CMV: HVAC tuneups are a scam to sell new installations

I scheduled an HVAC tune-up for two condensers. It was advertised as:

HVAC system inspection and performance testing
Refrigerant/temperature/pressure checks
Electrical and safety component inspection
Airflow and duct leak inspection
Condensate drain and dehumidifier inspection
Replace 1" air filter
Lubricate applicable moving parts
Thermostat and system cycle testing
Label emergency shutoffs
Minor plumbing shutoff/trap inspection

When they arrived, all they effectively did was measure the temp difference between the return and output, which anyone with a thermometer can do, and measure the pressure with a gauge. They then told me they didn't even need to measure the pressure, because the differential was enough to tell the system was leaky. They then proceeded to spend an hour trying to sell me on new systems for $16k, saying the price was only good for a few days, etc. They also refused to measure the pressure on the minisplits, saying that those systems are too fragile (a system this vendor installed) to do that on and a differential is the only thing they'd measure, which they didn't actually do. This service was advertised at $59 a condensor, so my expectations weren't high, but it literally was nearly completely replaceable with a thermometer. I also got the "price is lower while it's still cold but next few weeks it will get hot so we won't be free for long" speech which felt like complete high-pressure BS. Pretty sure they didn't replace the filter either.

All this leads me to believe that HVAC "tune-ups" aren't a legitimate service in the US and they're mostly scams designed to get leads for new installs. The only value i see is in the pressure check, but apparently they won't do that for min-splits.

I'd like to believe companies are acting with integrity and selling a sham service, but I'm not sure. Are there any HVAC technicians out there that believe this is a legitimate service? I find it weird that the company that installed my minisplits can't measure the pressure of the system they personally installed during a service that was supposed to involve pressure checks.

https://redd.it/1tao8h5
@r_changemyview

CMV: I would like to see religious educated people on this subject to try convince me in the existence of a god

I believe that I'm an Agnostic, Agnosticism to me is the belief that the existence of God or the supernatural is ultimately unknown and perhaps unknowable due to the limitations of human cognition.

Our minds, shaped by evolution and bounded by perception, are simply not equipped to access or comprehend such truths, if they exist at all. What draws me to agnosticism rather than atheism is this suspension of judgment. Instead of making a definitive claim about the existence or nonexistence of a higher power, agnosticism acknowledges that such knowledge is fundamentally inaccessible, It allows room for uncertainty without forcing a conclusion. However, I lean toward an agnostic atheist perspective, While I remain open to the possibility that some form of higher power or supernatural reality could exist, I am confident that the religions created and practiced by humans are not accurate representations of such a reality, They appear to be shaped by culture, history, and human interpretation rather than objective truth.

This leads me to a position where I reject the specific gods described in human religions yet still recognize that the broader question of whether anything beyond the natural world exists remains unanswered..

I think one reason humans create and cling to religion is psychological, Questions such as Where do we come from? Why are we here? What happens after death? carry an immense emotional weight, Religion offers answers to these uncertainties providing comfort, structure, and a sense of meaning in the face of the unknown.

My skepticism also comes from examining religions more closely, Many of them contain internal contradictions that make it difficult to see them as perfectly consistent or divinely authored, These inconsistencies often require reinterpretation or selective emphasis by believers, which suggests a human role in shaping and maintaining the belief system.

The ethical teachings found in many religions seem to reflect the norms and values of the time and place in which they emerged, Ideas about morality such as gender roles, social hierarchy, or acceptable behavior often align closely with the historical context rather than appearing as universal unchanging truths.

As societies evolve, these teachings are frequently reinterpreted or challenged, which raises the question of whether they originate from a timeless source or from human culture, Religious practices also appear deeply tied to specific historical and cultural circumstances. Rituals, laws, and traditions often make sense within the environment in which they were developed but can seem arbitrary or outdated when removed from that context. This further reinforces the impression that religions are shaped by human needs, environments, and experiences rather than by an objective external truth.

These patterns suggest to me that religions are not fixed revelations from a higher source, but evolving systems created and adapted by humans over time, Another reason for my skepticism is the diversity of religious beliefs across cultures, Different societies have developed entirely different and often conflicting ideas about gods, morality, and the nature of reality, This variation suggests that religious belief is more closely tied to cultural context than to an objective truth.

Another reason for my position is the apparent hiddenness of God, If a higher power exists and has any interest in being known or understood by humans, it is unclear why its existence would remain so ambiguous and open to interpretation, Instead of clear universal evidence we find uncertainty, disagreement, and a wide range of conflicting beliefs. This lack of clarity makes it difficult to justify certainty in any one view and reinforces my inclination toward agnosticism.

Closely related to this is the issue of the burden of proof, which shapes how I evaluate such claims, In most areas of life i try to base my beliefs on what can be observed, tested, or

reasonably inferred, and I apply that same approach here. Without sufficient evidence, I find it more reasonable to withhold belief rather than accept a claim that cannot be adequately supported.

Another reason for my skepticism is the way religion has often been used as a political tool throughout history. Rather than existing purely as a system of belief, religion has frequently been intertwined with power, authority, and social control, Leaders and institutions have at times used religious ideas to unify groups, justify decisions, or legitimize their rule, This connection between religion and power is also visible in many historical conflicts.

Religious differences have often played a role in deepening divisions or providing justification for violence, I don't believe such a higher power would allow such unfairness to exist in the world, As he claims to love his creatures, I personally believe it's impossible to the human nature to abolish pain as it's part of survival, But i expect a superior power to know better than this.

https://redd.it/1tapohd
@r_changemyview

CMV: People need to stop whining about trauma if they don't want help.

I know this is an awful view. But I'm tired of hearing people trauma and friends trauma multiple times in a row without even trying to fix the problem or even just their mindset.

They blame how they act on a bad experience that happened years ago. And suddenly changed them eternally! They say they can never change ever again or even bother to heal or accept resolution!

And it bothers me because... I honestly just dont wanna hear you cry and whine for 2 hours about being abandoned by your dad 15 years ago. I try to offer help or comfort and I try to listen, only to get immidiately get shoved off. Like bro why the fuck are you talking about it then?? Its just wasting our time!

Plus, i've been through some shit too! But you dont hear me crying about it for 2 hours! And if it does happen? Im alone. And if you somehow see it? I try to get ADVICE. I dont whine just to whine. No one cares about that.

And I SURE AS SHIT dont let it control how I behave! Because NO. Your trauma is YOUR responsibility. If it happened a long time ago? It has ZERO reason to dictate how you treat others and how you behave!

At a certian point? You stop being a product of your environment. Your actions and traumas are your's alone. People need to stop justifying bad behavior under the buzz word of trauma and grow up.

...and thats been my view for a while. And its obviously not okay, and its hurt some of my friendships. But I just cant find any arguments that I can get behind that have made me lock in and change a seemingly toxic view. So I come here to ask you all today, to change my view.

https://redd.it/1taqlt5
@r_changemyview

CMV: people in poly relationships aren’t that attracted to their partner.

as a woman, when i’m in a relationship with a man that i find very attractive, the idea of other women touching him makes me very uncomfortable. why would i want to share him? here is the best analogy i can think of: if someone were to find the most beautiful gem in the world, would you want to pass it around to anyone and everyone? or would you rather keep it to yourself and treasure it? i want to clarify that this is just an analogy, obviously people aren’t shiny rocks, but if i deeply treasure something, why the hell would i want someone getting their hands all over it?

i know some people could make the argument that they have faith in their partner to not develop emotional connections with other people/ prioritize people other than their “main partner” (that’s what it’s called i guess). but that really isn’t the point. if i’m in a relationship with someone i find deeply attractive, the last thing i would want is the idea of another person having access to him physically. the idea makes me ill. the only way i could see myself not caring is if im very detached from the relationship and dont find the hypothetical partner all that attractive.

edit: these comments helped me understand. some people genuinely dont mind passing around their partner. i dont get it at all, but if other people dont mind, who am i to judge.

https://redd.it/1taru6x
@r_changemyview

CMV: pics subreddit is being exploited as a propaganda distribution channel for the Lebanon conflict

I am not arguing that every image being posted is fake. I am arguing that the posting pattern itself displays multiple hallmarks of coordinated narrative operations and that the community / moderator response discourages scrutiny / accepts this use.

Consider the recurring structure of these posts:

(1) “OC My mom’s hometown after series of IDF bombs in south Lebanon.” https://np.reddit.com/r/pics/s/53fKN82zGp

(2) “OC Lebanon: the house of my parents destroyed by israel. The only thing they had during their life” https://np.reddit.com/r/pics/s/DWITFZlGbg

(3) “OC: Lebanon. Israel targeted my SIL’s home despite no Hezbollah ties. Wife is crying.” https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/s/Rq7x341JKL

These are supposedly unrelated users, yet the posts follow nearly identical emotional formatting:

\- “OC”
\- Lebanon identifier
\- family member reference
\- destruction claim
\- emotional personalization
\- immediate moral framing

This is exactly how modern viral propaganda is structured. The goal is not to provide evidence. The goal is to create emotional outrage quickly enough that people don’t ask questions.

None of these posts provide any verification, there is no timestamps, no metadata, no identifiable landmarks, no corroborating footage or news article, no evidence the OP took the photo, no evidence the image is recent, and no evidence the photo even took place in Lebanon or is not AI-generated. On the AI point, AI is exceptionally good at generating believable photos of rubble without discernible landmarks or people in the photos.

These posts are being rapidly upvoted almost immediately after posting, which is exactly how content gets forced into algorithmic visibility. Meanwhile, comments asking for verification or expressing any skepticism are heavily downvoted.

Whether this coordination is activist brigading, bots, or direct state aligned information operations is harder to determine. But the pattern itself is visible.

The core issue is not whether Israel’s actions are justified or unjustified. The issue is that Reddit users claim to value evidence and media literacy while simultaneously accepting anonymous emotionally charged wartime claims with almost no authentication whatsoever, provided the narrative feels morally satisfying.

https://redd.it/1t9dyc7
@r_changemyview

CMV: saying that suicide is selfish doesn't bring anything meaningful to the conversation and it's kinda pointless.

When debating the topic of suicide or assisted suicide, I always see a word that is mentioned without exception, usually by people who is against it, and it's the word "selfish".

One of the main arguments against suicide is that killing yourself is a selfish action because you're traumatizing the people that loves you permanently, and this means that suicide should be seen as the last option or not even considered.

A lot of people agree with this, and many of them are or were suicidal, this surprises me because apparently is a convincing argument for both sides of the discussion, pro's and antis, but for me this argument means basically nothing for the sake of the debate, it doesn't matter if you're pro suicide or anti suicide.

But let's answer the question first: it's suicide a selfish action? Yes or no?

Welp, the answer is clearly yes.

According to the Collins dictionary of English, suicide means: "someone concerned solely with their own needs, benefits, or welfare, often disregarding the rights or feelings of others. It typically implies a lack of consideration for others and is used to criticize actions motivated by personal gain over the common good."

If we think about it, suicide fits in this definition because is (almost always) a decision made for the benefit of the person that acts, they usually want to escape from an anguish situation or an intense feeling.

Of course, this isn't always the case, some may do it for the sake of others thinking things like: "if I was dead the world would be better" or stuff like that, but most of the time this isn't the main reason at least.

Now, the reason why I don't think that this is an important factor when talking about suicide is because the intrinsic nature of suicide is selfish, just like everything we do for our own sake.

When we're discussing rights (in this case, the right to die), we always do it with the impression that it's for the benefit of the individual, rights are inherently selfish because they're things that we do for our individual desires (mostly).

If I want to have a kid, build a house, or start a business, the common reason behind it isn't to help others, but to receive a benefit without thinking about the others.

If I want to get a tattoo, I'm not thinking about the potential risks of it or if it will bring something good to society, I'm just thinking about getting a tattoo because I want to.

This is an example of something we do because it's selfish, but I've never seen someone trying to make tattoos illegal because it's selfish, who cares?

When we're talking about rights, we think about how it could benefit the person that acts on that right, not about the indirect damage that it brings.

You may say: "b-but the difference is that suicide brings pain and suffering for the people around the person that killed themselves!! Getting a tattoo or building a house doesn't have negative consequences for the others right?"

Ok, this is an interesting argument, but if you're against suicide because of the potential trauma and pain that it brings to the loved ones of the individual, you might be against these examples as well:

\-a woman getting an abortion when her husband doesn't agree..

\-an individual becoming atheist in a religious household.

\-a person leaving their country, family and friends in order to seek better economic stability.

Etc, etc, etc...

I doubt you're against all these three examples, you know why? Because no one cares.

Till this day, I don't understand why the right of dying is the only right where we take in EXTREME consideration the feelings of the others and not the feelings of the person making that right.

Selfishness is completely irrelevant when we're talking about a self-made action that involves only one person, we all agree that the desires or someone about their own life and body should always go first, why we don't apply this to

suicide?

https://redd.it/1tauywe
@r_changemyview

CMV: Hitler, in a sense, did more for the liberation of India than Ghandhi.

Now I respect Ghandhi and hates Hitler as much as the next person, but it's still worth noting that Ghandhi was far from the first individual to attempt to rally the crowds for the liberation of India. There were many before him and during his time who also tried to fight the British Raj. His methods were rather successful for what they intended to accomplish but also never really weakened the Raj at all. If anything the Raj is as strong and firm at the start of WW2 as it is at the start of Ghandi's campaign, rather than growing weaker and shakier by the day.

World War 2 on the other hand weakened Britain so much that Britain basically had to give up governance of its colonies to preserve its own well-being. India was liberated so suddenly for a reason, and it wasn't that the heart of brits somehow suddenly grew three sizes after they saw how earnestly India wants independence after world war 2.

It is widely agreed amongst historians, as well, that WW2 caused or greatly hastened the collapse of the British empire, and that Ghandhi and his campaign wasn't the main or even that major of a driver for the liberation of India.

Therefore I believe that Hitler unintentionally did more for the freedom of India than Ghandhi ever did.

https://redd.it/1taujos
@r_changemyview

CMV: religion is not good or bad in society, it’s just convenient and humans would act the same with or without it

i don’t agree with the sentiment that “religion has caused the death of billions” when really it was just a tool for something that would be done anyway to dehumanize, slaughter and make certain cultures an other or outgroup. to use a daoist principle this is what it means to be in the kingdom of hell. but it was also a tool for good positive societal aspects of supporting one another and keeping people inspired, motivated, happy and fulfilled. as well as setting clear goals for children to follow and progress in society (which was often cruel but not everywhere). many humans are naturally social and empathetic creatures that would be doing this regardless when given the opportunity. this is what it means to be in the kingdom of heaven

me personally im strongly agnostic, i dont give a hoot about what i cant observe and verify. so the “proof” of any given religion is kinda meaningless to me, and any conversation that is about whether they are literally real just don’t matter to me

https://redd.it/1taxx7y
@r_changemyview

cmv: We live in the most morally vocal generation in history and somehow actual moral behavior has never felt more rare

Been thinking about something that's been bothering me for a while and I can't fully shake it.

We live in arguably the most morally vocal era in human history. Every opinion, every stance, loudly stated. And yet I feel like actual moral behavior, the kind that costs something, is getting rarer.

Here's what I mean.

Someone who's never had the opportunity to cheat on their partner isn't morally virtuous for "never cheating." They just haven't been in the situation. The person who has the opportunity, the feelings are there, the door is open, and chooses not to because of who they are, that's where actual character lives. We confuse the absence of temptation with virtue all the time.

Same thing with racism and immigration. Someone who grew up in a homogeneous suburb, has zero daily friction with immigration, and announces proudly that they're not racist, they do not discriminate against any community. okay, but that's not really a moral achievement. It's just the path of least resistance. The person who lives in a neighborhood with real integration tension, genuinely struggles with it sometimes, and still chooses fairness and basic humanity, that person is doing something real. They're paying a cost.

Same for the person who says they'd "always speak up against injustice" but has never once been in a room where doing so would actually cost them something, socially or professionally. Do it on X doesn't cost anything.

I'm not trying to rank people or play moral gatekeeper. honestly i do this too, probably more than i'd like to admit.

But it feels like we've built this giant loud infrastructure for signaling moral positions on things that are largely costless to signal. Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn, whatever. And in the meantime the actual quiet stuff, being honest when honesty is uncomfortable, being fair to people who make your life harder, keeping your word when it would be easier not to, that barely registers anywhere.

Maybe it was always like this. Maybe every generation thought the previous one had more integrity. But I don't think it's the same as before. The scale at which you can now perform morality without practicing it is genuinely new.

The problem is also that it diminishes the importance of truly moral acts. When everyone claims to be moral without paying the price, when it costs something, people are no longer moral. Because morality has lost its power.

To draw an analogy, it's like womans who make false rape accusations and make the real victims invisible. Many people use morality at every turn, and this makes truly moral people invisible.

idk. curious if other people feel this or if i'm just being cynical about the wrong things.

https://redd.it/1tazkbw
@r_changemyview

CMV: In the majority of cases, being trusting and being cheated on is better than being constantly distrusting (regardless of whether or not you end up being cheated on).

Let’s get some nuance out of the way:

This does not apply to cases of long term affairs, abuse, and getting a disease. It also doesn’t apply when kids or assets are involved and the cheating tears apart multiple lives.

Most cheating is just “we were together for a while or a little while, I got cheated on, we broke up.”

If the cheating didn’t tear apart your life and just resulted in the end of a relationship but nothing else really lifechanging occurred, then putting yourself into a situation where you trust someone and getting cheated on again is actually better than holding on to longterm distrust for other romantic partners or potential ones.

Distrust takes energy. It tenses you up. Mentally, it makes your mind race, makes you blow things out of proportion, and makes you make up scenarios that could be happening.

I’m not saying that you should just close your eyes and say “I’m not being distrusting anymore,” because we all know that isn’t how mental conditions work. I’m not going to give deltas to people who say it seems like that’s what I’m saying.

With work, we can change the way we think. This post isn’t about that, but we can do it. It isn’t easy, but we can do it.

Knowing that it’s possible to change the way we think, AND that there are people that don’t become distrusting after being cheated on, AND that there are people who do become distrusting after being cheated on, we have the categories of people and actions associated with being trusting or not and the reasons and results of doing and being so.

It’s a pretty widely known thing that it’s valuable to put yourself out there. If you’re afraid of rejection, then getting rejected repeatedly on purpose can make you numb to it. If you’re afraid of public speaking, taking a public speaking course can make you comfortable with it.

If you experience being cheated on, and you feel like you’re becoming distrusting due to it, then you can still choose to put yourself in situations where you have to trust someone, and if you do so and you get cheated on, then this is still better than being distrusting, because being distrusting results in mental and physical stress, as well as missed opportunities, that you do not get from allowing yourself to trust and accepting both the rewards and consequences from doing so.

https://redd.it/1tb3aug
@r_changemyview

CMV: Greek life should not be directly sponsored by universities/colleges, and if they are, they should play by the same rules

Personally, I do not see any reason why Greek organizations should be tied directly to the colleges and universities, and much of the time sponsored heavily by them. Not only are their houses most of the time off-campus, and thus a significant amount of the engagement happens off university property anyways, but I simply do not believe that the overall community would lose anything if they operated completely separately from their schools.

Secondly, given that fraternities and sororities are essentially treated as student organizations or clubs on campus, I believe that their is a severe double standard that is being held. I will list two examples from personal life here:

I am firstly part of a student theater organization. They have made it very clear that if any injuries or accidents happen while setbuilding or otherwise, there will to be hell to pay and we could get shut down for a significant amount of time. I'm also in Model UN where we travel to NY for a yearly event, and there have been instances in the past where students were caught drinking underage and they cancelled the school's participation in the event for years afterwards.

And yet fraternities and sororities are nearly completely exempt from that. Hazing, substance abuse, and sexual violence are all way too commonplace and yet universities almost always turn a blind eye to it unless it becomes a public issue. I mean you see frat guys literally getting arrested every other weekend and yet the school does nothing about it despite directly sponsoring them, but you know damn well that if my theater club or Model UN had members being arrested at club-sponsored events or sexual assaults happening within the club, then they'd be shut down quicker than a cowboy's draw.

Due to these reasons, I don't see any reason why colleges should be funding and organizing greek life. The majority of it occurs off-campus anyways, they don't even remotely play by the same rules as the rest of the student orgs, and any contributions they provide to the community could still be easily preserved since being a non-profit has never stopped anyone from doing community service.

I could also advocate for colleges to apply and enforce the same rules to frats and sororities that every single other club on campus follows, but we all know they'd all be shut down within a week, so I think that a good compromise is to just have greek orgs continue to operate, just as their own private entity.

https://redd.it/1tb4s0z
@r_changemyview

CMV: Identity politics has had a net negative impact on society, politics and culture in the US since the 1990s

My view is that identity politics has had a net negative effect on society, politics, and culture and that this is palpable when the comparison is made between 1990 and 2026, I believe this to be true in Europe where I live but I'll limit the view to the United States for simplicity and because that's the clearest case.

By identity politics, I do not simply mean noticing or asserting that the canonical protected identity categories exist, nor that they correlate with outcomes which we may consider meaningful, nor even that in some cases the relationship may be causal and not merely correlative. What I mean is the much broader cultural and institutional shift away from liberal universalism, which I assert characterized the political culture of the 1990s, and towards treating identity as central, morally privileged, politically determinative, and constantly relevant.

The older ideal, at least in mainstream liberal culture, was something like: treat people as individuals, apply common standards, reduce the social importance of inherited characteristics, and aim for equality of opportunity. That ideal was never perfectly achieved, and it often failed in practice, but it was at least an ideal that pointed beyond tribal identity.

Over the last few decades, that ideal has been displaced by a much more identity-conscious worldview. Schools, universities, corporations, media organizations, arts institutions, charities, public bodies, and political parties increasingly teach people to understand themselves and others primarily through identity categories and identity framed power dynamics. People are encouraged to notice identity, foreground identity, interpret interactions through identity, and treat identity-based representation as a major moral and political good.

My view is that this has produced several harmful effects.

1. It has made society more tribal, not less. If people are constantly told that identity is central to power, morality, authenticity, and social meaning, they will start thinking and behaving more as members of identity groups. That does not only activate minority identity consciousness. It also activates majority identity consciousness. You cannot tell everyone that race, sex, ethnicity, or other inherited categories are politically central and then expect only the “approved” groups to organise around them.
2. It has damaged liberal individualism. While I acknowledge that some metrics by which we could assess individualism (self-expression, name uniqueness, self-focus, familial independence) have increased or remained stable over this period, metrics which are more integral to the healthy functioning of a liberal democracy (speech tolerance, civic responsibility, shared universal national identity) have seen sometimes shocking decline.
3. It has harmed democratic norms. If political conflict is framed primarily as conflict between identity groups, compromise becomes harder. Disagreement becomes identity threat. Ordinary policy questions become symbolic struggles over group status. This makes democratic politics uglier, more paranoid, and less capable of resolving material problems and, critically, destroys the original concept of representation as it applies to democracy; that the person I vote for is mandated by my vote to represent me, not that the person in a given office or role represents me or not on the basis of a shared identity characteristic. This redefining of what it means to be represented has been so complete that the word representation is now itself a synonym for identity politics.
4. It has degraded culture.

Casting, publishing, awards, advertising, arts funding, and criticism are now often interpreted through identity politics before anything else. This creates obvious tokenism and box-checking. It also produces backlash, because audiences can tell when artistic decisions are being made or marketed as symbolic identity gestures.

My view is not that identity never matters, or that liberal universalism was perfectly practised, or that identity politics is the sole variable responsible for the above changes, I acknowledge the roles of globalization, digital technology, mass migration and demographic shift. My view is that making identity central to institutional life has, on balance, worsened social trust, cultural quality, political stability, and intergroup relations, independent of these other factors.

To change my view, it would not be enough to show that identity-conscious politics has achieved some local, specific goods. I accept that it has. The case to change my view would need to show that those gains outweigh the broader costs which I identify; increased tribalism, erosion of liberal democratic norms, resentment, tokenism, self-censorship, institutional distrust, and cultural balkanisation, or that I have misidentified those costs.

https://redd.it/1tb87gl
@r_changemyview

CMV: the incoming blue wave is a big deal, but only because it will lay bare how complicit the democrats are with the destruction of american democracy

Should republicans fail to gerrymander away the incoming blue wave, we will not see accountability for the many crimes perpetuated by this administration and their enablers. We will not see a reversal of their policies or the many reforms needed to recover from the harm they have done. What it will do is prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the system is rigged and unable to repair itself. It takes a lot of effort to rise beyond the scope of your individual problems and everyday life to tackle something bigger than yourself. Most of us will not take drastic actions as long as we have the hope that the problem will take care of itself, of that showing up to the polls will be enough. Once the american people realize that it is entirely up to them to prevent the total consolidation of fascism, they might finally start to move. The facade on an opposition is very useful, which is why they are trying at all costs to keep it up.

I would love to be wrong, though. If anyone can point at any indications that the dems will actually use their potential majority to effectively fight back against the oligarchs, please let me know. If you think not even the realization that they have no real representation will make americans move, I would be interested in hearing your take as well.

https://redd.it/1tb6qq5
@r_changemyview

CMV: Gift-giving is not a skill

This is a very simple idea: I don't think there's such a thing as being good or bad at giving gifts; you simply either care enough or you don't. I understand this is, in some instances, just a matter of phrasing, because, when used as a compliment, for example, the 'caring' part can be implied from saying someone is 'good at giving gifts'. I have more of a problem with it when it's used as an excuse for people who are 'bad at giving gifts', because the 'not caring' part is not always implied, and the default always seems to be to give the benefit of the doubt to the gifter and to emphasize the thought or the spirit of the gift over the gift itself. I've seen this kind of rhetoric increase with the concept of 'love languages' and how gift-giving is simply not some people's way of showing love, but in my opinion it's all the same not caring enough to make an effort.

https://redd.it/1tbbp17
@r_changemyview

CMV: Archaeologists who open tombs are grave robbers

With this I am torn.

I am a genuine lover of history and tombs can tell us a lot about how people lived and their values.

Tombs like that of the first Chinese emperor which has not yet been excavated due to its huge size and the likelihood or irreversible damage if opened using today’s tech offer up potential wonders for historians including potentially lost texts or records.

However almost all human beings today would be aghast if their mother or grandmother was dug up and her coffin put in a museum or her body left to be examined in some high tech lab never to be reburied.

Often in tombs such as that of the Phoenician King Tabnit voices form inscription warn or beg potential robbers to leave their tomb alone. In his case this was ignored by archaeologists. His tomb was sacked by them and his body deteriorated rapidly. Here is what he had inscribed on his tomb.

I, Tabnit, priest of Astarte, king of Sidon, the son of
Eshmunazar, priest of Astarte, king of Sidon, am lying in this sarcophagus.
Whoever you are, any man that might find this sarcophagus,
don't, don't open it and don't disturb me,
for no silver is gathered with me, no gold is gathered with me, nor anything of value whatsoever,
only I am lying in this sarcophagus.
Don't, don't open it and don't disturb me,
for this thing is an abomination to Astarte.
And if you do indeed open it and do indeed disturb me,
may you not have any seed among the living under the sun,
nor a resting-place with the Rephaites.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabnit_sarcophagus

Help convince me that if a new find comes about tomorrow that it would be acceptable to open the tomb.

That we should disturb a humans wish for peace in the grave for modern desires.

https://redd.it/1tbcw7o
@r_changemyview

CMV: Philosophers like Kant, Nietzsche, Cioran, Schopenhauer would never have become philosophers in today’s society, more like angry redditors.

the old society was much slower and lacked so many distraction which was good and bad, today you have anxiety you search about it, learn about it, and somehow it becomes easier to deal with, back then guys like philosophers had to deal with life in so many different ways, and to achieve that level of thought process it required them to slowly go through volumes of books and try to understand things better, this is not possible nowadays(although physically it is but with so many options to search about ideas and subjects is useless) therefore old philosophers developed and travelled with their minds to places that cannot be reached in today’s society

https://redd.it/1tbg0yh
@r_changemyview

CMV: Going to college in USA isn't worth it for anything other than healthcare

The cost of college keeps going up and and up, and the ROI of most majors is not there anymore. The majority of entry level jobs in every white collar field (engineering, finance, accounting, tech, HR, marketing, law, etc.) are all being taken over by AI or being offshored to cheaper countries. Unless you're doing nursing, which can't be offshored, or trying to go to med school, going to college for a bachelor's degree just isn't worth it. The exception may be if you're going to a very elite school but even then its a gamble. I understand that some people will say that "worth it" means something other than monetary gain but that's not the conversation most people are having. If I was 18 right now, I would not want to go to college. CMV.

https://redd.it/1tbhmk0
@r_changemyview