r/changemyview

This applies to everyone, from body builders to obese people. I’ve been on just about every side of the spectrum so I’m not just hating something I don’t know anything about.

If you take up more room than you paid for it is totally reasonable to charge more for the extra room. I don’t think that should be controversial. It really sucks to sit next to someone like that. If I have to pay extra for my kid to have a seat, and pay even more for my kid to sit next to me, then why does someone get a free extra seat just because they’re too big? They made the choices that got them to that size, they can handle the consequences.

I believe that political platforms denying climate change or actively blocking climate action should not be legally allowed to operate in democratic nations.

My reasoning is that climate change is no longer a matter of political opinion; it is backed by an overwhelming, global scientific consensus and visible real-world data. Just as many democratic countries successfully place legal limits on political parties that promote hate speech, fascism, or direct harm to protect their citizens, I see climate denial as an existential threat to public safety, infrastructure, and future generations. To me, ignoring this reality goes beyond free speech—it causes tangible, long-term harm.

I live in Europe, in Spain, to be more precise, and i see every year how temperatures are raising beyond any previously recorded data each summer. In France, England or Germany, there are crazy temperatures registered each year, and each one is worse. I am afraid of the future and don't know how it will go on in the next years.

However, I am posting here because I realize this view has major flaws. Banning political parties sets a very dangerous legal precedent, and I understand the "slippery slope" argument: if a government can ban a party for defying scientific consensus today, a corrupt government could abuse that power to ban opposing views tomorrow.

I want to understand the legal, constitutional, and philosophical arguments against my view. How do democracies balance the need to protect their citizens and the rest of the world from existential threats without destroying freedom of political association? Change my view.

Im talking about man and woman relationships here btw. I am not conservative at all and am a feminist. I see all of these debates online about whether or not women should do this or that be submissive and all that but i think its a mix of both. Women can be independent and work and have their own rights the same as men. But i think its a completely natural thing for a woman dating a man to want to be provided for and taken care of and protected. And i think its the same for men wanting to naturally care for their partner. To me it makes a lot of sense biologically too as men are usually built stronger and made to defend. I do not mean women should cook and clean and birth babies all their life and that's their purpose. I think a lot of women also deny this because its less socially accepted now and seen as weak.

People make all kinds of excuses, blaming seed oils, processed foods, food deserts, or a lack of walkable cities. While those things can have some impact, I think the biggest factor is much simpler: modern food packs an incredible number of calories into a relatively small amount of food.

Humans have become incredibly good at making food that tastes amazing and keeps us wanting more. To achieve that, recipes often combine numerous high-calorie ingredients such as oils, butter, sugar, cheese, sauces, and refined carbohydrates. The result is that a single restaurant meal can easily provide most, or even all, of your daily calorie needs.

Just look at the nutrition information for popular restaurant meals in America. It's common for one meal to contain 1,500–2,000+ calories before you've even had dessert or a drink. It's crazy that a single meal not including breakfast, dinner, or snacks can meet or even exceed your daily calorie needs. If you eat like that regularly, it's very easy to gain weight.

A good example is people who stay lean while still enjoying their favorite foods. Many of them eat very clean for most of the week, go to the gym several times, and then have one cheat meal or cheat day where they eat whatever they want. That cheat day can contain an enormous number of calories, which is why they balance it out by being disciplined the rest of the week.

That's how calorie-dense modern food has become. Advances in food science and manufacturing have made food more flavorful and more calorie-packed than ever before. It's no surprise that obesity rates have increased when so many meals can provide an entire day's worth of calories in one sitting.

The main reason our ancestors were generally leaner than modern humans is that the foods they ate were far less calorie-dense and often much less palatable than the foods we eat today. For most of human history, people had limited access to large quantities of rich, calorie-dense food, making obesity much less common than it is today. They were obviously much more physically active than we are, but if they ate the same foods we eat today, many of them would still gain weight despite being more active than us.

It may look too obvious at the first glance, but I have to tell you that for most of people(Especially men), it’s intellectually not.

It’s usually treated as a meme, or something to tease girls with; by men it’s potentially a tool to grow confidence, for women it’s profoundly degrading and disrespectful—and rarely used as an excuse by some of them.

That’s what my mom told me days ago, when I was about to start my driving lessons, she said: “You’re a boy, you don’t have to mind it”, and later my dad said: “If women can drive, why can’t you?”. They said that explicitly, without shame or hesitation, not because we’re retarded(We’re taught about gender equality), but because it tells that this thought is not just a joke, it’s something believed by a lot of people—If not explicitly, mentally and implicitly.

And after the research I’ve done, I found how this mentality can be dangerous. It’s not dangerous in terms of “Misogyny”, but it is when it comes to literal safety.

You see, when it comes to anything; Everything is affected by the totality of factors. It’s hard to apply this concept into everything, but when it matters, you’re obligated to do so. And here we ask, why men may look better at driving?

For this topic, a lot of people may lean to explain the biological, experimental, and sociological aspects; summoned to excuse those beliefs.
Confidence is the main keyword we’re using here. Men are usually imagined as unhesitant individuals; we don’t think too much before doing something we’re able to.

Confidence for men is dependent essentially on testosterone, social factors, and ego.
When a man rides a car, his mind will always remind him “You’re supposed to be good at that instinctively”. So when he rides, the pressure is minimal.

For a woman, she’s always too careful; because she’s told that she’s expected to be worse, and any failure, just any failure, May prove that right to her, and the society.

Statistically, men are responsible for %90 of the criminal driving accidents; fatal ones scrutinized at courts.
Driving under influence(DUI), overspeeding, etc.. All of those may believed that being a man, means you’re accident resistant.

So I have to say, testosterone gives courage, confidence, you need that; but confidence doesn’t necessarily provide accuracy.. We don’t want women to drive like men, we need men to drive like women.

I’m saying that because I’m finally about to put my foot on the pedals. And I need to have the right mindset driving a ~1500Kg metal-made killing machine. I’m not expected to be good at driving until I prove it otherwise; tell that your son.

In principle, I don’t see why AI companies shouldn’t be able to train models on copyrighted material, provided the AI does not ultimately produce outputs that infringe anyone’s copyright.

Don’t humans learn the same way? Everything someone creates has been influenced by things they’ve watched, read, or heard. As long as the final product doesn’t violate anyone’s copyright, then there is no issue. I don’t need permission from Dreamworks to watch Shrek, get inspired by it and create my own movie, video, or drawing that uses some aspects from Shrek.

My understanding is that AI is learning patterns, sort of like humans do. It learns the general structure of language, music, writing, and art rather than reproducing the specific works it was trained on.

I notice a lot of people online are super against this, why? What am I missing? If AIs are learning general patterns and not reproducing the works they were trained on, why should it be treated different from human learning/inspiration?

Things that are so strange about us goes unacknowledged and unpacked.

We have different faces, can’t think of other animals with different faces though there are probably animals with differing features that stand out amongst themselves but nothing drastic

We have different voices.

We have different colors

Different cultures

Different preferences that affect how we present ourselves

We can choose freely what we look for in a mate

Inner dialogue

We laugh

We’re so distinct from other forms of life and i know there are similarities but morphology alone is insane.

We can imagine futures that don’t exist.

We ask “why?” about the universe and our own existence.

We create moral systems and debate whether they’re justified.

We tell fictional stories that can unite entire civilizations.

We intentionally change our environment on a planetary scale.

We contemplate our own mortality

We were created and thats why we’re so distinct.

Im not saying we didn’t evolve into this creature but that it was before we ever were. Thats why there is religion. Anywhere you look long enough there is something wildly different setting us apart.

Having good parents shapes people into better adults that are well adjusted. Life isn't effortless, but it becomes much less so because healthy behaviors and relationships are ingrained into an individual.

For most people, if they do not have good parents, they will struggle to live life in a meaningful and enjoyable way.

It is possible to "fix" things, but it takes a lot of work. An insane amount in many cases.

Even when this is possible, because stability was/is not a standard growing up, living a good healthy life and maintaining it requires effort even AFTER, as it is maintenance rather than a baseline. And that's if you can fix your issues.

I believe all other privilege in society falls beneath this. That doesn't minimize them.

It just means if you have good parents, everything in general is easier. Not only that, but you have a much better shot at being happy, successfu, and not mentally/physically ill.

If there were a way to measure/show who did and didn't I believe it would be the most important thing to consider when thinking about struggle and opportunity.

The in and out groups on this live in completely different worlds

My view is based on the fact that capital and high net worth individuals are increasingly mobile in a global economy.

If a single country introduces a significant annual wealth tax on billionaires, especially one that taxes unrealized gains or large ownership stakes, it creates a strong incentive for those affected to relocate their tax residency or restructure their assets through countries with lower taxes, such as Singapore, Switzerland, or the UAE.

As a result, I think these policies are unlikely to raise as much revenue as supporters expect. While some tax revenue may be collected, it could be offset by reduced investment, a shrinking tax base, and the loss of future jobs and economic activity.

France's former wealth tax is a good example of these challenges. It was criticized for encouraging some wealthy residents to leave the country and was eventually replaced with a much narrower tax. While I don't think France alone settles the debate, I do think it illustrates the broader difficulty of taxing highly mobile wealth in an internationally competitive economy.

For that reason, I don't think a billionaire wealth tax is effective if implemented by one country in isolation. Unless most major economies adopted similar policies, I think it would primarily encourage tax avoidance and capital flight rather than achieve its intended goals.

To change my view, I would need convincing evidence that a country can successfully maintain a broad billionaire wealth tax over the long term without experiencing significant capital flight, reduced investment, or a substantial erosion of its tax base.

I've been reading a lot of peoples opinions on the state of climate change, and how even now as parts of the world burn, people still choose to deny the truth and claim all sorts of other bullshit, even how its all related to weather control, lol. Anything but acknowledge what our scientists have warned us against for decades. It boggles my mind, but it made me realise we are not capable or willing to stop climate change.

I spent years trying to 'do my part' but knowing now how this is all locked in, and seeing how people vote and put idiots like Trump in charge, it just makes me think why bother? Its not my problem. Why should I live a lesser life so others can live a fuller one? I want to see the world before its gone. Its my world too. Why should only the wealthy or the elite or the ignorant be allowed to live life unburdened by the collective guilt of climate change? I realise the mindset many of them have is actually correct; why should I worry myself now and care for something that wont be my problem when im dead? We must live in the moment. Enjoy everything life has to offer.

The boomers and their children showed us we should look out for ourselves, and they've shown us putting yourself first is the most important thing, as is accumulating and hoarding as much wealth and property as you can. It doesnt matter that the world will die - so what? Its much bigger than any one of us, and we are far too divided, ignorant and selfish to do any different. So why even worry?

So, change my view; There are too many ignorant folks, too many vested interests, too much greed and money, too much manipulation, too much individualism, etc. to meaningfully coordinate a mass, unified response from the entirety of our planet to slow or even stop climate change, let alone reverse it. We're incapable; I dont believe we are capable of overcoming this. And maybe thats okay.

(Edit; and just to be clear; I was a vegan and a veggie, I didnt travel for years, didnt drive, I walked everywhere, donated to good causes, and told myself to grin and bear it when the ignorant masses laughed at people like me for trying to make a difference. I thought we were all meant to do our bit. But I'm tired now, and I realised recently its pointless. We wont change. And thats okay; you only have your experience of this world, and you only get to do it once. So enjoy it on your terms. Hence this thread. )

"I am afraid that there is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don’t want the patient to get well, because as long as the disease holds out they have not only an easy means of making a living, but also an easy medium through which to make themselves prominent before the public." - Booker T. Washington

I want to clarify from the start that I am NOT denying the existence of racism, the history of systemic racism, or the link between poverty and crime.

And I'm acutely aware that internal critique does come up in the black American community.

The first half of the 20th century attributed group differences to genetics, a belief human culture is yet to recover from. The second half of the 20th century into today attributes group differences to discrimination.

This two-tier framework fails to account for what I see as the central issue in ongoing disparities: negative cultural attitudes, habits, and beliefs that undermine success in the black American community.

As racism became less of an issue, cultural patterns didn't gradually become the main variable in ongoing disparities. Rather the definition of racism expanded into 'prejudice plus power', Critical Race Theory, white privilege, among others.

It's my belief that those who control this narrative, primarily black organizations, black intellectuals, and race-focused commentators, often sponsored by liberal-oriented institutions, are incentivized to pontificate on the legacy of slavery and white supremacy, hand-wave cultural problems, and give little attention to and even outright resist, policies we know make a material difference.

Frankly, many of these types don't wish racism to end. Because it helps maintain their influence, funding, and public relevance.

I believe that a lot of people don't fully grasp the use cases of AI for governments and its implications.

We already know from the Snowden leaks that the government had mass surveillance programs and forever databases on everything online. That was in 2010.

Now, fast forward 16 years later and we have massive super computers and massive data centers being built.

I believe there will be a lot of small but noticeable changes during the next few years:

- Tax authorities will be much more powerful. No one will ever be able to under-declare anything. Your local mom and pop shop that only accepts cash will be flagged by AI, will go under audit, and the whole process which required hours of manual investigation by auditors will just be a click of a button and a bit of review.

Your neighbour who sometimes hires a carpenter for example but pays them cash, will immediately get flagged and audited.

This goes for any business or individual, cheating on taxes will simply be a thing of the past.

- Police will also get more powerful. There is already a network of around 80,000 flock cameras. With more data centers being built and more computing power available to AI, police will not need to rely on manual police work to catch traffic infractions. But, this will also mean that even the smallest infractions will not go unnoticed, if you've ever driven a few miles above speed limit or if you don't fully stop at a stop sign, imagine getting a fine within seconds sent on your phone.

I hope I was able to explain that my view isn't just about these scenarios I mentioned, but the use cases if you have access to the data of millions of people and access to most powerful AI models are simply terrifying, and real, and probably coming in the next few years.

So, in the small Soviet country i’m from that’s not documented on maps called Transnistria something has taken off here called the Yaga challenge. Basically Someone puls the hair of some girl or gal or guy, When it’s in a pony tail they pull it haard. They say “YAGA!” (don’t know what it means) They record it and upload on WhatsApp or SnipChat And it boooms vitally. Like seriously Vitally. Everyoney laughs but honestly i see it for what it is. Pure Assaultation… There’s nothing funny about Yaga challenge because it just hurts people. One people i saw her hair pulled so hard tears shot from her eyes and everyone was stomping around har in a sircle Chaanting •Yaaga. Yaga. Yaaaga! Yuhhhh! 😭 Seriously pissed me the fuck off. I’m considering going into my Skoool and teaching them all a sick and good ol’ lesson with a stick or two. Show ‘em some real Asaultation after they’ve hurt all these longer hared ppl. Honestly fucking makes me sick to me stomache. Please 🙏 end the yaga challenge as it is Assaulting and nothing is funny or electrifying about it. Dare i cross the line and say it’s “”Abuse”” And violates human rights space boundaries etc.. It’s violent and just wrong. Somebody from Beyond got so sick about the yaga challenge she literally threw up on her shoes. Someone please put a stop to this i don’t know if it ever blow up in another country yet but it infurryates me… So many peoples getting hurt and in trouble over the yaga challenge at my school it’s just wrong. #BANTHEYAGACHALLENGE it’s abuse it’s violence it hurts others nothing funny about it it’s just wrong. Makes me. Lose faith in humanity in my country. Yaga challenge is pure wrong.

I see a lot of posts on reddit about stuff like healthcare being a human right, housing being a human right, food being a human right, etc. What finally prompted me to create this post was that I saw a post about how the UN tried labeling food a human right, but was blocked by Israel and the US. These never made much sense to me, since there is a difference between physical goods and concepts. For example, I can completely understanding that people should have the right to free speech, freedom of expression, right to vote, etc because these don't take away from anyone. But for things like food or college, how can these be considered a right when they rely on the goods or services of others? If something like healthcare is determined to be a right, what happens if no one wants provides it? I can be a bit of an overly-literal person, so am I just taking the phrase "right to" too literally, and reading these phrases as "people have the right to be given food/healthcare" when they really just mean "people should be able to obtain their own food/pursue healthcare"(even if they must be acquired through their own means, like purchasing)?

I do want to say that I believe that these things should be provided by governments or organizations that are able and willing to provide them, im not trying to argue that they shouldn't be. Im moreso just confused on the wording itself, since they seem to be brought up pretty often but don't seem possible in the same way that "right to practice your religion of choice" would be

To me the doomsday clock is an arbitrary symbol created by a private organisation that has no measurable way of determining whether humanity is 85 seconds or 2 minutes from catastrophe.
My biggest issue is that there doesn’t seem to be any objective scale behind it. If the people who set it simply meet each year and decide whether to move the hands based on their assessment of world events, then what do the seconds actually represent? Why 85 seconds instead of 90 or 60? It feels impossible to verify or falsify.
It also seems more like a media event than a useful scientific tool. Every time it’s moved, headlines appear saying we’re “closer than ever to midnight,” which creates anxiety but doesn’t provide any solid information on how to change it. If it’s purely symbolic, why present it as an increasingly precise countdown?
What really confuses me is that we’re supposedly closer to midnight now than during the Cold War. That was a period where the US and the Soviet Union had tens of thousands of nuclear weapons aimed at each other, came within minutes of nuclear war during events like the Cuban Missile Crisis, and there were multiple incidents where misunderstandings or false alarms could have triggered a launch. Despite all of that, today’s clock is set even closer to midnight than it was then. I struggle to understand how that makes sense.

We are educated that moral values are absolute. But that is just because most people agree with it. For example, rape, murder, stealing is wrong in front of most people because you see that person is a threat to society. What if your lover or your parent or sibling got convicted? One may think..hey that person can change, I know this person my whole life, they ain't a bad person, they don't need to go to prison!

Slavery is wrong in front of most people because it stripped out human rights for them, and they think humans are equal. But some think humans are not equal and they think some people need to do work for their interests and well-being. But if you disagree with that and you think that let's say women should serve men or men should serve women or maybe you turn blind eye to underpaid labors in Africa and China for your affordable clothes, foods and goods, then what's the difference between you and the slavery supportter?

Or let's say trolley problem in general, we opt for sacrificing the minority for maximizing the benefit for the majority. But what if you or your beloved ones are part of the minority, would you still think the same?

We have been for centuries indoctrinated that moral values are objective because God said so. But that was just to control the whole population in general. If people think "oh it's just because the king said so, then way more people wouldn't follow the moral codes

I honestly can't understand why we still allow this in 2026. If we have a simple, effective way to make an animal unconscious before it's killed, then we should use it every time. If not, we're allowing unnecessary suffering when we don't have to. We tolerate the intolerable.

I respect people's right to follow their religion, but I don't think any religion or tradition should be exempt from basic animal welfare laws. Preventing unnecessary suffering should come first.

If we're not willing to require stunning before every slaughter, then at the very least we should clearly label meat to show whether the animal was stunned first or not. That way people can decide for themselves what they're willing to support.

I'm open to changing my view if there's strong evidence that slaughter without stunning doesn't cause more suffering than slaughter with stunning, or if there's a convincing reason why religious exemptions should override animal welfare.