input
stringlengths 114
23.1k
| output
stringclasses 2
values | instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|
CMV: The outrage over Andrew Harrison's use of the n-word is a media lynching. +
+ One of the unexpected headline stories of the NCAA basketball season (March Madness/Final Four) has been a hot microphone gaffe in which a player on a losing team said of an opponent:
"F___ that n___a"
He has been forced to apologize and humiliated on national media for uttering a racial slur. I think the level of outrage is excessive for the following reasons:
Andrew is a young, black, African American male. Among this community, variants of the n word are widely used, especially among musicians, to refer to men. I don't see why athletes are treated any differently.
It was not used as a slur. The target is a white person, and using an anti-black slur against a white man with a Polish surname cannot be racist. It's not like Harrison said "eff that cracker"
It's being treated differently than ordinary profanity. In his context, the n word is no stronger than the f word when it is used against a white man, but no one is making a big deal out of his swearing on live TV.
It's being used against the whole UK team. One gaffe did not discredit any presidency, so why should a swearing player tarnish an entire team?
The whole thing is a an unfair media circus.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Public unions collective bargaining undermine the USA's Democratic Republic. +
+ Trough the ability of public unions collecting bargaining they can have a relatively profound effect on how representation works. A public union can raise government spending(salaries ect.) therefor circumventing the democratic process the USA maintains. The unionized workers were already given a chance to vote and lobby during elections to support the candidate that aliened most closely with there views(more gov workforce spending). Instead they raise salaries and benefits taking essentially $ from their fellow taxpayers. They are further manipulating the people and corporations(most are small) by using tools such as strikes witch no other group(filibuster?...lol) in the USA has access to to directly affect public policy. To me the government represents what the people want no matter how bad the choice unless they make it clear. If the citizenry decide to elect a politician who "promises" to pay $10 to the teachers or $100 a hour I think all voters should have a equally say and face the cost or reward or cost or draw. Are not government workers supposed to be public servants in the most honorable way serving there fellow Americans as best as they can. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I believe that the United States of America is a bad country, and never want to settle down there. +
+ The main factors that have led me to this conclusion are: The Democratic System in the US, Military and Foreign Policy, and the Healthcare System. There are also a range of smaller reasons discussed at the end.
**US Democracy**
The government system in place is not a good example of a democracy [\(study\)](https://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens homepage materials/Gilens and Page/Gilens and Page 2014-Testing Theories 3-7-14.pdf). These articles ([1](http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/princeton-experts-say-us-no-longer-democracy), [2](http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/princeton-scholar-demise-of-democracy-america-tpm-interview)) explain the study more concisely. A system where the affluent elite have the greatest impact on decision making is a broken system. This fact leads to a wide range of problems including the ones described below.
**US Military and Foreign Policy**
The US has carried out a large number of military invasions, relative to other developed countries. ([website](http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html)). In just one of these invasions (Iraq War) over half a million Iraqi deaths could be attributable to the war ([study](http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1001533)). Can you imagine the fallout if one other country was responsible for the deaths of half a million American citizens in the US?
And this is just one example, if arguably the biggest and most controversial. In addition, the reasons for the Iraq war are unclear to me (Oil? War on terror? Wild goose chase to find and kill Osama Bin Laden??).
**Healthcare System**
This 2009 [study](http://www.pnhp.org/new_bankruptcy_study/Bankruptcy-2009.pdf) suggests that ~60% of bankruptcies in the US are from medical bills. Of that 60%, 78% had medical insurance. I don't want to live in a place where you can go bankrupt easily through no fault of your own.
The US spends the most amount of money per capita on healthcare in the world, and rank quite low in comparison across a range of health metrics like life expectancy, infant mortality etc. [Dataset](http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?DataSetCode=HEALTH_STAT)
**Other problems** include the education system ([up there with](http://rossieronline.usc.edu/u-s-education-versus-the-world-infographic/) the most expensive in the world and nowhere near the top in performance), wealth inequality ([video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM)), mass shootings and gun crime ([Australia made changes, why can’t the US?](http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2014/07/10/australia-gun-laws)), high levels of incarceration ([second in the world](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate)) and incarceration of innocent people ([short and shocking documentary](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8af0QPhJ22s)).
I know that all countries suffer most if not all of these problems, but I believe it is to a much lesser extent, and certainly within industrialized countries in similar economic positions to the US.
It just seems there is so much wrong with the United States, please CMV!
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I detest marijuana and tend to lose respect for people who smoke it. +
+ I know it doesn’t make sense. I’m intelligent, progressive, and open-minded on any other subject I can think of. It looks like my state is about to legalize recreational marijuana; I actually voted in favor of it two years ago, and I probably will again. However, I personally detest it. I hate the smell. I hate that it dulls people over long periods of time, and I hate when people make it a lifestyle. But I don’t want it to be a big deal to me. CMV, please!
As a side note, I do totally favor marijuana for legitimate medical conditions over things like opiates and other pain medications which are far more harmful than marijuana.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: French food is overrated and I find it uninspiring +
+ I **love** to cook. I wouldn't call myself a foodie but my family and friends tend to: I tend to be that person who gets really excited when I see a flavour combination I've never heard of and has a stack of cookbooks the size of my bedside table that I read pretty much every day... It's a hobby I really enjoy and one of the things I love about it is that every culture has traditions around mealtimes and feasts and has people who are also excited about food. I don't think you can learn all about a culture from their food but seeing what people who had different regional ingredients and cooking methods chose to do when their cuisine developed is really fascinating. It's definitely helped pique my interest and want to visit and/or find out more about quite a few countries over the years, which is a very welcome bonus.
Which brings me to French cooking. So many people who are into cooking or food in general rave about French cooking and its contributions to the world and I'd really like to understand why. I've talked to friends who are passionate about it, been to Paris, read a bit about the history of French cooking (which backfired because the second the Medici family came up I wanted to jump back into Italian instead!), bought a really great seasonal French cookbook and watched the directors commentary of *Julie and Julia* where they talk you through every recipe and why it's delicious or how it takes an admirable amount of skill to make and... I just don't see it. I think Julia Child sounds like a pretty cool lady now but that's about it. With any other countries food, by now I would be falling over myself to start learning more and instead I'm just kind of baffled by the fuss people make about it.
I'm sure part of the issue that I don't particularly like haute cuisine - I had a relatively posh upbringing and am confident and comfortable in Michelin star restaurants but given the choice, I'd rather be somewhere where I felt like I could invite almost anyone and they'd feel at home. I love the concept of striving to make better and better food but for me, a huge part of my motivation is making other people feel comfortable and welcomed so there definitely comes a point where the extra trappings hinder that goal and distract from the experience. Which means that I can appreciate the cordon bleu for striving for excellence and many of the restaurants these people end up in are beautiful but eh... Bistro cooking it is, I guess?
I also have a huge issue with people claiming that something is "the best" so the sweeping statements about French cooking being the best in the world antagonises me. Taste is subjective, there are a huge number of underappreciated cuisines and there is no way to travel the earth and sample them all. It's like saying French philosophers or artists are the best in the world - they're great and I can see why France is proud of their heritage, I'm just not sure why everyone nods along when this sort of thing is so subject to opinion.
I know I don't *have* to like it, I know it's not that big a deal but being this into food and feeling... meh about French cooling does eventually wear a little thin. I really feel like I'm missing out and would love a new perspective. Please CMV!
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Our only "real" purpose is to survive, reproduce, and our-compete others for scarce resources. Ideals are fine, but we shouldn't let them obscure this underlying reality. CMV. +
+ We were taught to play nice as kids, with the golden rule and whatnot. As an adult, if your eyes are open at all to what's going on, you're likely to be disturbed by just how shitty people are to each other. Why all the killing, raping, exploiting, destroying the environment? On a less extreme level, in your workplace you see people trying to get ahead by any means necessary, even if it means pushing others under the bus. People are always trying to one up each other to gain social status, and reap the rewards that come with it (including better selection of mates etc).
We let ourselves be disturbed by this: why can't everyone just play nice? But we humans are just animals after all, we are a product of evolution. While we have some freedom to try to act more highly evolved, we should acknowledge our roots, as ape like creatures, and before that, rodents, fish, and ultimately microorganisms. We aren't special. Life for all of these organism s is a daily struggle to survive and outdo your competition. Its the same for us, only in a less obvious way, because civilization tames and prevents our most outright aggression.
If you acknowledge that life is fundamentally about survival and competition, you might find reality less disturbing. Also, you might take steps to make yourself more competitive, instead of complaining how life is so unfair.
The danger of this, of course, is if we forget morality entirely and just all act like selfish brutes. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe that the human brain is not capable of thinking of random numbers between two set numbers, therefor humans can't think of a random number. CMV. +
+ As I stated in the title, I believe humans are not capable of random number generation, or choosing a random number between two set numbers (for example a number between 1 and 16) and they are predisposed by some unknown factors.
Here is why I believe this. I watched a tv series on the internet and it has 16 seasons. After that I kinda kept rewatching it from time to time and I noticed that I always pick the same seasons and the same episodes even tho I try to choose a random number to select the season and episode. I started experimenting with random.org and I started seeing episodes that I almost forgot existed.
So, change my view!
QUOTE:
You might be confusing "uniformly random" with "random." If I had a d6 and threw it, it would be uniformly random on 1-2-3-4-5-6. If instead I scratched out the "6" and wrote on "5," and threw it, it would still be random on 1-2-3-4-5, but no longer uniformly random since 5 would occur more frequently than 1-2-3-4.
So if I called you on your cell phone, and asked you for a single number, I have no way of knowing what you will tell me. I can maybe guess, but I cannot know for sure. Just because you might be more likely to tell me "3" or "7" instead of "122200393", it doesn't mean that you aren't a random number generator, it just means that your brain's random-number-picker is biased to some numbers and against others.
If I kept you on the phone, and kept asking for more random numbers, you might continue giving them to me. Your brain might change it's consideration depending on what you said one number previously, or what you've said over the whole phone conversation. This is where we have to look at "random" versus "pseudo-random." A pseudo-random number generator uses a seed. Lets say such a seed could be the first number you gave me, such as 3.
If, every time I called you, AND if you happened to start with "3" instead of some other number, that you always gave the same sequence of numbers afterwards, you would be pseudorandom instead of random. If, on the other hand, at least one of the following numbers were different, you would be random instead of pseudorandom. What happens in that case instead is that the sequence of numbers you give me is highly "autocorrelated," where your previous answers bias your next answer. The difference is that a pseudo-random process will tell you exactly what your number sequence will be, if you know the seed; an autocorrelated random sequence instead will still leave at least some wiggle room for things to turn out randomly in the chain. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:I believe the world should just abandon Israel and Palestine, stop supporting either one, and just let them kill each other until one side wins +
+ Honestly I do not think the two populations can ever live in peace. A 2 state solution will most likely never work because the west bank and gaza are not contiguous and most of the resources needed for survival (water) would have to come from or through Israel.
A one state integrated solution will not work for a bunch of reasons:
On the Israeli side there is a loud minority that actually believe it is all their land, and that they can/should take it. (Settlers etc)
On the Hamas side of things, well Hamas exists to fight this fight, and will resist peace on both ideological grounds, and, well to some extent no organization wants to lose power or relevance, and Hamas would if peace were to happen.
On top of that the general amount of distrust, anti-semetism, racism etc that both sides must feel makes peace basically impossible. To me it looks like all the support people give to both sides simply slows the conflict down, thus extending it's length and causing more people misery (as in more generations of people)
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think the attitude towards suicide on reddit/society in general is misguided and comes from an unfounded value on human experience. CMV +
+ DISCLAIMER: I am NOT advocating suicide for anyone here who might be on the fence.
now then, here is the key fact around which I base my speculations: Every person who has ever lived will die. some people die old and in bed, or young and tragically. 1st world, 3rd world, it doesnt matter. we are all headed for the drain pipe. religious/philosophical speculation aside, there is no real evidence that anything from our human experiences here survives the death of our brains.
now, onto my point. We all see countless posts here daily (/r/offmychest, /r/confession, /r/suicidewatch, etc) about people who are either thinking about killing themselves, who are definitely going to kill themselves, etc. Sometimes they give context, sometimes they dont, but regardless they are always met with responses along the lines of 'don't do this, life is great/it will get better/there is hope, etc. and for some reason that just doesnt sit right with me. Every person is (or should be) the owner of their own life, insofar as their circumstances allow them to be. If a person has sought help, therapy, or honestly believes/knows that their situation will never improve, why is it we advocate they continue in their suffering. for the chance that things *might* get better some day? what if they have been gambling on 'just one more day' for longer than they can take, then they come and express their feelings, and are met with 'just keep going' types of responses.
To me that seems more cruel than even having the honest discussion that maybe death, some form of ultimate peace, is exactly what this person wants and we shouldn't try and deny it to them through arguments of possible improvement or happiness in the future. If a certain person has made efforts to improve their life, become happy, therapy, etc and they still feel suicidal, why cant there be an honest discussion about why it is still bad for this person to take their own life? It makes no sense to me. Everyone dies, what is so wrong with some taking their life in a time/place/manner of their choosing, especially someone who has no hope and is living in despair.
CMV | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe the American public school system is terrible, CMV. +
+ I don't have a very informed view here, but it's one that the general public seems to hold and I have had until now.
The main reasoning I hear is that:
When ranked against other first world countries we're near the very bottom of the list.
Though, as I was working a customer bought this book, when I asked about it she said that the author talks about how the public education system isn't as bad as it seems and that those aforementioned statistics are taken from ourselves as an entire nation and are exaggerated.
(Exaggerated mainly by our privatized school systems in order to bash the public school system and therefore have more parents enroll their kids in private schools, in other words, greed.)
She bases this on the fact that these statistics include areas and states that are infamous for their stupidity, rednecks and hillbillies. (I'm not going to throw out any names)and if you were to take states such as NJ and Massachusetts and rank them separate we would be at or near the very top of the lists. Now I realize that this in itself points to a serious deficiency in the quality of our public school systems in at least some states, but maybe it truly isn't as bad as it is as a whole and I'd like to hear more on this argument.
PS: The book was Reign of Error. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: European culture is fundamentally intolerant +
+ That European culture promotes tolerance is by far the most pervasive European myth. Instances of European tolerance are in fact in spite of rather than because of European culture.
For literally millennia Europeans had Jews amongst them, but they lived in their own ghettoes. Every FUCKING time a local ruler had some problem, the Jews were hunted down and slaughtered like dogs. They were ghettoized, otherized, persecuted, and discriminated against; pogrom after pogrom after pogrom targeted them. *No matter how long Jews were in Europe, they were regarded as Jews first, European second.*
And even then, the Europeans spread the same pernicious myth: It's the Jew's fault for not integrating, they're Them, and we're Us, we don't mix with those kinds of people, they're Bad with a capital B, etc. etc. etc.
And then finally Hitler came along, and it's no longer PC to hate Jews, so people found the next group to hate: Muslims. Because European culture is fucking intolerant. Because European culture has no history, except until the past two or three decades, of cooperating with people of different ethnic, religious, and political backgrounds.
Europeans blame the Muslims for isolating themselves, but make no efforts to integrate them, because Europe has very little history of ever integrating people. They blame them for sticking to their third world ways, but refuse to associate with them and continue to discriminate against them. Muslim ghettoes have shittier education and shittier access to social goods and they isolate children from mainstream culture, but Europeans act so fucking surprised when a kid grows up and believes the same thing his parents did back in the old country, as if people magically absorb ideas.
You don't get to discriminate and ghettoize a people and then claim its their fault for not absorbing the ideals of your culture.
No other area on the planet has had the kinds of mass-scale, intentionally engineered genocides, democides, and gynocides as Europe has had, even when you account for technological differences in the way people are exterminated. Although other religions have sectarian violence [European Christianity definitely has the longest and most violent such history](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectarian_violence_among_Christians). People think Europe is some kind of pacifist haven right now, but they forget that for several thousand years Europe was essentially in one big internecine war, with only short breaks taken on certain fronts.
I think a big reason for this is the European invention of the nation-state. Chomksy expresses this better than I do, so here you go:
[Source](http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20050518.htm)
In fact, that's why I think MOST examples of ethnic and religious violence outside of Europe didn't really happen until Europeans started meddling in foreign affairs. By attempting to impose national borders that made no sense, by spreading the virulent cults of anti semitism, racism, and religious intolerance past its shores, by infecting the rest of the world with is intolerance.
I think in order to disprove this hypothesis you'd have to show me examples of other nations, prior to being contaminated by the Europeans, being equally intolerant. I just can't think of any such examples.
Perhaps you can. CMV. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Atheism is completely useless if not accompanied by humanitarianism +
+ I find atheists, taken as a group, tend to be socially progressive in a lot of meaningful ways. That said, I feel like irreligion is sometimes mistaken for "objectivity" in a moral sense.
I'm speaking specifically of the far right wing portion of atheism. The folks who use pseudo-science to support ideas of white supremacy, patriarchy, climate change denial and the like. The sort of folks who define themselves as "Anti-SJW" and smugly trumpet atheism as the only true path to enlightenment.
I think it's important to recognize the force of humanitarianism behind great social movements- The Civil Rights Act, which abolished segregation, was argued for in both secular and religious terms and Martin Luther King Jr., by all accounts, was no atheist.
I, personally, am a unitarian universalist- a church that has repeatedly spoken out on behalf of LGBT people, on behalf of people of color, on the behalf of women's rights, et cetera.
Ultimately, I think humanitarianism is far more important that religious affiliation for this reason.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I, for the most part, believe having a "fast" or "slow" metabolism is a myth. CMV. +
+ Now obviously there are going to be extreme exceptions to these as with everything. Also, I know age is an extreme factor but let's assume the two types of people in case1 are always the same age when comparing.
CASE1: I believe that people who claim to have "fast" metabolisms and eat a lot really overestimate what they eat. For example, a skinny person goes to McDonalds and has 4 McDoubles (about 1700 cals) OK we can agree that that is a lot of cals/food for one meal. BUT from my experience it is these same people who skips meals frequently and are fairly active. I have a brother like this. He eats about 2 meals a day and although eating 8 eggos or a few bacon cheeseburgers in a sitting he never eats breakfast and/or often skips lunch and plays soccer a few times a week/bikes around with friends.
Now on the other side. People with "slow" metabolisms completely underestimate what they eat while generally not being as active (for example a desk job). I have a friend who is about 60lbs overweight. When he tells me what he ate today he usually says something like "oh, you know just a steak and some rice" obviously not accounting for the 6 glasses of coke, 4 shots of JD and 2 giant bowls of cereal I watched him eat and portions of the steak & rice (and that is just the icing on the cake - no pun intended - seriously).
CASE2: From a psychological standpoint a fat person doesn't want to admit to being a pig and a skinny person wants to sound "cool" by saying how much he/she can eat and still be skinny.
Ultimately, metabolisms from each person do differ but not by close to as much people claim they do. CMV. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: A standing army is necessary and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. +
+ I believe a standing army is necessary in today's world. (In the US' case) it serves as incentive for countries to not attack, it provides somewhat stable employment, it participates in aid both foreign and domestic, and facilitates technological advances.
If we look to the past, the standing army revolutionized warfare, government, and society in general. Rome's advantage compared to, for example, Carthage, was its professional army (in place of a mercenary army). It enabled otherwise hopeless, landless, futureless poor to contribute to both their government and themselves.
In terms of the foreseeable future (next 250 years, give or take a few), I can't predict anything that will cause a standing army to no longer be necessary. We can see that modernization doesn't temper aggression.
I will be in class for the next hour so I will respond afterwards.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Ridesharing companies like Uber and Lyft should be allowed to operate unfettered as they solve many of the problems people face with city-sanctioned taxi services. +
+ Companies like Uber and Lyft are ride sharing services in which you can download their app to your phone and call a car (either someone's personal vehicle or a livery car) and it will come pick you up and take you wherever you want to go. These prices are often cheaper than city-sanctioned cabs and the drivers never try to cheat you or mislead you.
As a personal anecdote, I was in LA for a few months earlier this year. Early into my stay in the city, a friend and I took a cab from Burbank to Century City in the morning. The cab driver, despite me asking him to follow the route I had on Google Maps, decided to take the 101 to the 405 to get there. For people not from LA, this is a good idea in theory (and actually the most direct way), but NOT DURING MORNING RUSH HOUR. It took us two hours to get there (as opposed to 45 min using Google Maps) and the ride cost $90, despite the driver promising us that his way would be faster.
On the way home, my friend and I decided to try Uber and the difference was astounding. The driver was courteous, on time, offered us water, and followed our directions, no questions asked. The best part was the ride cost $35. We never looked back and I don't think I'll ever use a cab again.
Now before anyone unfamiliar with the services starts bashing them, please note that Uber (I've actually never used Lyft but I assume it's similar)
-Does not require you to tip. In fact, payment is charged directly to your card
-Lets customers and drivers rate each other so drivers can choose to pick up a customer and customers know what to expect from their drivers. If a driver's rating drops below a certain rating, he/she is let go from the service. There's no check and/or balance for city-sanctioned drivers. I mean you can complain to a hotline but that's not going to do anything.
Now today, I read this account
http://www.geekwire.com/2014/hey-denver-police-harrass-riding-uber/
And then this a few days ago
http://www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/58491/uber-why-london-cabbies-hate-taxi-app
And even this in Los Angeles
http://www.dailybreeze.com/technology/20140705/uber-taxi-car-service-corrals-drivers-at-lax-with-geofence-algorithm
To me, that smacks of protectionism of an industry that refuses to change its shitty behavior and shitty attitude and is getting butthurt at the fact that Uber/Lyft are doing their jobs better than them. It is completely uncapitalistic, undemocratic, and is stifling a good idea.
But, there are two sides to every story, so please, tell me why laws like the ones outlined above in the articles are a good idea and change my view.
TL;DR: Ridesharing services should be allowed to run without interference from law enforcement. CMV
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I feel perfectly fine judging people who use misspelled words or fail to use even the most basic grammar. +
+ I am very confident in the idea that people can and should use the internet (or, fuck, even a dictionary) to at least spell words correctly. Some may say they don't care enough, and that's fine most of the time. If a mechanic is taking a few minutes to write instructions for me to fix something on my car, I'm happy to overlook a few simple spelling and grammar mistakes. But if you're typing an email or posting to facebook and every fifth word is misused or misspelled, I take that to mean you care very little for clear communication and I shouldn't bother to read it or take it seriously.
On the other-hand, I feel like this is an ingrained elitist notion that makes me an asshole. Help me resolve this CMV!
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I believe that I don't want a mainstream lifestyle +
+ I've been thinking recently, and I've decided that I don't want a mainstream lifestyle. (By mainstream lifestyle, I mean 40 hour work week). I just don't see the appeal of spending so much time to get money, and have that time wasted forever. (I got thinking about this quote from the Dalai Lama, who said he was surprised of how freely humanity exchanges time for money.) Personally, I'd rather be an artist of some kind, so part of you job is living to get inspired. I know, it's a lot riskier lifestyle, but I'd trade stability for time. CMV.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Feminists and Atheists should stop labeling themselves if they wish to win hearts and minds +
+ Atheists who want religious or philosophical equality and feminists who want gender equality run into the same problem. The denotation of the word they use and the connotation of the word they use are vastly different.
You see, there are quite a few atheists who want religion completely eliminated and some feminists who want females to be superior to men. These extremists are often the loudest, and garner the most media attention. Then, of course, these extremists poison the connotation most ordinary folks have when they hear these words.
Lets take a famous example of both of these people pointing out this problem.
First, Neil Degrasse Tyson.
[Neil deGrasse Tyson: Atheist or Agnostic?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzSMC5rWvos)
Second, Emma Watson
Apparently I am among the ranks of women whose expressions are seen as too strong, too aggressive, isolating, anti-men and, unattractive.
[..]it is not the word that is important but the idea and the ambition behind it.[..]
Men—I would like to take this opportunity to extend your formal invitation. Gender equality is your issue too.
Because to date, I’ve seen my father’s role as a parent being valued less by society despite my needing his presence as a child as much as my mother’s.
I’ve seen young men suffering from mental illness unable to ask for help for fear it would make them look less “macho”—in fact in the UK suicide is the biggest killer of men between 20-49 years of age; eclipsing road accidents, cancer and coronary heart disease. I’ve seen men made fragile and insecure by a distorted sense of what constitutes male success. Men don’t have the benefits of equality either.
We don’t often talk about men being imprisoned by gender stereotypes but I can see that that they are and that when they are free, things will change for women as a natural consequence.
If men don’t have to be aggressive in order to be accepted women won’t feel compelled to be submissive. If men don’t have to control, women won’t have to be controlled.
Both men and women should feel free to be sensitive. Both men and women should feel free to be strong… It is time that we all perceive gender on a spectrum not as two opposing sets of ideals."
The problem in both cases here is the vast gulf between the connotation and denotation of these words.
Feminist, denotation - People advocating for gender equality
Feminist, connotation - People advocating for man hating and female superiority
Atheist, denotation - People with a lack of belief in God
Atheist, connotation - People advocating for Christian hating and baby eating (In the western world)
People will argue endlessly about what these words REALLY mean, primarily because these words are extremely poisoned words that mean a million different things to different people.
So lets not get bogged down by posting dictionary definitions. A word is a symbolic tool humans use to convey meaning to one another. So we could argue endlessly about the true meaning of these words, but the simple truth is that we must acknowledge that these words, in the minds of millions of different people, have millions of different meanings, moreso than most words do. We all have a much better consensus on words like blanket, for example.
Ask most feminists and or most atheists, and they would tell you that they don't hate men just because they are men or hate Christians for being Christians and that really what they have a problem with is the way women and atheists are treated in society.
But if you were to ask most people what they thought of feminists or atheists and most of them might tell you that these people are extremely intolerant people who hate men and or Christians and eat babies and pray to Satan.
So in the future, you should avoid labeling yourself and/or allowing other people to define or label you with a word, as Neil Degrasse Tyson so eloquently put it, to assert they already know everything about you that they need to know in order to put you in the atheist or feminist or gamer or hippie box and end the conversation and understanding before the conversation ever starts.
**That doesn't mean you can't ever label yourself**, but if you want to actually have a friendly conversation with someone who might be interested in learning more, be aware of what meaning you are conveying to most people if you wear the badge of atheist or feminist. You can argue until you're blue in the face with people about what you really mean when you say you are an atheist or a feminist, but almost universally the connotation people have with these labels will still be stronger than your trying to convince them it actually means something less hostile than they imagine it to be.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I feel use of camera equipped drones by law enforcement is perfectly reasonable and does not infringe my freedoms. +
+ I've been hearing about cities putting up legal challenges forcing LE to abandon use of drone cameras observing civilians. I don't see why any innocent person would care to prevent this kind of oversight. I think it's a great alternative to expensive police helicopters or security camera networks. I think the safety issue (drones falling from the sky) is a non-issue (crossing the street is more dangerous). I think the surveillance issue is moot (who wants domestic terror or gang activity in their area). And I'd rather see this done with transparency (cops announcing the policies) than with some kind of high orbit military magic eye. Plus I could see the drone being a street crime deterrent. Basically, I don't get the downside to it. Slippery slope, civil liberties, yes, yes, but we can have laws to regulate unreasonable use, people can sue for damages after being outed or whatever, and in the long run we'll be safer. CMV liberty lovers!
It's been a few hours, I'm going off for tonight - but I have been convinced to amend my view to say: proper laws about fair use of surveillance tech and application of warrants before spying would be required and are pretty complicated to put on the books, so probably LE drones are a risky idea in the real world. BUT - this is only saying I admit a proper drone use policy would be hard to get. Not that I think having it/them would be bad if it could be accomplished. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: TES is a fun series but getting really into the lore won't enhance my experience. +
+ [Some](http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/Withershins_\(Book\)) of the books are pretty [enjoyable](http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/Chance%27s_Folly) or just [silly](http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/ABCs_for_Barbarians) and knowing a little bit about the relevant culture can be useful (more so in Morrowind than Oblivion or Skyrim) but some people get waaaay into it. How does knowing about TES cosmology, CHIM (besides being used as a hand-waving explanation) or the biography of an insane king make *my* game playing experience more enjoyable? It sort of seems a bit pointless.
Plus where do the lovely people of /r/TESlore get all this info? Is *everything* they talk about found in books or dialogue or is there some EU shit I'm not aware of? | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: All sports are zero-sum games. +
+ A zero-sum game is a situation in which a participant's gain (or loss) is exactly balanced by the losses (or gains) of the other participant. For exemple, a soccer game is a zero sum game: when a team wins the other team loses.
In contrast, non-zero-sum describes a situation in which the interacting parties' aggregate gains and losses are either less than or more than zero.
Many worldwide human endeavours rely on cooperation (non-zero sum games) like scientific and technological development. A sports event where everyone roots for the same outcome is impossible.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Train Conductors are a useless job. +
+ At this point in time, they could easily be replaced by a computer with on guy controlling many at once. I got nothing personally wrong with them, it just seems like having a human in the engine car is useless. According to [this webpage](http://www.minnesotasafetycouncil.org/OL/stop.cfm) , it takes around a mile for a train to stop. So nothing a human can see would be able to stop in time. A computer could be used to automatically sound the horn when nearing crossings and to brake when needed.
I may not have all the reasons a person would be still needed in the car, but would like to hear why. So change my view. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Kids should be placed in classes based on ability level, not age +
+ Some people may be really bored in their classes because they aren't being challenged. Not every school has advanced classes either and I know my hs only had 3 AP classes. I think that schools should place students in classes based on their ability level. Instead of having someone fail a class, they can take a lower level class so they are actually learning and have a better change of comprehending what's going on. The students that are exceeding may be put in higher classes so they don't become bored with the curriculum.
I don't mean that students should be put in different grades. I just feel that if they are not particularly good in one subject, they may need to go to an easier class. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Nothing is unnatural. CMV +
+ Everything in the universe is nature (meaning it is part of the physical world). Anything produced in the universe is natural. Genetically modified organisms were produced or engineered by humans, who are part of the universe. You can't say something is unnatural or unnaturally occurring, unless you're talking about something supernatural. Also, something that is "man-made" is still natural since humans are part of nature. I really can't see how this can be disputed. In day to day life, when people refer to something unnatural, they are making up their own definition or using their own parameters for determining whether something is natural or not. Instead of using the word unnatural when talking about man-made things, shouldn't people be using "man-made"?
The definition of natural:
Humankind is part of nature so doesn't the definition contradict itself? It's like saying:
Shouldn't the definition be:
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Pajama bottoms are perfectly acceptable in a public situation +
+ For all intents and purposes, I will be referring to an American viewpoint, with a focus on "day-to-day" life. Not going to work, not attending a funeral, more stuff like going to the store, or going out with friends.
# My direct opinions
1. **They're no worse than anything else**
* Yoga pants are completely accepted, despite them being "worse" than other clothing. Yoga pants are "non-classy" and should be considered unacceptable long before pajama pants.
2. **Comfort**
* They are more comfortable than khakis/denim, this seems to generally be agreed upon. Why should I sacrifice my comfort if I don't have a need for something -- like more pockets -- that I can only get with other bottoms.
---
# Countering the points of others
1. **They portray laziness**
* That's bull. They don't portray anything more than what people choose to interpret them as. If I see someone in cargo pants, I don't just assume that they're leading expeditions into the jungle.
2. **They're not "classy"**
* If I'm just going out to the store to get some groceries, why should class or appearances matter in any way?
---
# My one conceding point
**They're not classy**
Yes, this is *essentially* correct, and there are some situations where class is appropriate (high-end restaurant, for example) but I'm referring to only day to day life.
---
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe totalitarian based ideologies, such as communism, restrict the growth of countries that would otherwise flourish with minimal intervention. CMV +
+ In my opinion, a country like china, with its abundance of natural resources, historical dominance, advantages geographical location, and intellectual community, would flourish under minimal government intervention. Taking Hong Kong as an example, often described as "one country, two systems" became the worlds biggest experiment of capitalism meets the east. Yet, it is hosts some of the worlds most competitive leaders of financial and business centers.
China through heavy intervention of the government, has severely restricted the expansion of the World Wide Web (great firewall of china). These restrictions as a result have heavily reduced domestic competition, resulting in domestic copycat alternatives for twitter, Facebook, eBay, etc. These alternatives rarely innovate, ergo, contribute virtually nothing to technological innovations, and to humanity as a whole. They lag behind competitive global corporations, such as Google, Apple, Microsoft, and even tech start ups around the world.
Thanks, I look forward to seeing replies. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The internet (or access to it) should be considered a fundamental human right. +
+ Before I start, note that this is not a discussion about implementation. We don't say "oh well it's too hard to insure people have free speech so we're just not going to have that as a human right." This discussion does not include how we would go about insuring or protecting that right, it pertains only to the idea that internet (or at least access to it) should be a fundamental human right.
The internet is (I contend) one of the greatest developments in the history of humanity. It represents a singularity event whereby the amount of information to a single person is greater than could be consumed in whole lifetimes and a platform for an open exchange of information that is unrivaled in the history of humanity.
Anything in the world you can think to want to learn, you can through the internet. Culture from any time and place, as well as the tools to participate and create modern culture on your own, can be found online. It's probably the single greatest tool for personal education that a person has available to them.
I realize this sounds very breathlessly idealistic but I think most of us tend to forget what an amazing thing we have access to when we spend all day looking at cat gifs.
With that in mind, denying people access to it or censoring it is, in my view, a violation of what should be considered a fundamental human right in the same way we consider an education to be a human right. We should protect the greatest asset to human learning and communication that ever was in the same way we protect school as a right.
To the inevitable [Avenue Q](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTJvdGcb7Fs) fans, only about [4-5%](http://www.forbes.com/sites/julieruvolo/2011/09/07/how-much-of-the-internet-is-actually-for-porn/) of the internet is for porn. Which, granted, is still a lot when you consider how many websites there are but it's not nearly the titanic use of the web as people think it is.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Cold pizza is a tragedy and people who claim it is as good, or better hot pizza have poor taste. +
+ When I was in high school, I started my love affair with pizza early by mastering the peel and poker at the local "Papa _____" joint. In college, it was practically currency. In my mid 20's I began to appreciate different kinds of flour, the many methods of cooking it. I love me some pizza.
When I hear somebody willing to forego the few seconds it would take to even just microwave it slightly (or few minutes in a toaster oven), I actually wonder why this person is putting such terribly unhealthy food into their body while getting such little enjoyment from it.
Here is my logic for arriving at my contention:
* The temperature of **any** food or beverage has significant impact on its flavor, texture, aroma, and overall quality. There is a reason why fine wines and champagne have ideal serving temperatures.
* Pizza contains many oils, mostly from cheese, that are more present and aromatic when warm.
* The texture is significantly better when warm - the crust is flakier but still soft, the cheese is melted and more flavorful.
* It was cooked and meant to be consumed hot, immediately. I don't know of any chef or restaurant that takes it from the oven to the cooler for it to reach it's optimal quality before serving.
* Therefore, warm/hot pizza will always be better than cold pizza, and spending even 45 seconds in a microwave will make the enjoyment increase several orders in magnitude.
* If you disagree with this, I posit you a) are lazy b) have poor taste in pizza c) have great taste in quiche d) all of the above.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I don't believe people with severe mental disabilities should graduate. Please, please CMV. +
+ I work for a school photography company, and around this time of year I'm usually dispatched to graduations to take pictures of people receiving their diplomas.
Now, every so often at graduations we have to take the picture of someone with a severe mental disability. I'm not talking about someone who is just a little slower than normal -- I'm talking about people who are confined to a wheelchair and have the mental capacity of a two-year-old. These kinds of people likely don't even understand the *concept* of graduation -- I had one person try to **eat his diploma.** We have to use all these tricks to make them look at the camera, like whistling, snapping, etc., and even then it hardly ever comes out as a good picture.
My view is that the purpose of a diploma is to prove you are able to function in a civilized society. Those without diplomas or equivalent (i.e. dropouts) ~~are shunned and excluded from society~~ denied the same opportunities in society because they were unable to prove that they could function properly. Those with severe mental disabilities were physically unable to take many of the same classes as the majority of people who graduated, and so I believe they should not be entitled to the same diploma.
I'm usually a pretty liberal guy, but this issue has always bugged me because it is cognitively dissonant from the rest of my beliefs. I believe we should still take care of these people, but if they are unable to function properly I don't think we should give them the certification that says they are a functioning member of society.
> *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](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/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](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Nothing is objective, everything conceivable in the world is completely subjective +
+ Everything in the world as we know it is subjective. Every single thing can have different viewpoints that can be argued. There is not one thing that can or cannot be proven. For example, your view of objective can be "the grass is green." That is fact, right? But is grass actually objectively green? What if it's subjectively green? What I conceive as green and what you conceive as green could be totally different. And how can we know? Can you describe green to me? No, just like I can't describe green to you. The color green is socially constructed, and, even then, we don't know if all of us see the same color green. Maybe your green looks orange to me but you call it green. Grass isn't really green, is it? In that case, we call it the same thing but identify it as something different. This means grass isn't really green, objectively. Everything is subjective through my eyes and nothing can ever be factual. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think homosexuality actually is a mental disorder. CMV +
+ I think homosexuality actually is a mental disorder. In the 70s it was declassified as a mental disorder, yet I dont understand why. Things such as [narcissism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder), [wanting to steal things](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleptomania), or even simply [lacking sexual desire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypoactive_sexual_desire_disorder) are things considered mental disorders, yet homosexuality isnt, even though it fits definitions of mental disorder.
CMV? | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: American television audiences generally do not need adaptations of English speaking shows from other countries. +
+ A common justification I see for American television networks making remakes/adaptations of English-speaking shows(I'm thinking mostly Australian and British as those are the main examples I'll be using) is that American audiences will be more able to relate to the adaptation as opposed to the original. I think that the general American audience can relate to most English-speaking shows that take place in English-speaking countries as well as they can to most American produced shows. I think that the general American audience is able to relate to English-speaking shows just fine. Accents, settings, and culture are not different enough in other English speaking countries to warrant American adaptations.
I don't think all American adaptations are unwarranted, for example a miniseries or a show with a limited number of seasons then adapting it so that a network can extend its run is fine(I'm thinking of the American adaptation of the Office). Many American remakes though, such as the Inbetweeners, Skins, and Gracepoint, and the upcoming adaptation of the Australian series "The Slap" are not needed for the general American audience.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think Israel deserves to have the kind of military and nuclear weapons it has right now. CMV +
+ Israel is surrounded on all sides (except the sea) by Muslim Arab countries. Those countries had once declared that they do not accept the existence of a Jewish state in that region and after gaining independence Israel was immediately attacked by a coalition of Egypt, Syria, Transjordan and Iraq. The state of Israel would have been quite easily annihilated had they not defeated their Arab enemies in the wars that ensued throughout the 20th century. And although Israel has not been involved in any war in the recent past, that is only due to the Arab countries being afraid of Israel's military powers. Therefore I think Israel has every right to pursue a nuclear programme and remind its neighbours from time to time that its claws are still sharp. Otherwise, with the backing of Saudi Arabia, someday there might be another war in which all the Muslim countries (I'm saying this to include Pakistan in the fray as well) will attack Israel and wipe its existence off from the face of the earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel#Independence_and_first_years | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe the European niqab ban is ridiculous and should be scrapped. CMV +
+ I'll firstly head off a common argument I've heard- the niqab is not actually as common as people would care to think. In France the total number of actual women wearing the niqab is less than 400, in a Muslim population of 200,000. The ban therefore affects a minority of a minority, and it seems odd to my mind such a minor issue has reached the highest heights of government.
I also feel the ban also contradicts the principles of religious freedom which exist in Europe and in the West. The ban seems to have involved little consultation from the actual veiled women themselves, and rather seems to be fuelled by the mass of right-wing sentiment which seems to have sprung up in the West in more recent times than any real concerns.
I also find the idea that the State can mandate the clothing choices of people abhorrent, and it seems hypocritical to my mind that whilst the average European recoils in horror at the sort of mandatory niqab rules, the same people can then put in place an almost identical reverse law. No state body should have any say in the clothing choices of the citizenry.
Regarding security, this is a non-issue to me. If there is some need for identification or security, I am sure that provision could be made that niqabed women would be required to remove their niqabs for this purpose infront of an appropriate female, and identification made. Plus it must be said that if it were really a security issue, then the ban would not prevent women from walking down their own front streets (where the niqab presents no security risk whatsoever).
So, CMV otherwise. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe that the new "score hiding" system is poorly done and only makes viewing comment threads more annoying. CMV +
+ The intention is to allow people to not upvote other posts simply because they already have upvotes, but it didn't address the reason that upvoted posts gather more upvotes. No one looks at a comment and thinks, "Wow, 2140 other people liked this, certainly it's worth another!" Rather, the reason that upvoted posts accumulate upvotes is simply because they get seen more. People stop scrolling down at some point. And even with votes hidden, *reddit doesn't change the sort order*. Upvoted posts still gather upvotes like a torrent. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Groups such as WISE (women in science and engineering) are sexist so long as they have no male for female dominated fields of study +
+
First off, I think the groups are great. They found a problem and focused on fixing it. I don't think that they are the best solution, but that is the subject of another debate so please don't bring their effectiveness into this debate.
Groups, specifically student groups, that revolve around empowering women to enter STEM fields are fantastic. They are a part of Title 9, and they try to bring more equality to the workforce by being more welcoming to any women who wants to enter the STEM fields. This is very important as these fields have traditionally been very male dominated. However, there are a bunch of fields that have been traditionally female dominated that do not share a similar group. Social work. Drama. Art. Secretaries. Nursing. Teacher (not professor, public school teacher) etc... Traditionally these fields have been very female dominated, and they still are. Yet, even though women have support groups to help them succeed in male dominated fields, men have no such equivalent for female dominated fields.
There is no group that goes around supporting guys who want to be a nurse. There isn't a group that supports men going to school for drama, art, teaching etc... Its just expected that men either don't want to work in these fields, or if they do they will find a way to do it. Why do women get special treatment like this? Why is there no male equivalent support groups for female dominated fields of study? Until we fix this, groups such as WISE are nothing more than a sexist group that says "Women need help and men don't." In their goal of empowering women, I believe that this message that they are sending out is hypocritical, and counterproductive to their endgoal. Who is to say that women need more help than guys do? Guys still get flak from a bunch of their peers if they decide to be a nurse, secretary, social worker, teacher etc... Why is this acceptable when we are supposed to empower those who want to work in non-traditional fields for their gender? It isn't. And until that is addressed any such groups for women are just sexist.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Romantic love isn't a risk worth taking +
+ I read someone describe love as handing over to someone else the power to destroy you emotionally, and trusting them not to. I don't think love is a smart investment of self. No one ever anticipates being burned in love, and yet the chances are that the vast majority, and even possibly all, the relationships in your romantic life will end that way, often through no fault of your own. You can pour all of your love into someone for years and they can walk away for no other reason beyond "not feeling it" anymore or having met someone else. You can't control other people, you can only control yourself and your own actions.
Knowing the brutal truth of the fact that you can't make someone fall or stay in love with you, I believe the risk and pain of being burned in love after years of sacrifice and fidelity is a worse prospect than the pain of maintaining emotional self-sufficiency, finding happiness and fulfilment with life by yourself and never having been in love.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The Humean objection to the argument from miracles is conclusive. +
+ The argument from miracles is the argument that there have been miracles which are evidence for the existence of God (one popular version is William Lane Craig's argument for the resurrection using a handful of facts derived from the testimony of the Bible). I'm going to give two objections to the argument from miracles, one by Hume and one an updated version of Hume's objection by J. L. Mackie given in his book *The Miracle of Theism*.
Here is Hume's objection to the argument from miracles, as presented by J. L. Mackie (this is my condensation of Mackie's discussion of Hume, and does not appear in this form in Mackie's book).
1. We can determine whether or not to accept a given piece of testimony by considering two things: the credibility of the witness and the intrinsic likelihood of the claim that the witness is making.
2. A law of nature is a maximally strong induction from past experience.
3. A miracle is a claim that contradicts a law of nature.
4. Therefore, a miracle is a claim that contradicts a maximally strong induction from past experience. (from 2 and 3)
5. But induction from past experience is the only means we have of evaluating the intrinsic likelihood of an event.
6. Therefore, miracles have a very low intrinsic likelihood. (from 4 and 5)
7. In practice, the credibility of a witness will never be sufficiently high as to equal or outweigh such a low intrinsic likelihood. There are five reasons for thinking this: (a) miracles are never testified to by sufficiently many people with spotless reputations, excellent educations, and a lot to lose in the event that they are caught lying; (b) people have a tendency to like believing in strange things like miracles and UFOs; (c) miracles usually come from backward nations; (d) the miracles of different religions cancel each other out; and (e) in religious communities, credulity is thought to be a good thing, so they encourage each other to believe more and more in the miracles of their religion.
8. Therefore, in practice, we should always reject miraculous claims. (from 1, 6 and 7)
Mackie sums up Hume's argument from a different perspective as follows:
* If the unlikelihood of the testimony's being false is less than the intrinsic unlikelihood of the miracle, then we must reject the miracle report with a confidence corresponding to the difference between the two.
* If the unlikelihood of the testimony's being false is equal to the intrinsic unlikelihood of the miracle, then we must suspend judgment.
* If the unlikelihood of the testimony's being false is greater than the intrinsic unlikelihood of the miracle, we must accept the miracle, but only with the modest degree of confidence permitted by the difference between the two unlikelihoods.
Mackie updates Hume's argument as follows (this is more of an inductive inference):
1. To establish that a miracle occurred, it is necessary to establish both that the event took place and that it violated the laws of nature.
2. Showing that an event violates the laws of nature is a strong reason to think that the event did not occur.
3. Showing that an event occurred is a strong reason to think that it did not violate the laws of nature.
4. Therefore, the atheist will always be able to object to the argument from miracles by arguing either that the event must not have occurred or that the event must not have violated the laws of nature. (Which one we use will depend on the specific alleged miracle under discussion - if the miracle is not well supported, then the former tactic is stronger, and if the miracle is well supported, then the latter tactic is stronger.)
5. Therefore, in practice, the theist will never be able to establish that a miracle occurred.
Mackie notes that this reasoning even applies to miracles which one has witnessed for oneself. The miracle that you have witness might not really have occurred, since you might have misperceived something, been tricked by a magician, or deluded yourself about what you saw over a period of time. Alternatively, the event you witness might have occurred in accordance with the laws of nature after all.
To change my view about this, you will have to show that Hume's argument and Mackie's argument both fail.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The common Redditor belief of aborting a fetus solely because of a mental disorder is akin to mass-murder +
+ Context: The top comment on [this post](http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/2aevur/til_that_over_90_of_pregnancies_in_the_united/) shows a clear favor by Redditors to abort fetuses that have down syndrome.
[This post](http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/1j893q/til_that_more_than_90_of_women_who_learn_that/) has the third highest top comment that says: *Like it or not, but severely mentally handicapped people are undeniably a burden to their society, regardless how often people say they are a blessing.*
I'm not trying to make this into an abortion topic, please don't think that's my main point. The reason behind abortion that smacks with eugenic purity is heinous. Especially with a mental disorder that has many high functioning individuals as adults.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I don't we should make more it more difficult for mentally ill people to own a gun. +
+
After the recent shooting at Fort Hood, I've been hearing a lot of arguments in the media that it should be harder for mentally ill people to own guns. I disagree. I think it's wrong to discriminate against one group of people and deny them rights everyone else has. If I've struggled with mental illness in the past should it be harder for me to own a gun even if I'm seeing a psychiatrist and taking medication? I don't think this even addresses this issue. Instead of focusing on people's needs should we curtail their constitutional rights. However, I may be wrong on this so I want to see all sides. Please CMV.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: In many cases, it is morally permissible or possibly obligatory for superheroes to kill or handicap the supervillain they are fighting. +
+ In many superhero TV shows and comics, superheroes are extremely unwilling to kill villains, instead preferring to capture them. Ordinarily, this would be fine, and I think it is for the most part effective against ordinary criminals who are easily contained. When we consider supervillains, we consistently see that they either break free of capture or avoid getting captured in the first place. These villains often go on to pursue other schemes that result in significant harm or death to innocent civilians. If that's the case, then it would be better for heroes to apply lethal force in order to prevent villains from escaping and endangering more lives. Note that this does not always entail killing. A hero would not be justified in killing a villain if merely handicapping that villain would be equally or more effective at preventing harm. My basic argument boils down to:
1. It is justified to use the minimal amount of force necessary to safely prevent a person from infringing on others' rights, provided that the minimal amount is still reasonably proportional to the crime that would be committed (We would permit a John to kill Jack if it was necessary in order to prevent Jack from killing another person, but would not allow John to kill Jack if it were the minimal amount of force necessary to prevent him from stealing $5.)
2. Supervillains often commit crimes that result in numerous deaths or at the very least, a significant amount of danger to the lives of innocent people.
3. Crimes that result in numerous deaths or at the very least, a significant amount of danger to the lives of innocent people warrant the criminal being killed if necessary.
4. Thus, the crimes that supervillains commit warrant them being killed if it is necessary.
5. Killing or handicapping a supervillain is the minimal amount of force to subdue them as capture is not an option.
C. Killing or handicapping a supervillain is morally permissible; obligatory if you think superheroes have a moral obligation to stop villains.
**TL;DR:** Killing or handicapping prevents villains from infringing on others rights better than simple capture does, so superheroes should use those means.
Extra note: I bring up killing because for certain varieties of villains, such as psychic villains like Psimon, magic villains like Loki, or smart villains like Lex Luthor cannot have their relevant abilities handicapped without doing something that is probably about as bad as killing them (granted, I don't know enough about superhero universes to know if there are ways to disable these abilities).
CMV
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I don't believe illegal immigrants should receive services from the US. CMV +
+ This is a huge debate in the US. I've read arguments that justify the presence of illegal immigrants and others that claim it's a huge drain on the economy. I feel like we make it attractive for illegal immigrants to be here and then complain about it afterwards. Why do we do this!!!!
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I don't believe women desire sex nearly as much as men. +
+ I don't believe women want sex nearly as much as men do.
This is a generalization, of course. There are a great many women with high sex drives, of course. But, in general I believe that men at large are more desiring of sex. One reason I believe this, is that men patronize prostitutes in significant numbers and men are willing to trade things of real value like money in order to get sex.
I can't think of any scenario in which women are willing to give up something of significant value in order to get sex.
I also believe this is true because testosterone is largely responsible for the human sex drive. The more testosterone you produce the more libidinous you are. Men who have lower testosterone have less of a sex drive. These men seek out testosterone treatment and notice a dramatic increase in sex drive once the treatment becomes effective. Women produce significantly less testosterone than men, consequently their sex drives are typically lower.
Women are less proactive when it comes to seeking out sex partners. I don't have support for this one, but in my experience men are the ones who are proactive about directly asking women out or making direct romantic gestures. It's usually incumbent upon men to do the asking, to make the first move. Men are compelled to play by these rules because women are the ones who have the thing that men desire, and men are the ones who are forced to act because of the desire.
Also, men are much more likely to say yes to a request for an immediate sexual encounter than women are. According to [this](http://www.elainehatfield.com/79.pdf) study women were much, much less likely to say yes to a proposal for immediate sex, whereas men were much, much more likely to say yes. Watch [this](https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=girl+asks+100+men+if+they+want+to+have+sex) video. Many of the men features men leap at the change to have sex with the girl, despite the fact that she could be leading them into some kind of trap, or that she could have an STD of some kind. There are only a few examples I know (there is another video in which is about 1:1 as well), but the average of men that say yes it much higher than the average in the gender opposite video. The ones who don't leap to sleep with her at least seriously consider doing it, this is because they want, very badly to have sex with a beautiful girl. The women in [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxyySRgrYsU) video don't react nearly as positively. None of them leap at the chance. They aren't instantly aroused the way the men are by even the proposal. I think it's reasonable to conclude that the desire just isn't as intense.
You might argue that the desire becomes as intense when the desire is provoked, and that this situation does not provoke the desire but if it's so difficult to provoke the same amount of desire, doesn't that mean that there is less desire in general?
CMV, please!
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
The Bible cannot have been intended to be understood literally. CMVp. +
+ There are numerous contradictions both within the Old Testament (eg in the creation stories of Genesis) and the New Testament (eg conflicts in the Gospels). EDIT As well as between different books.
I think this can only be for one of the following reasons:
- The compilers did not read/know all the texts and therefore were unaware of the contradictions.
- The compilers were aware of the contradictions but included them anyway.
- There are no contradictions.
I think it is safe to dismiss the first reason because some of the contradictions even occur within the same books (see Genesis again).
I have yet to see a decent exposition of point three although I have come across poor attempts to explain away the conflicts.
I feel, therefore, forced to accept the second point that the contradictions were made/left consciously with the corollary that the compilers did not intend for the Bible (as a whole) to be read literally. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I'm okay with DLC. +
+ Over in /r/mortalkombat there's a shit storm of people who complain about DLC & seem to immediately assume it's always disc based content that's locked on the disc already. I find there's a fundamental misunderstanding between this & micro-transactions which rape people financially just to be able to do something gimmicky (e.g. MK & it's easy fatality tokens)
Do people just not realize the money, time, resources & effort put into video games these days & how long it takes to get maybe a week, to a few months worth of content? There were at least half a dozen studios that worked on MKX alone all over the world! It just boggles my mind & gets very frustrating.
I tried to explain my perspective to someone [here](http://www.reddit.com/r/MortalKombat/comments/32r9qa/minor_spoilers_ed_boon_hints_at_blank_being/) but they just magically assumed I'm okay & dandy & wrote off what I said. I'm really starting to dislike Reddit -- any time you say something, even if you don't outwardly say you might be wrong or are fine with being corrected, nobody does it. The person didn't even make an attempt to try to explain why I'm wrong or their perspective. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe that the bible is god-breathed and contains no errors. CMV +
+ I understand that the book of Genesis may not exactly coincide with evolution, but that is a weak point in the debate since science had not progressed to the understanding of evolution at that period. I am mostly looking for contradiction within the text. The fact that people lived upwards of 500 years in the bible is irrelevant to this conversation, too. I would like to be convinced from parts of the bible that contradict other parts of the bible as I haven't found any. I know there are a lot of atheists on Reddit and I am interested in hearing their side of this debate.
I have heard and read there is archaeological evidence supporting some historical facts in the Bible including the existence of King David and of Isiah's prophecy of Christ long before Christ was born. Also, the fact the apostles held on to their beliefs so rigidly and faced terrible death gives testament to its truth. C.S. Lewis used the four L's to logically "prove" Christ is Lord. The point about the Bible being God-breathed and having no errors is that, if it is not, and that it is incorrect or written by man, the whole power and truth of it falls apart. (I know it was literally written by man)
For some autobiographical information, I was not raised Christian, but have been studying some of the bible on campus and this seems to be the pillar upon which all of Christianity stands. If this is not true, the Bible is just another mythology
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe that parents making their children have music lessons is a waste of time. CMV +
+ It seems to me that nearly all high schoolers, at least at some point in their schooling, learn a classical musical instrument, and only 0.01% of them will end up in a symphony orchestra. For the rest it's a waste of time, a massive waste of money, it pressures them during school when they really should be having fun, and can cause disappointment if their parents have high expectations.
Even with 'rock' instruments, you're only going to get somewhere if you have motivation, not because your parents told you to learn the instrument, and if you're motivated, you'll learn the instrument on your own/organise lessons yourself, so there's no point.
Learning an instrument doesn't even teach you valuable skills that apply to the rest of life. The ability to keep time? The ability to read sheet music? None of that matters. Maybe little things like hand-eye coordination but you could improve that by playing wii sports and have fun at the same time. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I don't think there is any good reason for people under the age of 15 to have sex. CMV +
+ I don't know about how it was in the olden times, but I think people should at least wait until they are 15 to have sex. I think kids who are younger are too immature emotionally to deal with the nature of sex, and they probably have a lack of self control to make a proper decision. I think people at that age are only driven by a misguided sense of curiosity (without thinking about the consequences) or the pressure in society to lose one's virginity. I don't think there is anyone out there who thinks "I really am glad I had sex when I was 13 or 14".
Please note that I don't think 15 is a magical age where people are ready to have sex, I'm just giving a liberal estimate. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The Men's Rights Movement Undermines Itself +
+ Having recently experienced a divorce and seeing firsthand how messy and unfair child custody, alimony, and child support laws and family court can be, I naturally looked into the Men's Right's Movement and sought to look into how I could go about advocating for fairer laws.
What I found is that the Men's Rights Movement is an unfocused movement that seeks to get rid of all differences in boys and girls toys, have men being about to come into work in drag without fear of reprisal, and many other totally niche issues.
Feminism and the civil rights movement initially experienced success by pushing for a few key issues, such as voter rights and equal legal treatment, issues which almost any fair minded individuals would stand behind.
I think Men's Rights should have the same strategy to maximize popular support and increase viability of the movement.
How does having an unfocused movement that keeps unpopular issues under its banner benefit the movement as a whole and benefit the men of America?
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV : I think it takes less skill and talent to be an EDM artist as compared to other musicians. +
+ *I also think making EDM tracks are way* ***easier*** *than making any other type of music.*
~~According to me one can enjoy them only when *high*. *But I don't!*~~ Yes, i know, I will come off as someone who doesn't listen to EDM much, but i **used to**. I just don't enjoy it as much now, well, i don't enjoy it at all. :/
*But i hope you do not take my dislike for this genre as a reason for me to claim that EDM artists have less talent. I just think it doesn't take much to be one,* **AS COMPARED TO** *other genres of music.*
(P.S i cut out some info to keep it concise)
loving your replies! :)
Will appreciate any valid and logical points of the opposite premise.
Thanks! :)
Thank you all once more.
Cheers. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The Jedi Order deserved to fall +
+ The Jedi order was a corrupt institution that promoted slavery (clone troopers), was at the beck and call of corrupt Senators and refused basic humanity to their members (attachment). Anakin Skywalker was refused a proper life with his wife because apparently "attachment is the path to the Dark Side", but we know this is false - The Altisian Jedi were pure in their light and had proper families. Hell, Ki Adi Mundi, Jedi Council member had 5 wives.
Furthermore, the whole Jedi Order accepted clone troops, and while they might have felt morally wrong about it, they did nothing (with the exception of Bardan Jusik and Etain Tur-Mukan). All they did was play along. Even mongrel officers like Gilad Pellaeon and Hallena Devis did not like the expendable treatment of clone troops.
And at the end of the day, the Jedi were not guardians of the light - they were guardians of the crumbling, corrupt Republic. They overthrew governments in Cestus, Gaftikar for their own profits. Cestus, to simply prevent Separatist control without asking the citizens' opinions, and the Republic wasn't attacking Gaftikar planet so much for the war effort or to help the Marits, but rather as a favor to the Shenio Mining corporation, who were interested in the gaining greater economical control over the planet. The Jedi were complicit in this - even Etain was. There was no opposition to this, be it by force or by discussion.
Even though the Chancellor had championed Jedi causes repeatedly, no Jedi could see that it was his inept decisions that were causing the war to be drawn out and they never opposed his decisions - not even Yoda did.
Since the Jedi always failed to see this, they acted against their core values and thus deserved to fall.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I think I'd rather adopt kids (when that time comes) because I don't want to perpetuate my bf's or my genes. +
+ Background: I'm [27F] in a relationship with my bofriend [29M] for 3 years. Disregard the fact that we are not yet married. We have discussed it at length and it will happen and we both do want children.
I recently read that 50% of kids with ADHD have a parent with it. My bf has ADHD and that is one reason I don't want to create children with him. I don't know if it's because of the ADHD, but he is also not very intelligent (high school dropout) and seems to be on the lower end of the learning curve. (I love him and I say this without judgment) He has his talents in which he greatly excels, but with learning general knowledge, he is definitely no "sponge" so to speak.
On my side of things, I feel that I think too much. I may have a tendency towards depression. Both of my parents have had cancer so now that's in my family history.
I just feel that there are more negatives than positives for a potential child created between the two of us, and I would rather adopt and provide a home for a child in need than creating a new one. I have expressed these thoughts to my bf before (without the explicit reasons I listed here) and he has mostly brushed it off because it is set in stone for him to produce his own children.
I'd love to hear others' thoughts, hopefully without judgment, so that maybe I can be on the same page with my boyfriend about kids.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think that we should stop requiring prescriptions for most medications, contact lenses, eye glasses, etc. CMV. +
+ I don't think that prescriptions should be required to purchase most medications, medical devices, and similar items.
(Caveat: I do think that antibiotic use should continue to be controlled, because of the risk of developing antibiotic-resistant bacteria.)
In general, I think that people should be able to buy what they want without government interference – including items that carry extra risk or dangers, such as medication, gasoline, chainsaws, ammonia, fertilizer, propane, automobiles, firearms, knives, ladders, etc. There are some exceptions: some items should be restricted because the risks associated with the items are borne not only by the purchaser but also by people around the purchaser when the item is used (e.g., explosives). Other items should be restricted because their supply is limited and we need to prioritize their use (e.g., flu vaccines given first to at-risk populations and their caregivers).
But contact lenses? Statins and other heart drugs? Steroids? Birth control? Why do we *require* a prescription to purchase these items? Why can’t I go to a contact lens website, give the website my desired magnifications (based on my prior contacts or whatever), and order more without needing a prescription? To use a more politically charged item, why can’t I buy birth control without a prescription?
I know that the main argument is that prescriptions are a public safety device – by requiring a prescription, we require people to see a doctor and get instructions for the right dose and the right way to take the drug, etc. The idea is that this protects people who might use the wrong medication, or the wrong dose, or who might combine medications in a dangerous way, etc. I agree that people *should* get medical advice before using medication, that is the best way to do things, but my question is why does *the government* require this?
I think that people should be allowed to judge for themselves whether they want to buy and use a medication without prescription and medical opinion from a doctor. Assuming that we have access to warnings and other information about a given drug, we should be allowed to buy it without having to get a doctor’s permission first.
Yes, some people will misuse a medication and be harmed or die. But this is a risk that they should be allowed to take. We allow people to buy ladders and climb up on their roofs, but we don’t require people to hire someone to hold the ladder for them. We allow to buy propane tanks at local markets but we don’t require that they know how to use a propane grill appropriately. People get hurt all the time because they misuse a product. We have the tort system and government labeling requirements to prevent harm from product misuse.
When someone misuses an item and hurts other people, we attach liability to the person who misused the item – but we don’t change the rules so that everyone has to get permission before buying the item. See, for example, alcohol + DUI laws + civil tort liability. If someone misuses a medication because they bought it without a prescription, and harms another person, we can address that issue exactly like we address drunk driving, instead of using a prescription system up front (which doesn’t do anything about protecting third parties from misuse of medication that a warning label couldn’t do).
I don't think that the government has a place in requiring prescriptions for the purchase of medication, contact lenses, etc. It's not the government's job to make these decisions for us. Assuming that there are sufficient warning labels and instructions available, people should be free to decide for themselves whether they want to purchase a medication without seeking a doctor's opinion, just as people are free to purchase other items that carry extra risks.
I think that we should stop requiring prescriptions for medications and medical devices. CMV. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: In The Big Lebowski, Jesus is an entirely inconsequential and unnecessary character who was given too much attention for his performance. +
+ He does not affect the plot at all. He has two minutes of screentime and gives one or two cheap laughs. That's about it. The brilliance of the film comes from the fact that the humor has multiple levels of depth; the Dude is a clearly ridiculous character, but then the bits like him repeating words he hears and does not understand ("parlance of our times," "abide," etc.) and seeing things from the movie in his dreams are more subtle and clever. The Jesus' antics are none of these things-- it's just a dumb gag that serves to distract and give the bowling competition some leverage in the film to show it isn't just about saving that poor woman. The best part about Jesus' appearance doesn't even come from him! I think "eight year olds, dude" is a memorable line. But Jesus *sets it up*-- he doesn't even deliver the one thing that makes him memorable (besides the mildly entertaining Hotel Califorñia sequence). Donny is a brilliant character consistently, so don't even bring him up. He also needs to exist so they can have the ash scattering scene.
So convince me I'm wrong. Am I wrong? Convince me that that character had any significance in the movie and that he is worth all the hype.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe love is a choice and that a person does not "fall" in and out of love CMV. +
+ I believe love is a choice whether it is in a relationship with a SO or with a friend or between a parent and child or even an object.
“Falling in love” is a phrase used quite often but I believe it creates a fantastical idea of the love that is unhealthy. If I were to say I fell in love with someone or something, then in essence I would be saying something beyond my own power caused me to love that person or object whether I wanted to or not.
I came to this conclusion studying theology and philosophy. I first learned about the struggle between Calvinism and Arminianism and also between freewill and determinism, and I questioned how a God would just determine a certain amount of people to be in heaven. I realized after struggling for a couple months that love is a choice because those people also must choose to love God and also even that God does not have to love anyone but he chooses to love people. So there is more freewill both on the individual’s part and on God’s part.
It also seems to make more sense to me as I get to know both my girlfriend and parents more. There are some things about my girlfriend that I would not mind changing or that I do not like very much and the same goes for my parents. But despite their faults, I remind myself that I have chosen to love her and am choosing to love them as well.
In this way, I think love as a choice is far greater than “falling in love” because I do not have to love my girlfriend or parents, but I choose to love them. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe that you should be allowed to drive at whatever speed you wish as long as you aren't driving recklessly or under extenuating circumstances CMV +
+ I think that if you feel comfortable driving 80 mph or 40 mph you should be allowed to do so, as long as you aren't in a school or work zone, etc. because there are a lot more risks in those areas. I think when you're comfortable driving you will be a better driver, and if you aren't worrying about the speed limit or cops you are going to be more comfortable.
However, I think that you should only be allowed to drive at whatever speed you wish as long as you aren't driving recklessly. If you're weaving in and out of traffic at 90, you probably shouldn't be allowed to go 90, but if you just stay in the fast lane and pass the occasional person I don't think there is a problem.
CMV. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe we should be governed by specifically trained scientists, CMV +
+ I'm not completely sure about this question, but good counter arguments just escape me right now. So I'm actually open to be persuaded here.
OK, so the claim is that we should be governed by specifically trained scientists. So we should have a finances expert as finance minister, some international relations experts for foreign affairs, some sociologists and so on and so on. These people would be there to make proposals for efficient solutions to whatever problems we have. Why would an elected official know better?
One problem would obviously be that scientists can't decide what the state *should* do, but only what the efficient means would be to reach the set goals. And I know, ethicists don't ever agree on anything, but still they are probably a better shot than the random idiot who would get democratically elected. So let's just have some committee of trained ethicists that deliberate about the overall goals, and then the scientists jump in and provide the means to the ends.
I'm not saying this would solve all problems or that it would even be the perfect government, but I can't see how elected officials are better suited for their job than some experts. So why is democracy better than this kind of expert government? Change my view! | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I think being religious is the equivalent of being insane. +
+ Insanity. n. mental illness of such a severe nature that a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality, cannot conduct her/his affairs due to psychosis, or is subject to uncontrollable impulsive behavior.
This definition could also be used for almost any person who has faith in any religion.
"A person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality,.." - A religious person can't divide fantasy from reality. A religious person assumes that their religious fantasy affects reality in someway (for example the devil creates sin) and their whole word view is affected by their faith.
"...cannot conduct her/his affairs due to psychosis..." A person of faith also changes his/her behavior because of their faith. For example, A person might believe that "god has a plan" for them, and as a result take different actions that he wouldn't have if he wasn't religious. Maybe some of the things he does as a result of his faith can be considered as good, but that's not the point. A person with faith tends to involve their religious beliefs in their morals and thinking and therefore behaves differently.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: That my foot fetish is abnormal. +
+ I should start off by saying that I am a 23 year old female from Texas. I am bisexual and a very sexually active individual. I have had sex with 4 men and 3 women in my lifetime thus far. Out of the 7, five of them called me gross and left me when they found out about my fetish and the other two were noticeably uncomfortable with it and given my history I can't help but think that it also played a role in ending those relationships. This is a deep part of who I am and will always play an integral role in my sexuality. I do not believe that my failed relationship history is due to other factors because I have had stable, happy relationships last 3 + years and not spiral downward until I revealed my fetish. I would like to think that I am not weird or abnormal so please CMV!
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
100% inheritance tax is a good idea. CMV +
+ All debt, debit, wealth, and assets gets shifted to the government.
It makes death easier, no more does a death in the family bring the nasty face of greed to bear.
It also means that people start off on more equal feet. No more unearned richs by inheritance. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I despise people involved in the military, CMV. +
+ Wars, or armed conflicts in general, are a cause of huge suffering and only minor conflicts could exist without military. Therefore, I see people who are involved in military as terrorists. By military, I refer to any organization which deals with weapons and related technology, not necessarily a national army - an actual so called "terrorist organization", for example, is also a military unit, albeit possibly small.
A pro-military argument would be, that it is protecting me. But protecting me from who? From other armies. And in fact, other nations' armies are in theory protecting their citizens from my nations army - even though my country (Czechia) is quite peaceful at the moment. So when I say that I despise people working for military, I'm not talking about military people worldwide. Not only soldiers, but anyone who knowingly and willingly cooperates with them.
Please note: I'm not saying anything like that a certain nation should shut down it's military. I'm realistic and understand that making a country defenseless in today's world may be a rather stupid idea. But that does not make my feelings about the people who work for military any better.
Please CMV, because some of my friends are involved in that shit.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Chinese Medicine is a waste of time and money, CMV. +
+ I am currently in China and have been prescribed Chinese medicine multiple times. No time has it every worked for me. Each time I have ended up taking western medicine to clear up flu like symptoms. Also, I see people with big black rings on their foreheads and backs. It is a method to cure headaches and muscle aches. Seriously? Why not just take a tylenol? I have been sick countless times, and my friends have always brought me some Chinese herbal medicine, but never has done anything. Each and everytime, I end up taking some Western medicine that I manage to find or have brought from home. Not to mention, most western people here I know just laugh at Chinese medicine as if it is some kind of joke. At first I was open minded about Chinese herbal medicine and treatments, but now, after many failed attempts and let downs, Chinese medicine has really failed me. I would love to think of it in a different light because it seems more natural and maybe healthy. BUT, wow, when I am sick, I want to be better. For me Chinese Medicine has never helped. CMV. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Watching movies with naked women and sex scenes with my boyfriend makes me feel inferior. CMV +
+ Let me start out by saying that I am well aware of how irrational these feelings are, so please refrain from any nasty remarks. But they do exist for a reason. When my boyfriend and I first started dating 2 years ago (me:21F, him:23M) I found out that he called me "not that hot" and a "butterface" to one of his friends the night before our second date. It's a long story and he said a few other really hurtful things as well. We nearly broke up but he begged for my forgiveness and ever since then I've been trying to maintain normal feelings about this. He said he was just being cocky and he didn't mean it at all. If that were true he never would have said it though, and that is what bothers me the most. You'd think after two years I'd move past it, but I've just become more and more fixated on the idea of not being pretty enough for him. Which is ridiculous because he is dating me for a reason, I know I'm attractive, and other men hit on me regularly. My boyfriend tells me all the time that he thinks I'm beautiful, but I can never truly believe him. It drives me nuts and I wish this whole thing never came to light. I've never had these issues in past relationships, I even used to watch porn with my ex. Now, if there is a naked woman on the screen I instantly feel inferior and self conscious and quite sad.
We watched The Wolf of Wall Street together and I felt like absolute shit the entire time. I couldn't even enjoy the movie for what it was because of all the sex scenes. I am so sick and tired of feeling this way, it's genuinely exhausting and totally irrational. I tell myself all the time that they are just women on a screen and nothing else, that there are attractive men too, etc. But I just can't seem to put my mind at ease. I can't maintain a normal and healthy relationship with these invasive thoughts. Please change my view.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I think the recent outbreak of ebola in africa is unusual and has the potential to turn into a global pandemic +
+ this outbreak has rmore than doubled the total deaths from ebola, ever, and has spread through several countries at a ferocious rate. While some of you say its not transmitted by air and therefor can be prevented by simple hygene, i think the sheer number of cases now has the distinct possibility of someone mutating the virus to be airborn, like the very closly related Reston Ebola virus.
Am i wrong in thinking this is not the textbook example of the beggining of a global pandemic?
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Socialism allows freeloading for the lazy +
+ I'm a firm believer in fairness. Which is funny, because I also don't think the world is a fair place. Bad things happen to good people, bad things happen to hard working ambitious people and very often, terrible criminals get away with their crimes to go on and lead great lives.
However, there is one fair thing about a capitalistic world. An able bodied person who works is going to have more wealth and likely lead a better life than an able bodied person who doesn't. ( I really hope this is true, but I HAVE seen documentaries that show otherwise)
If socialism was the prevailing system our world operated on, we are going to inevitably have a number of people who decide that they are not bothered to work. Society will then step in and feed and house these people. It will give at least the bare minimum, but likely more than that. These people are free loaders. They did nothing to earn their living, but received goods and services society provided.
I want to make it very clear that this is not a CMV on socialism as a whole. I'm sure many people can point out that the benefits of a socialist society may outweigh the downsides, that it really isn't so BAAAAAD that some people can be lazy and live fine, that it is the MORAL THING TO DO!!11
Honestly I don't think it is a bad system, many countries just aren't ready for it yet for it to work well is my opinion of it. So CMV, does socialism allow a certain number of people to be freeloaders? Defined as : People that don't contribute anything at all to society except their existence even though they are able bodied and able minded enough to work. (Presume that lazy, selfish people who don't contribute anything at all to society are not people deserving of handouts)
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Felons should be allowed to vote and absentee ballots should be available for prisons. CMV +
+ -voting is our most important right. The US citizenship test expresses this
- millions are incarcerated over failing public policies; I'm looking at you 'war on drugs'
- people affected by these policies are then stripped of their voice in the matter.
- I don't think the pedophile lobby will ever gain strength ( if one exists). In other words we have nothing to fear from felons or the incarcerated voting on allowing mass murder.
- people should also be given the right to vote if the have no permanent address. This would sweep in the homeless; which would be a good thing because they should have the right for their voice to be heard. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I think that expecting people to not downvote based on disagreement is stupid, and if reddit mods really want to enforce it, they should get rid of the downvote button altogether. +
+ People will always downvote something they disagree with. It's just human nature. You see something you don't like and you want to have your say on the matter, without having to go to the effort of leaving a comment.
**"The downvote button is an essential part of monitoring content"**: If a comment or post is breaking the rules, report it.
**"Reported posts have to be reviewed, which will create a huge workload the mods"**: It says in the reddit FAQ [here](http://www.reddit.com/wiki/faq#wiki_what_happens_when_something_gets_reported.3F) that posts can be reviewed by a program. Also, you could say only a post which has been reported a certain number of times gets reviewed. The number of times could be relative to the amount of traffic on that comment thread, so that small subreddits weren't full of rubbish comments that didn't get enough reports.
**"People will just start using the report button as a downvote button"**: Subreddits such as /r/gonewild and even /r/changemyview don't have a downvote button on posts. I would be interested to hear from the mods of those subreddits to see if they have an unusually high number of reports. Otherwise, there's no proof to this point and I still think it would be worth a try.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe the "men's rights" argument holds no water and is mainly championed by those who don't understand feminism, CMV +
+ Feminism affects both men and women. Certainly we associate femininity with the female sex, but that's exactly the reason why it affects men as well. The modern face of feminism is one that attempts to break down societal gender constructs, i.e. femininity = woman, masculinity = man, while empowering both men and women to rise above them.
I am a man but I've been an ardent femininist for my entire life, and it pains me to see ridiculous and often ill-informed opinions on one of society's most prevalent issues. Men seem to feel threatened by feminism, as if empowering women means to de-empower men. This is not true in the slightest! Any legitimate, academic discussion of feminism acknowledges that gender constructs affect men to a great degree, and I've yet to meet a single educated feminist who would disagree. I understand that there are radicalists in every movement out there, but fringe opinions do not affect my beliefs.
The men's rights movement (which I truly hope only exists on the internet) is unnecessary. Men have held positions of power for millennia - is it really necessary for us to feel better about being a man? Where feminism seeks to tear down the ideas of being male and female, men's rights activists (or should I say, soapbox preachers) seem to do nothing but boost male egos. It's juvenile and frankly makes little sense to me.
I don't think I'll be converted out of feminism, but please CMV about the legitimacy of men's rights.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe that there are some things that a government simply does better than private groups or companies can. CMV. +
+ This is largely in reference to Libertarianism that seems prevalent and popular lately. I believe that certain services can be better provided, and the country better served, by being run by a dispassionate government rather than a private institution. I think a good example of this is prisons. In the USA we have both private and public prisons. Private prisons must, as all private institutions, make a profit.
So it is in their best interest to have as many prisoners as they can and have each one cost them as little as they can manage. So, logically, they want many criminals that are convicted of non-violent crimes to be incarcerated at their facilities for as long as possible. As a result, they [lobby](http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/06/23/251363/cca-geogroup-prison-industry/), and [bribe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal), to increase the sentences of people convicted of those kinds of crimes as well as lobby against making such non-violent crimes legal to increase the number of prisoners. Public prisons have no such incentive so I think that it would be better to eliminate private prisons entirely as they are harmful to society.
There are other examples of things that I believe work better when run by a government but the private prisons are a good example of what I mean. CMV | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think that people who go around trying to convince people that God doesn't exist are no better than religious evangelicals. CMV +
+ It's the core of /r/atheism. I am not looking to debate the merits of religion-- just that "evangelical atheists" are no better than evangelical religious people. I don't think it is appropriate to try to tell someone what to believe and how to interpret reality, and I find it hypocritical and cheap that certain people think that they *can* do this because they are "correct." I personally don't believe in God, but there are plenty of reasons why believing in God is a rational practice that makes sense. So I just would like to know why many atheists think that it is okay for them to do it but not religious people. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Online petitions are useless +
+ I keep seeing petitions being passed around social media, particularly Facebook, often advocating social change. Things like protests for privacy, or various change.org petitions. Often, I'm in support of these changes, often to do with gay/women's/minority rights, and as a white, middle class male, I feel it's my duty to support these movements in particular.
However, I have a hard time seeing how online movements, and these petitions in particular, actually go anywhere. The auto-emailed forms are likely auto-gathered & sorted into an email rule, that forwards them to a folder to be ignored, or some assistant just checks a list off or ignores them. I doubt most online movements even make it that far.
I believe writing, phoning or better yet, walking into your local politician's office and talking directly to a person is likely the best way to do this, but that most people won't bother. These online petitions are little more than ways for the majority of people to feel good about themselves, but have little to no effect on actual social change.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
[CMV] I think tragedies such as the Boston Marathon bombings and even school shootings are nothing compared to the death tolls of other things and should not be given so much attention. +
+ For example, (according to Wikipedia) approximately 100 people die a day from car crashes and approximately 1,200 people die a day from smoking. What makes 3 people so special?
I agree that any death is sad, but 3 people is nothing compared to the thousands of deaths a day. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Eating dogs and cats is completely acceptable +
+ So I recently came across [this article](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/11/30/will-the-swiss-quit-cooking-their-kittens-and-puppies.html) addressing the consumption of domesticated pets in Switzerland. I'm sure this topic has come up in this subreddit before but I still haven't been convinced to change my view. I concede that one should not eat pets that have already been "claimed" (i.e. don't take your neighbor's cat and put it in your soup). However, why shouldn't one be able to go to the local dog pound to pick up some meat for dinner? Animals in shelters/pounds are not "claimed" by anyone and will eventually be euthanized. So why not let someone benefit from these animals?
Additionally, I find the distinction between cats/dogs and other animals to be confusing. Why is it so appalling to consume cats/dogs when we have no problems with eating pigs and sheep? I've encountered the argument that cats/dogs have "evolved" with the human race, but to be honest, all animals that are currently alive are equally "evolved". Of course, historically, cat/dogs have had their uses beyond just being food but this idea doesn't seem to apply to horses (which were used as transportation), sheep (which provide wool), pigs (provide leather), and cows (provide leather).
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I'm a bleeding heart vegan, and I want to start carrying a concealed weapon. CMV. +
+ Long time lurker here. I currently live in one of the biggest cities in the United States, and I am seriously considering getting a concealed carry permit so I can become trained and carry. I believe I will be much safer. However, I am in no way a conservative and am well aware of the dangers of gun violence. I have read books and articles on the topic, but I can't shake the idea that having a gun will make me feel safer in my day-to-day life.
It doesn't help that I am a 5'0" female who weighs so little that I don't think I'll be able to donate blood at any point in my life. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I don't think Gotham can be saved. +
+ *Note: My knowledge here is based primarily on the recent films and videogames.*
Gotham is a cesspool of corruption, violence and greed. Criminals permeate every level of society, business and politics and manipulate it all for their benefit. Even the police force is filled with nothing but self-serving, crooked cops looking for extra money to look the other way. Jim Gordon is constantly touted as the only good cop - *the only good cop* - in a city wide department. Mobsters and petty criminals walk freely without fear of retribution due to the corruption.
There was hope when it came to their political and criminal saviour, Harvey Dent. But he is driven clinically insane by the injustices he is subjected to.
The city is plagued by psychotic villains who steal and kill constantly, who seem to manipulate or break their way out of prison with fearful ease. No matter how the forces of Gotham try and take them down, they end up causing more trouble and more havoc.
The people of Gotham are also apathetic to any of these issues. When Gotham is taken over by Bane they turn on each other, ransacking higher end properties and throwing people out on the street. When the city is under a bomb threat they curse their neighbours for the escape to safety before them; unlike Metropolis where, faced with a hugely destructive machine, people stayed behind to help save their fellow man.
Gotham citizens are as selfish as criminals above them, and given half the opportunity they would succumb to corruption themselves.
But not only is Gotham full of criminals, apathy or ignorance, but it's also constantly threatened by people wishing to destroy it. Shady organisations, activists, you name it, all want Gotham destroyed. With such an outside influence constantly barraging the city, I don't think it's possible to keep its defences.
However, I do agree that the city has its hopeful points. There are many charitable organisations to help children (such as the Thomas and Martha Wayne Foundation) and there is this strange Batman that's trying to sort out the city, but I don't believe that's enough. One man can't take down a criminal organisation, and it's not a good sign that someone has to resort in vigilantism in order to change things in Gotham.
Gotham is doomed. Change my view.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
The ability to speak English clearly should be an important factor in considering the employment of teachers and professors (in the United States). CMV. +
+ Note: Although I do hold this opinion, it feels prejudiced to me so I am genuinely interested in having my V C'd.
I think this opinion is particularly applicable to undergraduate institutions, so I will focus on them. If a university offers an education to undergraduate, it should be concerned with its ability to provide a strong education. Most critical to this aim, is the hiring of professors that are good at teaching.
Being good at teaching can be roughly defined as the ability to help students understand a subject. Many schools go to great lengths to judge the teaching ability of their professors, conducting surveys, eliciting student recommendations, etc. However, I have never seen a question like "were you able to understand the professor's speech during lectures?"
I have some professors that speak in such a thick accent that I have to strain to make out their words. This has a huge impact on my ability to learn (and therefore the professors ability to teach). Therefore, if a university does claim to value teaching ability in its employees, it should consider the speaking ability of its employees. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: There is no logical argument that adequately explains why it would be a bad thing if the human race would go extinct. +
+ Dear CMW,
Please let me elaborate my point. I myself think the it is desirable that the human race will continue to live but every time I try to explain to myself or someone else why this is desirable the only arguments I can think of are egoistic arguments about me wanting my children and their children to live happily.
A different argument that has come up to me that if we would all die in a massive catastrophe, people would get physically hurt and I have come to the conclusion that the inflicted pain would be a bad thing.
But assuming that every single human being voluntarily decided to stop having kids right now and all of those people would die peacefully of old age in their bed after a fulfilling life then the human race would be gone, nobody suffered.
Now please explain to me and change my view why this is still a bad thing
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:In a clinical setting only Medical Doctors should be called Doctor. +
+ I am a Chiropractic student as of moment and I firmly believe that only Medical Doctors should hold the title of doctor to reduce confusion to as what the practitioner can treat.
This extends to anyone with a doctorate in the medical profession though. A doctor of physical therapy, anyone with a doctorate in nursing or pharmacy or anything else for that matter. If you haven't gone to medical school and graduated with a M.D. you shouldn't be referred to as doctor in a clinical setting.
This reduces confusion to as what everyone does and firmly implants in the patients mind what your specialty is and your scope of practice instead of ambiguously being called doctor.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I think Ignorance of the Law Should be a Valid Defence +
+ Historically ignorance of the law has not been considered a defence to a crime but that was in much simpler times. Recently the number of laws on the books has exploded and some laws allow U.S. citizens to be prosecuted for activities that are crimes in foreign jurisdictions making effectively impossible for an individual to be aware of all laws that could be applicable in daily life. With the number of new laws being created there are also situations where it is unclear how the law will be applied until it is tested in court. If legal professionals are uncertain of how the law will be applied in a given situation it is deeply unfair to have that expectation of a laymen. Therefore ignorance should be an allowable defence in some situations.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The 'down with gender roles' and 'referring to someone with pronouns other than their biological gender' train of logic makes no sense +
+ What I'm trying to get at here is that if all that if someone's sex is purely what their chromosomes say and has no other aspect to it means that male and female are just names for biological traits, like eye colour. So when people ask to call them male when biologically they are female, why does this matter at all if thats all gender is? What are people basing these parts of their own identity off? And then get angry when people don't refer to you as such?
Men who dress as women and do things that are stereotypically female should be labelled as quirky Men. Or people give up and realise that gender roles exist due to something deeper, and ones who don't go by their own genders roles are simply outliers.
What I'm trying to say is that it doesn't make logical sense to me (Yet!) as these views conflict. Please change my view reddit!
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: There is no justification for the impending MTA strike +
+ The MTA, or the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, is company responsible for most public transportation through the metropolitan area of New York City and the surrounding areas. Specifically subways, buses, trains, and the Long Island Railroad, through which more than 300,000 workers commute to New York City every day. The MTA is a public benefit corporation and is funded in part by MTA taxes which are a part of property taxes for ALL New York State residents, as well as a tax on gasoline and on fees attached to services like acquiring and renewing drivers licenses, as well as tolls on bridges and tunnels IN ADDITION to their comparatively expensive tickets.
The MTA is employed primarily by unskilled laborers with only a high school diploma, GED, or equivalent. Yet LIRR workers make an average salary of $87,182, including overtime, according to the MTA - by far the most of workers in their field in the country. And now, they are threatening to strike because they want a 17% raise over 6 years. And this is the insane thing, because of how corrupt and broken modern-day unions are THE CITY IS GOING TO GIVE IT TO THEM! They've already been offered a 17% raise over 7 years, something that NO ONE is getting in this economy, and yet they're still going to strike. Why do you ask? Because they want them to start paying into their benefits. Not pay for their benefits, pay INTO their benefits, just a percentage. Right now, every MTA employee and their family get full medical benefits and a pension AND THEY DON'T PAY A DIME FOR IT! And the kicker is that they would have grandfathered current employees in so they STILL wouldn't have to pay, only new hires would.
I don't care what way you slice it, the degree of entitlement that the MTA has displayed is absolutely disgusting and there is no way to justify their stance that they deserve what they're demanding.
Change My View.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Copyright law should be abolished. CMV. +
+ Postulates.
1. Creations are protected from creation without any legal process.
2. A person caught copying a copyrighted work outside fair use is liable for injunction or damages.
Arguments.
1. Copyright is a monopoly on creation and is anti competitive. Economy is far worse with copyright because it stalls development for such work.
2. Copyright infringement is not stealing nor in any way, shape or format near it. You have your creation and I have *, which I copied from you.
3. To protect your creation, use the benefit of being first on your side. Sell it on a large margin or a small margin to build a fanbase. Sell it to a company under a NDA.
4. There is no incentive for the creator to opt to keep the creation to himself instead of selling it under the above conditions.
Challenge either the postulates, or the arguments. Change my view! | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe parents who post photos of their children on social media are violating that child's privacy rights, and should be stopped. CMV. +
+ Many parents in the digital age post photos of their children with abandon on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc. Often 20+ photos are up online of their children before they're even toddlers. I believe these parents are acting selfishly with their role as protecting their child, by trading the kid's privacy for a few likes on a social media platform. There should be a law protecting people's images online before they are old enough to consent to having hundreds of images their childhood on an open forum. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: America is not a democracy +
+ Really though. There is an unchecked organization that spies on them 24/7 without consent. The US has given itself license to detain and torture citizens with no trial. The energy laws in that country allow corporations to drill where they please and, as a result, poison who they please. American citizens have clearly been lied to in many situations. These lies have led to events like the second gulf war. Not to mention the completely unregulated financial system.
Honestly, none of these things have been democratically voted for, so why are Americans so deluded about this? It's not a free, democratic society by any means. It's clearly an oligarchy | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe that modern Libertarians are exchanging one master for another. CMV +
+ Government, at least in principle, serves the function of promoting general welfare. It costs efficiency because of the large amount of bureaucracy required to maintain transparency. I recognize the failings of government, but baby and bathwater, etc.
Corporations, on the other hand, exist solely to separate you from your money. They explicitly try to provide as little value to the citizenry as possible. Libertarians love to point out the occasional success of "good business", but provide very little solid statistical evidence of the success rate of generous businesses. Aggressive, nearly psychopathic behavior is most often rewarded. The less compassion and generosity, the greater the business efficiency.
Libertarianism holds the belief that the people will be able to boycott or otherwise influence corporations into being well behaved, but if the very same people who can't hold accountable an organization explicitly dictated to be transparent and good-willed, how are they supposed to hold an entity responsible that has no such desire?
Capitalism concentrates wealth and I believe that most modern libertarians believe that they are somehow going to fall into the 0.1% that will eventually accumulate all the wealth; they feel a general disconnect from the rest of humanity - apart from, and ubiquitously, better than everyone else. They are fooled by small amounts of wealth given to the 99-99.8% in order to support the long term goals of the true power holders.
I understand the failings of government, but those are almost entirely due to the failures of the people to regulate their governments. My belief hinges on the fact that the ignorance and apathy of the common man is far more exploitable by corporations and capitalists than governments. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I don't think that dropping my Gifted 10th Grade Literature class for a regular english class is a bad idea. CMV +
+ I'm a Sophomore who finished Freshman year with As and Bs (with two gifted classes, Literature and Biology)
I only learned I had this class the first day of school and did none of the required summer work because of this. ( I have until labor day to read two books, do two essays, and do two projects)
A very significant Girl (to me) is in this class and I only have one other period with her and she is the only reason I haven't dropped it yet.
I would actually like to have this class, but the amount of work being piled on me is really stressing me out and it's only the first week of school.
So, uh. CMV? | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Feminism isn't the answer for Men +
+ Men have issues. Prison rates, violence, homelessness, homosexuality, law, sexuality and sexual crime, fatherhood and fatherless homes, depression and suicide, transgenderism, circumcision, soldiers, mental illness, cultural and societal norms, masculinity and how it's defined, identity.
These are all amongst the prevailing issues men face. It would be false of me to say that some of these issues are singular to men; however, the majority of these are the issues that disproportionately affect, and are regularly discussed by, men. There are also ones listed above which affect both men and women, in different ways. If I felt like being really contentious, I'd argue that issues that 'only' affect men or women don't exist - we live in shared societies, and issues that affect one will have affects on the other - but for brevities sake I'll leave this point alone.
Third Wave feminism has moved towards intersectionality - that is, including other factors into it's analysis and discussion regarding women and gender such as race, class and so forth. Often, feminists will claim that feminism will help men, by discussing and deconstructing things such as gender roles. I also would not claim that there aren't male feminists who have found feminism entirely useful and helpful in their lives, and happily consider themselves feminists.
But when I look to popular feminist websites (Jezebel, NOW, feministing) - I don't see the issues men face, especially those listed above, being discussed. In fact, I often see these issues mocked, or furthermore, a statement regarding men's issues or rights as being unimportant. When I look to popular entertainment, I see nothing; unless, again, it's a dismissal of the whole idea, such as Parks & Rec stating "You're ridiculous and Men's Rights is nothing". As someone who studied English Literature, feminist academia heavily (and rightly so) leaned towards exploring femininity and female representation and so forth.
Yet, whenever this is brought up, the response is typically something akin to, "those are just radfems" or "that's not real feminism, feminism helps men too!". Where? In what proportion to how it helps women?
Anecdotally, an entertainment blog I visit with a heavy slant of feminism recently posted this article:
http://www.pajiba.com/miscellaneous/its-my-birthdaylets-have-a-misandry-party-.php
This is a blog that has often stated how feminism benefits men too, and how men's rights is useless. But if I were to be a transgender/homosexual/minority/victimized/divorced-father-fighting-to-see-his-children/depressed/suicidal/traumatized man, how exactly am I meant to believe that statement when men's issues are so widely mocked?
I guess my thoughts are that men need their own movement/identity/group to discuss their own issues and problems, just like women had their own. Just like how feminism and women have their own spaces, men also need the same thing. For some men, feminism is an answer, but I don't think it is for the majority of men; especially poor, low class, minority, those in prison, those who suffered sexual abuse, soldiers, and mentally ill men, due to how often their problems are minimalized and ridiculed by feminist's (often, inadvertedly reinforcing traditional gender norms (men should be strong and deal with their problems) in the process).
Am I wrong? Should men not have their own movement, study, and ideology developed to help deal with their issues? Should feminism be the only way we look at gender issues, especially considering it's emphasis and background on the female? Am I incorrect in asserting that the most popular feminist blogs minimize and ridicule male issues, that it get's no mention in popular media, and yet feminist's still expect men to believe it will help them?
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Our calendar system would be better if we didn't use months. +
+ *Note: I originally posted this in /r/explainlikeimfive, but I realized it would probably be better suited to here.*
I've been thinking about the concept of a "month". Is there any reason for it to exist?
It seems like it would be simpler to have something like "Day 48" instead of "February 17". At the moment, the year is split up into twelve chunks, but they're not quite equal, their lengths appear to have no logical order aside from summing to 365 or 366, and one of them has a different length every 4 years. Whenever we refer to the frequency of an event as, say, "once a month", we could just as easily say that it's "once every 30 days".
*Clarification: I'm saying that as it is, "once a month" is very imprecise anyway since months have varying lengths. For anything that can be this arbitrary, "once every 30 days" works just as well.*
Leap years would also be extremely simple; instead of adding a day to a particular month, a day could just be added to a year. The year would then go up to Day 366 instead of Day 365.
**Here's an example of why I think a calendar without months would be easier.**
Suppose it's Saturday, September 20th, or Day 263. Let's suppose I wanted to figure out what day of the week December 5th (Day 339) would be.
To figure it out in my head using the current months system, I would have to go through the following procedure (which could probably be reduced a bit, but not greatly):
9/20 is a Saturday
9/27 is a Saturday
9/30 is a Tuesday
10/7 is a Tuesday
10/28 is a Tuesday
10/31 is a Friday
11/7 is a Friday
11/28 is a Friday
11/30 is a Saturday
12/7 is a Saturday
12/5 is a Friday
On the other hand, if I wanted to figure out the same thing using a "numbered-day system", it would be simple:
(Day 339)-(Day 263)=(76 days)=6 days (mod 7).
Therefore, Day 339 is 6 days later than a Saturday, so it's a Friday.
**Consider this "answered", but if you disagree about the last point feel free to change my view on that too -- I'll still be reading comments.**
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Children should not watch modern television, specifically commercials. +
+ I get that lazy parenting will always cause parents to place a crying child in front of a TV. And that it's not always a bad thing, after ten nights of no sleep a parent can't be expected to make the best decisions.
Except there should be better alternatives to just the shiny glowing box. My reason being is that I loved TV as a kid. It was my favorite thing to wake up in the morning to go see cartoons.
Do I remember any of those cartoons? A bit, yes. But what I really, vividly remember is commercials. Advertisements, for companies and products that may not even exist now. This was clearly the goal of the advertisements, but I believe that this technique should be used to teach children good things, not ingrain worthless information in their brains for all eternity.
My example, as a kid of the 90s, is that fucking Sears commercial. If you grew in my time, you know exactly which commercial I'm talking about. That's a terrible, terrible problem with our society. I can't remember where all 50 states are, I can't write out the national anthem, I can't tell you the list of all our presidents, but I can remember to call now.
This commercial played so much through my childhood, and the effect it has had on me is just taking up space in my brain. I will never shop at Sears. I have not shopped there ever. Sears has never earned a dime from me. But they are permanently part of my memories because of the number of times they played their shit commercial. I could have had so many useful things in place of that commercial, as well as others. I could have been groomed to recall things that would have a positive effect on the world, and not consumerism.
I'm glad Netflix exists.
So change my view, please, because I'm tired of hating advertising and television. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Karl Pilkington is fully conscious of - and plays up to - the persona expected of him +
+ Maybe this is an obvious point, but I never really see anyone discuss it on Reddit whenever Karl Pilkington comes up (such as recently, during the viral wedding proposal video).
People seem to take Karl Pilkington at face value. A lot of people seem to think that his lovably bumbling, naive and (sometimes) foolish everyman personality is a genuine reflection of who he is as a person. In other words: they believe that off-camera, Karl would behave no differently to how he does on The Ricky Gervais show, or on his own spin-off shows, or during viral videos such as the aforementioned proposal.
Now, I know there will be some people who do not read my post beyond these two paragraphs and assume the argument I'm making is that Karl Pilkington is a character created by Ricky Gervais, and the 'real person' is nothing like his on-screen persona. My view isn't that extreme. My view is that Karl consciously and deliberately plays up to and exaggerates the persona that he is expected to portray. He has a great talent for coming up with creatively off-beat ideas, and he (I believe somewhat disingenuously) uses this to present himself as a sort of lovably witless Northern everyman.
You could argue that everyone in the public spotlight plays along with the role expected of them, to some extent. After all: their specific persona is often the very thing that is keeping the public eye upon them. However, I would say some do it more consciously than others. Gordon Ramsay knows that being volatile and aggressive helps his shows' ratings (particularly in the US: and he accentuates that side of his personality more over there). Alan Davies on QI is perhaps another example (in a very similar way to Pilkington).
Essentially my argument is that it doesn't take a genius to figure out the reason why the public enjoy watching and listening to you ("An Idiot Abroad" gives the game away a little in its title) and any semi-intelligent person would realise that in order to retain their celebrity status, they would have to give their audience what they want. And I think Karl is fully aware of this. I also think that if anyone thinks that Karl is not intelligent enough to work out how to cater to his audience, it is *they* who are naive: not Karl.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
the term "grammar nazi" is offensive, and counterproductive. CMV. +
+ let me start by saying that i believe my opinion to be popular (this is what i hope) here, and not the best fodder for CMV. i'm also very drunk.
from personal experience, i find that most people that cry "grammar nazi!" are the same type of people that tell immigrants to "learn english if you want to come to my country." english (probably, if you're reading this) is your first language. there is nothing wrong with respecting it. i'm wrong all the time, and admitting that makes me smarter; i'm not about to call someone a nazi because they correct me in relation to a topic to which i'm ill informed.
fuck those guys.
we're grammar WARRIORS, grammar SOLDIERS, grammar FREEDOM FIGHTERS (maybe, but probably not because it might sound a bit 'terrorist-y even though it shouldn't), or grammar HEROES!
i find the term "grammar nazi" to be offensive, and guilty of perpetuating ignorance through shame; i'm not jewish or anything, but the term "nazi" is pretty universally accepted as unpleasant. it is a connotation i would not like to have linked with the correction of improper grammar, or, oddly enough, spelling.
yeah, i don't really use capital letters, and there's a debatable overuse of semi-colons in my post. CALL ME ON THAT SHIT! perhaps then you can also become a grammar emperor.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I don't think its a good idea to treat illnesses that are genetic because we are increasing their rate in the human population CMV +
+ By treating people with heart problems are we not just allowing them to make more babies who will then have heart problems? I realize that as a doctor it is your obligation to treat the patient and it would be absolutely unacceptable to let them die on this premise, but in this situation it seems like the human population is becoming more and more ill. Natural selection is just going away.
I really need to get this cleared up because I am pre-med and I want to be 100% morally driven to help people. Not questioning if im actually helping the human population as a whole.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Asians deserve a system akin to affirmative action for sports, politics, and other sectors where they are underrepresented. +
+ The way I understand it, a race will benefit from AA (Affirmative Action) if it has
1) Faced discrimination from the American govt in the past (so white slaves don't count, black slaves do)
2) Are currently underrepresented.
Every group ever has faced discrimination of some kinds, but the only groups that faced discrimination against the American govt are Hispanics, Black Americans, women, Native Americans, and Asians.
Since Asians are doing well in school, colleges try to limit the number of Asians (on a side note, do colleges have AA for men nowadays?)
But in sports, there are very few Asians, and they are dominated by primarily black Americans (at least all the profitable sports so not ping pong). Asians have faced discrimination AND are underrepresented in sports, so shouldn't there be a govt funded system which incentives sports companies to hire Asian players and to limit the number of black players?
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
White people are privileged because they are the 'default setting'. CMV. +
+ People talk of starting a White Entertainment Television channel because blacks of theirs. College students want to start a White-only fraternity/sorority because Asians and Mexicans already have them. If there's a Black History month, why isn't there a White History month?
I personally feel that people who suggest such things are racists. White people have always had representation, and there's no point to doing things for white people only because that's been pretty much all of human history for the last few hundred years.
White history is history itself. CMV.
White television is every channel outside of ethnic-specific ones. CMV.
College is overwhelmingly white people, any every non-ethnic fraternity/sorority has white people already. CMV.
White people (I being one, and especially white heterosexual males, need to realize we are privileged over ethnic people, homosexuals, and females because we are the default setting. We are living life on the default setting in a game that is difficult to win when you need to play with different control settings and the odds are already stacked against you from the start.
I'm white, heterosexual, and male. I don't need to worry about racial discrimination, being bullied/abused for being a homo, or patronized for being a gender that is societally viewed as smaller and weaker. Therefore, I live a life that is much easier than theirs and it gives me more opportunities for a better life. CMV. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe that the invention of the wheel entirely screwed over civilisation. CMV +
+ I think that ever since we began to be able to travel great distances in a short time, our ability to contact, in a short time, someone that could be conceived of as an Other increased. All of this is basically due to the wheel. So let's take a journey back to a society where there is no wheel. Everybody lives in close proximity, for protection and general support. A leader undoubtedly would emerge, and thus a small tribe would now exist. This tribe would look together for food, shelter, and fashion ways of protecting from the environment. Think Hunger Games but without the controlling people in the sky. Basically, we live a life very similar to our primate ancestors, from which our entire biology developed.
I'm just tired of living in this modern, secluded world, totally unconnected to nature and just existing. It doesn't make sense. Our ancestors got along really astoundingly well before people decided it was ok to do whatever they had to to advance their goals forward. This mainly started with the wheel. It's been exacerbated every invention since the wheel. As we get better at exploiting, we keep exploiting, and the gap between more and enough never stops expanding.
I think we need to develop a science along the lines of how to live purely off the environment in an almost primal way. Many projects are springing up related to this. The major problem lies in thinking that our current method is sustainable, and while I don't advocate a Shamalyan (sp?) esque Village existence, I think subsisting off of fairly apportioned farmland and that alone has to be involved. The planet existed for, and evolution happened during, 4 billion years before the global market system. I think we need to wake up and live life more simply.
CMV | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:I believe that taking anti-depressants is similar to taking mind-altering drugs like marijuana and alcohol, and that the drug is only a band-aid to the problem rather than a solution. +
+ I am currently seeking psychological help regarding a depression that I may have been fighting with for a very long time (I recently realized that I had had suicidal ideations before I even knew what suicide was). While I do understand that a large part of depression coincides with a chemical imbalance in brain chemistry, I feel like it wouldn't be "organically getting better," like it would be artificial "normal."
CMV that anti-depressants can/do result in achieving less depression/closer to "normal" after coming off them.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV. Firing Remus Lupin from Hogwarts was the right thing to do, and hiring him in the first place was irresponsible. +
+ JK Rowling used a werewolf as a metaphor for someone with AIDS (or so I have heard), and while the social stigma is probably very similar, there is one huge difference: Someone with AIDS isn't going to kill you, and a werewolf is his natural state will rip your throat out.
In his first and only year, Lupin almost killed four people. If Sirius Black hadn't been there to fight him off, Harry, Hermione, Ron, and Snape would have been werewolf chow. And if by some chance they survived, they'd now have a lifelong curse.
What's the most damning is that Lupin forgot to take his potion (that keeps him in a human state of mind after transformation) himself. Snape didn't sabotage it to out him, and no one else did anything like that either. Lupin simply got distracted and forgot. Who's to say that couldn't happen again?
It's very unfortunate for Lupin, but if you turn into a deadly animal once a month, you probably shouldn't work in boarding school. I can certainly see where parents of Hogwarts students were coming from. CMV.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I don't think schools (as we have them) are the most effective method of preparing students for adult life. +
+ The way I see it, the school system (or at least the American school system) is pretty much a criminal waste of time. Students retain almost no information that they could be using to nurture their little plastic brains into a blossoming adult mind later on. I think that schools shouldn't be this place where a whole bunch of inherently unique kids are forcefully thrown into a normalizing box and then literally legally forced to recite mundane facts and information that will be of virtually no use to them in the future, then let society label it as "education". Students need to be given more freedom in their choices of classes, ect. And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that students don't learn ANYTHING in school. Obviously, in the situation where you put developing minds in a room together for 12 years of their life then they of course will learn SOMETHING, because human children are hard-wired to learn stuff. But that's beside the point. These things that they may learn are, first of all, not very abundant, and second of all, almost always slightly/completely useless in their adult life. The school system needs a lot of revision if people really want the most educated people.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I am against ObamaCare, and free health care in general. +
+ It's been scientifically proven, that with a proper diet and a little exercise, you can eliminate the chances of basic colds and flu, as well as more complicated ailments, like cancers and heart problems. Most people don't do this though, they eat greasy food, with no nutritious value, and sit on their butts doing nothing.
It doesn't cost much at all to eat right, in fact. I buy a loaf of whole wheat bread, low-fat lunch meat, a bag of carrots, and some sort of fruit for about $15 and it last me a week and a half to two weeks.
So with that being the case, why is part of my hard earn paycheck going to help other's negligence? We all remember doing a group project, in school, where one person didn't help out, at all. Where we had to pick up his slack. Nobody liked doing it, but we had to, in order to get a good grade. It's the exact same situation; we pay for other people to be fat and unhealthy. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Conservatives have no reason to complain over liberal bias in the news media and Hollywood. CMV +
+ Conservatives have long complained about liberal bias in the coverage and content from the news media and Hollywood (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_States). They say that journalists and celebrities routinely favor the liberal POV and marginalize or shut-out the conservative POV.
It is widely known that most news professionals and Hollywood actors and executives have liberal views. Often the news coverage is sympathetic to the left-leaning stories and opinions. Hollywood is famous for celebrating liberal film makers like Michael Moore and actors like Sean Penn, while portraying conservatives and businesses in a bad or silly light. While these facts are not debatable, that does not mean that liberals have an obligation to satisfy to the whining of conservatives.
If conservatives don't like how their views are portrayed in the news media and entertainment, they have every chance to change the status quo. Most of the major businesses that produce the news and entertainment are publicly-listed companies. Therefore, if you don't like what their selling then either start your own firm or acquire enough stock to change the existing management.
One thing I'll give Rupert Murdoch credit for in creating Fox News is that whatever you think about the conservative bias of the channel, he saw a void in the existing programming and rushed to fill it with his own take on the news. He hired staff that reflected his own conservative views and invested in Fox News such that it is the number one rated cable news channel for ten years running.
If conservatives don't like the fact that Jon Stewart is mocking their POV, then convince your oil baron buddy to acquire Comedy Central and replace Stewart with a conservative comedian. If you decry that MSNBC has become a mouthpiece for the DNC, then tell your billionaire hedge fund to buyout the channel from Comcast.
Conservatives are often portrayed as the friend of the rich and powerful. If that is the case, why not use that fact to your advantage and make changes as you see fit?
Therefore, conservatives have no substantial complaint when it comes to liberal bias in the news media and Hollywood because they have the ability, just not so far the willingness, to do something about it. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |