id stringlengths 7 27 | domain stringclasses 31 values | text_type stringclasses 2 values | original_text stringlengths 14 42.2k |
|---|---|---|---|
human-1590 | cmv | human | There is a large group of people right now, in the midst of the "scandal" surrounding the NSA's wiretapping practices, who are remaining silent. Comprised of computer scientists, technologists, analysts; and other people who logically juxtaposed technology and the Patriot Act - that knew this was happening. In fact, a good portion of them helped implement the technology that facilitates it. The software, hardware, and infrastructure that creates the capability that has been exposed did not just appear out of nowhere; nor was it created entirely inside the NSA. The fact that everyone is now so surprised that it takes place, and demonizing the NSA for it, is utterly ignorant of the colossal mandate placed upon the NSA by the American people. Imagine being a member of the agency tasked with foiling the most heinous acts of terror. Imagine the consequences of failure that those people accept as a burden. Imagine the overwhelming volume and complexity of digital communication. We're not talking about screening your shampoo bottles at the airport; this is a legitimate attempt to combat intelligent, sophisticated, dangerous people who would like nothing more than to see you, your family, and your families family dead. Do you honestly believe that the NSA is browsing about your Facebook page, logging your check-ins and conversations, archiving your meaningless tweets, just to destroy your privacy? It may be a harsh realization, but nobody, and I mean nobody, gives a shit about this information. Probably not even the people who you "share" it with. Your personal conversations, in the eyes of the national security, are utterly and absolutely useless. It is narcissistic and delusional to believe that your half-private, "personal" information is interesting to anyone but you. As it is, your gmail is combed to target ads, your facebook info the same, rinse-and-repeat - perhaps read a EULA sometime. If by the off chance that your personal communications were miraculously escalated to an NSA Analyst for inspection, it is almost a certainty that it would be discarded faster than a tabloid headline. So, I contend, that if all of my personal emails were logged and saved by the NSA (as they already are mirrored, within my email service providers servers), if every single one of my personal conversations; voice, data, text - were on record within some NSA server (as they already are, within various service providers archives), that I would gladly hand them over, if by the probabilities of scale, this mass harvesting of information would spare the families of 911 victims their burden. CMV. |
human-3614 | cmv | human | Bill Murray currently enjoys a level of fame among the 18-40 white American college-educated internet-using demographic that I feel should be reserved for, say, Rowan Atkinson I have no clue where this came from. He seems to just sleepwalk through his roles and use the same intonation for everything. It seemed to start around the time Lost in Translation came out. Somebody explain the appeal of this guy, please. For reference, here are the movies with Bill Murray that I've seen: Little Shop of Horrors Scrooged (when I was little) What About Bob (again, when I was little) Groundhog Day (when I was little.....) Ed Wood (actually enjoyed him in this) Zombieland (I didn't think he brought anything special) Moonrise Kingdom (I liked this movie, but I thought any actor could have done the same role) So, what should I watch to convince me that I'm wrong about Bill Murray, and he actually deserves his cult following? 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-1419 | cmv | human | I figure we could do with some more light-hearted fare around here! People I work with have been telling me to watch this show recently (I do love marathoning entire series) but I don't know if I can get into it. I don't mind action-heavy stuff, but the premise seems so implausible and the actingwriting seems very heavy-handed and lacks imagination. Bad thing happens, we magically have 24 hours to save the earth! Jack Bauer runs around acting angsty and shooting people until he happens to shoot the right one! His daughter is magically involved, and that makes it personal! However, I've only seen a few episodes here-and-there while my brothers watched it like 5 years ago. It seemed like every single time I sat down, it was the same scene. So, is it worth my time? Does it have a depth I'm not seeing? CMV |
human-3938 | cmv | human | I've heard people argue that watching Porn can be detrimental to a relationship, and to them I'd argue that these movies that promote unrealistic ideals of what love is can be just as if not more detrimental to a relationship as they claim Porn is. In fact, these movies serve the exact same purpose that Porn does. Gentleman, we all watch Porn, and if you say you don't, you're lying. The reason we watch Porn, even if we are in a relationship with a beautiful, all around amazing girl is because we have fantasies that we are either ashamed to bring up to our girl or want to distance them from completely because we feel they're better than that. I think women watch these sappy romantic movies for the same reasons. They have these fantasies about what love should be which have been perpetuated from the beginning (looking at you Disney) that we can't possibly fulfill. Those movies are Porn for a woman. If I'm in a relationship where I'm asked not to watch Porn, then would it not be fair for me to ask that she not watch her Porn (the romantic movies) 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-1942 | cmv | human | Only rich people or people who are supported by the rich have the chance to make it into the congress or parliament. Naturally, no poor or "regular" person can be the president (or a prime minister if you live in a different country). Voting is just an illusion and people who vote are simply naive. They are just the pawns in the game. Basically, voting for someone to represent you is the same as getting paid to vote for a certain individual except the fact that you are doing it for free. In order to become a candidate for any position (even for a candidacy); you need money and network. A regular person has no chance to find these unless heshe is a greedy human being and full of lies. I believe there should be one and only one public TV channel for politics. Anyone who wants to, could go on TV and tell their plans and how they would realize them. It should be illegal to lend money andor no "funding" agencies should be allowed. So, normal people will have the chance at least to be heard. No candidate should be allowed to drive in hisher van (and plane) along the country and give speeches. I am against political parties too. I believe in individuals not a group of money driven people. The honest people among them have no chance to survive. 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-2871 | cmv | human | Now let me preface this by saying that you will never meet a more avid enjoyer of steak than me, but its been dawning on me for some time that I'm essentially allowing animals to die for my own selfish pleasure. There is essentially no reason for me to eat meat beyond my own selfish desires. I don't need it to survive and can easily get all nutrients that I get from meat from other sources. Regardless of how humanely the animals are killed (which we all know is often not very humanely at all) the fact of the matter is that a living, breathing and at the very least partially sentient being is being killed for our pleasure, it's simply unnecessary for our survival any longer. CMV. |
human-1002 | cmv | human | I understand this is an emotive issue, but I am interested in why we consider apartheid morally repugnant but citizenship not so. Now - I understand that this has very practical aspects to it. For example - a country can support only a certain number of people, and people like to migrate to more prosperous countries. Perhaps you don't want them voting for officials when they have their "own" country's interest in mind. Perhaps you want to eliminate competition for "your people." But I am not convinced. Apartheid is the first readily available parallel I could think of, and I can't seem to pry the two apart. Why is it not ok to restrict the rights of people based on the colour of their skin, but ok to restrict it based on where they were born? Now - I don't want to address immigration in the US - or any other country - which is what I'm afraid this might devolve into. I'm asking about the ethics of citizenship. In the 18th century - in the US - Black people had to work as slaves and had little recourse. They could never dream of getting a job. Things got better eventually, and today the world is a much better place for it. But we still hold on to notions of citizenship. But you say - "you can become a citizen." You just have to do an arbitrary number of things to "prove" yourself. But this is no different than saying "I'll let race X do things race Y can do anyway, but they have to prove themselves first." |
human-2002 | cmv | human | Before you dismiss me as some angsty teenage atheist, please hear me out. I am actually interested in having my view changed. First, let me give you a little background to explain why I feel the way that I do about the concept of a supernatural being, particularly those held as deities by the major world religions. I was raised in a somewhat fundamentalist Christian household, and I fully believed the majority of what I was taught until around the age of 16. Even when I would question some things, I could usually find satisfactory answers to my questions through research or by talking to a pastor, youth group leader, family member or friend. However, as I got older and was became friends with people who held world views that starkly contradicted my own, I started questioning some of the more basic concepts of my faith- not out of rebellion or disdain, but simply out of a desire to learn more. In fact, at this point I thought that it was simply God's way of making me a stronger Christian, and that once I found the answers I was looking for I would be able to confidently explain them to anyone who asked me the same questions. However, as time went on, I continued to pray, read, and talk about the doubts I was having, but I ended up coming to the conclusion that there were irreconcilable contradictions within the Bible and within the concept of God (or at least the God of Christianity, at that point). When I stopped believing in God, it was not a decision, but simply a realization that I no longer thought that the things I had learned my entire life were completely true. That all happened a few years back. Since then I have had a few back-and-forth periods between trying to believe again and completely rejecting anything having to do with religion, but as I spent more time at college and had more time to think about and explore my beliefs, I have started to feel more and more that the idea of God is no more than a fairy tale to help people feel better about a world and a life that can be somewhat bleak at times. I still try to respect my family's beliefs, because they really do try to respect mine as well, but the more time I spend apart from the church, the more I realize how silly it all sounds to me. Additionally, I have now had some time to look into other religions as well, and despite their differences (and my admittedly limited knowledge of them compared to Christianity), I find that most of them fall into the same category- fantastical stories, which are well-intentioned and (arguably) decent as moral guides, but most likely largely fictional. I acknowledge that most of the figureheads of the religions (i.e. Jesus, Muhammad, etc.) were real people, but I think they were nothing more than philosophical leaders who were deified after their deaths. So now that I've explained why I don't believe in any god, here is what I do believe. I believe that science represents the best of our knowledge and understanding of the world. While we do not know everything, and we never will, I do not see that as a reason to fill in the gaps with supernatural explanation. As long as we continue to pursue more knowledge and advancement through the rigor of scientific experimentation and theory, we will learn as much as we can about the universe we live in, and that is good enough for me. I believe that when we die, we simply cease to exist, and as such I believe it is important to make as much out of this life as possible. I believe that any religion is a largely primitive and illogical construct created simply out of the human desire to believe that there is more to life than meets the eye, and that religion as a whole will largely disappear at some point in the future of the human race. You could change my view by convincing me of one of a few things. (A) I have only completely rejected religion because of my fundamentalist upbringing, and a lesser form of Christianity or some other religion might fit into a logical view of the world. (B) Science and religion (specifically one of the major world religions) are not mutually exclusive, and can instead complement one another for a more complete understanding of life. I should add that simply stating that believing in God would be a good thing will not be enough. Just because something would be nice or convenient does not mean I can force myself to believe it. Addendum: In case anyone is wondering, the reason I want to have my view changed is simple. Where I live, most people are religious, and I feel that it would greatly help my relationship with a lot of people if I at least believed in something, even if I never return to a full belief in Christianity. Furthermore, I am currently dating a girl who is absolutely amazing and with whom I mesh perfectly in just about every other way, but she is a Christian (although not nearly as fundamentalist as my family) and has expressed some concern about my lack of faith. While she has not tried at all to push me towards changing that aspect of myself, I would hate for that to be the one thing that stands between us and long term happiness, so I'm taking the initiative. That may seem like a cheap reason to want to change my entire world view, but it is what it is- and honestly, maybe having something to believe in wouldn't be so bad for me. So there you have it. I may be barking up the wrong tree since I know reddit doesn't have a whole lot of outspoken religious people, but if anyone feels up to the challenge, please Change My View. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . 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-3790 | cmv | human | (United States) Slightly relevant information: The United States has no federal legislation specifically addressing human genetic modification (either germline and somatic). However, the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and the Public Health Service Act have been interpreted as providing sufficient authority for federal health agencies to regulate research on human genetic modification. Federal oversight for human genetic modification is characterized by the existence of numerous and often overlapping regulatory reviews required by local and federal agencies, such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Recombinant In addition to the abovementioned legislation, all institutions receiving federal funds must comply with federal rules regarding the protection of human subjects in medical research. These rules also apply to research conducted pursuant to an investigational new drug application (IND) or to support an application for a new drug or biological product. Following international standards, key aspects of the federal regulations are a review of research protocols by an Institutional Review Board, informed consent by research subjects, and periodic reporting Relevant information: that the current ban on federal funding of embryo research seemingly prohibits conducting germline genetic modification interventions. Others argue that the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee (RAC) would have to assert jurisdiction over such research protocols in order for some of this research to be precluded from receiving federal funding. Under the 1996 Dickey-Wicker amendment it is illegal to use federal funds to support research "in which human embryos are created, destroyed, discarded, or knowingly be subjected to risk of injury or death greater than allowed for research on fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 46.204 and 46.207, and subsection 498 (b) of the Public Health Service Act." Moreover, the Dickey-Wicker amendment defines a human embryo as "any organism, not protected as a human subject under 45 CFR 46 as of the date of enactment of the governing appropriations act, that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes or human diploid cells." Summary: It is essentially illegal and improbable to pursue and administer germline genetic modification to embryos. My view is that not only should it be legal, but that it is immoral to not allow it as an option. Furthermore, I may even take it to the extent that humans are morally obligated to pursue uses of germline genetic engineering for the betterment of the species as a whole. I believe this because all counterarguments (religion, eugenics, equality, caste system, danger, risk, "designer baby are based on faulty or irrelevant information, and fall short of justifying the ban of a beneficial practice. The practice is beneficial because it saves lives, creates an improved human species (our goal since the beginning), actually increases equality and levels the playing field, and provides long term benefits for the population in general, as well as begins a process that could potentially make the human species overall better. |
human-2626 | cmv | human | I'm not taking the statement to be that spiritual traditions are actual drugs, but that "religion is the opiate of the masses" figuratively since collectively they function as a drug can. How various spiritual traditions affect you mentally in the way drugs can: 1. For people who think "this is how it should be" because they consider their life a gift not from their parents but from a god or force, actually blunt their ability to feel deep despair. This despair would kick in when they really see something wrong that they disagree with, and so while it seems to be beneficial in a control and personal health sense, it actually gets you to not react poorly to some bad things in exactly the way you would normally that might actually cause you to do something about it. 2. Spiritual traditions encourage worrying, because even though most contain some wisdom about not worrying, they also involve the idea that what you do may be wrong according to a non-manmade law. This means that if you think gays are ruining the country and tempting souls away from god, your spiritually given worry is actually the problem, and it is helping you choose to think that another person's dating life can harm. Worrying puts you out of your best mindset anyway: joy. Any joy you get from thinking that you've followed the right non-manmade laws will pale in comparison to real joy. It's like the difference between someone thinking "oh why am I airing out the sheets this gay couple slept on in my bed and breakfast last night, I shouldn't be doing this, damn sheets, thank the lord I never became gay," and so on, versus someone thinking "ah first exercise of the day, these sheets look interesting flapping in the wind with all their dimensions reflecting the light," and other things that express real joy and stand for you being in the moment. 3. Spiritual traditions ask you to accept things that are not good, like that going to hell is bad but the it you're supposed to be believing in order to not go to hell, is itself the very thing presupposing the existence of hell. There are other not good things, like focusing on whether the people around you are spiritually involved like you, rather than actual good things like self-expression and open communication, healthy lifestyles and academic knowledge. 4. Spiritual traditions can cause you to become complacent or justify disinterest in important things like how to do things you don't do well, or how to stop doing the things that don't solve what you're doing them to solve, and in the traditional sense of "opiate of the masses" can emotionally comfort you about making the decision not to become better in many ways. How various spiritual traditions can affect you physically the way drugs can: 1. Spiritual traditions can have you acting like your own bodily health is less important than souls, afterlives, penance, etc. Not all drugs have harmful physical effects when taken at regular dosages, but you don't have to OD to see where the similarity is. If sins that damn your soul, or actions that drop your next karmic stage of existence, or whatever the idea that is more important than your body happens to be, allow you to adopt a lifestyle where you actually don't even plan to have a healthy lifestyle then those spiritual traditions are in your way. Now, sure being unhealthy may often have a root cause other than spiritual traditions, that doesn't mean that the spiritual traditions aren't allowing you an easier time of keeping yourself from planning since your concept of importance has you below other things that exist when you have no body. 2. Spiritual traditions can even cause you to support things that cause death, like not seeking certain medical treatments, or endorsing the killing of other ethnicities or spiritual traditions or nations. How various spiritual traditions can affect you socially the way drugs can: 1. Spiritual traditions can cause you to treat your place of worship like a social club, which usually follows all the social club rules: some people aren't allowed, ostracization is something everyone will get in on, and people come to make relationships for business or among families rather than out of a celebration of beliefs. 2. Spiritual traditions can cause you to distrust other ways of life, and actually not seek to understand other people or customs but rather treat them as odd and not something you want when you don't even know anything about them. 3. Spiritual tradition can cause you to restructure relationships around spiritual ideas, rather than what might actually make for a good relationship. This means as you're growing up and finding out how to be close to people, and how to care for people, a spiritual tradition can get in the way of what you discover works best for you and brings you the most joy. 4. Spiritual traditions can encourage you to not turn people in for crimes if you're the one who knows they did something illegal but you're all of the same faith. TL;DR: I see spiritual traditions supporting and suffused with many bad things that allow it to operate as the opiate of the masses, mentally, emotionally, physically, and socially. More bad things than I have mentioned as well. I consider good things to be humanitarian aid, healthy lifestyles, cultivating love, intellectualism, open communication, self-expression, sustainable growth, taking inspiration from the world around you, conservationism (environmental protection), social acceptance, good timing, not taking things for granted, not supporting or acting out abuse or deception, religious freedom, national defense, business protections, community activism, and humor. |
human-2491 | cmv | human | I am talking mainly about 1st world countries here. Basically from what I can tell in the last half a century the age for having children for most people has gone up from 15-30 to 25-60, further more there are a lot of fertility treatments that allow women that sometimes have a less fit reproductive system to reproduce normally. I know that all ovaries are formed before puberty but the genetic material they contain deteriorates over time, and it's the same deal with the genetic material in sperm. A child born when his parents are 50 is statistically more likely to have minor or major problem due to his genes than a child born when his parents were 18. Now adding to that the fact that mentally ill people are allowed to reproduce, and many people that wouldn't have hit puberty, be able to deliver a baby or live past 20-30 are now having kids because modern medicine keeps them alive and relatively well. Also a huge of women seem to be against abortion even if the child is known to have a genetic issue or is likely to have one. And we struggle to keep even the weakest of kids alive. With all this in mind, and considering that 60 years ago basically non of this was happening, I sometimes think that it is very likely that within 30-50 years more we might have a very depressing generations of kids born across 1st world countries. So anyone with knowledge in biology, medicine or what have you. Please give me the counter arguments to what I said, which I assume are many, and try changing my view. |
human-4122 | cmv | human | I believe that every country would be better if they had a little more nationalist ideas. There are some excess of course (ie translating everything into the country's language) but there are abuses aswell. I live in a country where there is the absolute lack of nationalism, and i hear "the other countries, they have it well. You should go out there" too often. I think that the people who believe in it are ignorant. If there's no academic reason (lets face it, some countries have better education than others, which makes it acceptable to go there), you should absolutely avoid at all costs moving to some other country. Even if it means having some menial (sry for my typing) job. It's your country. You help it and you take your enjoyment from it, in good and bad times. If you decide to move countries because "the times are rough" you are a coward who cant fight for anything. You cannot simply give up the whole beauty that is a culture you grow in, its your job to improve your country and culture. Dare to CMV? |
human-2581 | cmv | human | If I can begin with disclaimers: I endorse no illegal activity depicted in the show. I endorse none of the 'pack mentality' or 'macho-power' roles in the show. Neither do I necessarily endorse the hierarchical relationships between men which so often result in pissing matches for the point of proving who is the better at being a 'man'. I am focused solely on the relationship between Jax and Opie. In the show, Jackson (Jax) and Opie have grown up together with their respective father (figures) being part of the original 9 who started the Sons of Anarchy Motorcycle Club, a 1, that is to say criminal, enterprise. In the show, Jax and Opie operate in a manner showing their brotherhood. Without sharing any spoilers for the show (which I recommend above and beyond all other shows), the interaction between the two men represents what I believe the relationship between two heterosexual men in Western society should be at its core. The support each other in all things. They stand behind one another in their decisions. They express direct affection and love for one another, both in physical expressions and in verbal. They are dedicated to one another's families. And most importantly they are able to express conflict, when they do disagree, in a way that allows space, discussion, and ultimately, a statement of love and devotion to one another, even if there is a resolution to the issue that doesn't fit both or either's view of the situation. I would say that there are two ways to discuss this: Either change my view that their relationship is the best possible example or Change my view that their relationship is a valid example at all. So, lets begin. CMV. |
human-3407 | cmv | human | This was sparked by a conversation I was having participating in on Facebook about Iggy Azalea, in which someone said "She's definitely trying to fit some "ghetto-fab black girl" stereotype, and that itself is unquestionably appropriating." Whether or not either of those contentions is true, I feel like (in virtually all situations) cultural appropriation is completely fine. Originally my contention was going to be that it's "harmless," but it is pretty easy to see that it does cause harm, in so far as some people are upset or offended. I think these reactions are largely unreasonable. Seeing someone use aspects of your culture that they enjoy should not be offensive, even if (for the most part) they are ignorant of it's origins or meaning. It's easy to think of special scenarios. Say there was a hat that was historically used by people who tried to commit genocide on a particular ethnic group, but now, as a sign of reverence for their ancestor's struggles, these people symbolically wear the hat once a year during a special festival. And during that festival some Westerners saw it, thought it was cool, and it became all the rage in Chicago. It is pretty easy to see why this would be problematic (though I do still struggle with this example, since the westerners don't have any bad intentions are simply making stylistic choices, a large part of me still just wants to tell that ethnic group to "get over it," but I can acknowledge that this is, at least to some degree, inappropriate). But that example is very extreme, and virtually all real world examples of "appropriation" are much more similar to white people using aspects of ghetto culture, which just seems harmless. I dunno, I think I explained myself poorly, which means that I probably have a weak case, and it should be pretty easy to win me over. I guess I think there is certainly, at least in theory, a point at which appropriation is not cool, but I think that point is very rarely actually reached. Tell me why that point should be closer than I seem to think it should be. 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-2488 | cmv | human | To clarify my title; by suspending elections I mean the government currently in power at the time of the election should retain power until a new election is required by the respective nations constitution. Institution of such legislation would generally be positive for the democratic process. First is the highly philosophical point, do people deserve democracy if the majority of people can not be bothered to sustain it through the most basic act of voting. The ability to vote is the responsibility of the citizens of a democracy, they must excise their responsibility to vote in order to retain their right to do so. Secondly if such legislation were enacted it would provide a major reason for the average citizen to participate in the democratic process. The vast majority of democratic citizens greatly value the fact they live in a democratic nation but many do not participate in the democratic process. Generalizing, an example of this can be found in abundant patriotism of states like USA and Canada, not all of these particularly minded people are turning out for election day. My third point ties in heavily with my second; partisanship and far leftright politics are the norm in states like the USA and Canada because people who fall on the far leftright feel strongly enough about politics to actually vote. The average citizen of a democratic state is generally politically moderate and proud of their nations democratic practices and as such would be horrified if they were suspended. If such legislation were to be enacted the average voter would be more likely to turn up on election day in order to ensure the democratic process they are so proud of is maintained. The net result of this would be a reduction of partisan politics and an increase in the election of moderate candidates that reflect the average voter. 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-1298 | cmv | human | Within many subreddits, especially worldnews and politics, the articles that present the unbiased facts end up getting buried while the hyperbolic articles always bubble to the top. as a redditor who wants understand the whole issue, I often find myself frustrated that it's nigh impossible to find a source for manymost of the claims made. for example, the "cia snooping on the senate" subject left me frustrated by both reddit and major news outlets since nobody linked to a source. they mention "in the unclassified report by..." but nobody links to the report. I'm no better informed after reading The Guardian article and reading the reddit comments than I was before; each creates their own echo-chamber for advancing a particular view, but nobody is giving sources or facts, which leads to a biased, and often wrong, understanding that wouldn't have existed before (counter productive). (as an side, is there a subreddit where I can reward people with reddit gold for finding me information?) |
human-1305 | cmv | human | It makes you forget things, such as important points if say, you're doing a chemistry report. It furthermore makes you sloppy with calculations grammar. Last but not least, I believe that Marijuana will make you unable to focus, therefore not doing the work assignments that you should be doing. I am open-minded and willing to hear why it might not be. EDIT: I mean as in "smoke marijuana, and still be able to do proper work." I live in Denmark. |
human-2950 | cmv | human | When a person is arrested, we say they are "innocent until proven guilty." While this may be true in some senses, it is also a major lie. Unless there is a bond set that you can afford to pay, you stay in jail for months, if not years, awaiting trial. 1. Being in jail itself is a punishment. If you are eventually found not guilty, you may not get any kind of reparation for that unwarranted punishment. 2. The punishment can turn out to be afar harsher one then many of us realize. A news search will quickly show you mountains of evidence that people in jail are likely to be physically hurt, psychologically tortured (i.e. kept in solitary confinement) or killed. You may be sick or become sick and denied medical treatment. And if you are in jail for an extended period of months, even if nothing especially bad happens to you there, you are likely to lose your job and even your home because you cannot earn income or pay your bills. If we are going to take the legal principle of presumed innocence seriously, we need to radically change the way we treat people who are accused of crimes. EDIT: It has been pointed out several times that I have been mistaken in my understanding of "the legal principle of presumed innocence." It only applies in reference to how a trial is conducted. Otherwise, the politicalethical problem remains. |
human-2088 | cmv | human | Aside from the massive pressure for women to be painfully thin, sometimes to the point of eating disorders, there exists, particularly in the top-flight, a culture where dancers are expected to flirt with and even sleep with directors for top parts, even where their talent alone merits consideration. Bribery is also common, with young dancers saying they're forced out of bigger companies because they simply cannot afford the sort of money which changes hands to secure roles. Then there's the injuries which can end careers, the arthritis and joint problems, the deformed toes and feet caused by years of dancing. So, can someone please change my view as to how ballet is art? |
human-1196 | cmv | human | I've always know about what happened to the Hindenburg, but I never knew that it was a Nazi airship until today. If it were a different group of people on the airship then I would have more compassion for the victims of the crash but since the Nazis did such horrible things to millions of innocent people, why should I feel bad if they die? Wouldn't this be kind of good for the Allies anyways? And also, I understand that the ship was supposed to touchdown in new Jersey. Why would the US- a member of the Allies who are against the Nazis and the Axis- allow one of their blimps to land in the United States? So to summarize: The Nazis were cruel, why should we feel sorry for them? (Main Question) Why did the US allow them to land in our country anyways? Edit: Good points. I didn't realize that the nazis were just the government at the time. Thanks! |
human-1092 | cmv | human | First, there's the issue of an unromantic wedding night. Neither of them know what they are doing, the girl will be in pain, and the guy will be lucky to last longer than 10 seconds. Why not get the awkwardness out of the way earlier? The main issue is sexual incompatibility. If a couple has never sexually experimented with each other or another couple, they may be stuck in a boring, sexless marriage because they are incompatible and didn't realize it sooner. Upholding a personal or religious conviction is not worth risking such big relationship issues. I think couples should have lots of premarital sex experience, and perhaps have a few other partners before settling down. |
human-3988 | cmv | human | My understanding is that since the end of World War 2, no massive scale wars between superpowers have fought because the mutual destruction possibility, the scenario that if someone launches nuclear weapons the other nuclear owning powers will follow suit with immense destruction for everybody. Many have proposed that this is a plus side of nuclear weapons, that fear of destruction have averted the mas casualties from the previous wars. However my opinion is that on the long run, that will hurt the human race immensely, and if we could change history I would prefer nuclear weapons never existed . My main points are: - "Proxy Wars are more destructive than we think": The Cold War have shown that superpowers will still fight for dominance, but in a more covert way.Instead of massive head-on wars like WW1 and WW2 we had coups and proxy wars, where the super powers would fight (or covertly support) under the pretext of helping, one side of the other, usually leading in civil wars. While individually the number of casualties aren't compared with total war, those clashes in Asia,Africa and Europe took a lot more time (sometimes decades) to subside, created permanent bad blood in some countries that could spur new clashes all the time (spilling more blood) and atrocities where commonplace due to the inherent nature of civil war. - "Modern warfare is less destructive than World War standards": Following the previous statement, I would like to point out that destruction of property and loss of life is greater in these proxy wars than if we had two modern superpowers fighting each other openly. As Napoleonic tactics where obsolete by WW1, so the 20th century tactics of mass Conscription, Carpet bombing and total war are obsolete now. Most modern armies are based on surgical strikes on tactical and strategic targets crippling the enemy the opening days of a war, by air force or special trained teams and the rest of the army is usually used for establishing control of the conquered area. I believe that civilian centers would be spared compared to WW2, so a conventional WW3 would be less destructive than the ongoing proxy wars. For example, from a cynical view, if Russia could pull all its might against Ukraine instead of using "concerned citizens," the war would be over by now, with much less loss of life and property. - "A Nuclear War will be always possible.": Finally my major concern is that a Global Nuclear War is never out of the question, and the results of one would make a conventional one look like a tea party. We cant guarantee that the political situation for the following years or decades will be the same as the previous. The stalemate of the official borders right now while people and cultures are ever changing and moving can create suppressed situations that might erupt. A mad man might be elected President or the public may feel invincible by patriotic fervor causing a launch. Numerous times [we have avoided a launch in the nick of time] . The destruction of a Nuclear War would be on an unprecedented scale, and this time no country will be unaffected to rebuild. After each clash in the previous centuries, some power or other would rise to fill the power void. However, in this case, if the bombs start flying there aren't going to be an unaffected USA to rebuild Europe, a safe South america and Switzerland or a Soviet Union to push the technology race onwards. We might even have an extinction event. In conclusion , while in a personal level I wouldn't like my country or any other whatsoever to experience war again, in a macro level if I could do the impossible to dismantle all the Nuclear weapons I would do it even if that spurred a World War. Between a conventional World War 3 and Nuclear Detente I would prefer the War, for the future of the Human race as a whole. 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-2095 | cmv | human | everyone lives in their box, and only few people are willing to open it and 'become lucid'. everything we create is a construction. life is a void, too many variables, and only some connections between them can last. inevitably those connections will die. i think everyone should experience the world of pure contingency so that people are not bound to their ideologies (religiosity, dogmatism, state-ismpolitic etc.) so whole heatedly. i guess there is two arguments here: the first being a 'given' (or not)..that lsd can help promote this type of deep questioning of everything you ever knew. and two, which can be separated into a strong and a weak one: the strong one being that 'everyone' who can try it should try it. the weak one being that 'most people' good luck, lets remain civil: also i dont really want to hear stuff promoting the drug war or debate that at all. its probably the case that if you believe in this, then we have nothing really to talk about lol.. you could still give it a try? |
human-3443 | cmv | human | I went through the whole shabang here in California and can say definitively that men have to pay for their own lawyer and court fees just to sue the biological mother for half custody (if she refuses to give you your god given right in the first place). This to me represents institutional sexism. I believe men should be allowed the option to be there at least half of the time for the child. In my case, i was 19 years old with no ability to pay for anything. It was up to my parents to contact a lawyer and pay for everything so that i could maintain the relationship that i have with my own son. She opposed so it went to court, so 15,000 and 3 years later i had 50 say in my own son's life. I (my parents) had to pay 15k just so that i could have the rights that should have been given to me in the first place. I don't understand why this is even in question after having gone through it but seriously i challenge someone to change my mind. |
human-1170 | cmv | human | Like many of you reading this, I'm concerned about our educational system, whether you are from the US or not. There is always room for improvement. That said, I think homeschooling should be illegal (or severely restricted, i.e. tight requirements for testing, certification for the parents, standard curricula that mimics those taught in public schools) for a few reasons: 1.) From personal experience, homeschooling severely retards the growth of the homeschooled in terms of social and intellectual development. 2.) Homeschoolers do not have access to the same education as students in public school. They cannot share the same level of facilities, expertise in teaching, nor access to different opinions (the basis of higher education) when they are homeschooled. 3.) in an age of interconnectedness, interpersonal skills are paramount. Knowledge of how to deal with people is essential in every job. Being at home interacting with a few people every day does not allow the student to learn these skills. 4.) Motivation: Homeschoolers do the work because Mom or Dad tell them to. People who go to school do not. When they get to college, and Mommy or Daddy is no longer there, which one has a higher likelihood of success? In short, homeschooling should no longer be an option as it denies the child the basic right to an education that prepares the pupil for society. Instead, it is a breeding ground for narrow-mindedness, and limited social development. CMV reddit |
human-1563 | cmv | human | Every time I make a choice, I am simply determining what I want most. so my choices are always determined by the most desired option. Because I can not adjust my desires , my desires are out of control, but if I want to adjust my desire, doing THAT would be my greatest desire. If someone was born with my brain and my body and my upbringing, but they were the one that "felt" my consciousness, they would experience making all of the same choices that I do. |
human-1139 | cmv | human | My brother nearly died of an encephalitic brain fever caused by a multi-dose vaccine. I know personally of the dangers and I don't think it is fair that all vaccine injuries are relegated to the taxpayer funded VICP. This system makes legal precedent against a vaccine producer nearly impossible. I think these companies should take responsibility for what they create and stand behind the safety of their products. I also believe all vaccines should be independently tested, preferably in another country by an unrelated institute or University laboratory. I say this because the pharmaceutical industry has unsettling lobbying power and very close ties with regulators. The current paradigm has too many conflicts of interest. I also believe steps should be taken to get rid of carcinogenic adjuvants, and heavy-metal preservatives in vaccinations if at all possible. Especially in infantile inoculations. |
human-3720 | cmv | human | I strongly dislike the character of Ron Weasley. He seems to always be bickering, he leaves the others when they need him a lot, he lacks the maturity of Harry and Hermione, and he is always driven by instinct as opposed to rational thought. Hermione provides extensive intelligence and practical application to the situations the trio experience. His only seemingly redeeming characteristics are his loyalty, which can be questioned after his desertion in the 7th book, and his knowledge of wizarding history that Harry and Hermione lack as they were raised by muggles. He plays such a large role in the novels but I don't understand why JK Rowling didn't give him more redeeming qualities. I want to like him, I just don't. Please feel free to 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-2752 | cmv | human | To start off, I am of mixed race. My mother is Mexican, my father is white. While I have not experienced racism that can be comparable to someone of darker skin, I have experienced it. From both sides, both as a white and a Mexican. I basically am 'othered' by both sides. But that's not what this is about. A lot of people, when pointing out the racism people of color go through, mention 'reverse racism' (or racism aimed towards whites by people of color instead of racism aimed towards people of color by whites or other people of color). However, I think that's kind of a stupid point to make in the face of the systematic oppression POC face, and that, having experienced it myself, pales in comparison. I am in no way saying that white people don't experience prejudice nor is this prejudice that white people experience a good thing. For me, when a white person (and I have been discriminated against for being half white in a Mexican community) gets called a honkey, or a cracker, or whatever or is even bullied or picked on for being white, its not because people of color genuinely think that because that person is white, that person is below them. I think it's just bullying because that person is different from them, that person is not one of us. It is also in response to the racism that they face everyday- in order to escape racism from whites, they take preventative measures even if they don't realize it. On the other hand, being called something like beaner, spic, or wetback is much more hurtful (I've been called this when in predominantly white communities). When people say these things, when people make jokes about being Mexican (and jokes about race are fine at times, but some cross the line), when I am seen as just a piece of Latina ass, it is because people see me as below them because of my skin color and where my family came from. It carries more weight than calling me a cracker does. And it will always hurt more. |
human-3120 | cmv | human | First off, I live in a country that has a public health system, so I am not referring to health insurance in this. I just dont see how having insurance is better then paying for something out of your own savings. I feel in the vast, vast majority of cases you would save money this way. I feel that having insurance for a very, very unlikely scenario is just the same as gambling. I also feel that insurance companies will make it as hard as possible for you to make a claim and will try and reject you as much as possible (eg: 'Act of God. I feel that government bodies who are supposed to regulate and monitor these such things have no teeth and dont make it any better. Even if you were to try to claim insurance for something very expensive, I do not think they would pay you. I believe the amount of claims that you would make during your lifetime will never exceed even half of what you pay for insurance. Everyone tells me I should get it so obviously there is something in it. I just need to CMV! |
human-3155 | cmv | human | I feel like people who choose such majors are setting themselves up for failure in corporate America. Complaining about not having a job or working at fast food joints after graduating is their fault. These majors are useless in a world that favors degrees which are pragmatic and useful (i.e. IT, engineering, health sciences). I've noticed that in the current economic situation, those with a degree in the "hard" sciences hold their own better following graduation. The rigorous and competitive nature that entail these majors directly forces students to learn and adapt, lest they fail. This is not to say that in the "soft" sciences, competition is absent. The difference is that in the hard sciences, competitive nature is the standard, in which holding a decent GPA, having the proper techniques that (some say unfortunately) allow oneself to succeed, however unfortunate the circumstances (i.e. throw someone under the bus) are present. These skills extend themselves into the workplace environment and more, especially with the current standard of outsourcing jobs to other countries. "Soft" sciences inherently promote a lackadaisical approach, simply because of the lack of a competitive structure in which students perceive their majors. |
human-1224 | cmv | human | As far as I can tell thus far, there are two major challenges to this view. "Pfft. The US? US foreign policy doesn't promote humanism! It promotes anti-Americanism!" I agree with this to a degree, but I consider it a political problem. I would argue that the United States is alone among the superpowers in that it at least tries to promote humanism and has established general incentives to do so. Sometimes those efforts are misguided, other times they're partially or wholly discarded in favor of efforts to secure the national defense (ostensibly if not materially, as with the Iraq war and other iterations of 'just war doctrine'.) Still, I think this view is misguided because it treats the United States as monolithic. Yes, there is a struggle to bring product to market, but there is also a struggle over whether to ship the red, white or blue model. The second notable objection I've fielded is "Pfft. The United States is hardly an indispensable nation. They may have the biggest armed forces and economy, but it's all underwritten by China. They have the largest welfare state, aging population, bloating prisons, abysmal outcomes, food deserts and tremendous injustice. Hardly a beacon of hope." If find this objection much more compelling because I find myself coming back to question of "who else?" Obviously that's basically saying that America is the indispensable nation because America is the indispensable nation. My next best response, I suppose, is to say that the failure of the United States would throw the world into severe depression (the US role in the global economy has increased since the depression) and conflict (the power vacuum that would obviously ensue from the collapse of the most powerful military in the world.) Pax Americana isn't perfect and I wouldn't say that it were, however, it is the most viable path to a hegemony of humanistic values. For this thread when I refer to 'humanism' I'll be talking about [this.] It's not a perfect representation of how I conceptualize humanistic values, but I have to clarify and commit to a defined idea in order to present myself to you as an interlocutor in good faith. |
human-1908 | cmv | human | This is a long-held belief of mine and just one of many gripes about movie theaters. Movie theater seats are first-come, first-serve. If I want to get there 20 minutes early for the ability to leave a one-seat buffer on either side of me, that's my choice. That's the seat I have chosen. If you show up after the scheduled start time of the movie, I believe that you forfeit any ability you may have had to kindly ask people to scoot over to create more seats for you to fit. If you want to guarantee two seats together at a popular movie, show up earlier. If you're late, you should take what you can get and not be rude by asking someone who has been sitting there already for 30 minutes to move over to accommodate you. The trigger of this particular rant occurred a few nights ago when a THEATER EMPLOYEE escorted late arrivals into the theater 20 minutes late and proceeded to shout at the people in front of us to move over to make two seats for these people. If it had happened to me, I would have ripped the theater manager a new asshole. To be clear, I am literally saying that this practice should be disallowed entirely. People should NOT BE ABLE to ask others to move if the movie or previews have already started. And the request certainly should not be coming from a theater employee. If you're late, take what you can get and don't be an asshole. Things that will not change my view: saying that leaving seats on either side of you is also an dick move saying that even if everyone gets there early, someone is going to be out of luck pointing out that disallowing this practice is likely unenforceable |
human-3655 | cmv | human | As defined by feminist philosopher, Martha Nussbaum, objectification exists through 7 compents instrumentality: the treatment of a person as a tool for the objectifier's purposes; denial of autonomy: the treatment of a person as lacking in autonomy and self-determination; inertness: the treatment of a person as lacking in agency, and perhaps also in activity; fungibility: the treatment of a person as interchangeable with other objects; violability: the treatment of a person as lacking in boundary-integrity; ownership: the treatment of a person as something that is owned by another (can be bought or sold); denial of subjectivity: the treatment of a person as something whose experiences and feelings (if any) need not be taken into account. The first problem, I feel, lies with the "instrumentality" component, as I feel it fails to make a proper distinction between acts that are or aren't objectifications due to being too large a concept. All conscious acts we can take part in are inspired through motivational goals; either we do things for the result that is spawned from taking those actions or we do them for the actions themselves, either way they have a purpose. Knowing that the choice to interact is a conscious action, all our purposeful interactions with others would logically lead to us using them as tools for our goals, whether it would simply to obtain someone's company or in the job market where we are always either tools for the people to which we provide services or for our superiors or using them as tools to generate income. The logical conclusion, I feel, would be that all acts are objectification which I am sure those who use that term don't mean. The second problem would be in the 4th aspect. I think whether one is replaceable seems to be quite dependent on another's subjective value judgements on one's capabilities and traits. Furthermore, I doubt anybody is irreplaceable as I am sure for most of our valued traits there are a set of people who share them. For example, you are most likely not the only person who followed a certain curriculum in college that makes you qualified for greater levels of education or a job or has similar experience in the field which makes you technically replaceable. Ultimately, just like the previous component fungibility fails to delineate objectively what is and what isn't objectification due to subjective nature of value judgements that are required to make judgements on the importance of a position and our inherent lack of uniqueness in abilities. My 3rd problem is with the 2nd component. I obviously don't advocate slavery or rape, but I have a problem with the term "lacking," as a lack ,which doesn't simply mean not having something, implies an inferior quantityquality to a certain amount that would be ideal, however, the amount in question is never specified or described . A distinction, I think needs to be made, as I feel our capacity for self-determination is inherently hindered by societal constructions, for example not wanting to go against cultural norms (which all societiesgroups have) to fit in or needing a job of any kind to provide for yourself, and we obviously wouldn't say we're all objectified. I don't mind the usage of components 3, 5 and 6, but I feel my response 7th component would resemble the one I had for the 2nd in terms or societal contracts as I feel the fulfillment of one's feeling goes hand in hand with self-determination. Other ways to objectify people have been described such as "reduction to bodyappearance," however, I feel that from a materialistic standpoint the first (body) is meaningless and that reduction implies that appearance is the only important component in a person's however another observer could always find other elements that just as important in the "objectified" person's actions. For example, you could look at a supermodel and see charismaattitude that you find similarly important,hence whether one is "reduced" to something lies in the observer's perception. EDIT: I apologize in advance if I am too verbose or long-winded 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-3011 | cmv | human | First of all this isnt about whether it exists, right now debating its existence is like debating the shape of the earth. Because of whats known as a feedback loop. Every time the ICCP brings out a new report, things are much worse than was predicted. This is because [feedback loops] perpetually accelerate global warming. They create a vicious cycle where the effects of climate change themselves add to global warming, a terrifying example being the [greenhouse gases trapped under ice sheets all over russia and the artic] which are essentially a ticking timebomb. I believe that this problem could be as apocalyptic as some people say it will, as there is a critical point we are approaching where the feedback loops will be enough on their own to continue climate change at an accelerated rate, perpetuating itself, even if we do everything we can to stop it. |
human-1243 | cmv | human | I really don't get all the hype for the movie the Fifth Element. I think I almost fell asleep during the film at least once and while I get it's not supposed to be the most believable sci fi film I still didn't find it that funny or interesting. Normally, I'm a fan of Bruce Willis and Luc Besson but I just could not get into this film. And I am normally a huge fan of sci fi and action movies. I'm open to fans trying to convince me of why I should like the movie and maybe rematch the movie because I know there are a lot of fans of the film on reddit! |
human-3427 | cmv | human | What a played out and over discussed topic no one is even close to being in the mood to debate for the 10,000th time on Reddit, right? A particular rTIL [post] and the comments therein really got under my non existent foreskin today and I'd like to talk about it. Our community is more and more dominated by immature, black and white viewpoints and real discussion has gone down the toilet. Here's one of our last bastions wherein we really have to make solid, well thought out arguments over issues like this, as dead as the horse may appear. Special thanks to the mod team for automatically filling in the CMV: portion to our titles. That's new since my last submission. My argument: It's obviously a EuroUS issue. Very low Jewish population on Reddit, as reflected by real life. From the outside, we're the weird ones who mutilate our new-born sons with a cruel procedure that makes them like us in this weird cult situation thing or whatever. This is often compared to female genital mutilation, that no one I've come across in my 30 years on this planet actually supports. We can all agree that the purpose and implication of that horrific act needs to stop, especially when we examine the aftermath and the intention behind the deed. I don't want to even bother comparing the two. "Strangely," there were exactly 2 guys in my US Navy boot camp division (10 years ago) who weren't circumcised out of 88. This was a time when penises were on display and in full swing. There was no covering up the fact that the strongest imaginable majority of able-bodied American mens' fathers saw this as 100 normal, my father included. Myself included, as a father of a horrifically mutilated child who I'm sure will live an unfulfilled life of constantly numb penis syndrome or whatever you people imagine. My view is that if I'm the supposed victim in this scenario, one might think I'd use this completely free speech platform to speak out against the perpetrators who've done me wrong. I've got a unique opportunity, unlike most of the poor girls whose genitals have been mutilated for different reasons. Here's my chance to beg that you come to my rescue. But why... Why don't I want your beautiful white horse to arrive, carrying you, in your shining white armor, to rescue me from this tragic, deformity of a life I'm faced with, having no foreskin? How could it be that I'm a contented free American father who's never missed it for one second? Is it possible that I prefer what I consider a normal looking penis in the society I grew up in, and that no actual cruelty was inflicted on my person? Could it even be that I'm in fact grateful for what was done to me before I was faced with the decision myself? Come sweep me off my feet with reasons why I should hate my asshole father and stuff and my son should hate me because we all look the same and we're all happy about it in the best nation on earth. And don't you dare pierce your daughter's ears before she can sign her name. The hole might eventually close, but the one in her heart never will. edit: Thanks everyone. While it remains my belief that those of you who feel I'm missing out on something are wrong, the leading argument seems to be about letting children decide for themselves what they do with their own bodies later in life. In principle, I'm compelled to take a statement like that seriously, but this is indeed a special case. It's closely tied to the free exercise of religion in the States, and even when not done for religious reason on the surface, one could still quantify our nationalistic homogeneity as a soft religious belief. Perhaps it shouldn't happen at all, but I do think it's more humane to conduct the procedure on infants rather than a rite of passage later in childhood. Anyway, I still can't bring myself to switch my brainwashed way of thinking that it's just not that big of a deal, given my stance towards my own mutilation, and the denial I use to mask the guilt of having put my own son through a lifetime of sexual apathy, numbness, shame, and deformity, like I've experienced myself. s So, if the prevailing mindset in your area is against it, I absolutely empathize with your view. In a first world nation of over 300 million though, wherein [83 of males born in the 1980's] (my generation) are circumcised, it's difficult for me to suddenly see 4 out of 5 men as victims of some barbarian practice. Turn on the TV in America and the majority of men you're looking at have penises like mine. Additionally, close to 100 of the Muslim world is circumcised, and there are a shit ton of those motherfuckers. I'm sorry folks, it's just too much of a normal human tradition as of yet to condemn with the tenacity Reddit attempts to condemn it with. No Deltas today. |
human-4025 | cmv | human | When sharing a bag of candy between friends a socially conscious sweet tooth reaches into the bag for a handfull and eats what he gets. People tend to have the same preferences for certain pieces and to ensure that all share in these favorites equally, it is easiest to leave these sugary rewards up to chance. Looking first and picking out pieces will soon lead to a half eaten bag with only the undiserables left over, that is checked a few more times with only dissapointment as a result. So fellow fellow scholars of the good life, try and sway my position on optimal candy distribution. |
human-1605 | cmv | human | I've read a few news stories that have used the term rise of the rest, and I don't think I need to mention America's exporting of it's manufacturing industry. It seems like the argument for these trends, is that it has lifted millions out of poverty and brought cheaper products to the American market. It seems like, if anything, these trends have contributed to the decline of the American middle class, and the detriment of most Americans. How hasn't it? If it indeed has brought cheaper goods to the American market, then who cares. What does it matter if the iPhone is affordable if none can afford to buy a house? |
human-3488 | cmv | human | I believe that an action that benefits people without causing unnecessary suffering is objectively good, and one that causes unnecessary suffering is objectively bad. I define unnecessary suffering as any suffering that is not required for more people to survive than are suffering. |
human-1863 | cmv | human | Prosperity often encompasses wealth but also includes others factors which are independent of wealth to varying degrees, such as happiness and health. Look at most violent cities in america. They are all run by democrats. You have to hear me out, this is fair and not political. There is no point in even pulling out statistics and numbers because thats a fact. Economically, liberalism falls short in the long term. The various liberal constituencies are in fact atomized groups of individuals who are relying on government, rather than creating the economic growth or fostering the social and civic health necessary to sustain the ideal liberal state. Liberals see entitlements as the immediate response to economic injustice, many fail to realize that they alone cannot rebuild a middle class. In fact, they can have the opposite effect in the long term and insulate their recipients from upward mobility. With 16 trillion in national debt, an aging population and an already-overburdened entitlement system, the ideal liberal social welfare state can only sustain itself for so long before it collapses under its own weight. It is a lifeline attached to a slowly sinking ship. Liberals celebrate subsidized birth control and the unmooring of what they see as narrow-minded religious moral standards, they fail to realize the alternative that is right in front of them: out-of-wedlock birth rates that are at all-time highs and a destructive breakdown in the family unit. Absent strong, active, character-forming institutions, like families, schools, and churches, single mothers and low-income households in many cases have no where else to turn but to the government. The problem is that liberals often confuse such allegiance with successful governing. The liberal coalition of the future is starting to look a lot like Greece, an advanced secular, social welfare state. CMV!!!!! |
human-3491 | cmv | human | Unless you can't trust the person you are gifting with actual money, there's no real reason to get them a gift card. I think that most people buy gift cards just for the sake of spending money on a "gift," when they don't know something someone would actually like. Businesses get to reel in money simply because someone had to choose where someone else should spend their gifted money. I understand people find it to be a slight convenience, but it's not much better than a few bills. For people who are bad at handling cash (Likely to spend on drugs, gambling, etc), it might be seen as a good option, but people have worked around that before. Plus, there's probably better things to get them than spending money. Gift-cards seem like spending money for the sake of spending money. Get them a real gift, or some cash to save and spend as they please. Change my View |
human-1355 | cmv | human | So this CMV is actually two parts: 1. The superhero genre is such an albatross around comic books necks. I understand why it exists, as it's still the top seller in the medium, but it really drags down better comics that no one will read because they'll associate them with superheros. Stuff like Transmetropolitan and Sand Man shouldn't be like niche books in a sea of super heroes, but it's main attraction. 2. Superheroes in every way are just completely unrealistic. I don't mean the powers, I mean the very foundational reality behind them. Do you know who dresses up in costumes and go out looking for justice? Crazy people, vigilantes, and terrorists like the Klu Klux Klan. Just the very foundational idea that someone discovers one day they have powers and then puts on a costume and looks for crime is just ridiculous. When people encounter weird shit they go to the government, not only out of fear, but more importantly out of liability. Fundamentally speaking Superheroes would not be allowed to exist full-stop. America is a nation state. The definition of a state is having a monopoly on violence. Of course there's crime, but there's no other legitimate source of violence other than a government sanctioned on. If a batman or punisher existed it wouldn't be like three guys in a secret agency out to get them. It would literally unite the entire military industrial complex in a hunt of epic proportions. Nation states absolutely do like it when their authority is threatened. Hell, maybe super-heroes can exist in a lawless place like Somalia. Maybe pirates are the real heroes. Finally, because superheroes are so ridiculous in concept, I find meta-superhero comics like Powers or Watchmen even dumber. It's like trying to satirize and analyze a completely pointless strawman. |
human-2908 | cmv | human | "Keeping up with current events" sounds pretty useful, but in reality, the majority of news stories you see on television have very little impact on your daily life. Thus, readingwatching people report about stuff like homicides and car crashes really serves no purpose to anyone besides the people involved. It is arguably important that as a person on the earth you should be well informed of its happenings, but very little of the news contains anything that will change how you go about your life. Besides any major news that will drastically change the worldparts of the world or how you live your life, much of it is useless and depressing information. With that considered, hearing about other people's misfortune that I can't and won't do anything about, and won't affect me seems absurd; I don't understand why anyone else would do it. I know I'm being a little hyperbolic, but it just seems pointless, and for people that turn on their tv to watch the news everyday, a morbid and depressing way to pass the time. |
human-2542 | cmv | human | Inpsired by [this] article here, I believe that it is completely outrageous that people who are making something at home for their own personal consumption (or even for sale) are locked up and have the wear the badge of an ex-felon for the rest of their life. There are a few arguments against at-home distillation and I will address them and attempt to explain why they are nonsense. The first argument is that the product is potentially dangerous. This is true, an unskilled distiller could have high concentrations of methanol in their brew that can make you sick, blind you, or even kill you. This is nonsense because the same dangers can apply to foods as well. Improperly stored or prepared food can be just as dangerous. Eating improperly cooked hamburger can kill you with E. Coli bacteria, chicken has salmonella, and there are a whole host of foods that can receive cross contamination or trigger allergic reactions in those sensitive to them such as nuts. The fact that something can potentially make you sick is not near enough reason to make it illegal. There are ways to test the methanol content of distilled alcohols. The person making it doesn't want to drink that and if he's selling it I think he would clearly not want to get into a legal battle for poisoning a customer. Distilling at home is potentially dangerous. You are heating up large quantities of liquid under pressure, stills can explode and so forth. This is also nonsense. Pressure cookers operate on the same principle and have a number of safety mechanisms built in as do designs of home-built stills. Nobody wants a bomb in their house and making things illegal because they are dangerous would be foolish in the first place. Motorcycles, fireplaces, barbecues, cigarettes, and so forth are dangerous but not illegal. The last argument I've heard is that distilling at home harms licensed distilleries. This may be true, but in that same vein if I make a sandwich at home I am hurting subway. If I make a hamburger I am hurting McDonalds. Frankly the guy at home brewing a few gallons of moonshine taking a bit of business away from a multi-billion dollar industry is not very convincing to me. Distilling is an art, a hobby, and can even be part of a heritage. There are a number of distilled spirits from Africa, South America, and Asia that are difficult or impossible to find in the United States at your local BevMo and if someone wants to make corn whisky or apple brandy, they should be allowed to do so without having their doors kicked in by armed me and arrested. Change my view. |
human-1001 | cmv | human | This CMV comes from a thread in roffmychest titled "White people... and the Black Experience." I posted this in response in hopes of creating some dialogue, but to no avail. To preface this - I am a late 20 something Jewish "white" girl from Brooklyn, NY. I did not grow up in what is now being called the modern day "white culture" but in a pretty isolated Jewish culture in the 80s and 90s - which is vastly different from each other. My family did not come to this country until the mid 1900s from the Ukraine and Poland - victims of pogroms and the Holocaust. My family; My parents parents, and their parents parents, and their parents parents going all the way back have never been involved with slavery, apartheid, massacres or wars. In fact we come from a small shtetl that had been able to stay far removed from these events up until the turn of the last century. Now to the point of my spiel and where my issue comes in. While I certainly believe in much of what entails the modern day black experience - the cultural appropriations by people, the glass ceiling, the casual racism - I object to the grouping of "white people" as if my family's heritage means nothing because we share the same general skin tone. I have never, nor do I come from ancestry, who perpetrated such horrible sins on black people, on their families or on their ancestors. When I speak about Israel - I often get responses like "well you white Americans massacred the Native Americans and enslaved people so you have no right to speak on such issues." This is just an argumentum ad hominem fallacy, and it makes it easier to attack me personally to further their own claims, even though I and my ancestors could not be further from this. And it's the truth on this topic as well. I don't bare the weight of historical slavery and mistreatment on my shoulders - even though I am white. It is not my burden to carry. I ache for those who lived through it, who carry the scars, and whose children are still dealing with the repercussions in our modern day era - but I am not your oppressor and I don't come from an ancestral family of oppressors, these events do not reflect on me. In fact, I come from the exact opposite - from a group of people who used to be known as the eternal victims. If the modern day argument to this is that you move to a country and become a citizen - you then inherit that countries history as well - then this would negate everything I say, but I would disagree with that sentiment. I can only personally affirm that I am not a racist, I don't ever use the N word, have never appropriated a part of your culture (be it braids, saying "she has a black ass" to twerking) and I would fight for your rights if I was needed - and I hope you would do the same for me. Now to another point about white privilege. In America there is undoubtedly white privilege. I certainly saw it growing up in NYC, and I definitely see it here in Washington, DC. If there is anything I could be guilty of it is living in a society where white privilege is rampant and I have had the ability to take advantage of it without even really knowing it. But I am still fighting for the privileges that I don't have - to be LGBT, to be a woman who controls my own body, also to be Jewish freely. Using "white people" as a pejorative is something that I do not agree with. 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-2007 | cmv | human | I think that according to any fair criterion of what makes a view valuable or convincing, their way of looking at the world is just as valid as mine. But I don't really want to have this conclusion - I want to go back to feeling as if religious people and I have a real quarrel. My agnosticism is based on the simple lack of a convincing argument for the existence of God. I've looked into all of the most popular ones - ontological argument, cosmological argument, design argument, argument from consciousness... in their various forms, and I'm just not convinced by any of them. Not only that, but I don't think religious believers should be convinced by them, because I think they're based on poor reasoning. However, for those that have felt like they've had divine revelations or experiences that have convinced them of God's existence, I think their views are perfectly justified. I just haven't had an experience I interpreted as having religious meaning, despite having felt a connection with the numinous many times. So, non-rhetorical question: Why should I think people who're convinced of God's existence have a less valid view than mine? |
human-3013 | cmv | human | Pretty simple. Literally every other part of reddit (how upvotesdownvotes work, the algorithms behind what makes front pages, etc.) all stays the same. Karma totals showing on posts and comments stays as well. The only change would be removing visible karma totals on user accounts. Doing this would completely remove users reposting content solely for karma farming, and the "business" behind growing high-karama accounts for re-sale (a practice that harms reddit content) completely goes away. What would the negatives be? |
human-1464 | cmv | human | It boils down to one thing: After a drug has been invented we have two options: we can either test it on animals first before letting a human try it, or we can give it straight to humans and see what happens to them. Is it right to give a human a drug we haven't tested before? No. Is it right to give an animals a drug we haven't tested before? No. But we have to do one or the other. Is one of them better than the other? Yes, testing it on an animal and risking its life instead of a human's is the better option. Just to cover all possibilities. The last possibility is to not develop new drugs so we don't have to test them but that's just bad because even more people will die of thing we could potentially treat. 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-2335 | cmv | human | I'm not referring to some sort of god-based determination. It seems to me that the view of causal determinism is pretty much true. Any action that we take results from prior causes, which, in turn, resulted from prior causes. Any thoughts that one has are a result of chemical reactions in the brain that exist because of a prior state. There's also the studies that have surfaced in light of Libet et al's tests a while back. From what I've read, the brain functionally decides what the body is going to do before a persons thoughts catch up with their actions. Change my view. P.S. Let's not make this a "God exists" discussion, we'll save that for another CMV. |
human-4216 | cmv | human | From ObamaCare to medical marijuana, Congress uses infered "requisite economic effects" to apply this to intrastate commerce... and it goes unchallenged by the Supreme Court. Until we can agree on ONE definition of interstate commerce, I don't believe congress should be allowed to invoke this. CMV. |
human-2565 | cmv | human | OP will no longer be responding to comments in this thread. First things first Idolatry: immoderate attachment or devotion to something. And since Idolatry is synonymous with Idolization Idolization: To love or admire to excess. In my (admittedly limited) ventures into mainstream churches, it seems to be a common practice for some people to kneel before a crucifix before they pray, some of these crucifix contain an image of Jesus, others do not. I feel that offering prayer before such an image in order to gain a special dispensation (indulgence) is directly in contrast to God's commandment in Exodus 20:4-5 You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me. Similar gripes with crucifix necklaces. Please, change my view. EDIT: First off I'd like to thank everyone for contributing, so thanks guys! Secondly, this CMV has opened my eyes to why people use a crucifix and why they believe it is acceptable. I still think that prayer via crucifix is a bit to idol-y for myself, however it isn't really my place to tell anyone else that they're loving God the wrong way. Once again, thanks for the discussion. OP out! |
human-2637 | cmv | human | Go back ten years and how many black people played in the NHL? Twenty years? More and more young black men are making it to the NHL. Not because, in my opinion, that black people are somehow physical specims. But instead because racial equality in the world today is changing for the better. The CMV is not about whether we have equality. Just whether we can look at the diversity of races and it will tell us about how equal (or unequal) we are. This doesn't just apply to racial equality either. Equality in general (think gay professional athletes). For hockey specifically, it is very expensive to pay for your child to play hockey. Since we do not live in a racially equal society, the races at disadvantages will not be able to pay for their child to play a sport as expensive as hockey. The NHL is dominated by white people, again not because they're inherently better but simply because there is no disadvantage to being white. There have been a very limited number of black and asian people to crack NHL rosters and very few first nations people to come close. On the other hand, the NBA was mostly (and still is) dominated by black men. I believe this is mostly because of the fact that basketball is cheaper and more disadvantaged families have an easier time allowing their children to play basketball. As time has gone on the number of whiteasian players have increase (less so for asian people). It's not to say that now there are more poor white people, but that basketball is no longer seen as a "poor mans" game. Thanks to the equality movement, the diversity of races in professional sports are steadily increasing. Now some sports just happen to be wildly popular - soccer for instance - and their racial diversity is pretty much at a maximum. So if you'd like we can change this to a rate of change problem (woo calculus), and assert that racial equality can be approximated by the change in racial diversity in sports. More racial diversitymore equality Less racial diversityless equality Anyways! CMV! Edit: speling I'd also like to add that there is substantial lag in terms of changes in racial diversity. When Martin Luther King made his speeches there weren't suddenly black men making the teams of professional sports. 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-2093 | cmv | human | Mankind. Humans. That's us. We are burning fossil fuels at a staggering rate. Now, I ain't no expert or anything, but just looking at the amount of carbon we are inserting into the atmosphere on a daily basis should make anyone's head spin... Unless you work for a company that participates in that, I guess? I don't know where these "denialists" get off, but as a self proclaimed skeptic and scientific literate, I must by definition be open to the possibility that science is wrong about the primary cause of Climate Change being us lowly humans. I am open to that possibility, however you have an awful lot to go up against. Rant: Speaking of being a skeptic, any other skeptics out there find it insulting that denialists have attempted to hijack our identifying terminology? Makes us all look uneducated. You're a denialist because you go against a scientific consensus with no good reason. You ignore all the studies done. You don't read the peer reviewed papers. This by definition, makes you a denialist, not a skeptic. (End of rant) There has been countless studies on climate change which show an extremely obvious, in-your-face link to climate change and the actions of team people. If you want to refute this evidence, a single snippy opinion blog will not sway anyone whom is educated. You need to show us why we are wrong. Show us the science. Consensus. We have a 97 -0.1 consensus from scientists in relevant fields that climate change is a reality and its the result of human actions. Consensus matters. Why does it matter? That's easy. We can't all be experts in every field of understanding. No one person can know everything. If you think consensus doesn't matter, I have a question for you: Are you an expert in any scientific fields? I highly doubt you are. An expert would understand what a consensus is and why it matters as much as it does. It is one of many ways the layman can get a quick overall opinion on any subject before diving in and learning more about it. Consensus from experts in a scientific field matters because we can't all be experts in every scientific field. At this point in time, I find it extremely unlikely that Climate Change is not being driven by team people. We're having a huge impact on our environment, and we have to do something about it. As a self proclaimed skeptic I am by definition open to the possibility that we are wrong about this subject, however I feel that is extremely unlikely. I am also confident enough in my asserted position to not include a single source or citation with this post. Climate Change science is easily accessible. You can read about the consensus and find the information very easily. Have you heard of Google Scholar? Try it out. Climate Change is being driven mostly by humans. Change my view. Update: Fixed spelligngrammer Update 2: I have not been presented with any very convincing arguments that couldn't be easily debunked as bad science with some quick googling. 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-3539 | cmv | human | For those of you who do not live in Georgia, or have not heard, The Georgia Board of Reagents passed a ban on smoking on any state school campus for faculty, staff, and students. Here is a link: The goal of this law is to create healthier campuses and follow the nationwide trend of smoke free campuses. The law will cut down on second hand smoke exposure. This law doesn't really effect a lot of people, being out of school or being a non-smoker. However, for us smokers this is a very unfair law. Smoker's are already pushed to the fringes of campuses to smoke due to laws about being near entrances and only being allowed to smoke in designated shelters. For example here is a map of my university's "Designated Smoking Areas": For a small school, that looks like we have a lot of space to smoke, and we shouldn't complain, right? It's actually quite the opposite, 95 of that red is parking lot space. So to smoke we have to, stand, around car's and risk being questioned by police officers for loitering in the parking lots. This also means we are exposed to extremely harmful car exhaust from people leaving the parking lots, amplifying the detrimental effects of smoking. A lot of this law is designed to provide more comfortable campuses for non-smokers. Some people are bothered by the smell, and as a smoker I understand that. Tobacco can smell kinda bad. It is not my fault, as a smoker, that non-smokers choose to walk past smoking shelters. I'm not responsible for their actions just because I have a pipe sticking out of my mouth. It should go without saying that non-smokers should avoid smoking shelters if they do not want to be exposed to smoke. Earlier in the post I showed my campuses smoking areas, which is where it is technically allowed to smoke. A lot of people do not smoke only in those areas, and instead smoke while walking across campus. Since this is such a trend, I believe a ban of smoking on campus will be far more detrimental then the current system. Smokers will smoke while walking across campus as opposed to staying at smoking shelters, causing in an increase in exposure to second hand smoke. Smoking a cigarette is very easy to do while moving, and it is very hard to enforce a ban on smoking if smokers are moving around rather then sitting still. Sorry that the formatting is pretty rough, and if there is clarification needed I'm more then happy to clarify. There is is, change my view! Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! |
human-1053 | cmv | human | Added for clarity: the [lump of labor fallacy] doesn't take into account intelligent machines. Added for more clarity: 'Intelligent' like Google self-driving cars and automated stock trading programs, not 'Intelligent' like we've cracked hard AI. Final clarification of assumptions: 1. Previous technological innovations have decreased the need for, and reduced the cost of, physical human labor. 2. New jobs emerged in the past because of increased demand for intellectual labor. 3. Current technological developments are competing with humans in the intellectual labor job market. 4. Technology gets both smarter and cheaper over time. Humans do not. 5. Technology will, eventually, be able to outcompete humans in almost all current jobs on a cost basis. 6. New jobs will be created in the future, but the number of them where technology cannot outcompete humans will be tiny. Thus, massive unemployment. |
human-1130 | cmv | human | SPOILERS FOR ANYONE WHO HASN'T PLAYED EPISODES 4 AND 5 of THE WALKING DEAD GAME SEASON 2. SERIOUSLY DON'T READ THIS IF YOU HAVEN'T PLAYED IT. So, to those of you who played the latest episodes, you know who Arvo is. He's the Russian kid whose group you get into a shootout with. Clementine ends up shooting his reanimated sister, much to his horror. He's then led around by an abusive Kenny who beats him twice. The first time in the woods was completely unnecessary, and the second time was too (he didn't lie about the food or the house - and Luke's death was gonna happen anyways). By that point in the game, everyone was afraid of Kenny. He was clearly teetering on the edge of sanity, and Jane even mentions how Clementine may be the only one who can bring him back before he totally loses it. So when he shoots Clementine, everybody lost their shit. IIRC he was voted the most hated character this season, even moreso than Carver. [There's even a whole sub dedicated to his hate now.] A lot of it is just circlejerking, but reading the discussion of these latest episodes on the net shows that a lot of people really did hate the kid for it. But I think they're missing something really important...something Telltale Games seemed to spent a really long time trying to hammer into our heads. After Clementine was shot and started dreaming about the RV ride with Lee, Clementine asks Lee "why Lilly shot Carley (or Doug, depending on your playthrough) " and Lee mentions how Lilly "was sad." "That can make people angry sometimes." One of the responses is "have you ever been that angry?" To which Lee responds "one time." Presumably he's referring to when he murdered a state senator for sleeping with his wife, which was undoubtedly a crime of passion. Lee even mentions how people's actions might not make sense, "because bad things happen to everybody." So I think with all the bad things that happened to Arvo, him shooting Clementine doesn't warrant all the hate he's getting. We all love Lee even though he did something just as bad; we can't judge Arvo for what little we've seen of him especially in his state. tl;dr: convince me to join the "Fuck Arvo" train |
human-1005 | cmv | human | The establishment of Israel is often cited as necessary based on the need to protect people of Jewish heritage from around the world. To the victors go the spoils. Why should an Israeli state be established in a historically relevant but highly dangerous location because of an historical claim that is thousands of years old? Why not annex a portion of Germany, relocate a population whose government actively worked to destroy the Jews, and work towards acceptance of Jewish visitors in their Holy Land? I am very aware that not all Germans were complicit in the actions of the Nazis. However, the annexation of a portion of Germany is arguably more morally justifiable than basically conquering Palestine because of a religion-based claim. If Jewish security is the issue, lopping off a portion of Germany to form Neo-Israel would have been the vastly superior option. CMV. |
human-4183 | cmv | human | Rights are entirely a social construct. They only exist in the context of a community that accepts and enforces them. I think the claim of "natural" rights is actually somewhat disingenuous in a political discussion because it implies that your personal moral values are somehow an objective law of nature, beyond debate and criticism. But this is not true. Rights are ultimately a moral code, making them inherently subjective, and do not exist outside of a society that implements them. |
human-4124 | cmv | human | Reasons why Bitcoins will never be a widespread consumer currency that rivals traditional money: 1. Institutional Theft: Hackers have [already stolen] millions of dollars worth of bitcoins from largeinstitutional holders of bitcoins. "Joe Consumer" can't adequately protect his money from this kind of targeted hacking. Right now banks and other financial institutions are charged with protecting traditional money. A bitcoin bank could possibly offer some protection (although no FDIC insurance) but it would erode some of the original stated purpose of bitcoins. EDIT: My mind has been changed somewhat on this specific point. As it's very early in the game and better protections could be put in place than currently exist. 2. Fraud: Similar to hacking if someone gains access to your online wallet and spends your bitcoins on goods and services and disappears you have no reliable way to recover the funds. With a consumer credit card you are not liable for ANY fraudulent transactions. 3. Chargebacks: Let's say a merchant screws you. You buy a TV online, but instead you get a toaster, or worse you never receive the good. You have ZERO recourse without getting lawyers involved. Most people can't afford a lawyer to settle a consumer dispute. The great thing about credit card charge backs is that they allow you to dispute a transaction if you can prove the transaction did not ultimately occur as agreed and recover some or all of your money. |
human-1762 | cmv | human | I believe that charter schools are superior to public schools because they do not have to follow a traditional teaching model. I think that public schools, mainly due to things such as standardized testing, restrict the curriculum so that they can follow standards given to them by the county. Many textbooks I have seen in my school classes, for example, are designed solely to teach students the information they need for a standardized test, and will likely be outdated in a few years because standardized tests change in difficulty every year. In contrast, charter schools are not in the control of a county's school board, and tend to focus more on a child's learning and skill-improvement and ensuring that they know and will remember the information taught for them, rather than just focusing on passing a test. Also, charter schools usually have a much higher success rate than public schools, and students who attend charter schools are more prepared for college learning than the average public school attendee. Here is one of the sources I have used: Please try to offer infoopinions that can change my view, I'm open to anything you may have to say! Thank you for your time and for any comments and insight you may have. Edit: I forgot, here's the definition of a charter school: (in North America) a publicly funded independent school established by teachers, parents, or community groups under the terms of a charter with a local or national authority. 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-1922 | cmv | human | Classic tale of Spanish and European Explorers in Mezoamerica. its finals week. I may not be as good about this as I should be. I know this is terrible. But I believe its the right thing to do. If non humans attack they shall face our plague. |
human-1359 | cmv | human | Especially in today's society, getting help is easy; there are hotlines to call, or clinics to visit. When someone commits suicide, it creates massive amounts of guilt for people close to that person, and overall, nobody feels any better than before the incident. A child could find the body of a suicide victim, scaring himher for life. Not only that, but people glamorize people who ended their own life after the fact and portray them as a "victims," even though they chose their own fate. Therefore, I believe that suicide is a selfish action, and no suicide victim should be given sympathy. CMV |
human-3497 | cmv | human | I think a lot of modern "liberalism" is about guilt. Guilt about being white. Guilt about being American. Guilt about not being totally poor and useless. Emotions, and especially guilt, are a terrible way to build a political system and run a society. The road of guilt has led modern liberals to an absurd extreme where they toss out what used to be common sense ideas about due process and considering all the facts in the name of a "larger truth." They're desperate to validate their insane view that whites are responsible for all black suffering, and they refuse to accept that black culture is messed up on any level and needs correcting. Furthermore, they concoct all kinds of narratives to support this larger truth. The Zimmerman case is a classic example of the creation of a narrative to support the larger truth. It was painted as a white man shooting down an unarmed black boy in a gated neighborhood. This clearly fit the larger truth that racism and racial profiling is still a problem and whites are to blame. But then the truth came out - the man wasn't white - he was of mixed race with African, Amerindian, White, and Jewish heritage. The "boy" would be old enough to be tried as an adult for serious crimes. Moreover the gated neighborhood they lived in wasn't upper class and filled with blueblood white aristocrats as insinuated but rather a comically diverse middle class subdivision that had previous crime issues. Not to mention that the shooter was acting in self defense and had wounds and witnesses to corroborate his side of the story. The narrative failed yet liberals still are convinced that it was murder in order to play to the larger truth at hand rather than the actual truth that occurred. tl;dr: the modern liberals' jumping of the gun and trying to put every event in the form of a narrative that fits an overall "larger truth" is sad, unjust, and has me re-thinking modern liberalism. CMV. |
human-3998 | cmv | human | Note: I say black, not African-American. Many black people possibly have a longer history of ancestry in the U.S. than I do, and I never ask to be called a European-American. I know this sounds terribly racist, and I apologize for offending people because I really do understand that people are often going to meet what expectations you set for them and not much more. I am an open-minded and liberal white Southerner who has grown up with little exposure to black culture. However, what little I have seen seems to support criminal or irresponsible behavior. This is not to say that black people are all criminals or irresponsible, just that the general culture encourages these activities. Hip-hop, the predominant choice of music for many black Americans, often promotes organized crime, prostitution, gun use, drug use, etc. Crime rates are MUCH higher among black males than any other demographic in the United States. I find it extremely hard to believe that this is entirely due to racial discrimination. Granted I do not know many black people, but of the ones I do know, it honestly seems like black people are typically much lazier (but I know some black people who do not fit this definition at all). I know that's not a scientific study at all, but a much higher percentage are unemployed, heavy drug users or alcoholics, or never try very hard in school, even in college. Unemployment rates are much higher among blacks than any other race. Again, I find it hard to believe this is entirely due to discrimination. Black people are often more disrespectful than any other group (just a reminder, this is in my experience. I won't pretend like this is a scientific fact). There is a large black population on my campus, and anytime I have a class with a group of black students, it seems like those students will be very disrespectful to the professor or other students, e.g. interrupting class, coming in late, listening to music so loud on their headphones that everybody in the room can hear it. It's such an unfailing stereotype for me that I've come to dread anytime I see a large group of black students in my classes. I know there are bad apples and good apples in every orchard. I feel bad because I often have these kinds of thoughts, and I am honestly no quicker to judge a black person I meet as a bad person than any other race. It simply seems to me like there is a black culture in the U.S. that encourages many vices. I want to stop feeling racist. Help me change my view. |
human-2297 | cmv | human | I think that people who are homophobic generally tend to either have no moral compass or are simply ignorant to dynamism in human traits. This also includes automatically assuming homophobes have other prejudices (racism, sexism, etc.). |
human-2348 | cmv | human | [Context] . In thermodynamics, it can be shown that any reversible adiabatic process does not increase the entropy of a closed system. Of course, since reversible processes don't actually occur in nature they can only be approximated quasi-statically. However, to me it doesn't seem implausible that future engineers would be able to build a machine which only negligibly increases its own entropy by utilising approximately isentropic processes. This situation would be further facilitated by the fact that the density of the universe is low in a heat death scenario, as such, it would be difficult for the machine to increase entropy via interactions with the environment. Think of it like this; we absolutely cannot bring humans to the speed of light with current technology. It's physically impossible. Humans are made up of massive particles. You know all this. However, it's plausible that future engineers might be able to design crafts that are fit to carry humans at 99.99 the speed of light. Close enough for all intents and purposes. In fact, we can already [build machines] which do this for single particles. Similarly, we absolutely cannot decrease the entropy of a closed system. It's almost] physically impossible. But it doesn't seem implausible that future engineers might be able to build machines that are efficient enough to approximate processes with zero net entropy increase. Perhaps they could get close enough for all intents and purposes? Note that the lifetime of the hypothetical machine need not be infinite, since stars could plausibly be regenerated by the [Poincare Recurrence Theorem] or the [Fluctuation Theorem] . If (somehow), conciousness could be uploaded to a machine like this then I would argue that we've 'survived' the heat death of the universe. Let's go reddit, CMV. Edit: Broken link 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-2176 | cmv | human | I think "love" has a lot of components in it, such as the physical aspect, the social aspect and whatnot. But what's to keep love separate from being measurable and replicate-able? For example, if we are able to plant the same memory and the same chemical composition and the same physical features and whatnot, we would be able to replicate love. Ok, say that external features affect "love" as well. Then let's create a computer simulation and replicate that as well. If this is all possible, then love is replicated. Then there is the question of all the particles in the same place and whatnot. But like same model cars, although they're different, they're same enough that we can say that they're "replicated" 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-3157 | cmv | human | My mother came to this country with two kids, no money and couldn't speak a word in English. We originally lived in a roach infested apartment in a not-so-great neighborhood. She worked night and day in a factory equivalent to a sweat shop for minimum wage. She moved up the ranks to become manager, with that, we managed to move to a better neighborhood and afford a car after three years in America. Soon after she started a business and we were able buy a summer house. Six years later, we moved again to an actual house and bought another car. She still works day and night, even on weekends. During this adventure, she only needed welfare for the first six months we moved to America. Now for my part, seeing my mother work this hard, it inspired me. I got a job as soon as I was of age and it only took me a week. I worked hard and got a few raises, several dollars above the minimum wage. I left the job when I started to attend college but worked other small jobs here and there. When I needed money again, I went out looking and again I got a job within a week doing deliveries. I worked hard and received raises, earning a bit more than double the minimum wage. When I looked for internships in my field, I got one within one month (with no connections). My entire family and friends have similar stories to my mother and I. We worked hard and got what we deserved. Yet, people are still on welfare and in the same position for couple of years. Some have no intent of making better of themselves. When we were broke, I got robbed by someone who had better shoes than me and I only had a dollar on me. I have no sympathy to anyone who doesn't apply themselves. Why should I pay for their leisure? Some apply for welfare when they have kids. Why should I pay for their kids when I'm waiting to be financially fit to afford them while they just didn't use a condom or think of the consequences? We all went to the same schools and had the same opportunities, yet I get punished for succeeding when others haven't even tried? I go to school two hours away from me and some people aren't willing to do 30 min commutes. From my point of view, the world doesn't owe anybody a goddamn thing. CMV |
human-3947 | cmv | human | The title is a little bit confusing (sorry I've had to reword the title a few times), but I believe that my view on why people shouldn't be racist is a little outdated and I should change my ways. When I was younger I learned about Africans and Asians being used as slaves, then eventually the discrimination of non-whites in the earlier part of the 20th century (USA). I always brought up the point that it wasn't their fault that they weren't white, so it's not like we should have punished them for that choice. In my opinion, that sounds like a terrible thing to say-it sounds like a 7 year old made it up (and, what do you know, one did!). Needless to say, as much as a supporter for race-equality as I am, I always fall back on that one idea-it's not their fault choice that they're not white and they shouldn't be punished for it. I believe that my fall-back position is a terrible one, and I want you to CMV, or show my why it is a terrible one. EDIT: I'm seeing how people are suspecting I believe in some white superiority, so let me just copy and paste a comment I said below: EDIT2: also when I say fault I mean choice. I didn't realize the complete negative connotation with fault-I always used it more lax. The word I was looking for is choice I'm not trying to promote white superiority. I'm trying to get at the point why racism shouldn't exist, no matter what race you are. My idea is that its not somebody's fault they were born a certain race, so don't punish them for that. |
human-1178 | cmv | human | As the Internet contributes more and more to the spreading of knowledge globally, I believe that with time borders and recognition of nationality will be a thing of the past. As people grow up with the Internet their influences doesn't come from one single culture anymore, hence their allegiance to a specific geographically bound culture will weaken. The same mechanisms will destroy the political and economical power structures of today as people no longer rely on authority for information and knowledge. Countries will stop existing and politicians and authorities will no longer be needed because the world will be a self-regulatory system based on knowledge. Knowledge is control. If everyone has access to the same knowledge no one can be in control. The Internet finally makes anarchy viable. Please, change my view. |
human-1673 | cmv | human | This has been bothering me for a very, very long time. I grew up in the 80s and early 90s. I have never liked Blondie. The music is mediocre, pretty much standard for the 1980s. Fender Stratocaster with some chorus, a little keyboards. It's not bad, but it's certainly not groundbreaking. Worse, the lyrics are purely awful. The rap from "Rapture" is god awful. "One way or another" is repetitive and irritating. This band isn't more than the sum of its parts, it's worse than the sum of its parts. Yet somehow I have never been able to find a single bad word written about Blondie. Am I somehow strange for thinking that they're crap? Explain to me why Blondie is worthy of being listed among bands of the 80s that were actually good. |
human-1462 | cmv | human | I've been reading explanations of the ruling. Some say Kennedy, writing for the majority, [was sloppy in laying out the logic of the decision] , which I feel implicitly supports my main point. I'm stuck up on something that apparently few others see, not even the dissenting opinions. Maybe that's because it's stupid and easily refuted, but I need it laid out for me: no one explains how equal protection under the law somehow renders unconstitutional the uniformly applied right to marry someone of the opposite gender. Let me try to illustrate with a silly example. Suppose there was a law that gave everyone the right to record and publish a duet version of Over the Rainbow, but only so long as the other person of the duet resides in a different city than you. And say you get some tax break for doing this as a bonus. Some people may wish to record the duet with someone who lives in the same city they do. They may even despise the idea of recording the duet with someone outside their city. Can they claim the fact they can't get the tax break means they're denied equal protection? I don't think so. They basically have the same status as someone who doesn't wish to record the duet at all. For whatever reason, the law says the tax breaks kick in under only the conditions specified. You could say it's arbitrary but it's not unconstitutional because everyone has an equal right under that law whether or not everyone exercises it. As with other rights, some people don't even desire to exercise the right, or would rather the right be expanded. Such as, some people don't want to own guns and some people want to own (illegal) automatic weapons. It doesn't mean there's no equal protection. In the case of same-sex marriage there are extra emotional stakes. But I don't think this is constitutionally relevant. One could say the thing we're equally protecting is the right to marry who you love but as far as I know that's not a rationale for marriage in statute. Plus it leads to uncomfortable slippery slope questions. What am I not seeing? Edit: Apologies for being absent. Some unexpected happenings have kept me away from the computer. I'll try to reply to everyone |
human-2953 | cmv | human | My view is that there is no compelling reason (moral or otherwise) to have children that are genetically related to you, and that there are a lot of good reasons not to. If you're in a developed country (and probability is that you are) then every new person contributes to anthropogenic climate change. Bringing potential persons into the world is, at present, detrimental to actual persons. The environmental impact first world humans have is too negative to justify the creation of additional lives. Also, there are plenty of children who need a home and the support of a parental figure. By having a child, you are creating a resource drain and neglecting the needs of very real people that need those resources more than a non-existent person, or person in latency. The only reason I can see for having biological offspring is some sort of genetic narcissism; the belief that the world is so direly in need of your genes. Or it could be a desperate attempt to grasp some sort of immortality. Still, there is no compelling reason to have children of your own instead of adopting. |
human-3163 | cmv | human | The banality of evil is a phrase coined by Hannah Arendt that describes evil as not necessarily actively malicious but rather as a result of ignorance, selfishness, negligence, and absolving oneself of responsibility. For more information refer to this: It is incredibly easy to fall victim to fundamental attribution error and victim blaming. I believe that some extremely wealthy people and regular people subscribe to cognitively biased views that poor people are lazy. I think that wealthy people neglect the frankly horrific suffering that others go through not necessarily out of malice, but just ignorance. The notorious fabled response of Marie Antoinette when told that the poor people are starving because they don't have bread to eat was "let them eat cake" not realizing that cake is a luxury for people like herself. She wasn't necessarily sarcastic or wanted the poor to suffer, but rather couldn't conceive of their plight. The phrase "first world problems" is another symptom of not having a broad enough perspective on what real and more difficult problems that other people face and believing that the relatively trivial problem you have is significant. I think that many (not all) people who are better off just don't want to think about the severe problems that others have. They step over the homeless, they resign themselves that starvation and disease and violence in third world countries cannot be solved and don't try to solve them, they blame the poor for being poor instead of realizing that wealth is a large product of luck. They focus on their own problems, like what color their sports car should be and how it will reflect on their reputation, or if they're like Marie Antoinette, what kind of cake they should eat, which is natural. For this specific view, I'm not claiming or proposing any one solution, or type of government, or political view is superior to another or can solve the problem (though you are free to try and prescribe solutions in your responses and I will consider them, though I may not agree). I'm also not claiming that any of society's problems are easy to solve. I'm merely conceptualizing why people believe what they believe and how it leads to societal problems in my current view. CMV. |
human-1856 | cmv | human | ... from the limited amount of knowledge I have of it. I intend to research more about it but I love the discussions that come out of this subreddit so I thought I'd put it to you guys. It's my opinion right now that in order to prevent a market from becoming a total monopoly, open to the abuses which come from said position, regulations need to exist. In an ideal world we would have a creatively open-minded, patient, uncommonly rational and objective community of businesses that would play fair with each other or a similarly-minded government, but what we actually have is corporations and a government that are comprised of human beings. Quite frankly, I want the people who are in control of the market to be the ones that the rest of the country are capable of voting out. Free market economics gives complete power over to corporations and that's a concept that terrifies me. Educate me, my friends. I'm aware that I have a simplified view here so I'd welcome opinions from either side of this. |
human-4041 | cmv | human | I'm not saying we should force the rest of the world into our country. But we should keep the door open to any and all peoples, races, and countries who are willing to join the union. This should be an active policy as well. The USA should make it known that the door is always open to assimilate. For example, this website promotes Guyana joining the US: Congress should call Guyana up and sign the papers, no questions. Hello 51st state. What's Brazil going to do? Nothing! What's Europe going to do? Nothing! What's Venezuela going to do? Keep selling us their dirty oil that's what! Hey Baja California, you want in? OK! Hey Taiwan, China got you down? Want in? OK! Hey Greece, Germany giving you shit again? What to join a currency union that actually works? Come on in! Hell we'll even build a few national parks. Hey El Salvador, you're already using the dollar as your currency. What the rest of the benefits of being American? Fuck it bring all your friends. A few notes why we should be incorporating the rest of the world into the Union. Our currency is the base currency of the species. Our navy protects world trade. Our space program is miles ahead of everyone else. (We've put a human on the moon, no one else has.) Our post-secondary education dominates higher learning for the species. American culture is everywhere. Finally there is no reason the earth shouldn't be united under one government. We fight over petty things when we should be colonizing Mars. Join the Union. |
human-3930 | cmv | human | There have been much talks about how non-Cuban migrants are unjustly treated by US immigration officials and laws. For those who aren't familiar with this topic, Cuban migrants are granted residency upon landing on US soil under the Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act. The Wet foot, Dry Foot policy is an extension. Unlike Cubans, other nationals are faced with immigration restrictions. Mexican migrants are turned away or detained if apprehended by US custom officials. This also applies to other uninspected migrants from other countries other than Cuba. This leads to some advocates suggesting that this difference in enforcement is unfair or discriminatory. However, I think it's justified. Unlike Mexican nationals, Cubans are politically oppressed and are criminally prosecuted for any expression of government opposition. Hence, they have a stronger case for asylum. Other nationals can take part in the democratic processes in their respective countries and are granted other vital rights not given to Cubans. |
human-3707 | cmv | human | For the most part, when people talk about slut shaming they are speaking of shaming a woman for having 'too many' sexual partners. While I side with the majority on that one, and think slut shaming in that context is wrong, that message is also often accompanied by the declaration that women should be able to dress and act however they want and not be shamed for that either. In my mind those are two completely separate things. Being promiscuous is often seen in feminists movements for women as being confident in their sexuality. However when I see women in revealing attire, especially posted on social media such as Facebook and Instagram, I don't think they are being sex positive at all. I think they are trying their hardest to get attention. In the same vein, my feelings towards SlutWalk are pretty negative. For those who have not heard of it, SlutWalk was a worldwide protest initiated when a Toronto cop told a group of students that to avoid rape they should avoid dressing like "sluts." The idea of it is that women should be able to wear whatever they want and not be considered slutty. In my opinion, as offensive as that cop's comment may have sounded, it really is good, practical advice. Common sense tells you that if you go into the street in a tight dress and fishnets you've put yourself in a more dangerous situation that if you go out in a hoodie and sweats. Moreover, the idea that anyone should be able to wear anything without being judged seems ridiculous. Your clothes and appearance are often the only information strangers know about who you are. They communicate basic preferences. The two above mentioned outfits say two different things about the people wearing them. Yes, it's true that wearing a revealing outfit doesn't mean you're sexually promiscuous, and may not fully warrant being called a slut. But in my mind it does mean you are trying to garner attention of sexual interest through your clothing which is more than enough for me to pass judgment. For reference, I am a young woman who is mostly liberal minded, and this is probably the most 'radical' view I hold. |
human-1652 | cmv | human | I think it would be more efficient to spend millionsbillions of taxpayer dollars on a project that happens to send more than one explorer of a PLANET at a time. But I'm no rocket scientist... |
human-1641 | cmv | human | The previous national election cycle saw voter turnout of only 36 of eligible voters. Voter turnout is at record lows, and a result is the hyper-partisan government we see today. Far right and far left politicians have been able to gain office due to the fact that the far right and far left are turning out to vote far more often then moderate voters. A common complaint is that one persons vote does not matter, so many people choose not to vote. Others abstain from voting as a protest against the current state of the government. These are weak excuses to try and deflect responsibility for the political climate we have today, and the only way to create a change is to actively participate in politics, become educated about current affairs and political candidates, and vote in elections for the person you think is best suited to hold office. Edit: Many of the responses are not actually providing an answer to the question. Several of the responses talk about the issue of a two party system, but this question does not rely on what system of government is in place. Any representational democracy relies on votes, and I am specifically looking for responses that can challenge the view that voting is the best way to create change within the system, regardless of what 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 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-1995 | cmv | human | I used to believe strongly in Freedom of Speech. I believed that any infringement upon this freedom was fundamentally offensive to my American way of life. I especially defended hate speech, believing that this was the perfect example of why Freedom of Speech was so important. [TCMV] Now my views on freedom of speech more closely parallel rcommunism's rule on [Bourgeois Free Speech] . So give me your reasons for the sanctity of Free Speech to CMV! |
human-3620 | cmv | human | In the UK we view cruelty to pets as terrible and prosecute and even ban pet owners from keeping them because the pets are vulnerable and cannot regulate their meals and feed themselves. This is exactly the same for children. Parents dictate the child's diet and over feed and choose the wrong food types. If they consistently do this the child becomes obese and this has massive implications for the rest of their lives. Eating habits that have been learnt or not corrected , even right down to "fussy eaters" then gets passed on through generations and is the route cause for a massive percentage of the population. We skim past the obesity argument because we don't want to offend and then because we turn a blind eye nothing gets fixed. Punish and educate the parents just the same as a fat cat owner. Children are more important than pets. Change my view |
human-2590 | cmv | human | I don't believe that the government has the right to make human cloning illegal because the act of cloning a person does not alone violate ethics. If a surrogate is willing to accept a cloned fetus, and the person being cloned gives their consent as well, it's simply a woman having a child. I think that current arguments against cloning are rooted in fear or pseudo-ethics. I'm no utilitarian; it's very clear that our society awards 'human rights' on the basis of simply being a human. Additionally, fear that a clone would be mistreated or demeaned is no reason to take away the surrogate and DNA donor's rights to use their bodies as they please without hurting others. There is also no real reason why cloning should be illegal on the basis of human dignity and being unnatural: if that's true, we might as well outlaw IVF. In closing, arguments against cloning are rooted in fear. Whether or not these doomsday scenarios in which cloning is legal occur, they aren't enough to violate people's rights to their own bodies. |
human-1107 | cmv | human | After getting back from Golden Carrol, my father had two curb checks, ran a stop sign, and merged into someone else's lane. He's 78, and to get a better understanding of why I think its his age that's affecting his driving and not his actual ability: He's retired GM truck driver, and has over 35 plus year experience driving 18 wheelers; he has a spotless driving record, and I can only recount 1 accident when I was younger; he takes (took) extreme pride in his driving ability.Over the past 20 yrs I seen his mental ability and reflexes take a dive due to poor health. He also has back and leg problems. I feel like his inability to drive safely might put him in harm or harm others. California has already in acted similar laws, and traffic accidents have lowered by 5.I put the question to you reddit, do you think senior citizens should have to take a competence test, i.e. written test, vision test, and driving portion to insure their safety and the safety of other motorist? Edit; Oh wow, first thread that actually exceeded 100. Thank you for all the input. |
human-2805 | cmv | human | EDIT: usunnyEl-ahrairah has challenged me to recite a Shakespeare monologue. Idk if I'm gonna be complete shit or not, but it'll be fun and the best way to find out what I came here for. So brb, I have to learn my lines. Acting is cool. I like a lot of actors. I just don't think it's hard. 1.) In most every profession there are those who are clearly bad. It will be clear to critics, people of authority, and most others, someone is not good at what they do. Screenwriters who write bad screenplays, directors who make bad films, athletes who can't cut it, comedians who aren't funny, musicians who get popular, suck, fizzle out, and are remembered as terrible, etc. But, there isn't one actor, ever, who was considered awful, then got a good role, in a good movie, with good direction, good writing, and good production, but was still considered an awful actor. This DOES NOT happen in other professions. If someone is a terrific guitarist in a shitty band, people can still tell they are a terrific guitarist. Being in a good band won't make you be able to pass as a great drummer if you suck. Maybe a layman won't be able to tell, but other musicians certainly would. Talent and skill are consistent, and consistently recognizable. You would never not be able to tell what a great basketball player Lebron is because his team sucked. 2.) Lying. Lying is acting. Yeah, there's some rules and tricks of the trade, but that comes with any profession. When someone lies, they are acting. A common bit, originally by Jon Lovitz, is for a character to tell a very dramatic lie, then turn around and announce that they were "ACTING!!!!" When someone lies, they are acting. They're acting like fake is real, and we all do it. It's a cliche in comedies for a character to be a bad liar, and when they try to lie they act awkward and stupid, but nobody really does that. There's no one who hasn't lied to their parents, or their significant other, or made up an excuse. The difference is when you told your manager you missed work 'cause you had to go to a funeral, and you "acted" sad, you weren't super nervous, anxious, self conscious, and over thinking it; like someone who's not used to acting would be with people watching them on stage, in front of cameras, or at an audition. You can say learning to be comfortable acting is talent, but it's negligible. 3.) Many successful actors have said acting is easy. "Not to sound rude, but acting is stupid." - Jennifer Lawrence "Acting is the most minor of gifts. After all, Shirley Temple could do it at age four." - Katherine Hepburn "This is not a tough job. You read a script. If you like the part and the money is ok, you do it. You remember your lines. You show up on time. You do what the director tells you. That's it." Robert Mitchum "When I told Lindsay Anderson that acting was just a sophisticated way of playing cowboys and Indians, he almost had a fit." John Hurt "I despise those prick actors who say, 'I was in character,' and 'I became the character,' and all that stuff. It's hideous." Johnny Depp "I'm a skilled, professional actor. Whether I've got any talent is beside the point." Michael Caine Finally, watch this YouTube video of auditions, and HONESTLY tell me you don't believe you could do that too? 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-2650 | cmv | human | The common notion in society seems to be that self diagnosis is invalid and even dangerous. Not only do i think this is false, i even go as far as to say that this idea in itself can be dangerous because this has created people with the notion that they themselves are not responsible for their own health but health professionals thus creating a mismatch in expectation and responsibility between healthcare workers and clientspatients. You and you alone are responsible for your health. You need to educate yourself so you can be critical and challenge your healthcare professional and not blindly follow their opinion. The internet has almost every information one needs to diagnose a disorder. You just need some guidance which you can also find on the internet. I will give an example of Borderline Personality disorder because that's the disorder i diagnosed myself and later my diagnoses has been confirmed by a psychologist. 1. I decided to google some of the things i was distressed about. I came across emotion regulation disorder which quickly led to BPD. 2. At wikipedia i read about the symptoms of BPD. I have 7 out of 9. Continue googleing BPD and read whatever comes up. Experiencing epiphanie after epiphanie. At this point i'm fairly certain i have BPD. 3. Take a " do i have bpd?" quiz somewhere on the internet. Not surprisingly i have a high chance i have bpd. 4. Find stories of people with BPD via Google and rBPD (protip: read alltime topposts). Almost anything resonates. 5. Buy books about BPD. I read them. I Know 100 that i have bpd after finishing reading the books. 6. When i was fairly certain i had bpd (that is before i read the books) i went to see my doctor who send me to a psychologist. When i saw the psychologist i had already read the books. We had an intake conversation and the following 2-3 appointments i took two test that were nowhere near extensive. At last one conversation with a new psychologist for one hour and at the end of the hour he said that i had bpd. Now things get interesting. The time and effort the psychiatric institution has put in the diagnosis is less than the time and effort i myself put in as far as i can tell. From the very beginning i let them know that i did my research and told them what i knew and how i got the information (i showed them my books). It's like they trusted me since the beginning which i very appreciate. Now i don't see what is missing here to form a valid diagnosis. I only missed one symptom which was autistic fantasizing. That symptom that i had didn't come back in my research but i don't think this fact alone undermines the idea of self diagnosis. Of course there are some pitfalls. Some people really want to put a label on themselves so they can avoid taking responsibility for their flaws. I'm sure there are others but i think the advantages are more than disadvantages. Edit2: I no longer believe that self diagnosis should be encouraged. However, i still hold the view that a layperson can come to a proper self diagnosis in psychological issues. An educated guess is not the most feasible. Edit: I want to thank everyone for participating. There are a couple things that i learned. First that i should be clear that i was primarily referring to mental disorders not biological for obvious reasons (samples, equipment etc.) although i still think in this day and age we should educate ourselves as much as possible and have as clear as possible understanding of whatever we think it's wrong with us. Second, there was an emphasis on tunnel vision, self delusion and lack of oversight of other possibilities. Laymen supposedly are prone to these pitfalls which i acknowledged in my original post. I'm not sure whether this is so common as you guys seem to think. When you search for the symptoms that you suffer from, lots and lots of potential diseases come up. I think the case can be made that someone can get lost in all the vast possibilities, not so much for missing out a potential disease. Someone intelligent enough to understand scientific literature with honest intentions is most likely gonna have an accurate self diagnosis. I and all of us have nothing other than anecdotal evidence for and against this notion. Anyway, i stand by my original stance that self diagnosis is valid and necessary. 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-3891 | cmv | human | While religion can't be proven wrong, I think that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence against it and can be safely assumed to be false. I honestly don't see why the bible (for example) is held as true while no other fictional book is. In other words, it's just as likely as the [flying spaghetti monster] being real, or Santa Clause - I don't want to offend anyone but if we're talking about likely hood then this stands. I'm not saying people shouldn't be allowed to practice their religion, but from a social standpoint I think that we would move a lot faster without it. Ok, maybe I should clarify first. The reason I would rather have people not hold a religion is that it is pointless and unhealthy. I think we should teach our children to question and deny what isn't supported, even when it's uncomfortable. That's how science works and how progress is made. I also think that there is no where to expand with it. Someone just give you the answer and you don't question it. There's no curiosity and wonder. It seems like like a dead weight on society. CMV. -If you do I'll figure out how this whole Delta thing works since I'm new here. Also I think it's really clever. Edit: Wow Thanks everyone, this was fun! My view hasn't changed but I've definitely gain perspectives and learned tonnes. I didn't expect this kind of response but I'll read them all eventually and try to respond to most. (It's not closed keep discussing!) 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-2329 | cmv | human | I believe that if two people choose to engage in a fight, they should be allowed to do so. Ideally, it would be regulated in such a way that either participant could reasonably withdraw their consent, and bystanders were not placed at risk. I would imagine this including an agreed upon arrangement, stipulating the limits of the conflict, and an official (possibly a police officer) who would ensure that the limits are observed. Should either party violate the agreements, or place a bystander at risk, they would be held criminally liable. The saying generally goes, "violence is not the answer," but the fact is that often times it is AN answer, and statistically, it's one of the most commonly used. |
human-4108 | cmv | human | I believe the U.S. Customary System should be phased out of the educational system in some way or another, because it's only a nuisance to deal with. Why? The U.S. Customary System uses unfunfamiliar units, and it is quite difficult to convert one unit to another. Accurately converting customary units to metric units is nearly impossible. It is too confusing for others who were taught to use the metric system (which every other country uses, might I add) to relate to the U.S. Customary System, and vice-versa. It would be so much simpler for students to learn to use just one 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-3679 | cmv | human | I believe right now that ADHD is being used as an excuse for children who misbehave and goof off in school to get a doctors prescription and be off the hook. Where I live, it seems like everyone who gets tested for ADHD is given Ritalin or some other medicine to help this. Although a lot of my position comes from my viewpoint on the misdiagnosing of the disease, I also question if it is really a serious affliction. |
human-2500 | cmv | human | So, this is something I've been thinking about a lot lately. For the first part of my life I was taught that "right" and "wrong" are objective, and across cultures remained constant. As I've come to learn about different cultures I've found that this is not necessarily the case. I will consent that there are certainly common ideas of ethics (ex. Murder and other violent acts are wrong) that are accepted by most cultural groups. But even violence is accepted or condoned by the moral majority of some cultural groups. I think that morality is subjective and defined by the majority of a given society, and that ideas of right and wrong can vary greatly on whose morals you are dissecting. An example that comes to mind are the Etoro people of Papua New Guinea. Young men are made to ingest the semen of adult male members (by oral stimulation in most cases) of the tribe to become strong and verile. In western society this would be considered a sex crime, rape even. But reports indicate that these young men aren't particularly traumatized by this ritual, because in the context of their culture it is perfectly acceptable moral behavior. I can cite other examples of moral disparities between cultures separated both geographically and by time. So, reddit: let's have a discussion about the Genesis of moralsethics! My view is that these things are defined by culture as interpreted by the individual. Change my view! A couple of brief disclaimers for this post: 1) the idea of objective morality is an idea usually associated with theism, however, I am not interested in debating the merits of theism vs. atheism. I recognize that in a discussion about morals, theistic ideas are bound to enter the discussion. I just don't want this thread to devolve into ratheism. 2) I am a male member of western society. If I refer to aspects of American (my native country) or western culture as common knowledge please forgive this. If I need to clarify my stance or any vague statements, I would be happy to try! 3) in a bit I will be away from the Internet for an hour or so, and will respond to thoughtful posts when I am back. Forgive this my friends. |
human-1210 | cmv | human | IS seems to be an expression of nationalism, which is, historically, a powerful force that can't be contained. Muslims of the Middle East particularly need an inspiring group identity because their civilization has been falling behind for centuries. If we try to stand in the way, the outcome will not be what we want. When has dropping bombs ever made anyone less extreme? Peace makes people nicer, not war. Let's wait until things settle down, at which point the West can influence them in the way that actually works: by peaceful cultural contact. Trade. Student exchange. Entertainment. Tourism. Scientific and military collaboration. Intermarriage. I know how terrifying IS is and I acknowledge that some military action might do more good than harm, but the overall approach should be cultural rather than military. The West had a hand in making the Middle East such a mess. We overthrew democracies and propped up dictators friendly to us. We distorted their economies with our hunger for oil. Now we bomb them because they're trying their own thing? It's not right. |
human-2547 | cmv | human | I am in a sentencing class right now in law school, so naturally we are analyzing the various reasons for why we punish people and why we use prison and other forms of punishment. Chief in today's discussion was the idea that putting someone in prison for a white collar crime (see definition below). They should be forced to work to rectify the wrongs they have committed. Now granted, the most heinous of offenses where billions of dollars are stolen, would be hard to pay off. The only reason the criminal made so much was because he was acting illegally, but even in those cases the victim receives only a small portion of their money back. (see sources). Also most So why bother with prison sentences for them.We could very easily make these people's lives a living hell by simply treating them like people on probation (very strict probation such as the SWIFT courts in Texas or the HOPE program from Hawaii) where their every movement is tracked and recorded and they have to answer for placing a toe out of line. We could force them to work in some fashion and simply take, in addition to all of their other assets, a large percentage of their income to help repay their victims. They are skilled and knowledgable people, if their intelligence is effectively put to work they could actually help people. Ultimately, if they refuse or do not cooperate, throw them in prison for a year or two and see if they change their mind. So I put it to you, what is wrong with this alternative approach? Am I missing something? Is there some notion of justice that this is violating? I am more than willing to discuss the idea that this does not punish a person fairly, but I think that the goal for fixing a crime like this has to be restitution, not merely punishment, so that might just be an area where people have to agree to disagree. I dunno, I am anxious to hear some other thoughts on this. Def: White collar crime: financially motivated nonviolent crime committed by business and government professionals. Within criminology, it was first defined by sociologist Edwin Sutherland in 1939 as "a crime committed by a person of respectability and high social status in the course of his occupation" (straight from google search and thus Wiki) Sources: (Madoff victim compensation) (SWIFT probation program in Texas, opinion piece about it, but still describes what it is) (A whole bunch of information about White collar Crimes from the FBI, if anyone wants to analyze or see it). EDIT: (1-31-15 11:40 am). I wanted to address a few points that are brought up a few people because they keep getting mentioned. 1. Yes, there are other crimes that are non-violent that would deserve similar treatment. I'm not talking about those, only white collar crime. It's not a crime to not want to discuss every single crime, just focus on white collar for this argument. I personally believe every crime is different and needs a special approach depending on the situations and people involved. Just because I am advocating this position for most white collar criminals does not mean I have forgotten about other crimes. 2. Yes, you can force people to do just about any sort of work while on probation. Probation is an alternative to imprisonment and comes with any number of requirements. This would be no different. How they make the money might be an issue and many might not be in a position or have the capability to repay what they have stolen. For them, jail time would be appropriate. Madoff for example probably couldn't pay back 20 billion dollars, but even in jail they can't rectify thief wrong. They can't make up for it behind bars. 3. We could force people to do this work while in prison, but probation is cheaper and is supplemented by the people under its supervision. Also overcrowding is an issue, this would help with that to at least some degree. Probation also doesn't require near the amount of staff that a prison does. Also, if you are waitress about them escAping while on probation, the moment they fled they become a fugitive like everyone else on probation, and I have no issue putting fugitives in jail. 4. Many people say jail time is an effective deterrent. I flatly disagree and await proof to the contrary. My evidence is simply the crimes still occur despite the jail sentences. Although that could be a whole other CMV. 5. This is the first time I have posted to this subreddit and frankly I am impressed by the civility in the discourse and very happy I posted this. While no one has effectively changed my view, I see more of the problems associated with it. It has all been very appreciated. |
human-3375 | cmv | human | So I am gay, I know I am I get all hot and on when I see an attractive guy and I have known this since I was 13 but I have never acted upon my feelings I am 23. I just don't see the point in "giving in" to it, I don't really feel the need for sexual activity in my own life despite what society expects me to be like. I even tried to reject western society and become a Muslim which was a crazy idea in retrospect since it was probably a load of shite. I don't hate gay people or anything like that, I just dont think its something to be proud of since I didnt choose it and well some my age are fairly promiscuous, I don't plan on being out because its none of anyone's business. 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-3043 | cmv | human | Can you believe how schools have various new learning initiatives that weren't around when I should've benefited from them? Example: Laptops get rented out to students now. I would've LOVED that. There are many other ways K-12 schooling is better now than when I was there. There are many summer camps, and other fun trips opportunities that would only get enjoyed by anyone under certain age guidelines. Many such opportunities weren't around when I was the ages that would've made me eligible. There are also many technologies that I'd have appreciated had they been available when I was of the right ages. The LeapPads training tablets look like something I'd have fallen in love with had I gotten to have one at the right ages. Many kids have their own cellphones now. I'd have loved to have one too. There are many countless cool new toys that weren't yet made when I was those ages, that I certainly would've loved. And I sure wouldn't have been bored to hell in some summers. Game systems would be much cooler and more engaging. I love the idea of playing with a Nintendo DS2 or whatever portable Nintendos are called nowadays, and I still (mostly secretly) love Pokemon. I would've loved to play Pokemon on a Nintendo DS2 everywhere I go if I were the right age. But I can't be seen playing on a Nintendo DS2 in public because that's what kids do. I hope I survive to see the day Clinical Immortality is achieved, and reap the benefits from it, but some pessimists assume I may not get to see that day. And there are many more reasons why I should've been born in the year 2000. Now, how do you think my being born in an earlier year is a benefit somehow? I'm still not ready to move beyond adolescence, even though biologically I've been beyond adolescence for some years now. See if you can CMFV about when I was and should've been born. 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-2312 | cmv | human | Some people may be really bored in their classes because they aren't being challenged. Not every school has advanced classes either and I know my hs only had 3 AP classes. I think that schools should place students in classes based on their ability level. Instead of having someone fail a class, they can take a lower level class so they are actually learning and have a better change of comprehending what's going on. The students that are exceeding may be put in higher classes so they don't become bored with the curriculum. I don't mean that students should be put in different grades. I just feel that if they are not particularly good in one subject, they may need to go to an easier class. |
human-3609 | cmv | human | Sounds like a joke, I know. I'm going to preface this with a story (which constitutes the TCMV part), but it is a bit long, so it's skip-able; I'll get to my more directly stated (CMV-friendly) view below it. [TCMV part] A few years ago I had a friend who was very into the NY punk scene; I wasn't, but I was very into the idea of being able to say that I was to others later on. He came up to my place in the Bronx, and we both took a trip down to St. Marks to see if any shows were on. Turns out we missed it by just a few minutes, but we did meet some guys who were also too late, and we wound up hanging out with them. We traipsed around downtown for hours past midnight, panhandling for 40s, and meeting friends of friends; mostly homeless, skinheads, squatters, or all of the above. Three that stick out in memory would be the girl who kept rats in her shirt (actually probably the nicest), the ex-skinhead who was kicked out of his gang by way of a 40 oz to the head when they found out his dad was a hi]sp[an]ic," and the leader of the group 'Alkie', who boasted for most of the night about how many dudes he'd 'deflated' [read: stabbed and left to bleed out]. It was getting early-late, and the booze was up; someone suggested we make some money "the easy way." So off we went, from the west side to the east, to Christopher St. Why? because that's where the "rich faggots" lived who were apparently "too week to fight back." Here's the thing though; I'm bisexual, and on top of that, stabbing gay guys who've managed to make a living for themselves in the dark isn't really my thing. It was a very long walk; I had a lot of time to think, I had a lot of time to speak up, I had a lot of time to go to an ATM and take out enough money for all the beer they wanted. I didn't. Instead, I walked with them all the way to Christopher St in silence and fondled the brass knuckles in my pocket, wondering what it would feel like to use them. I can hardly describe how relieved I was when Alkie proclaimed that it was too light out by then to get away with anything. I was a college kid. If you had asked me the day before whether I believed I was the kind of person capable of participating in something like this, I would have told you with perfect certainty that I was not; I would have known this just as readily as I know my own name. What I am now, afterwords, equally as certain about is that I do not know what I actually believe; in fact... [CMV Part] I now believe that by-in-large, people do not actually know what they believe at all. We learn what it is that we believe by confrontation with an experience which either forms a belief for us, forces a belief upon us, or challenges a belief we already (think we) hold. Even after the formation, forcing, or challenge, we still only gradually become aware of the belief. Even then however, we do not really know if we believe this, because further experience may force us to see it in an entirely new light, and there is no reason to ever hold that the belief we have now is the one we think it is. Now this sounds like an alteration of ones beliefs, which is different from not knowing what our beliefs in fact are, but that's not it. (To reference my story;) I believed that I would never participate in the things that I did in the way that I did, and I still believe that I would not now - this belief did not change after the experience - it is the same exact belief, but I now see it in a different way (specifically, as uncertain and more contingent upon my actions and choices than previously thought). The beliefs either do not or need not change upon exposure to the experience; rather the experience shows the belief manifesting in our life; without the experience, we do not know how our beliefs manifest, and thus they remain under the surface - latent and often inexpressible. And yes, I recognize the paradox behind believing we cannot really know our beliefs, but we only need to know they exist to give them expression. Update: Almost immediately after posting my reply to GameboyPATH, something rather important came up and I had to be away from the computer for a while. 2 days can be a long time on the internet, so my apologies for the delay, but for what it's worth I'm back now and I'll be readingresponding to your comments. |
human-1302 | cmv | human | In 1994, the US Congress was debating a law to create a special category of crime victim. At the time, the ACLU called aspects of the proposed law "repugnant" to the Constitution. Others claimed it created a climate of undue assumptions of violence and victimization. But the people in opposition were at a disadvantage right from the start, because the proposed law was named the Violence Against Women Act. Those who might argue against it, even on reasonable grounds, were seen as monsters, because, "How can you vote against protecting women from violence?!" In the aftermath of 911, the Congress overwhelmingly passed the USA PATRIOT Act, which included provisions that raised serious concerns at the time and have proven quite controversial more than a decade later. But during a time of national pride and anger, how could our representatives vote against something called the "Patriot" act? Josep Goebbels said it was a simple matter to lead the people to war... just tell them they're under threat and denounce the pacifists as unpatriotic. Well, what better way to do that than by making them vote against something with "patriot" in the title? In other countries, laws have simple numbers, not names. This cuts down on the grandstanding and hyperbole. In Uruguay, for example, Law Number 19.172 legalized marijuana, thereby modifying and negating parts of the existing Law Number 14.294. Those numbers don't indicate anything about the subject of the legislation and I think that's good. We should debate the content of the law, not use the title as a shorthand way of condemning anyone who would oppose it. If we're not to judge books by their covers, then it seems at least as appropriate to refrain from judging laws by their titles, and the best way to do that is to remove the titles altogether. EDIT: OK, this has been a whirlwind three hours. Thanks to everyone who contributed their arguments. My view was partially changed, principally by ucmv12a and others who argued that shorthand names are going to get attached to bills anyway, so removing official titles is not going to prevent that. However, I remain unconvinced that removing official titles is completely useless, because I still think, for example, that the authors of an anti-terrorism bill proposed in the wake of an attack on the country gain an advantage by being able to name it the USA PATRIOT Act, when the general public discourse would be more likely to settle on something like "the terrorism bill." Interestingly, nobody argued the complete opposite of my view: that the naming method the US has now, resting in the hands of the bills' authors, is useful and good in some way. The arguments to this point have all been that a change to untitled bills would not resolve the issues I proposed it would or that names are good, but should be better descriptors of the content. To me, this lack of overt support for the status quo implies some change would be, at a minimum, a useful experiment. 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-3796 | cmv | human | As probably all of you have noticed, the current pope is big news. He is a loved man, because he helps te poor, speaks out against greed and generally does sweet stuff (like the current front page post about the pope going out at night to sit with the homeless). The fact that this is considered special and great, bothers me greatly; what I get from the hype is that the pope's behaviour is considered uncommon, that we should take him as an example. Is giving some money to the poor and saying we shouldn't be greedy really that special? I don't believe he is going out of his way to do great things, I'd say it's more a PR-stunt of small 'nice' deeds the pope does. In fact, he could do a lot more if he were really serious about changing the world. Homosexuals are still condemned by the church, people are still having sex without condoms and spreading aids in Africa because the church says you can't use condoms, the church is still filthy rich and evades taxes in almost all countries, the church is still spending very little of this money on real relief. I typed this out rather quickly, if something is unclear, let me know. I'm interested to see what you guys think. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.