followers. The people with the gift of gab usually get the most girls. In turn, because of their wide selection ability they are able to pick the best traits that they want, effectively picking the best girls. Guys who can't communicateare awkward always complain about being forever alone and being a virgin. They are bumping their subpar communication skills out of the gene pool. I know of all sites reddit will hate this, but its the truth. Frat bros pull so many girls, while your typical engineer, although smart, sweats when he makes eye contact with a chick. |
human-3186 | cmv | human | Every year I do my taxes and show the government exactly how much I make how much I have spend and on what so they can decide how much money to take from me. Then they spend it on things I do not agree with. I think every year when we do taxes we should also get the ability to determine where we want it to go, such as 50 education 24 community building (roads, cleaning ect.) 5 military, you get the idea. The system could be either that your money goes directly into those sectors based on your preferences or having everyone's numbers get averaged out so you wouldn't be able to say that the rich are getting an unfair advantage in controlling the nation. Edit: I don't know why everyone thinks this but I do not live in the United States, I live in Canada. 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.