id stringlengths 7 27 | domain stringclasses 31 values | text_type stringclasses 2 values | original_text stringlengths 14 42.2k |
|---|---|---|---|
human-3929 | cmv | human | To be clear, this isn't an issue of immigration for me, it's an issue of a large portion of humanity being unwilling to advance as one, instead opting to keep us separate for no reason other than "This country is mine because it is!." There are a million reasons that could be thrown at me, and a vast majority of them seemed to be answered in my head as "Why not just make all of that one thing instead of many?." The first few that come to mind are languages, economies, governments, police forces, and councils or groups that regulate things, such as the FDA, FCC, and people who control public education systems, to name a few. What's to stop me from saying my country's border is actually a mile into your country, and you need to change it? Your argument that what I'm saying isn't true? What if I argue that my country's always been a mile longer in that direction, I just never said anything until now? What if that corner of the sandbox is mine because my tonka truck was there before you came along and moved it out of the way? I think I've explained my view well enough. |
human-1131 | cmv | human | We spend the largest percentage of our economy on healthcare, but the quality of our healthcare is number 37. Our education system is number 29 and we can barely get 75 of our students through high school. We have the greatest defense budget on earth and we can't even stop a few militants in a country with no resources and barely an economy. While our deficit decreases slightly every year, but by the time the budget is balanced we will have more debt than the average can comprehend. Every Senator and Representative has bee bought and paid for by Goldman Sachs. And that piece of paper that we call the constitution seems to have lost all relevance in our Congress. For these reasons and more I believe that the only way to turn America into the greatness that we never weren't is to scrap the system and start over. |
human-1801 | cmv | human | I will tell you why this particular question has really interested me recently. My partner is OBSESSED with those cheesy mysteryunexplained programs with lots of slow pans into old black and white photos, creepy audio recordings and other 'unexplained ghostly activity' which as my wife informs me 'undoubtedly proves' the existence of the paranormal. But in all these types of shows i've been forced to sit through over these years not one has actually produced a case, situation or REAL shown evidence that factually proves above reasonable doubt the existence of the paranormal in particular ghosts. To try and make things as clear as possible to what i'm asking, by evidence I don't mean 'take a look at this ghost caught on video on youtube' I mean anything (which could actually in theory include a video) that has been studied or scientifically verified with all other possible causes ruled out. This isn't just to prove something to the significant other, I generally would like to have my view challenged or possibly changed! |
human-1921 | cmv | human | Tipping servers and other workers could be a nice gesture if you've enjoyed their service. However, many restaurants give their workers ridiculously low pay because the rest is supposed to come from tips and many servers live mainly on that income. That is, in my opinion, wrong. As an employee, your pay should come from your employer. As a customer, you should pay the demanded price. Having a customer decide how much the server is worth - after the service in question has already been delivered - is silly. The customer is left with the power to leave no tip at all for an excellent service. On top of that there is the question of cultural differences - when travelling I have no idea how much to tip and where. Why not just put those extra percent into the price of the foodwhatever else is being bought in the first place? You can still be allowed to tip when you think you received such excellent service that they deserve something extra but it should not be expected or counted on. CMV. EDIT to add: It's also more about looks and luck than who gives the best service. Women most often get bigger tips than men, and those women get more when they're wearing makeup. The general customer is not able to differentiate between good service or bad service, they just subjectively give more if they like the server or if they are in a good mood. |
human-3271 | cmv | human | One of the most common interpertations of Romeo and Juliet is that it's a satire of how young people act. I do not believe Romeo and Juliet is a primarily a satire of rash decisions made by youth, as many people think. While, some of it is a condemnation of how sometimes "young men's love then lies, Not truly in their hearts, but in their eyes" that isn't the main theme of the story. Rather, the main theme of the story is about the importance of forgiveness. My argument relies heavily on another Shakespeare play, the Tempest. In the Tempest, two major characters are Ferdinand, and Miranda. They're essentially the Romeo and Juliet of their play. Although the rivalry between their families is one-sided, Miranda's father, Propsero, hate's Ferdinand's father because Ferdinand's father had wronged Prospero in the past. In the Tempest, two teens also meet and fall in love very quickly. Ferdinand and Miranda meet each other, fall in love, and decide to get married all in the span of an afternoon, however, they have a happy ending, while Romeo and Juliet die. It has been a full year since I was in an English class, but I remember in my class, my professor said that most of Shakespeare's plays follow what's called "the rule of time." The rule of time states that all the events in the play should happen in a relatively short timespan. From what I can remember, most of Shakespeare's plays follow this, with Merchant of Venice being one of the few exceptions. For this reason, I don't believe the amount of time that passed in the play is evidence that RJ is satire. If we're going to look at the relationships of the characters through the eyes of a cynic the relationship between Ferdinand and Miranda is even more rash and impulsive than the relationship between Romeo and Juliet. Early on in the play, it's revealed that Ferdinand and Prospero are the only human men Miranda has ever seen in her life, "This, Is the third man that e'er I saw, the first That e'er I sigh'd for." Also, immediately after they meet, before they've even kissed, Ferdinand agrees to become a slave to win Prospero's favour. If Shakespeare did want to mock irrational decisions made by teens, then the Tempest would have been a better opportunity than Romeo and Juliet. So, why did Romeo and Juliet's relationship fail and why did Ferdinand and Miranda's relationship prosper? Romeo and Juleit's families were unable to forgive each other until after the two teens died. The families of Ferdinand and Miranda were able to reconcile before anyone died. Prospero is actually put in the position to kill Ferdinand's father after taking him prisoner. Rather than murdering Ferdinand's father, Prospero chooses to forgive him even though he still hates what Ferdinand's father did to him. "Though with their high wrongs I am struck to th' quick, Yet with my nobler reason 'gainst my fury Do I take part. The rarer action is In virtue than in vengeance. They being penitent, The sole drift of my purpose doth extend Not a frown further. Go release them, Ariel. My charms I'll break, their senses I'll restore, And they shall be themselves." Because the cycle of vengence is broke in the Tempest, Miranda and Ferdinand get a happy ending. The Capulets and the Montagues are not able to reconcile until the deaths of Romeo and Juliet have occurred. During the masquerade Tybalt realizes that Romeo has attended the party, even though members of house Montague are banned from attending. Tybalt wishes to kill Romeo for this, but Lord Capulet stops him as Romeo isn't a bad guy, "And, to say truth, Verona brags of him To be a virtuous and well-govern'd youth:." Tybalt however, instead of forgiving Romeo for attending a party without an invitation, decides to let his hatred for Romeo fester, treating Romeo's actions as a personal insult. "I will withdraw: but this intrusion shall Now seeming sweet convert to bitter gall.." Tybalt and Romeo would later have an altercation after Romeo and Juliet get married. Tyblat is unaware of this marriage and still hates Romeo, while Romeo refuses to fight " Till thou shalt know the reason of my love: And so, good Capulet,which name I tender As dearly as my own,be satisfied.." This inability to forgive each other is what leads to the deaths of numerous characteres. The ending to Romeo and Juliet is very bitter-sweet, the two teens are dead, but it was their death that had caused the vendetta to stop. The deaths of Romeo and Juliet causes the Capulets and Montagues finally reconcile, after seeing what their hatred did to their families, and the family of the Prince. "Where be these enemies? Capulet! Montague! See, what a scourge is laid upon your hate, That heaven finds means to kill your joys with love. And I for winking at your discords too Have lost a brace of kinsmen: all are punish'd." The deaths that occurred in the play were a result of the inability to forgive, and the ending of the play is the characters realizing that. Edit: It has beeb just about three hours since I posted this, and nobody has responded. I'm going to bed, I'll look at any responses tomorrow after my first class 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-2620 | cmv | human | For example, having to wear a seat belt whilst driving a car, or a helmet whilst riding a bike. Would I advise you to not do these things? Never. However, I believe that it should be our choice whether or not we choose to, simply because it doesn't affect anyone else should you not do them. CMV. I'm aware in many parts of the world these things aren't laws, however, in my country they are and these are just examples of laws that you are required to follow despite the fact it doesn't affect another. |
human-1136 | cmv | human | It has occurred to me that some random animal without higher cognitive abilities will lead a happier life than a human who has to constantly reassess life and understands death and loss, who feels hopelessness and defeat, even alongside the occasional love and victory. The "dumb" animal, on the other hand, doesn't have to deal with reasons behind everything, but rather feels things as they come, and has no sense of the deeper perceived problems of existence that intelligence brings. An ignorant person would potentially have the same outlook, and thus would lead a happier, more blissful life. CMV. |
human-4146 | cmv | human | I just read this article, , "A Gentlemen's Guide to Rape Culture." There's a lot that I agree with, so let me say specifically what I disagree with: "Because when it comes to assessing a man, whatever one man is capable of, a woman must presume you are capable of. Unfortunately, that means all men must be judged by our worst example. If you think that sort of stereotyping is bullshit, how do you treat a snake you come across in the wild? ...You treat it like a snake, right? Well, that's not stereotyping, that's acknowledging an animal for what it's capable of doing and the harm it can inflict. Simple rules of the jungle, man. Since you are a man, women must treat you as such. The completely reasonable and understandable fear of men is your responsibility." Essentially I disagree with the idea that because the vast majority of rapists are male, that all men are potential rapists and should be treated as such. Now why I disagree with it: Is this this not at least kind of comparable with saying, "Well, it's a fact that black men are statistically more likely to commit a violent crime, so everyone else should treat all of them as a potential threat, and it is their responsibility to show us that they are non-threatening." BTW I totally disagree with this idea, which is why I have a hard time wrapping my head around the idea that all men should be treated as potential rapists. Ok, break it down for me. To change my view you'll need to prove one of two things: 1) That it is fair to treat racial groups that are statistically more likely to commit violent crimes as a universal threat, and expect them to go out of their way to prove they are non-threatening. OR 2) That the comparison I gave is invalid. I think this is the much more reasonable option. You'll have to consider the differences in the situations and formulate them into an effective argument. Thanks in advance for your opinions! 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-1886 | cmv | human | As far as I can see, Libertarians want to do away with government. I believe that there are things far too big for private enterprise to undertake without state assistance: communications, schools, infrastructure, police, currency and finance etc. I think that Libertarians can only claim to be able to live in a truly libertarian way because a succession of governments has advanced the country to the point where they are privileged enough to live in an advanced economy in a first world society. I'm from the UK, which I guess makes me a filthy socialist. |
human-2450 | cmv | human | the snowden leaks confirmed that both US and british intelligence agencies engage in social media manipulation. they pay people to comment on facebook, reddit and twitter, with the intention of marginalising, ridiculing and discrediting people who say things they dont like, I.E. people who criticise the anti-terror laws and data collection programs. the fact they think they can tell us what to think, and marginalise those who disagree with them, indicates to me that they no longer believe in democracy, they believe they must simply do what is best for us without our consent, and then try to justify it later on. if that is what they truly believe, they should do the right thing and campaign politically, give the people the chance to vote on it, rather than just doing it and then bullying their critics into silence. many of us are not willing to give up our right to privacy just to reduce the already insignificant probability of being killed by terrorists. by not letting us choose, they are denying us democratic representation, and violating the founding principles of the United States of America. 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-2809 | cmv | human | What happened today was a tragedy. So far 3 people have died, and 150 are injured. I am getting sick of hearing people talk about how they are sad for the people finishing the race because finishing the Boston Marathon should have been such a great moment for them. I could not give a flying fuck about how their perfect race was ruined. An 8 year old child and two other people died today. I am pretty worked up about this so I know I may not be being fair to people who must clearly be traumatized or shocked as well. I just can't understand how people even care about how someones nice race memory was ruined when people have died. |
human-1956 | cmv | human | [Inspired by this article. ] I feel like every time you hear about a student who commits suicide or has a fatal accident you only hear the good. They were an angel, they were a good kid, they never deserved it etc. When someone points out that the kid was a brat, a bully or an all around bad person their death seems to absolve them off their sins. For context my younger step brother died in a traffic accident on a trip he took for his 18th. Every one was crushed, saying he had such potential and he was such a good kid. He wanted to drop or of high school to dj, he used drugs, he had run ins with the police and was an all around pain in the ass. If course I was sad to see him go under the circumstances, but suddenly it was like he was prefect because of his untimely death. Now I'm not saying that you should be balently disrespectful and hurtful. But at the end of the day a man lost his job because he called an orange an orange when everyone else was saying he was an apple. Now of course we don't know the whole story but it was just a prompt that got me thinking. From experience I know that an untimely death seems to bring out the best of you in other peoples opinions. Just because your dead does not mean you weren't an asshole. So there you go, Just because you suffer an untimely death you shouldn't automatically be considered a good person. CMV Edit; "If you can't say something nice don't say anything at all" isn't really what I'm looking for here. I'm thinking about why negative opinions of a person seem to change after an unfortunate death. Why would a kids treacher who hated him in life be expected to say something nice about them now that their gone and why would a problem child suddenly just be "misunderstood" now that they've died? |
human-1421 | cmv | human | I always hear people say "I want so and so" or "I want to have kidsget marriedwhatever." I always hear "I want," not "I need." Is it just people I'm around or people in general that make me feel this way? And like all other threads in the subreddit, CMV. Also, I don't think anyone directly forced the opinion if love being a want because alot of people, honestly (imo) are dumb. I guess I built it up over time? Lol. |
human-2686 | cmv | human | Liberal democratic government has numerous advantages over one-party rule by the Chinese Communist Party. For one, leaders in a liberal democratic form of government have more incentive to be closer to the people, because they know that part of their power comes from winning elections. A leader who is closer to the people has more powerful, because he or she can demonstrate their popular support. For example, when the Indian PM, Narendra Modi, visited the United States, he was mobbed like a rock star in New York City by 20,000 people. It's hard to imagine a Chinese leader receiving such a reception. Secondly, in a liberal democratic system a free press and freedom of arts and culture do not threaten the government. Currently, China does not produce very good arts and culture. American shows, such as the Big Bang Theory are more popular in China than home grown ones. Korea has been far more successful at exporting its culture than China, despite being less than 110th the size. Why is China, such a big country, so poor as producing culture? Because creative artists are stifled by the PRC censorship machine. Besides arts, to remain in power the government also has to censor alternative belief systems, such as Christianity and Falun Gong. However, people should have the right to express their own belief systems. If belief systems are suppressed, this leads people to turn to materialism, hedonism, and xenophobia, which corrupt and degrade the culture. Thirdly, the authoritarian government is pursuing a one-child policy that is very outdated, since the average Chinese woman already has only 1.5 children. Evidence from other East Asian countries suggests that the problem is an aging society and too few people, not too many. Demographically, this will weaken China's economy in the long term. Also, this is a cruel and inhumane policy because if you only have one child, and they are killed for whatever reason, then you will go into old age alone and with no hope. Only children also tend to be spoiled. In a liberal democratic society, people would be able to vote on whether they want to keep this policy, but in most free societies, it is a right to have more than one child for all citizens. Fourthly, a liberal democratic China would have better relations with the outside world. The U.S. is the world's premiere superpower, both militarily, economically, culturally, and technologically. While some reports say that China has overtaken the U.S. economically, if it happened it was only be because China is much more populous than the U.S. The average Chinese still lives the life of a citizen of a developing country. The U.S. is still far ahead of China on science, innovation, having dynamic companies, etc. Therefore, it is important for China to have good relations with the U.S. This will be much more facilitated if the two countries share liberal, democratic values. China's relations with Japan and Taiwan will be much better for the same reason. Both of these countries are liberal democracies, and China very much wants good relations with Taiwan to effect some sort of future union. This will be made much easier if China is a democracy. Finally, studies show that it is very rare for two democracies to go to war with one another, so the chance of China being dragged into a war would be diminished. Fifth, liberal democracy is the morally right form of government to have. Governments ask for a monopoly on power, so they must justify this monopoly on the basis of acting in the interests of the people. Who else to know the interests of the people than the people themselves? If the people of China really think the CCP is doing a good job, they can always vote in a CCP government in a democratic manner. The desire for having basic human rights, such as due process of law, freedom of association, freedom of speech, and input into one's government is not a Western value- it is a universal value. Hence why you see no clamor for authoritarianism in Taiwan or Hong Kong. I believe that if the CCP initiated a peaceful transition to democracy, it could be carried out in a much more successful manner than the Soviet Union did in 1991. For one thing, the Soviet Union was divided into autonomous republics that took up huge chunks of the state. China, on the other hand, is a largely unitary state with a mono-ethnic population that has lasted for over 2,000 as a single civilization. Also, the Soviet Union had to change its whole economy from socialism to capitalism. China, on the other hand, is already a mixed economy and would not require such a drastic change. On the other hand, the leaders of the CCP would be seen historically as visionaries who finally completed Dr. Sun Yat-sen's vision of tutelage of China into a modern liberal democracy. 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-2357 | cmv | human | In the original Star Wars trilogy Darth Vader is eventually redeemed by slaying the Emperor at the cost of his own life to save his son. Alas the prequel trilogy shows us that as Anakin Skywalker fell to the Dark Side he murdered a bunch of kids, to me this makes the future redemption impossible. As the original story arc was one of my favorite stories from childhood I would love to still be able to love this character and story. However I have had no luck reconciling it. So fellow nerds, if you can: Change my View. EDIT Due to the excellent reconceptualization's offered here, my view is changed. Thanks! Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! |
human-1020 | cmv | human | That's not to say various religions of the world haven't done some amount of good; missionaries providing clean water in 3rd world countries certainly are doing good for the world. These philanthropic acts, though, are more than over weighed by the horrible acts that have been committed (or at least made much easier) in the name of religion (the Crusades, 911, even benevolent slavery was justified through religious groupthink). Conversely this means that Science is responsible for its fair share of human setbacks, it's made killing lots and lots people much easier for example. Despite this, there are more people living on this planet, in more comfort, with more access to bettering their lives than at any point in human history. It was not faith in God that liberated these people from disease, it was antibiotics and modern medicine. It wasn't a miracle that led to air conditioning, it was knowledge about electricity and thermodynamics. I believe most people inherently want to make their lives better and whichever tool is best able to accomplish that should be used. The typical argument I hear against this is "well without various religions you won't know what is RIGHT and WRONG." Not true. If I'm doing the right thing just because I am commanded to, I'm not really being moral but just a slave to someone else's will. Whether you want to take the perspective of Utilitarianism, Virtue Ethics, Humanitarianism, or whatever, at least those world views are guided by rationality and not blind faith. Lastly I'm sure many of you will ask "why not both"? Simply put there are only so many resources we have to allocate to making the world a better place. I remember when I was in middle school i found out my (now ex) pastor (of a megachurch) had a private jet. Why should I donate money to a cause like that, or buy their self riotous babel (there was a "gift shop" in the church) when I could donate that money to cancer research or even just spend my time becoming more educated to the problems of the world. Of course this isn't to say that religion has no value to society or individuals, but if we truly want a better world we need to shift our priorities from maintaining the status quo by donating money to our local churches, and instead donate that money to more productive causes. Primarily, the cause of SCIENCE. All that being said feel free to (try to) CMV;)! (btw first ever post and I can't figure out how to start new paragraphs edit: Many of you guys think I'm being "anti-religion" here. Just so you know, personally I do believe in certain metaphysical properties to the cosmos. I'm not saying arguing that strict materialism is the "one true worldview" or anything along those lines. I'm merely saying Science contributes to the betterment of humanity more than religion, or at least organized religion, does. (and thanks for the formatting advice) |
human-1768 | cmv | human | First of all. I think that raising awareness is definitely necassary but I don't see the need for me to actually feel sad and impact my mood negatively when I'm not even affected by it myself. I'm not a cold hearted person people actually would describe me as nice and loving. Many years ago back in middle school we had the taks to read and eventually discuss how we feel about it about a story which describes how animals are suffering because of our consumption. The teacher expected us to feel sad and therefor criticize our consumption but was quite shocked when I told her that I didn't feel anything for the pig in the story. I mean if I saw that pig grow up in a public zoo which I frequently visit (or if it was my pet) then I would be affected by it's death or suffering but if an individual pig (or human for that matter) I never heard of before dies or suffers I don't see the need to feel bad at all. I find raising awereness mandatory however campaigns often try to receive attention by spreading sobstories and drama. When telling about such stories people often are shocked when I don't react affected and think that I'm cold hearted but honestly if I would take every single misery I hear about to heart I would simply break and couldn't sleep at night although not having problems myself. |
human-3950 | cmv | human | Hello everyone. Hopefully you can help me with a bit of a moral dilemma I'm having. The Irish government is currently implementing water charges for all citizens that use public water systems. The deadline for registration with the company tasked with collecting these charges, Irish Water, passed on Monday. [There has been nationwide opposition to this and as it stands approximately half of "customers" have registered to pay (this figure is widely debated).] Even though I am in favour of metered charges for water I still have not made up my mind (although as my title suggests I'm leaning towards not registering). My reasons are: [The exorbitant cost of setting up the company (1.9b or more as I can't find more up to date figures).] . Ireland is still in austerity, and ridiculous government overspending on bureaucratic quangos has been a successive theme in Irish politics for decades. [The involvement of billionaire Denis O' Brien, who earned the rights to Irelands second mobile phone (cell-phone) network by bribing a government minister] . His company Siteserv won the right to install water meters. I fear that he may purchase Irish Water if it ever becomes privatised (although this unlikely to occur in the next 10 years, Irish Water will take years to become reach the required profitability for privatisation) Irish Water and the governments complete and utter failure to communicate effectively with the Irish public, particularly with regards to charges for users. They have since rowed back on the initial high charges but the mistrust remains. The charges are a regressive tax burden that weighs most heavily on the poorest members of Irish society still struggling from years of austerity. I am not one of those unfortunate people thankfully. The government has had every opportunity to implement a transparent, fair and reasonable system to charge for water and has failed to do so at every opportunity. I think it speaks volumes about the scenario that even though I am in favour of water charges in principle, I am so alienated and disillusioned with the farce of our government and Irish Water that as it stands I will not be registering. With all that said please try and change my view. Message for mods: I will be active and participating for the next hour or so, but after that I must sleep. I'll check back asap tomorrow morning. If that breaches rule E, i apologise and if it's ok i'll repost tomorrow. 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-3079 | cmv | human | Parallel parking requires an awareness of the geometry of your vehicle, its turning radius, the sensitivity of its acceleration and brakes, and the ability to combine these skills to maneuver in a precise manner. These are all skills which are integral to the general safe operation of a motor vehicle, and I feel that if you cannot demonstrate them, you shouldn't be allowed to drive regardless of whether you will ever actually have to parallel park in the real world. These skills become even more important when driving an unfamiliar vehicle, and in my state a basic drivers license allows you to drive a vehicle or vehicletrailer combination up to 13 tons. I feel it is a massive risk to public safety to allow someone to drive a 26 foot Uhaul, with significantly reduced visibility and unfamiliar geometry, who can't even parallel park their own car which they are familiar with. So, Reddit, CMV. EDIT: In my state, failing the parallel parking portion of the exam takes points off your score but does not fail the exam. EDIT 2: A lot of you are failing to see my point. The tl;dr: The ability or requirement to parallel park in normal everyday driving is completely irrelevant to this CMV. The CMV is about the fact that the skills required to parallel park are also required to safely operate a motor vehicle in situations that are not parallel parking. The CMV is that those skills are important, not parallel parking itself, it's just that parallel parking is a convenient way to demonstrate those skills on a driver's exam. |
human-3860 | cmv | human | Anyway, I've never been afraid that I might get raped. Why should I be scared to walk alone at night, as if reality is modeled after teen horror flicks or the 5-o-clock news? Frankly, it seems like getting mugged is orders of magnitude more likely to happen. And the risk of that seems ridiculously low compared to getting in a traffic accident. To the point that it probably a lot safer safer to walk alone at night than to be driving around when there are a high percentage of drunk drivers on the street. If you go to a bar in a bad part of town where there are tons of drunk men looking for one-night stands, and then you decide to wander drunk in the alleyways of those neighborhoods, or go home with some random guy and expect him to not want to sleep with you, well it's just hard for me to feel like you're a total victim of circumstance or agree with the notion that guys everywhere are out to rape you. I'm not one of those who blames the victim, but if you wander around neighborhoods full of liquor stores, adult stores, and pay-by-the-hour motels drunk andor dressed up like a hooker, well it's no wonder why you're paranoid about getting raped because you're putting yourself in high-risk situations. Anyway, I don't want to be an ass and act like rape doesn't happen, I'm just having a really hard time believing this statistic that 20 of women are raped, when I have yet to have met a single woman who has been raped by a random stranger. I'd frankly be surprised if even 0.1 of rapes are from random strangers. I think this is the same kind of paranoia parents have of their kids walking home from school, as if there's a pedophile in a van lurking around every corner just waiting to abduct their children. I just don't see good justification for why a woman can't walk around alone at night without necessitating paranoia. |
human-3631 | cmv | human | Some people are more able than others, and I have my issues with that thought, but what I'm referring to here is the categorical aptitude of the type that comes with a 7-category chart and a guidance counselor. I don't believe that people are more apt for the arts or more apt for math and sciences on a genetic or otherwise natural level. I do believe, however, that when someone takes an interest in something, they are more apt to learn it well, so people with mathscience influences and interest tend to start on that path and become better at it, while people with artvisual influences tend to go down that path and become better at it. This can happen from a very early age, giving the appearance of an aptitude, but it's easily overcome with a well-rounded education. Instead, my understanding is that the more you learn about something, the more you can learn about it. Physicists spend countless hours practicing complex mathematics and studying the universe. Concert violinists spend 8 hours a day practicing. Talent is much more strongly correlated to hours spent working than to any intrinsic factor. Ineptitude, then, comes from basic misconceptions. If you try to teach a schooled creationist about evolutionary concepts, they will immediately start to tie them in to their incorrect preconceptions, and they'll falter in the learning process when they meet ideas that cause dissonance. Those that get ahead in a field simply have a stronger foundation. In other words, learning functions like a compounding investment. If you get a head start, you can be leaps and bounds ahead of people, even if you're studying the same information. It's my understanding that the pop science that I've read confirms my view as well, but I have done little more than read a few books on education and memory. I'd love to hear evidence against my position. 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-1592 | cmv | human | I believe that religion is detrimental to society because of many reasons: 1. It tends to enforce a narrow minded way of thinking. 2. It enforces traditional views that are not fit for a modern world ex: anti-women rights, anti-gay rights 3. It causes a lot of violence and hatred. ex: Muslim extremists, Westboro Baptist Church 4. Religious organizations such as the Vatican have become so corrupt, ex: Pope Benedict covering up the molestation scandals 5. Its anti-science. The traditional views of religion go against science which is needed for the progression of society |
human-3369 | cmv | human | This could even apply to animal and pet burials. I personally don't believe that humanity should use these methods. I believe we should, like all creatures, strive for balance in nature and I believe using a casket provides a metaphorical and literal wall between us and that balance in nature. -We are the only creatures that use such methods. Other animals may bury their dead but never in such a manner that we use. As humans I know we do things other animals do not, not all of them are good for the environment or for ourselves but i don't believe all of those are correct either. -We are meant to decompose and provide nourishment to the earth around us. Death is life. So much of you returns to the earth and is used for the growth of other life. You become recycled. Animals will eat you, micro-organisms break you down. Caskets and coffins and cremation prevent this, and can even release harmful pollutants into the environment. -the archaic belief in people returning to life, and even the belief that dead would feel insulted if not "properly respected" is outdated and a fallacy. What's dead is dead. What is dead may never die....because it is already dead and it doesn't care. You can still respect your loved ones by burying them and get that closure, but you don't need a box to do it. as a caveat, I believe the practices of mummification and body preservation fit within my argument, but I consider it more a demonstration of scientific and medical knowledge. An education in how the body handles death. Edit- Forgot a major point- They are ridiculously expensive and place a financial burden on the family of the deceased. It's unnecessary 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-4019 | cmv | human | By this, i mean to say that in the graph below, you are happier at A than you are at B, but you are also happier at C than you are at B: This is why billionaires, or people at the absolute pinnacle of their career can be sad, and 'feel hollow'. It is now much more difficult for them to improve their lives, so despite the fact that their lives are not getting any worse, they become sadder and sadder. Spoilt kids aren't happy when their parents buy them things because they expect it: In their mind they already own that new toy. And if their parents buy them the wrong version of the toy, they are then sadangry because you have taken away the thing they considered themselves to already own and replaced it. This is also why children born into poverty can be happy; they grow up owning and expecting nothing. Their baseline is so much lower, that it's quite easy for their lives to improve, and for them to become happier. There are a few other examples, but I can't seem to remember them. Anyway, I am in no way an expert on this, and these are simply my shower-time musings that i thought i'd share with you all. Maybe I'm an idiot. |
human-1573 | cmv | human | Many major events in history have garnered thousands of theories about how they actually happened. 911. The JFK Assassination. These are only a few of the events that have received the attention of the curious and suspicious. I feel that conspiracy theorists are given a bad rap. Anyone that doesn't completely believe in the official events of 911 is written off as "Un-American." However, when these theories, not only ones pertaining to 911, are presented with reasonable evidence, I think it's ignorant to brush them off as "crazy people theories." I feel that some people doubt their government would lie to them. I don't want to get into discussing theories about different events, I know where those go (rconspiracy). CMV. |
human-2172 | cmv | human | I called my grandmother for her birthday the other day. I had not spoken to her since Christmas. We aren't very close, and she doesn't cross my mind in my day-to-day life. When we were talking the other day, she mentioned how she thinks about me often and wishes I would call her more. I laughed it off, but she kept bringing it up again, as if to say it were entirely my responibility to maintain our correspondence. It put a little damper on the otherwise pleasant conversation but, as of right now, I don't feel I've done anything wrong. Please change my view. For those that will argue that the older generation, on average, isn't as familiar with modern technology (email, cell phones, etc.), I will remind you that the land line telephones and regular post mail that the older generation grew up with still work just fine. EDIT: The two major arguments I'm hearing are: 1) I'm busier than she is so it makes more sense for me to call when it's convenient for me. This is easily solved by voicemail, email, or writing a letter. 2) We owe a debt to the older generation because they took care of us growing up. Well, right off the bat, my grandmother and I live in the United States and a good chunk of my paycheck goes to Social Security and Medicare. I believe, as a person, I'm obligated to be civil when treated civilly. I am always courteous in my conversing with my grandmother. If anything were to happen in her to the point that she would require my help, meaning difficulty moving furniture, getting around, etc., I would be happy to help. But she doesn't require my help to pick up a phone or write an email. This is something she is more than capable of doing herself and has decided it is not her responsibility, while complaining about it. My view remains the same so far. Tradition is not a good reason for doing anything in my opinion. Edit2: coffeemanic gets the delta. Thank you all for your opinions. Have a great day. 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-4188 | cmv | human | I'm fed up of having to walk through clouds of carcinogens every day to get to and from work. I'm fed up have to spend my whole working day reeking of smoke. And today especially, I'm fed up that I'm 'being rude' and causing offense by pulling my jacket up over my nose when I walk past so I don't have to smell it when they are vastly increasing everyone-who-walks-past's chance of developing numerous types of cancer. I appreciate that this is an addiction, but at the same time I don't think this justifies the destructive and potentially fatal effects they are having on others just to relieve themselves for a few hours, especially when (in the UK at least) there are a [plethora of free services] to help and support people giving up smoking. I believe we are much more lenient than we should be about this situation, and that public smoking at large (especially in relatively crowded places like city centres where it is essentially impossible to walk more than 100ft without second-hand smoking) should be banned. CMV. |
human-1009 | cmv | human | No one starts counting at zero. We don't say that children are "zero years old," nor do we say that I have "zero cars." Yes, in Europe,, et al., it is referred to as the "ground floor" or "rez de chaussee," etc. However, the ground floor is indeed the first floor in a building, non? Every language has multiple ways of referring to the zero floor, so it would make it simpler for travelers to have a universal reference ie, the first floor. Would the average Sri Lankan know what is "rez de chaussee"? Probably not. But she would know what is "Floor 1." Furthermore, if you ask how many floors there are in a 10-storey building, the answer is 10. "Hold on, this elevator only goes up to the 9th floor... What about the 10th floor???" "Well, the first floor is called 'planta baja." "Well, why don't you just call it the 'first floor', then?" Possible counter-argument: when buildings have basements or subterranean parking garages (sorry, "car parks, they are called 1," 2," etc, which pre-supposes that there must also be a "zero" floor. However, labeling these floors as -1 is also illogical because I also cannot have -1 cars, -3 shirts, etc. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than 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-4117 | cmv | human | I've been a lurker here for a while now, and have really enjoyed reading through the discussions. But I've noticed that nobody really makes any [TCMV] posts, why is this? I've considered messaging the mods with my opinion, but I wanted to see if any of you had hope for it. |
human-1364 | cmv | human | Re-posting because I forgot to put CMV in the title, so auto-mod removed it. College costs are competing now with the housing for the right to be called the biggest investment of a lifetime. Yet we have young kids, who have no idea what they are going to be doing with their lives go and make this investment, without any idea whether it will ever pay off. Take chances, they say. Make mistakes, they say. Get messy! Well, after a 4 year-long party quite a few people end up 250k in debt serving coffee at a local Starbucks. Thing is, if you serve coffee anyway, you might as well own the place, and 250k makes a solid downpayment on a coffee shop. You don't need a college degree for an office job. You don't need a college degree to be a real estate agent. You don't need a degree to be a copywriter, or even a journalist. Very few professions - medicine, engineering, law, research - actually require one, so unless you go into one of these - and you better know which one upfront - you are probably making a VERY big mistake paying quarter million dollars for just a holding pen to mature. So my proposition is - unless you are mature enough to know what you will be doing with your life - don't go to college. Go get a job. Join Peace Corps. Intern somewhere - even if you don't make money, at least you aren't wasting much of it. Learn what your profession will be THEN go to college to study FOR IT. Or don't - if your profession does not require it. P.S. As a hiring manager for one of the world's largest software development companies, I often go to colleges to recruit on site. Both good schools, and bad schools. Typically in a bad school there would be 1-2 people (out of 30-50 that I'd meet in the few days I am there) who would be worth hiring. ALL of them would be at this particular school for a wrong reason: they could have been going to Stanford, Harvard, MIT, or CMU, but they went to XX State because it was close to home, or they got a stipend. Well, if they were to go to Harvard, every top ten company in the world would be competing for them with 6 digit offers, but as it stands now, they will be lucky if they ever met anyone from Google or Microsoft, and will probably end up updating banking software for year 2038 a la Office Space. If they did understand the industry before going to school (and it's not really that hard, most of us learned programming waaaaay before college), they would know, and not make this mistake. As it happens, however, they've made this important decision when being unqualified to make it - and with the expected results. |
human-2727 | cmv | human | I think that the belief that certain economic and social conditions are indefinitely self-sustaining or inherently stable is built on a false assumption about human nature. The proposition that human beings can be made content with rational social institutions assumes that human nature is itself rational. However, if human beings are fundamentally discontented with life or only truly happy when they engage in non-rational goods, then I fail to see how these social institutions can provide contentment to its people. And, as long as people aren't content, the possibility for radical change remains. I believe these times, and the liberal democracy and free-markets that accompany them, will inevitably give way to the next. And, I believe that this will be the order of things as long as human society exists. Can anyone convince me otherwise? Edit: for those of you who don't know what 'end of history' implies, it is a term of art used to describe a special set of social and economic circumstances. These conditions, if actualized, will create a stable social system that will not be overturned by proceeding developments. This picture of history was advanced by philosophers like Hegel and political scientists like Fukiyama. |
human-3577 | cmv | human | There are many pro-life advocates that approach the issue of abortion from a religious or moral perspective. I'm not even approaching it from that perspective, it's like walking on egg shells. I take my reasoning straight from the Declaration of Independence which states that Americans have "certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." These were the first fundamental rights we declared for ourselves as Americans and I believe these rights are one of the building blocks of American Government today. There's a reason life was listed first, if you don't have a right to your life, you can't have a right to anything else. So, if we take life through abortion, aren't we defying everything Americans stand for? Now, the reason I have the exception is because it gets a bit tricky if a decision has to be made between the mother's life and the child's life, it should be up to the mother whether she chooses to abort or not. The United States has no right to choose that for her. We have the right to life first and foremost but if there's a life that is going to be lost whether she has the child or not, then it's necessary for a decision to be made on which life should be taken away and the only person who can make that decision is the mother. EDIT: I enjoyed learning everybody's opinions and reasoning, I will admit that it has caused me to think a lot about where I stand on abortion which is the exact reason I decided to make this post in the first place. The one thing I took away from this discussion is that the major reason that pro-lifers disagree with pro-choicers is the varying definitions of when life actually begins. But there's no real clear, black and white beginning, it really does come down to your own opinion. If there was a clear beginning, I don't think abortion would be as big of an issue. Once again, thank you so much for the dialogue! 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-3697 | cmv | human | Back in the days of Nintendo 64 and Playstation, single-player games were all we really had and they were great. Games like Super Mario 64 and Ocarina of Time, Diddy Kong Racing and Mario Kart, Banjo Kazooie and Star Fox 64. All innovative, different, fun, new, with each release having far greater technological breakthroughs. Nowadays, games are just rehashes of rehashes. So many ideas and formulas have been experienced by the public that there is very little originality anymore. Also, with the genre so well defined and audiences so identified, with the developers and publishers so established, there is no longer any deviation from the formulaic repetition that is modern gaming. Why risk innovation when your demographic studies show Metal Gear Solid V and Final Fantasy 14 will generate sufficient revenue? People are generally so jaded with gaming that anything groundbreaking has so much potential for colossal failure, and with today's budgets for AAA games, the risk is simply not worth it. So where does that leave us? With a long list of sequel after sequel with the only improvement being a louder case fan as the grass and texture quality is improved by an imperceptible amount, further shaving off of strategy and difficulty as games are increasingly pandered towards the widest and most casual fanbase, generic rehashing of prior mechanics, stories, and characters. Games nowadays are just glorified movies. The relentless quicktime events on the Xbox One, the cinematics of the Playstation 4, and the increasingly adjusted focus of story over gameplay. I might as well use my time to read a book or watch a movie, because they would not be restricted by the limitations of gaming, and are free to express themselves more-so and be less constrained by the need for keeping the gamer somewhat active as the movie plays out before them. With other mediums you are free to relax and enjoy the show, and gaming is approaching that more and more each year, to the point where now you might as well just go and cut out the middle-man and ignore gaming in favor of these forms (tv, movie, book). I just feel like I'm wasting time whenever I play any single-player game. I am performing the same carrot-on-a-stick actions as thousands of others who bought the game. Just along for the ride in this themepark of a game, hitting a and b when told and pretending to feign ignorance over the fact that this is nothing more than a child's choose your own adventure storybook. It's come down to having zero interest at all in these games anymore. If anything, I'll watch the inevitable two hour speedrun of the game on YouTube a couple days after it's released and never think of it again. The only games where I feel like I have any control and enjoyment are multiplayer games. For example, DotA with its competitive and strategical realtime requirements as you fight against intelligent opponents and not dumbed down A.I. Edit: Based on ulyssessword's comments, I suppose I consider a lot of well-written puzzle games to be an exception to the previously mentioned points. |
human-1792 | cmv | human | The DEA [apparently] directs local law enforcement to find alternate evidence to back up cases that were in fact created via secret means. They might find a drug dealer via secret wiretaps, but instruct the police to pretend a random traffic stop had uncovered the evidence. I realize that the legal cases are all being built with non-planted evidence, but I worry that reliance on secret (unexamined sources) may cause the police to trust corroborating evidence more strongly than it would otherwise warrant, or even to misinterpret evidence as pointing the same way as the secret non-evidence points. Can anyone explain why this is reasonable? |
human-1588 | cmv | human | If you look at my comment history, you'll see at least 2 or 3 instances where people called me an asshole for splitting up my replies across multiple comments. I think they considered it karma-whoring (though I have no idea why a person would do something just for the useless karma points). I'm specifically referring to when I have multiple things to say about something, and those things have nothing to do with each other. Example: OP says "My dog is named Yellow Submarine," and I make two replies: (1) "Dog names are weird; isn't it funny how they are so rarely people names like 'Peter'? link to Family Guy clip," and (2) "I never understood why the Beatles made a song about a Yellow Submarine. Anybody know?" I split up my replies because I consider it to be good reddiquette: It allows the good parts to float to the top (via upvotes) and the bad parts to sink (via downvotes) independently. It avoids TLDR posts and entire threads that are only read by their two authors. It takes advantage of Reddit's beautiful branching structure to allow readers to follow precisely the line of reasoning they want to read, without unrelated bullcrap. Please leave the footnote below the following line, but remember to delete this sentence by replacing it with the body of your post. Thank you! Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! |
human-2485 | cmv | human | My friend likes to bitch and moan about how the rich and corporations control the world. Yes, they totally do, I get it. But my point is that there is nothing you can do to stop that. He personally wants to limit the power corporations have. He feels they get away with too much, and corrupt the government. My argument is that if you limit corporations, they will just find loopholes to ad nauseum. Organizations or groups, and even individual people can change their tactics far more quickly than the slow bureaucracy of a government. They can break the law in spirit, but not legislation. I.e., they can find a way to legally rob you blind, and while everyone hates them, nothing can be done if we respect the sanctity of the law, until it changes. And by then they will have adapted again. If you reset the wealth of everyone to exactly a dollar, the smart and cunning would rise above the rest again, and become billionaires. The smart and cunning would form corporations, which pool the minds and wealth of those who have the most of both in the world and with that they can perform superhuman feats of economic and political control. Bill Gates, the wealthiest man in the world is worth what, like 70 billion? Microsoft is worth 290B and Apple hit 660B last year. See my point? The only way to completely rebalance wealth would be to cap everyones bank account at a certain amount, but even then crafting capitalists would find a way to pool their money together and beat the system. A society of 5 people can come to a quick consensus to punish someone who obeyed the law in theory, but broke it in spirit. A society of hundreds of millions cannot. 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-2550 | cmv | human | In my dual enrollment English 1010 class, we are not allowed to use "you" in it or we automatically fail the essay. This is crazy and doesn't make any sense as it helps the reader connect to the story and understand it better. Usually after writing the essay I go back and change all of my "yous" to another word that can substitute in. After I do that then the story starts to sound weird with these words in there and I think it actually sounds worse than if I left all of the words as "you." Using "you" also let's the writer come up with examples for whatever their purpose heshe is writing for to better get their message across. Many of my friends also feel the same way and I have seen a couple of them fail due to this rule. Usually after class, we all walk out complaining about all of the stupid reasons we got a bad grade on our essay. I may be missing something that makes "you" ruin an essay but I just can't see it. |
human-3250 | cmv | human | "Public officials" might really be elected, though the process is hardly transparent and verifiable by most voters, but they rarely face penalties for making their bad ideas into laws that others have sworn to enforce. This also applies to the enforcers. If they do experience scandal for their wrongdoings, the worst that happens to them is losing the next election. In extremely rare cases they might spend some months in the fanciest prison, whereas those who are not politically connected and do the same crime face long prison sentences. "Public officials" take advantage of ample opportunities to accept donations from special interests in exchange for passing laws which favor the special interests. The officials then continue to cash in on this exchange by investing in the firms they have helped to protect from competition, in addition to numerous other kickbacks; namely, lucrative "consulting" gigs and the like. Why are most people okay with this? Are they just ignorant of the mechanism of this political machine? |
human-2182 | cmv | human | It seems that whenever I do interact with Americans (I live in Canada), they seem to be pretty nice people, but are so afraid of everything that could go wrong. One occurrence I experienced personally was a family from Texas asking me at my old job whether or not it was safe to walk 5 blocks to a commercial avenue to find food. The question would never have come to my mind: of course it's safe! What could go wrong? According to what many Americans seem to think, apparently a lot can go wrong. The entire country seems to be steeped in fear of one thing or another. A Florida woman this year [was arrested for letting her 7 year old play in the park unsupervised] , leading to accusations of abandonment. One Maryland boy last year was [suspended for biting a pop tart into the shape of a gun] , while another one in March was [suspended for making the shape of a gun with his fingers] . And the fear doesn't stop there. Not only are citizens afraid of each other and of the government, but the government is afraid of it's citizens, too. The recent trend of militarizing police forces across the country has led to the friendly neighbourhood cop looking more like he's ready to occupy a city rather than keep the peace. Cops are also assuming the worst of people, especially minorities, leading to 'preemptive action', aka shooting unarmed civilians. I'm sure everyone is aware by now of the shooting of a black teen in St Louis this past weekend, and the resulting protests and rioting that has come up as a result. If the cop that shot him wasn't so scared of him pulling a weapon, maybe we wouldn't have a city under siege in the middle of the country. This culture of fear is having negative consequences all over the board. Parents are less likely to send their children outside to play, for fear that a pedophile or a kidnapper will snatch them up. People are arming themselves en masse in fear of what their fellow citizen can do to them, leading to the highest number of guns per capita anywhere in the world, and one of the highest rates of gun violence too. Not surprisingly, the high availability of guns has made it easier for mass shooting to take place as well, which are almost a yearly occurrence in America. In order to amend this cycle of fear, people in the states need to take it upon themselves to trust their fellow citizen. Just because someone can do something bad, doesn't mean that they will. Just cause something bad can happen, doesn't mean it will. America isn't as dangerous as people seem to think it is (at least it wouldn't be if people weren't so afraid of each other), and Americans are pretty nice people as a whole. You don't all need guns to defend yourselves, nor do the police need automatic weapons and full-scale siege gear to do their job. And finally, criticize the media often about perpetuating fear, through sensationalizing mass-shootings, overreporting violent crime, and gearing headlines towards driving up primal fears in people. All of these things are just feeding violence back to people and making them afraid, and it only perpetuates many of the problems. TL;DR: America is a country full of good, kind people. I've met a lot of you, and I've never been disappointed. That being said, you need to realize this in yourselves and in everyone around you, and maybe confront your fear more often. Leave your kids unsupervised. Get rid of your guns and ammunition. Let kids pretend to play with fake guns (after all, it's in their culture). And most importantly, ignore the little voice telling you that something will go wrong, because more times than not, your reactions to your fear is what will really make something go wrong. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! |
human-2090 | cmv | human | First, I'm well aware of the fiasco that was 1989 on the cold fusion front. It was at the very least a disaster. However, since then, any scientist who so much as implies interest in the field, or any inclination to try the experiment, can have their entire credibility put into question, or be labeled a fraud, or a fringe scientist. On top of that, anyone who does research it, particularly those who DO find excess heat andor nuclear products are being disregarded without any real look into their results. (Even the MANY peer reviewed reports) My point is basically: And somehow people are still insisting the effect is fiction. Change My View? |
human-2457 | cmv | human | [Here's a link to the said act.] As stated in the [Declaration of Independence] , " Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form" The Smith Act directly goes against such principle. While, AFAIK, the Declaration of Independence is not a legally binding document, I believe that the Smith Act fundamentally undermines the will of the Founding Fathers. |
human-4031 | cmv | human | I believe that vaccines should be mandatory for children, unless there are medical reasons not to vaccinate. My reasons: -The government should protect children from their parents bad decisions. The government already does this in cases of abuse and neglect, why not when not vaccinating? Furthermore, the government also made education mandatory. Making vaccines mandatory as well wouldn't be that unfeasible. -The more important point: not vaccinating your child also puts others at risk (herd immunity), since some can't be vaccinated (due to being too young or medical reasons) and since sometimes the vaccines don't work. If everyone were vaccinated, these 'unprotected' people would still be protected since almost all the people around them are vaccinated. If people don't vaccinate, there is a lot more risk of those 'unprotected' people being infected. This is, in my opinion, where personal freedom should be limited: it's like sticking out your fists and spinning in circles. Others are put at risk unneccesarily. Note: I am talking specifically about the vaccines from the government vaccination programme in the Netherlands (Dutch link: ). These vaccines are free. However, I think that many points in this discussion are applicable quite generally. 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-1685 | cmv | human | As the title suggests, home ownership is not only irresponsible for a majority of Americans, but it should be made far more difficult to purchase a home. The second part happened in some respects in the last few years when banks tightened up their lending practices, but I am more concerned with the belief held by many that home ownership is some kind of basic right, and something everyone should strive toward and be encouraged into. When a personcouple is deciding whether to rent or buy, it is often a simple analysis of: how much will my payment be renting vs buying. If the price to buy is near or only slightly higher, the decision is often BUY, with not even the slightest amount of thought to maintaining the property. It appears they may be able to afford the payment on paper, but the reality is they are not even close. These families have no way of paying for things like new roofs, new windows, new furnaces, new driveways, water heaters, or any of the other hundreds of things that require significant amounts of money to repair. So what do they do in the winter when their furnace dies? charge a new one. Roof leaks? credit, you get the idea. And invariably the outside of the home takes second seat to these urgent issues, and you end up with a dilapidated eyesore in your neighborhood pulling down home values of its neighbors, and a homeowner who had no business buying the home anyway, drowning in credit card debt with foreclosure looming on the horizon. So unless your mortgage and tax payment are less than say (just making up numbers here) 25 or 33 of your disposable monthly income, you should not be given a home loanprevented from financing, etc. For those who may argue that home ownership is an investment, this may be true, but only in the best of circumstances, where home values are rising, and you properly maintain the property over a period of 10 years, when you are no longer just paying interest on your loan. 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-1276 | cmv | human | At the end of the day, money can only influence elections in one way; advertising. All that money can do is buy more posters and commercials. If you are a moderate voter, maybe that could sway you. Maybe. More likely, you will, as everyone else does, be skeptical of campaign ads. This is especially true if you aren't a moderate. It gives you more visibility, but 99.999 of the time you aren't going to change anyone's mind. Money doesn't buy elections. At the end of the day your vote is all that matters, and how influenced is your vote likely to be by smear ads? On the other hand, most people look to the few major news sources (CNN, MSNBC, Fox) for their actual information when it comes to campaigns and making decisions. People seek out news that agrees with them and are then fed selective soundbites that influence their view of a candidate. If you're conservative, you go to Fox, if you are liberal, you go pretty much anywhere else. People tend to be less skeptical of their news sources just because it is the news. Now hopefully I don't need to explain why this is bad. Obviously the majority of news sources are bias, and there is a plethora of instances of false reporting. Why do people get so upset about Citizens United? I feel as though more than anything it is a scapegoat for people opposed to republicans and corporations. I don't feel as though reversing it will prompt any real change. I also don't feel like those opposed to it realize that there are plenty of motives that are likely to be held by democrats that aren't any more justifiable than republicans. Democratic candidates get most of their funding from unions, which, as far as I understand, aren't corporations and would still be allowed to donate (could be wrong). If that's true, it seems like one could easily argue that its a political power play to cut Republican campaign funding. If it isn't true, It can still be seen as the same thing. TL;DR: People may not have morally sound reasons for opposing citizens united, and the media has significantly more of an effect on elections than money. 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-1825 | cmv | human | The majority of redditors are just white suburban kids that have a very narrow minded view of the world. If you think about reddit in this way, most if not all reddit comments you come across really makes sense in that context. It makes sense that the majority of AMA's that commercialize and plug in their own products are catered towards that demographic. It makes sense that the movement towards a more liberal viewpoint, of environmental conservation, and homosexual rights are limited to whatever they know between 2009 - 2014 It makes sense, that "slut shaming is bad" makes the front page twice, with any opinions opposing this downvoted. With any other ethnic or cultural background, this would never be agreed on. 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-1574 | cmv | human | When I look around, everything is in perfect order. Gravity, the relationship between the moon and ocean, the balance of nature, the cells in our bodies. When born, we have genetics that respond to an environment and everything that happens is a functioning of that original equation. Thus, we don't have "Free will" and are only a product of genetics:environment. This means that when we are born, our entire life is already laid out. Why, when everything else you can see is perfectly ordered, are humans suppose to be "special" and random (Free will). Osmosis in our bodies, the way we use protein, our lungs, it's all so perfect and ordered - and yet we think that our thoughts aren't part of a function? EDIT: Thank you for all your responses, when I have time I will carefully read over each of them before coming to any new conclusions. I am busy this week due to just finishing exams and having to smoke weed, go drinking, hit the gym, play games and watch the Oscar films but once I'm ready to engage my mind again - (Saturday) - I will try to learn from everything you have all said. Thanks again. |
human-1532 | cmv | human | Two days ago I was helping my grandmother go through some of her old stuff that she was trying to give away. In the back for one of her closets was a silver encrusted sword with Christopher Columbus' head as the pummel. It turns out tat my great grandfather was a four degree member of the Knight of Columbus and that high ranking members are given these ceremonial swords. As far as i can tell, the KoC seems to be a pretty decent organization. [A brief look at their wiki page shows they involved in a diverse list of causes and they should be commended for the works that they do.] They have done work with Habitat for Humanity, disaster relief and work with the disabled. The thing that bothers me about them is their inclusion of Christopher Columbus. When I think philanthropy Christopher Columbus really doesn't come to mind. He is know for spreading pandemics and a violent governorship of Hispaniola. All in all, Columbus was a dick. I know that I'm beating a dead horse (especially on Reddit) by saying that we shouldn't be celebrate the life of Christopher Columbus, but i really feel like the Knights of Columbus deserve better then to associate themselves with him. I'm completely open to changing my view so please do so. 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-3351 | cmv | human | So, I've never been a drugs user, though I drink. I've always been of the opinion that you're welcome to abuse your body in any way you choose, so long as you're not harming anybody else by doing so. I don't really care about marijuana, tobacco, or alcohol, and never used to care about harder drugs either. I read [this piece by George Monbiot] a couple of years ago in the Guardian, and it raised my awareness of the cocaine industry. The author claims that the cocaine industry in Colombia kills more than 20,000 people per year. Now when I hear anybody casually talking about using coke I get a very strong physiological anger response. It seems that hardly anybody who uses coke knows or cares about how they contribute to a huge number of deaths, plus the corruption, crime and poverty which is perpetuated in South American countries. Most arguments against coke seem to focus on how it harms the user and affects their family friends, whereas to ignore the industry is surely to ignore the real problem. How accurate are the numbers in the article? To what extent are South America's problems caused by Western (I'm in the UK) drug use? What about Monbiot's points against legalisation - namely the possibility of increased drug abuse and associated problems in the developing world? Finally, is this really any worse than the ethics of the clothing or electronics industries? Am I right to occupy such a righteous position against cocaine users? 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-3562 | cmv | human | I'm not going to defend the uber-rich here, nor am I defending those who become wealthy by dishonest means. But poor people aren't poor because rich people are rich. One of things recently covered in the media (I forget where) is how college-educated women are marrying college-educated men, creating some of the inequality that wasn't there in the past. In addition, there's the realization of long-term wealth gains from educatedwell-off couples creating educated and well-off children. Meanwhile, on the other side, the problems of poverty and mental illness are handed down generation after generation. I've spent a great deal of my adult life administering government benefits, and I can tell you, unless you have direct experience, you cannot imagine the sort of problems the poor (most of them) have. They are not like you. For the most part, they do not have the skills (self-control, self-reliance, the ability to delay gratification, etc.) that you take for granted. Many of them have mental disorders andor personality disorders. There's also the issue of many of them being severely intellectually challenged. Some people are just smarter than others. As Americans, we like to believe that people are created equal, but they're not, and that is the true source of income inequality. Change my view. Edit: obviously I left out the word "on." My basic thesis here (not well-stated, I'll admit) is that income inequality is a symptom, not a cause, and that the real problem is that people are not equal in their abilities. Most of you have given me some points to ponder. Edit:It's sad that some of you have assumed I some sort of Ayn Rand devotee who proposes some sort of "survival of the fittest" society, just because I had the nerve to state the obvious- people are not equal. It doesn't matter what environment you put me in, how hard I work, or what "structural advantages" I might have, I will NEVER, EVER, be able to dunk a basketball. My legs are 30." Not gonna happen. On the other hand, I have a very, very good memory, and what can only be characterized as a "plus-sized" head. If you don't think there's a relationship between brain size and memory, and leg length and the ability to dunk a basketball, then you're just being foolish. I'm OK with income redistribution in principle. But, frankly, I don't think it's going to work. People are not poor because of the money they don't make. They're poor because of the money they don't keep. |
human-3267 | cmv | human | By criminal behaviour, I'm referring to major crimes such as assault, murder, rape, drug trafficking, paedophilia, and not petty crimes such as speeding or recreational drug use. Currently when someone commits a crime such as a violent robbery, society fails to understand the conditions that led to this individual developing the motivation and the mindset to engage in this type of behaviour. This is displayed by the ongoing failure of society to not alter the conditions leading to this behaviour, and the failure to therapeutically and supportively help individuals who develop it. Instead they are punished, and the likelihood of them committing further criminal behaviours is not significantly reduced. Overwhelmingly, like most diseases, criminal behaviour occurs mostly in areas with poor socio-economic statuses. Despite the growing societal trend for treatment of mental illnesses; aggression, social conduct disorder, addiction and other mental illnesses that result in individuals commiting major crimes, are still mostly untreated. Instead, similarly to the way we treated individuals with diseases and deformities historically, we lock them up in cages and attribute their diseases to them being bad people (historically we would say they were possessed). Additionally, as a result of seeing many "bad apples" come from certain social groups in society, individuals justify this by developing a view of certain social groups in society as being defective or of less value then others. We continue to reinforce this by punishing these populations over and over again. |
human-1889 | cmv | human | I've personally come to the conclusion that we humans have manufactured a word that is not meant to exist. We think that so long as there is no war, then we live in peace. How can there be peace when our own species cannot understand each other? You speak of peace yet not everyone has come to think well of homosexuals. You speak of peace yet religion is not tolerated. I'm very open to this particular subject because I've not read too much about it. However, the answer seems to be clear. Power, money, and all that brings the goods of this world will always be the determinant factor, whether or not true peace can be achieved. Nonetheless, I think it's a good idea to give you guys an idea of what I mean by true peace. I personally think true peace is the time when humans as a whole understand each other. I don't mean for them to understand how I feel when I've experienced something they haven't, but rather that not everyone's mentality is the same. When homosexuals are not hated because "they're different," or religious people are not hated because "they're dangerous," or any of the on-going stereotypes to be honest. Again, I'm very open to this subject and willing to have a proper discussion. Thanks for your time, I appreciate it. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! |
human-2585 | cmv | human | I understand that now and again a dog might run off, but I think that's just due to dogs being curious animals and they'll come back eventually (if they don't get lost). If you hold an animal captive is it really a pet, or is it just an animal that you've got in a cage or tied to a post? As far as I can tell most reptiles, birds and rodents don't have a sufficiently strong bond with their owners that they wouldn't run away at the first given opportunity. I'm not necessarily suggesting that people shouldn't keep these kinds of animals; I am sure they live happy lives and bring enjoyment to their owners. Does anyone here have a reptile, bird or rodent that they allow to just come and go? One that voluntarily comes back, that you don't need to keep an eye on to make sure it doesn't run off. |
human-3255 | cmv | human | How do you store something like plutonium, which has a half-life in the millions of years and is toxic at micro levels? Why are most nuclear power plants still storing all their spent fuel on-site? I don't believe it can safely be stored anywhere. Nobody wants a hot mess of radionuclides anywhere near them. Who will take ownership of it for 100k years? The effects of Chernobyl were devastating. And that was in a sparsely-populated area. Situations like Fukushima Daiichi, which involve far more nuclear fuel, including fuel with concentrated plutonium (MOX), in a far more densely populated environment (40x Chernobyl) are concerning, and I don't think NP is sustainable. |
human-1981 | cmv | human | We recently bought a house, and the first thing my next door neighbor said is, "Yeah you have a nice backyard. You'll see our cats coming through all the time." No joke. Several times a day, up and down our shared fence, little collar bells jingling all day long, and they are at least 3 of them. Once, their little one got lost, and so all night we helped try to find him. Turned out he had roamed into our garage while it had been open, and he was just fine. The next time he went missing, sadly, he stayed missing, and has not been seen since (I searched my garage thoroughly of course). The neighbors themselves are on the nosy side, and prone to vague accusations of people they've known around the neighborhood for petty things like missing trashcans, mail, etc. I'm ok to keep our distance. Maintaining the friendly neighbor banter, yes...asking them any favors, no. To have bird feeders out that I enjoy, I have to also put up with even more cat traffic. I have no idea if they are pooping or peeing in my yard (it's river rocks, no grass). My husband is allergic so it's not like we can get all cuddly with them and make friends. They are really a nuisance to us but we are trying to be good neighbors. I am not against cats in general, but I feel like we are part of their living area, and didn't get a choice. I am even thinking of it in terms of tit for tat, i.e., what they have to put up with from us. We are all professional musicians and so there is practicing going on at times, but we are not rockers or excessively loud. We also have a dog, but she walks to go potty, and doesn't use the outside very much. She gets along with cats who aren't aggressive towards her. That's about it. I guess this is more rhelpmecope but I could use some positive thoughts about shared custody cats... 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-3073 | cmv | human | Firstly I think I should point out that I don't wish for anyone to get significantly injured where they would have to go to hospital. I just happen to think that everyone needs to get a good ass kicking at some point in their life. I think it builds character. I know this can also create negative aspects such as revenge, depression, paranoia and manipulative behaviour. But it also gives an individual a sort of humbling in a realistic way. The world can be rough and things don't always have to go the way you wan't them to; you don't always come out on top. I think my main point is that everyone needs a form of humbling in their lives; and getting an ass whooping is the easiest way. Whatever negative things that arise can be fixed and everyone involved can become a better person. There is nothing more annoying than some douche bag who has an over-inflated ego. Change my view. |
human-1177 | cmv | human | As the title says, I believe that chess should have a perfectly mirrored set up. I was taught how to play chess by my cousin, who incorrectly taught me to play this way. The games I played this way were much more competitive, and seemed to make more sense to me in a logically. Of course, playing with other people, I quickly learned the correct way to set up a chess board, and became a great chess player. But the correct way to set up a chess board has continued to baffle me for all these years. The player that goes first seems to have a bit of an advantage, even in professional chess. I feel that a mirrored set up cuts down on that advantage a bit. 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-3831 | cmv | human | I believe that if we eliminated the fear of death, belief in religion, psychics, etc... would very soon after (if not immediately) die out as well. |
human-4079 | cmv | human | The licensing process should be designed in such a way to (as much as possible) weed out people who are drug addicts, violent in nature, mentally ill in a way that could likely be damaging to a child, or do not have the means to support a child. This will help lead to a situation where fewer children are raised in bad situations caused by having parents who weren't qualified to be parents. CMV. |
human-3752 | cmv | human | This may sound complicated in a sense but something I figure many have gone through. I also don't know if I can use this sub for this type of problem. I am all of 17 years old and many people my age are already, driving, hold a decent job, and have no problem accepting that life gets harder and they will have more responsibilities as they get older. I on the other hand have only worked two jobs and it was the same job and it was during the summer, I did well and I figured it would be a good start to get my resume going and have a job like this and it would help me find more jobs down the line. I was a counselor at a camp and I have still yet to make a resume due to little to no drive. I don't have my permit or license although I know how to drive because I would put it off and not continually ask my parents to get my test done. And I get job applications but never submit them for fear of the responsibility and my own fear that I would do poorly. I also have gained over fifty pounds over the last year because I stopped doing cross country and track because I started homeschooling and have no ability to make myself run past one week of hard working out at random. Lastly, I don't expect myself to live past the age of 30 because of my fear to grow older and have those responsibilities such as a solid job, a family or at least starting a family, paying bills, etc. I always make plans for myself to go ad do something with my life in the hopes that I will die at some point in that journey and I won't have to do anything from then on. My recent plan has been using my hiking and backpacking experience to backpack across the US from the east coast to California. I hope that, like in the novel 'into the wild,' I will die and it will be doing something I love. I have so many great things going for me and have a great position in life. I have lived a great life but have fear for my own future. It is obvious I don't want to force myself to do anything because of personal fear of failure as well as little to no drive to even do it because I am currently comfortable living with my parents and I don't need to do anything at this point like get a job. I also don't want to be a screw up because my parents have held me to high standards, wanting me to go to college and get a job and my license although they don't force me to do anything. I want you guys to help me in anyway possible to force me to get off my ass and enjoy my future instead of dread it and what it holds. What forced you to get over this hump? I am seriously lost and it drives me mad that even if I start trying I won't complete it. I need advice and I can't help but think the only thing that will help is a firm kick in the ass and being put to live on my own and realize I should've started planning earlier. Tl;dr: I can't accept my responsibilities in life and won't force myself to do what will be necessary soon. I need advice on how to force my hump and get my act together. Please change my view. Also sorry for the wall of text. |
human-3985 | cmv | human | I am a high school teacher with my master's degree in my content area (literature). My background is not in Education. I have only recently begun to take education courses, and I find that a lot of things are taken for granted that I do not accept. Many textbooks in the field frame standard teaching concepts as if they were revolutionary, yet when implemented they seem to ultimately be only a small changed from the old methods. The classes are also taught prescriptively and generally do not challenge students to question the existing educational system. From my point of view, school reform has to remake schools from the ground up, throwing out the status quo completely. This cannot happen until we drop standardized tests entirely, which are designed in the interests of test companies and politicians, not students or even teachers. Standardized tests are actually made to be failed. It is simply not possible for all students to pass the tests, because if they do, everyone will say the tests are too easy, and new, harder tests will replace them. This could cycle forever, even if students kept getting better and better with no limit. Testing companies sell expensive lesson plans and books to teachers and strategies and guides to parents and students, and so they require that students always be struggling to pass. In this system, there is no way for all schools and students to be successful. Learning is not linear, and there will always be stronger and weaker students in different areas. These tests therefore measure nothing other than the tests themselves. Higher scores in any particular school come at huge costs, as teachers must drop material that doesn't directly teach to the tests. The consequences of high-stakes testing come down hard on kids, who experience pressure so strong and lessons so unengaging that school becomes a place they hate to be. However, as a teacher in a High School, I would really like to have a more forgiving view of these tests so that I can help my students to pass them and generally not feel like I'm participating in something oppressive and terrible. Change my mind at least a little bit, please! Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! |
human-3616 | cmv | human | Baseless accusations of extreme positions have the effect of making those positions seem more palatable. For example, when Rush Limbaugh and his ilk call everyone they don't like a socialist, it desensitizes people to the ideology. Liberals keep getting called socialists, and it makes socialism seem a lot more palatable to the average person, emboldening actual socialists and legitimizing them in the eyes of society. Similarly when SRS types accuse anyone vaguely critical of the far-left of being a racist or sexist, it turns these positions from the fringe to the mainstream. Moderate conservatives and libertarians are constantly being baselessly attacked as being racist or sexist, what are they going to think? "OK, so wanting tax reform makes me a racist, then I guess I'm a racist." This again breaks down sensitivities, and makes non-imaginary instances of racism and sexism seem less abhorrent. 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-1593 | cmv | human | I was born and raised in a western Country. I see in the recent data scandals, e.g. prism etc., a huge danger for our society. Partly influenced through the read of the book "1984," in which exactly such system, obviously more advanced, enable the ruling body to dismiss such fundamental rights as the right to free expression. Through this ignoring, unimaginable horrors fell upon this specific society. Because of this and the well reasoning behind the human rights, i believe in them. Ps: As of this is my first post in this sub and english isn't my native language, i hope i'm not mistaken in making this post. |
human-1907 | cmv | human | At this point, I don't like the film because the film differs from the book so much (according to the IMDB, around 50 of the plot points are different in the film than in the book.) The film also seems to move too quickly (there wasn't any time taken to move the characters from situation to situation, they just seemed to appear there instantly. I'm aware that most of my distaste of the film comes from comparing it to the book that it was based on (I enjoyed that immensely.) Also, I haven't seen the film since its release in 2006. So please, change my view. I'll try and accommodate most of what you say. |
human-4049 | cmv | human | I believe that a crime is a crime regardless of the motive. I also believe the court should not have the ability to determine any such motive when it comes to specific attacks against any groupperson with certain beliefs, of a certain race, of a certain sexuality, et cetera. Why should a (let's say white) male get more punishment for assault if it's against a black male if the court can determine a "motive"? Why isn't assault just assault? Now that's just an example, but it works the other way, too, and with any other set of beliefs or backgrounds. I believe hate crimes in themselves are actually very counterproductive, and I also believe the court has no place in determining what someone's motive is. And before I get the argument saying, "Well how do we discern between first, second, and third degree murder and manslaughter?," let me point out that determining those charges are not based on what the motive is, it's based on the fact that someone has a motive or intent in the first place. So change my view! Edit: Well, I gotta get going. Thanks for the discussion, and thanks to uschnuffs for changing my view. |
human-2216 | cmv | human | We are stuck with a perpetual cycle of us vs them. We are forced to pigeon hole ourselves into one of two mindsets with very few exceptions. People get so caught up in cheering for the "home team" that they lose sight of what the issues actually are. I can't bring myself to vote either Republican or Democrat except on select candidates that I support. |
human-1653 | cmv | human | Lately I've been hearing a lot about how you can get shadowbanned if you follow a link to a NP subreddit, and vote on comments that you see there. I just don't believe that this is true. If you don't know, NP links are used in subreddits like rSubredditDrama or rbestof to link to a comment thread, with the intention that you will not participate in the discussion there. So instead of linking to something like: you are linked to something like: The goal is to give the referring subreddits plausible deniability to the charge that they are "brigading" the post that they are linking to. And the myth is that if you follow an NP link and voteparticipate the Reddit admins will detect it and ban you. I don't believe it. The whole rNoParticipation scheme is entirely user created. They have their own rules that they display on their own subreddit, but they are not reddit admins and they cannot ban anyone from any other subreddit. My opinion is that the Reddit admins tolerate the NP scheme, but they do not enforce it. In fact they have actually spoken out against it on occasion where they felt that it broke the [5th Rule of Reddit] : "Don't break the site or do anything that interferes with normal use of the site." I do believe that you can get banned for actual brigading, but simply participating in an NP thread does not constitute brigading. |
human-1504 | cmv | human | I've been reading a lot about how time time travel would work and it seems way too far fetched. I also see almost no point in it. What could you do if you traveled back in time apart from kill your mother and disappear from existence forever. |
human-3772 | cmv | human | In the spirit of the recent Trix CMV, I thought that I should bring up this topic. In the commercials for the breakfast cereal Lucky Charms, Lucky the Leprechaun (the apparent owner of the charms) is always being chased by a group of kids hell-bent of stealing the marshmallows for their own consumption. Although initially this chase seemed to be purely in good fun, [the more recent ads have demonstrated the increasingly malicious character of these children] . Here, poor Lucky is stalked across the world and forced into various hazardous conditions including: Giant carnivorous Venus flytraps. Being lost in a hedge maze A giant octopus A head-on mid-air collision with a tangible rainbow Most notably, the kids even try to kidnap Lucky using an over-sized butterfly net. Additionally, in other ads, the kids can be seen preforming various other illegalviolent activities including [breaking and entering] and [physical assult] . Without a doubt, these charms are rare, powerful, dangerous, and most-likely expensive treasures which may also have great sentimental value to Lucky and his family. Never once have the children asked his permission to have the charms, nor have they offered him any monetary compensation for his loss. This is clear evidence of their sense of entitlement. Overall, this sends a bad message to viewers (children especially) that it is socially acceptable to steal valuables from those weaker than you. It encourages a greedy, materialistic and aggressive disposition. Of course, if Lucky were to voluntarily share his charms, as he has done in the past, than I would have no issue. However, given the current relationship between the leprechaun and the little ruffians, I view these commercials as a simple case of theft. CMV |
human-2894 | cmv | human | I want to be clear: I understand why the drug war is evil, and I don't think drug use should be criminalized, but we don't have to legalize something just because we don't criminalize it. We could regulate it and instead of imprisoning people, courts could mandate rehabilitation. So please don't make arguments based on the drug war because I already agree the drug war is bad and still think addictive substances should be illegal. Anyway, here's the basis of my reasoning. Western liberal democracies require individual autonomy for active political participation. Non-autonomous individuals cannot fully participate in self-governing. Addictive substances erode individual autonomy by subordinating the full person to the desire for the substance. By definition, addicts can no longer choose against the substance they are addicted to. The usual response I hear is that individuals should have the choice whether or not to use addictive substances as long as they know the risk that they could become addicted. In other words, they are free to choose the possibility of addiction. The counter-argument is that addiction removes future choice; it becomes a non-nullifiable contract (i.e., voluntary slavery). Since Western liberal democracies have an interest in maintaining the autonomy of their citizens, they should not allow those citizens to enter into contracts from which they cannot renege. CMV please. |
human-3687 | cmv | human | I've always been the type of person to scoff at conspiracy theories, as they've often lacked evidence or believability. But the times, they are a-changin'. We now have a government that spys and collects intel on its own citizens and officials, freely gives that information to israel, aides in the trafficking of cocaine and marijuana into its own country, and consistently gives free passes to the big banks on massive criminal charges. Ex: Wells Fargo admitted to laundering cartel drug money in the amount of 420bn, and in response was only fined 150mn (about a months revenue.) I'm beginning to feel like you have to work harder to justify the governments actions than you do to just say "you know what, greed is a thing and people are shitty. maybe the fed's just trying to get theirs." Also (conspiracy theories or not), I'd be interested to hear who everyone thinks is actually pulling the strings. It seems unlikely to me that this is all part of Obama's master plan. After all, the big picture doesn't really seem to change much as the White House moves from one president to the next. Cheers to what I hope will be an interesting discussion. Please CMV, things are lookin pretty bleak. EDIT: Not to mention the way that both the police force and laws are trending these days. |
human-3876 | cmv | human | North Korea has had three Great Leaders since it formed back in the 50's: Kim Il-sung, Kim Jong-il and Kim Jong-un. All three of them belong to the same dinasty: the Kim Dinasty. Most major dictatorships haven't lived as long as North Korea, so there wasn't really a moment where the dictator had to choose an heir. Nazi Germany's Adolf Hitler and Italy's Benito Mussolini died when their dictatorship was less than 20 years of age, so there was no chance for them to assign an heir. Spain's Francisco Franco, however, did nominate an heir, King Juan Carlos of house Bourbon, but he wasn't in Franco's bloodline. Venezuela's Hugo Chavez wasn't followed by his children but by Nicolas Maduro. You may argue whether Venezuela wasis a dictatorship or not, but let's leave that argument for another day. My point is, dictators eventually have to choose an heir, but not necessarily a direct descendant. North Korea's Supreme Leader title, however, has always passed from father to son, and will most likely remain like this, which leads me to conclude that they're a monarchy. An Absolute Monarchy too, since the Supreme Leader has all the power in the country. 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-1914 | cmv | human | From It differs from other forms of homicide in that, due to certain circumstances, the homicide is justified as preventing greater harm to innocents. Families with disabled children suffer from poverty and stress. The parents are often forced to give up their careers to care for the disabled child. The stress on the family due to a disabled child often results in suicides of the caregivers, Social supports don't reduce this stress but only spread it out to more people. Raising disabled children's causes a great deal of stress, EDIT: My view could be changed if it was shown that these parents are a danger to the community. |
human-3067 | cmv | human | My reasoning for this is pretty simple. The main prerogative of a human's life [Edit: a living being's life] is to avoid death, at all costs. Therefore I can assume that anyone wishing for death needs mental help, and is certainly not in their right mind. I do feel that people in extreme, unsolvable physical pain should be allowed to die, however. There is a threshold which they would need to reach, and hopefully an age limit. This way, 100 year olds writhing in pain on the hospital bed may be euthanized, but only with theirtheir family's permission. Children born with a condition, however, should not be allowed. This is because I feel that there is hope that their illness will be cured in their lifetime, or very soon. This law does not apply to indirect suicide, such as refusing cancer treatment or not getting various inoculations. Please, CMV |
human-2495 | cmv | human | The main reason that most universal health care systems require an individual to have insurance is so that you can't suddenly buy coverage when you become sick, then opt out when you no longer want to pay into the system. This is no different from any other basic public service. You can't opt out of paying for schools once you graduate, or for police departments when you're not in danger, or for local roads when you're on a vacation. Even if you're not personally in need at the moment, someone else is. The only way to be sure that those services will be there when you're the one in danger, is by requiring everyone to help support the service. I do not think that the ACA's individual mandate remotely violates any rights; in fact, since the fee is relatively easy to avoid, it's less intrusive than even an ordinary tax. Edit: a lot of people are pointing out that the mandate is different in that it requires to to buy a private product. I would counter this by saying that the tax isn't for the insurance itself, but for the government's guarantee that you will not be turned down due to pre-existing conditions or poverty. |
human-2187 | cmv | human | The concept of minimum wage violates the principle of equality of rights. It only guarantees a minimum income for employees, but not for freelancers and small entrepreneurs. Why? What is so special about employees? Why do they deserve a privilege that other types of workers don't deserve? It is a common myth that the typical entrepreneur is rich and privileged, but that only applies to a small number of entrepreneurs. Most of them actually live more precariously than the typical employee. In effect, the minimum wage is subsidizing a lifestyle choice and penalizing other lifestyle choices. If it is a desirable goal to give a minimum income to workers, then it should be given to ALL workers, regardless of whether they are formally employed or not. Employers should be free to pay below minimum wage, and in those cases the government should "top up" the wages. As for freelancers, they are already required to report their income for tax purposes, so they could receive a similar "top up" in the form of a negative tax, if their income is below the minimum. 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-2350 | cmv | human | My stance is clear by the title. A person is one or the other, either a theist or an atheist. Sometimes when the discussion comes up, and a person is called an atheist, they'll reply with "No, I'm agnostic," as if they are mutually exclusive. However, by my understand of the definitions, a person must fall into one of the two categories either in their professed beliefs or by their behavior. The definitions I'm using are straight from google: Theist: "belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures." Atheist: "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods." It is my position that a person either believes in god (or other deity) and is thus a theist. Or, a person does not believe in god (or other deity) and is thus an atheist. I also consider behavior evidence of belief (or the person is a hypocrite). So if a person behaves as if there is a deity they are a theist, and if they behave as if there is no deity they are an atheist. So while a person may claim to be agnostic, stating that think that the existence of a deity is not currently know or is completely unknowable, they still fall into one side of the dichotomy based on either their professed beliefs or their behaviors. You can change my view by demonstrating that atheisttheist is not a dichotomy and there is a third position aside from (1) Belief in a god or deity and (2) lack of belief in a god or deity. Edit 1: I should further clarify the definitions listed above. The definition of atheist includes both those who disbelieve and those who lack a belief. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but disbelief is defined as "inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real." and the lack (of belief) would be defined as "the state of being without (belief) or not having enough of something." So a person who doesn't ask the question about deities cannot hold any belief about deities, thus 'lacks' a belief in deity and is thus an atheist. EDIT 2: Thank everyone for engaging me in this discussion! I'm not going to be posting in this topic any longer. As was pointed out by several people, I have expressed my view in such a way, and restricted the definitions I'm using in a way, that essentially makes this an impossible view to change. I still stand firm in my view that there is a dichotomy that exists, either a belief in a deity guides a person's behavior or it does not. That dichotomy has words associated with each position, Theist and Atheist. I still am not convinced that 'Agnostic' is a valid position to take in this dichotomy. Please accept my apologizes for presenting a view in a way that makes it unchangeable. Reading the replies I was able to better articulate my view and will be posting a more refined CMV on this subject at a later time. 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-3968 | cmv | human | When media outlets have nothing better to do than say a reporter was inconvenienced by police (i.e. for not following directions and putting themselves in harms way) then that is fabricating an event. When a reporter antagonizes someone to get a reaction, that is fabricating drama. When a reporter goes into a hostile territory (that doesn't recognize freedom of the press) with a particular agenda to sway public opinion, and gets their head cut off, that isn't surprising, or news worthy, compared to the actual lives lost. Reporters are not martyrs. What is one reporter to thousands of people? Because they are western we value their life more? News is about entertainment and shaping public opinion, the powers that be cannot help but corrupt it. But when story after story is about reporters as victims, when they are often the agitators and less and less able to be unbiased, or demonstrate journalistic integrity, is a total wank job. The riots are fanned by the media, there is no doubt in my mind about that. It makes for more media. But for said media to whine about reporters getting caught up in the fray is just pathetic IMHO. It becomes an end unto itself. |
human-1887 | cmv | human | I just walked into my living room to see my cat all curled up on my favorite chair. When I walked into the living room, I had the intention of sitting on that chair. However, there are other suitable chairs I could sit on instead to fulfill my specific purpose of being able to view the TV screen. It is my view that a cat owner in this situation should let the cat stay in the chair and the owner should sit in a different available chair instead. My reason is because the cat lives there too. The home is the cat's home too; the chair is the cat's chair too. The cat has every right to sit there as you do, and the cat got there first. (Exception A: There are some areas in the home that may be off limits to pets and that's okay. This CMV assumes this chair isn't off limits.) If it was your roommate housemate (for clarity, I think "Housemate" is better) in the chair and you wouldn't say "get up, I want to sit there," then you also shouldn't push the cat off the chair so you can sit there. Roommate Housemate of course meaning any person you live with or who may be at your home. And the reason I say "if" is because some people would tell their housemate to get out of their favorite chair. I'm picturing [Red from That 70's Show] or [the dad from Clueless] when he enters the dining room and Cher and her friend are at the table and he immediately barks at the friend: "Get out of my chair!" Personally I find these "favorite chair" antics very rude, but ultimately if you would kick another human out of "your chair," then that's Exception B to this CMV and you can kick your cat out of the chair too. Exception C: I do have one more exception - when you get up for just a moment to get a drink of water or use the restroom, etc, and immediately return to your chair to find the cat has jumped into it and taken your spot. It's okay to push the cat off the chair in that moment because the cat "stole" your spot in that moment - even though the cat isn't really aware of that. Similarly, if you walked in to find your housemate just took your chair like that, one definitely may say "hey, I was just sitting there; you stole my seat!" and expect the housemate to move. 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-1282 | cmv | human | When someone is trying to solve a hard problem I feel telling said person that foo, that subject they are concerned with is "a numbers game" is a disingenuous thing to say. Every thing can be reduced to "a numbers game" if you took a couple minutes to think about it. Saying foo is a numbers game is a clever way to avoid thinking about the problem. If someone is having a hard social problem, you could just dismiss it as a numbers game, but I never heard of anyone following up with a reference to economists. Someone saying that foo is a numbers game is a shining example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Try asking someone who say that to write the numbers down. Their respond would nearly always be do more bar to get foo. The reason they can't just say do more bar is if they are wrong and they get called out on it and get proven wrong they will feel bad for it. So they say "do more bar to get foo" as the euphemism "foo is a numbers game" so they have more room to away. |
human-3918 | cmv | human | Okay so not long ago I made [this post] . My view was changed on that subject as there is no way for your consciousness to continue to another life, mainly because our DNAs are completly unique and a new person born would never have the same DNA as me, and so it is impossible to reincarnate. That new person is a new person exclusively. Otherwise it could have been anyone who ever lived But I still think about this quite a lot. And I know this is complete speculation that is most probably wrong, but I hope to get my toughts across. Lets suppose this is a timeline of the Universe with me in it. 0vIKz Where 0 is the beggining of the Universe, the Big Bang; My name is the period of the time I lived, from birth to death. So, before even becoming a fetus, my body was nothing more than other matter composing other things. You could say I existed in some sort of half assed form, but I was not conscious due to, well, my lack of brain (or any organ for that matter).EDIT I know this is wrong, but it is just to aid my toughts. That being said, we could argue (now this is where the speculation starts entering the Spaghetti Monster zone) that tough I "existed," I did not have any time perception. Therefore, the amount of time perceived by "me" since the beggining of the Universe till the moment I actually had a notion of time was 0. As if I was sleeping, even tough I was dead. "But that makes no sense, how did you even perceive any time if you were dead?" Exactly. The fact that I was dead means that, to me, the Universe only existed from the moment I was born to the moment I died. For me, there was nothing before. I do not remember feeling anything, seeing anything, hearing anything, nothing. I only know that I am living now, 14 billion years after the creation of the Universe. Now, if we assume that I go back to that state, the one before birth, when I die, then we can also assume that "I" also loose my perception of time. Therefore, IF I do ever live again in any sort of form, I will not remember anything of my past life, nor will I know exactly how long it had been, or how long I had been waiting. For me, it will be virtually instant. One second dead, the other, a living chair in an alternate Universe (yea ignore these last few words) But now here comes the big IF, and it is the good old question if 1000 monkeys with a 1000 typewriters mashing the buttons could replicate the lyrics of all Justin Bieber's songs. As it was mentioned in my previous post, the popular belief that the monkeys will reach their goal eventually is not true because just because something can happen, doesnt mean it will happen (exact words of umcaro) Even if another 14 billion years have passed and and I continue dead, for "me" it will still be the same. Time is irrevelant in my state. Of course, I could stay in that state forever, long after the ending of the Universe. BUT there is a problem: "my" time perception will still be 0. If all that crappy speculation I did is correct, then its undeniable that my time perception will always be 0. No matter what. So could my death really be permanent? Permanent is an adjective that means basically, with no end, for ever. But time is widely regarded as another dimension, just like Height, Thickness and Depth, and just like these, can be perceived differently. Sometimes we think that this boring class has been going on for eternity. Sometimes we can't believe it is 3 AM already. You COULD argue that it's something only inside your head, and you can manipulate it, not Time's effects on everything, but your perception of it (like sleeping for instance). Once you loose the capability of perceiving it, you may as well say it does not exist any more, as everything else, such a pencil, you can not see it anymore, you can not touch it. For you, the pencil may not exist anymore, even tough it still does. If permanent is not something that can be applied to your death anymore, atleast to "You," where does that leave us? TLDR Death is a permanent, dreamless sleep. But when we are sleeping with no dreams we wake up the next day not knowing how long it had been. So when do we wake up from Death? And if we never do, how can we stay in a state where we time doesnt exist for ever? And that are my toughts. I know, I know, I assumed a lot of things wrong here and feel free to point them out, but please just say if you do follow my line of tought besides all the mistakes. Also, I would like to avoid getting too technical here, as I am not familiar with most concepts and laws of physics or anything regarding these subjects. As of right now, I think this is plausible, but my lack of knowledge prevents me from really analizing it. CMV! |
human-4020 | cmv | human | I couldn't think of any other way to put the title. I'm no audiophile or music snob. I listen to just about any genre I get my hands on with alternative rock and hip-hop being the forerunners. I listen to music in a multitude of languages, but mostly English, Spanish, and Japanese. My library is pretty varied as a result of all this and expands as I discover new things. Awhile ago Redditors listed what they thought was the best album of all time and I loved most of the comments. "In Rainbows" was one such album and because of the upvotes I decided to look into Radiohead. I don't know what it is about them but my mind just zones out before their pieces can get going. My fingers reach for the Next button to get to another song before they get a chance to impress me. I'm having a lot of trouble getting myself to listen to the album, let alone the rest of their discography. I don't feel it's right to judge them when I've honestly haven't listened to them, so help me CMV. What's so good about Radiohead and In Rainbows? What do they do that I can listen for and appreciate? What songs are the most accessible? Thanks (I'll check back here and there but I won't be able to sit down and listen to much of anything until the work day is over. Sorry in advance for late responses.) |
human-3373 | cmv | human | Iraq was denying access to UN investigators who's job it was to make sure Iraq didn't have any WMD's (thus really making it look like they did, Clinton, Germany, Britain, etc all thought they had WMD's and with the civil war always on edge in that place, it makes sense that Saddam would want them to believe he still had wmd's) The USA warned them over a period of time, let the investigators in or we are coming in. Iraq ignored this and openly defied the UN and the USA. Mind you all of this was part of a Peace Treaty Iraq signed after they invaded Kuwait to keep the US from entering Iraq and taking down Saddam No Blood for Oil was the battle cry of all who opposed the US assuming this was only about Oil and how the US was just going to steal the oil... In fact the US spent Billions fixing and improving the Infrastructure of Iraq's Oil production and gave it all to the Iraq Government who in turn basically fucked the US overcharging for their oil and keeping all the profits. Once oil was proven to not be the dirty greedy American thing those in opposition turned to "HALLIBURTON" the evil company that was a major success and was thriving before Iraq and now claim that some fat rich guy (Cheney) pushed America into war so his EX employer who as making a ton of money could make a little more money I just don't see it, to me people who go on and on about how the war in Iraq was just about money are simply people who need to be part of a "cause" and ignore all logic around it. I'm not naive enough to think there is no corruption, or that people didn't take advantage of the situation, but I just don't see any evidence that supports the US going into Iraq was about anything more than them violating the peace treaty telling the US to go suck an egg at a moment when the US looked weak and injured and needed to re-establish fear in people who only respond to fear I don't expect to all the sudden believe the invasion was about money but I am hoping to at least understand why people believe this so strongly |
human-3221 | cmv | human | The whitespace wars have not subsided. [My opinion aligns with Linus's] (in fact, was probably formed by it): Tabs are 8 characters, and thus indentations are also 8 characters. There are heretic movements that try to make indentations 4 (or even 2!) characters deep, and that is akin to trying to define the value of PI to be 3. My opinion is not about whether to use [hard tabs vs spaces] (FWIW I'm against using hard tabs as a way to accommodate different indentation preferences), but about the meaning of hard tabs. My opinion also does not extend beyond source code or similar monospaced text documents. Change my view! Make me accept that it's okay to write code with hard tab characters making stops at something other than exactly every 8 spaces. |
human-1180 | cmv | human | With the United States 2016 presidential election coming up, the contenders have spent a lot of time already in Iowa and New Hampshire, which are the first 2 states to hold primaries. The candidates often spend more time there than anywhere else in the country, and I feel that people living in those states have a disproportionate influence in selecting their party's nominee compared to everywhere else. In my state of Arizona, which was the 11th state to hold the Republican primary in 2012, the news media had already selected the "winner" and most candidates had dropped out or stopped campaigning by then. Arizona will be the 28th state to hold a primary in 2016 according to Wikipedia (some states are still undetermined). Why bother voting in the primary if everyone has already agreed to the de-facto nominee? My proposal is to randomize the order of states to hold a primary or caucus. The dates can be more or less the same, but which states get to hold it would be different every election cycle. Better still, the order of states could remain undecided until a month or so before the primaries actually begin. That way, any candidates who have the time and money to campaign months ahead of schedule will have to allocate their time to as many people as possible instead of to targeted states. I'm open to changing my view, so CMV! Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing! |
human-1179 | cmv | human | I used to be a staunch conservative Christian. That is, until I realized that if I could not reason my beliefs, and give an account for why I believe them, I shouldn't hold those beliefs. As I began reasoning, I slowly lost my faith. The ability to reason is one of humankind's greatest and most important features. I think that to have any belief that cannot be scientifically verified is ridiculous. How could one hold something to be true to themselves and know that it can't be substantiated? And by "believe" I am referring to any opinion that is just that - an opinion, but conceived of as fact. |
human-2447 | cmv | human | I don't think that basic facts about human physiology should be hidden from children. From what I've seen, young children who know about where babies come from don't particularly care or else care only because they know they're not supposed to know. In fact, if kids knew about sex, I doubt they'd be as likely to be the victims of sexual abuse. I think pubescents being so awkward and inappropriate in regards to sex is due in large part to having seen adults treat it like a taboo. The adults are just perpetuating their awkward feelings towards sex from when they were pubescents! It's pathetic! CMV |
human-1788 | cmv | human | I feel like y'all should have some fun with this one. I believe in astrology. I am not talking about the sun-sign-only astrology that says "all Pisces are gonna have a [fill in the blank] day." I'm talking about the involved kind of astrology where you make a chart of where the planets were at your time of birth and analyze the aspects these planets make to each other. You can also analyze how two people interact based on their planet placements. If you familiarize yourself with the more complex type of astrology, it will help your argument against my views. I know that there is no known scientific basis for astrology, so I shouldn't believe in it. However, so many of the things I have read in my charts and my romantic partners' charts have been dead-on accurate. I actually love learning about science and thinking critically about the world around me, so taking that angle would be appreciated. I do, however, have a strong belief that some things in the universe are too big and grand for human beings to comprehend and perceive. The reason I discount confirmation bias is because I have used astrology to analyze relationships events both before AND after the fact, and have found the same level of truth. I genuinely want to stop believing in astrology, because it has had a negative impact on my life. I tend to fixate on negative things. Astrology just really doesn't serve me and the way I want to live my life. TL;DR: Please help me stop believing in astrology! I'm not talking about newspaper horoscopes. Edit: I'm not trying to prove that astrology is a science. I'm pretty aware that it's a flaw in logic of mine, but I just can't shake it! I'm looking some different ways to think about this issue. Thanks to everyone who has respectfully answered me. Edit 2: I knew I could count on Reddit to talk some sense into me. Thanks to all of you folks who did not treat me like an idiot and especially to umasterrod for illuminating my reasons for deceiving myself and to uloughmiller for giving me a quick and easy test. I'm off the crack. On to real life. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . 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-3868 | cmv | human | The purpose of higher education is purportedly to do such things as "advance knowledge, to promote understanding, and to serve society" (Harvard College mission statement). It may, in fact, do some of those things for individual student and serve society in the short-term. However, unfortunately the long-term effects of higher education are actually the opposite: higher education substantially reduces the total fertility rates of its students, thus actually reducing the prevalence of genotypes associated with higher education attendance. Since higher education attendance is strongly correlated with intelligence and various other positive traits, higher education itself is actually causing dysgenic breeding and social degeneration. |
human-3365 | cmv | human | Why should you take into consideration how people feel? Seems like emotion drives most of the lack of common sense and logic in people these days. If that's the case, then I should feel no remorse if actions are done that exploit or make fun of human ignorance. The common man knows almost nothing logic-wise, but knows all the pointless shit that goes on in the social world and in his life and in even seeing unjust things, will do nothing to solve it except post a status and picture, why should I take how he feels to my actions into consideration? If people cant even show half of what their brains are there for, then I should not have to care about how they feel when I do things on my own whim and desire 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-3064 | cmv | human | I was having a debate with a fairly hard-core social activist blogger the other day, and, in our discussion, we found that we had a fundamental disagreement that formed a roadblock to our debate. Her claim was that racism and sexism only apply when they are against an oppressed minority. I, in contrast, believe that racism, sexism, and other forms of oppression and discrimination apply no mater who they're applied to. For example: If a black person is discriminated against and denied a job solely on the basis that they're black, that is racism and it's wrong. My disputed corollary: If a white person is discriminated against and denied a job solely on the basis that he's white, due to affirmative action, that is racism and it is wrong. If society thinks less of a woman because she doesn't have blond hair, big boobs and a round butt and isn't pencil thin, that's sexism and that's wrong. If society thinks less of a man because he doesn't have Ryan Gosling abs and an uncompromised machismo, that is sexism too. Where is my reasoning wrong here? I'm a confused college student and it seems that all of my peers have a stance contrary to mine, but that seems wrong 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-1146 | cmv | human | I hear very often the classic feminist argument: It is fine for men to have sex with a lot of women and not be chastised for it. Why must we demonize promiscuous women by calling them sluts? Double Standard! I don't agree with that. In my opinion, the feminist opinion is based on a wrong premise, which is that the analog of a promiscuous woman is a promiscuous man. But is this really true? Historically and evolutionarily, men have selected women for fertility, looks, and the ability to care for babies. Women have selected men based on material resourcefulness. Tall, rich men are in vogue since forever (a casual stroll through okcupid failed to find me a woman who dates a man below 6 foot tall!). But if that has historically and evolutionarily been the case, then we can better view the analog of a non-ideal woman being a non-ideal man (non-ideal in the eyes of society in general). The non-ideal woman is a bad-looking disloyal uncaring slut. BUT the non-ideal man is NOT a promiscuous man. He is a non-resourceful guy, a deadbeat dad, an unemployed basement dweller, a loser! And he is chastised by society much much more than a slut. If we view it this way, there is no double standard. Society just hates the non-ideal man AND the non-ideal woman. TL;DR In light of the above argument, I believe that the analog of a slut is an unemployed man and both of them are shunned by society. There is no double-standard. 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-1367 | cmv | human | The entire process is a bit screwed up- you go to a store, you buy your pet (whether from a pet store or a shelter), and you lock it in your house until it loses the will to run away or develops Stockholm syndrome. I'd even go so far as to say "If you love him so much, why aren't you sharing your food instead of feeding him gloop out of a can?" You'd never treat an actual family member the way you'd treat a dog or a cat, so why imply they are one? I saw [this post] on the front page, and it bothered me. It's creepy. I'm not saying don't have pets- I have pets. I just recognize that I own them and am not their dad, big brother, or whatever other weird term pet owners use. |
human-3260 | cmv | human | My reasoning is this: Russia's economy to start with was horrible after the fall of the Soviet Union. To compound this issue, the US has issued import bans on many things such as ammunition, firearms, etc; And It continues to undermine the already bad economy of Russia. With the Russian economy tanked, Putin has one or two options from my view. 1: He has to watch his country slowly die, or 2: He does something about it, to try to help his country. The way that the "Old Country" or the USSR gained massive power was through the items the other countries held, and by taking those countries over, they gained economic power. So to gain some economic power or leverage in the horrendous economy, Putin goes after the Ukraine, because he doesn't want to watch his country die slowly. This is not to say that it is a perfect decision, or the one I would make; But that It is both a justified and unjustifiable position. The Justification being that he doesn't want to see his country die, but the unjustification being that War for money shouldn't be a thing in my eyes. 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-3795 | cmv | human | It has been known for decades that smoking causes cancer, even for the passive smokers (that is, people who breathe in the smoke created by someone else smoking a cigarette). Cigarette smoke is toxic and lethal. If you smoke at a bus stop or train station, you force all the other waiting passengers to breathe in your toxins. If you smoke while just walking through a city, you force all passers-by to breathe in your toxins. If you smoke in any closed room, including your own home, you force everyone to breathe in your toxins who visits later. Also your toxins will leave the room as soon as a door or window is opened. If you smoke on your balcony, you force your toxins on anyone who might be standing on their balcony, or whose window might let in the smoke. In summary, anywhere you smoke, you're being inconsiderate to other people. I can't really think of any situation in which smoking is not inconsiderate. Maybe, just maybe, I might not mind you smoking in Antarctica. (The Sahara is not unpopulated enough. The Amazonian rainforest is also not unpopulated enough, and on top of that you could start a forest fire and that would be inconsiderate too.) The following arguments are not going to change my view: "What I put in my body is up to me." - Yes, it is, but you're forcing other people to breathe it too, and that's not OK. "Once dissipated, the concentration of toxins is negligible." - It's not up to you to make that call for me. I do not want to breathe your toxins, and I decide at what concentration I say it's fine for me. "Smoking is hard to quit." - This is true, and I have sympathy for smokers who are trapped in their addiction. Anyone wishing to quit smoking has my full moral support and admiration. Show your willingness to quit and I will help you through it. If you are unwilling to even try, or you claim that you've tried and given up, or you bring up any other lame excuse to continue doing it, then you are being inconsiderate. "There are lots of other toxins, and some of them are in higher concentration than cigarette smoke." - This is changing the subject. The subject is cigarette smoke. Just because we already have other toxins, doesn't mean we have to add to them. 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-2506 | cmv | human | While I understand Israel has the RIGHT to exist, and given that it already does exist it should continue to exist, I do not understand the need for a Jewish state (A state where the government attempts to enforce a Jewish majority through immigration and family incentives) Honestly IMO half the reason Israel is under attack all the time is it's location, if they all moved to say America (admittedly some parts are friendlier to jews than others but in general I would call America generally tolerant of the Jewish faith) everything would be generally fine. But instead they see a need to reinforce their faith with a rigid state placed in their holy land (despite the fact I know many Jews that are atheists that still identify a Jews (that one always confuses me In the end its causing more harm than good EDIT: SO hey Ill give an update So far I have learned that antisemitism is still a major problem in not northeast americawestern europe I have only been called an antisemite twice (shocked actually) To reiterate I am wondering why israel feels the need to be an enforced JEWISH state I still see part of the problem being that jews seem intent on being insular and self segregating themselves (basically Israel) I understand there are places that ostracize jews on purpose but acting like that is currently EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD is overkill. While I understand that they tried this in the pre hitler germany..and well hitler happened, it has been tried again in places like NYC and most of NE america, and while there are some hate crimes its really not that bad. Also before people start crying OMG your asking us to sacrifice our culture our existence to survive as people, no I am not. In all reality many peoples have integrated themselves into US society without totally loosing their cultural identities so it can be done Ok, to clarify. I really do not see the need for any governmental y enforced (or heavily incentivized) ethnic majority state. Let me clarify: Do I have a problem with a state being formed by a group of ethnic people? No. Do I have a problem with that state naturally being ethnicly homogeneous? No. I have a problem with one of two situations. 1) if a state enforces immigration quotas or other means to ensure an ethnic majority despite drastic changes in regional ethnicity an example of this would be Japan who pressured some Japanese-Brazilians to renounce citizenship (they paid them to do it) 2) if a state uses second class citizenship (either officially or does nothing to rectify a socially accepted second class citizenry) to create a ruling ethinc group dispute its minority. Examples of this include America during Jim Crowe Era (the south socially created a second class citizenry even though legally they were "equal," and chose not to intervene to fix this) or at its worst apartheid south africa |
human-2209 | cmv | human | Facebook: Facebook is filled with people trying to promote their lives. Sometime egregious misrepresentations of their failing lives. Facebook also facilitates misrepresentations by allowing a user to control every aspect of what's seen, but also subjecting a user to ire of everyone in their circle. In so doing, the circle and ease of manipulation inadvertently puts heavy emphasis, or benefit, to catering to the circle's popular opinion. Also recording of conversations and messages make secrets harder to keep. IMO, that means users are more likely to be inauthentic on certain subjects. All for the coup de grace, likes and associates people will never bloom into a real friend. On the surface all of this seems fun, but then when it comes to deciphering what's real and what isn't, it becomes a bit hazy and a bother for some, and more importantly devalues Facebook. Twitter: Twitter is a transient media that shows breaking news, or happenings very rapidly. The good thing about twitter is that there's less emphasis placed on connections, more emphasis is places on timely messages or content. So people are more free to say what like, knowing it's probably be forgotten anyway. Unfortunately, there's more emphasis on comedy, rants, shock value, than actual info. Google: Google's value is on the surface on many subjects, but it crumbles when it becomes a source for real information, or when searching things that are unpopular, or when there multitudes of answers to a questions or query. The problem is that there are only a few people that really know anything about most subjects, but Google search is based on popularity, so if other people aren't searching for something you're not going to find it. This also means that only the popular answers are available for query, but the unpopular ones are not. This seems a bit precarious in some cases, obviously there are many cases that situation doesn't matter. Reddit: It's a bit ironic to use Reddit to talk about how terrible Reddit is, but I guess that's Reddit is for.:) In a away posting this post Changes My View immediately, however, the one issue that's funny about Reddit ,the same as Google, is that the right answer for many questions is unpopular. The answer mat not be unpopular because people reject it, necessarily, but because it's only known by a few people, and sometimes it is the opposite of conventional wisdom. So inherently, Reddit is flawed, because all the unpopular opinions are lost, and in some cases not seen. It's hard to blame any of these media, because sifting through unpopular opinions and deciphering reality, is very difficult. And one reason why humans still have jobs. Ultimately, all of these media promote creating popular content over unpopular content. So Fundamentally the informational value is challenged, or potentially compromised, because successful distortion of facts holds more value than the truth in many cases. Of course in cases where the truth is only known by few. EDIT: A user showed me Google Scholar, cool resource thanks. Parameters: Some people were complaining about moving the goal posts. Each media listed has heavy emphasis on popularity, and in terms entertainment that's the law of the land. So it's hard to say Facebook, or even Twitter are total abominations. Obviously, the risk of building false connections is the risk, but what doesn't have a risk. The problem is when think about knowledge or understanding in any arena. We find that in any subject, or arena, that very few people hold knowledge or understanding of any subject. That would mean that the populous is by in large ignorant. Google bases it's searches, queries, on popularity. So fundamentally Google, and all the others, are flawed for the use of finding "deep," or beyond, surface level understanding. Surface, or periphery, understanding is such that there isn't much debate over the information. For example, if drop I apple it will fall to earth. Some one posted Google Scholar. Still Google Scholar it ranks by cites, which is essentially is popularity. Basing Scholar on cites Google will be better than normal Google for search scholarly articles. But it's still bent towards popularity. Essentially, IMO, that makes Google flawed, but still highly useful. In order change my view prove that the use of Popular as metric is a path to deeper understanding. AndOr that use popular as a metric presents no real risk in shunning, or eliminating elements of truth, understanding. |
human-3279 | cmv | human | Edit: Lol didn't know this subreddit is actually "agree with my POPULAR POLITICALLY CORRECT views so we can all circlejerk about how righteous we are" I have both been working for East Indians as well as interviewing with them. My experience has been that they are utterly corrupt people who have no morals, driven purely on profit. My experience has included predatory interview practices where I was asked questions about my citizenship, whether I was living alone in the citycountry (i am a visible minority). I also worked for an East Indian guy who did very questionable moral things such as taking charity money that were donated in the name of helping children. There was also nickel diming and practices which were detrimental to the wellbeing of his clients. As a result of these experiences, I am fearful of dealing with them in business, as I have recently moved from being a working joe to a small business owner, since I cannot trust for them to either work for me or work with me. I should mention that prior to these experiences, I rejected these ideas as bigoted and racist. |
human-4199 | cmv | human | Aserial killer, according to Princeton, is typicallydefinedas a person who murders three or more people over a period of more than 30 days, with a "cooling off" period between each murder, and whose motivation for killing is largely based on psychological gratification. On the basis that serial killers have multiple murders under their belt and enjoy these acts, what incentive is there for them to stop if they obviously want to continue killing? Yes; Dahmer confessed and supposedly "became a Christian." But these people tend to be convincing, charismatic, and well spoken. Who's to say it wasn't just an act to get sympathy so he could start killing again or gain trust? Anyway, my view is that serial killers (such as Holmes, Bundy, Dahmer, Gacy, Manson, etc.) cannot change and cannot be rehabilitated into normal society. Change my view! Edit: Rehabilitation meaning that the offender considers his actions as wrong, expresses remorse, and no longer pursues murder. |
human-1475 | cmv | human | As much as "bad" (what is commonly seen to be shallow, over-produced or mindless, often found in the Top 40) music is reviled by music critics and music appreciators, I believe it can be genuinely enjoyed and is important. Instead of agreeing with many, who think that "bad" music should be eliminated or otherwise filtered out in place of more critically acclaimed music, it can be celebrated without irony. My reasoning: - Music should not be censored (arguably aside from music promotes ideas like pedophilia, racial violence and so on). - Almost all music can have something to offer, even if you personally do not see it. - Any music has the potential to promote feelings, even Lil Jon - If you happen to sincerely enjoy the latest Miley Cyrus song, then you should feel free to twerk as much as your butt desires. I do think that the current music industry has an extreme power imbalance and that smaller artists don't get the chance that they should have to promote their music. It's not fair - but neither is it fair to degrade more popular, perhaps less critically acclaimed music and its fans. I hope this makes sense (feel free to point out flaws) - it's my first post ever. I look forward to your replies. I'd also love to see if anyone agrees! No offense, Lil Jon. |
human-1485 | cmv | human | Update: My mind has been changed. No longer have any notion of cheating at all or getting divorced because of subpar sex alone. We were both raised in religious families and had no sex before marriage. I messed around a little with previous boyfriends. (no anal or oral, really tame stuff like getting naked and playing with each other. Gave an ex a handjob one time. Was never fingered.) the extent of my husband's experience is even less. He refused to make out on the grounds of being scared of going too far and losing our virginities. We talked about sexual preferences before marriage. I stressed the importance of sex and my high sex drive to him and he agreed to experiment and use toys. After our first time he just wanted quickies three times a week. He has tried different positions and we have gone to a sex therapist but none of it has improved sex between us. We bought one vibrator but he refuses to go to sex shops with me. After 2.5 years of marriage I have had satisfying sex about five times and no orgasms except though solo masturbation. I want to know if I am missing out on something grand before I leave over bad, infrequent sex. I want to have a physical affair to confirm whether or not considerate sex is important to have. CMV edit: He has told me he has no fantasies and is uncomfortable listening to any of mine. Says that sex is just about penetration and that my concept of sex being everything before and after is strange to him. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than 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! |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.