input
stringlengths 114
23.1k
| output
stringclasses 2
values | instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|
I believe that Russia's action action the Ukraine of late are no different than U.S action against the Middle East. Please CMV +
+ I mean the title says it all. I do not see much, if any, difference between actions of Russia and the good old U S of A.
Invading on supposed protection of its own people
( U.S going into Afghanistan and several other countries with the Cassus Belli of protecting itself by pursuing Taliban)
Obvious economic benefit undertones, this time with natural gas
( U.S invasion of Kuwait)
The Russian speaking and ethic groups are actually expressing support
(The Iraqis seemingly showed support for U.S troops, atleast from what I remember seeing on Western media)
Obviously this is a bit of a shallow analysis and I would love for someone to point out why, and also to give some more intricacies between both situations. I do not see how the Western world can condemn the acts of Russia when the U.S has seemed to do similair actions.
The news outlets have predictably scarce on some details and most contain great bias so I appreciate any in-depth info that y'all can give on the situation.
CMV
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Wikipedia is one of the most reliable sources of information short of peer-reviewed publications. +
+ I'll qualify that by saying that "reliability" is subject to the skeptical skill set of the reader. That is, a reader must know how to interpret the likelyhood that a given claim is true. Wikipedia has tools built into every article that make it easy for an ordinary user to do this. They have also recently (as of 2012, if i'm not mistaken) implemented features such as "pending changes" which suppress vandalism. If a reader does not know how to skeptically examine an article, then the failure of reliability then falls to the reader, not Wikipedia.
Note that I am *not* arguing that Wikipedia should ever by cited as a source at an academic level. I see Wikipedia as more of an aggregator of verifiable sources.
My post title reflects what I currently believe about Wikipedia, but I understand I might need to qualify it more based on the replies here. To change my view you would have to convince me that there are a considerable number of sources of information that are more reliable and are not peer-reviewed publications (and by that I mean publications that are widely accepted by experts in a given field).
I ask that before you share your rebuttal, please read and understand Wikipedia's policy on [verifiability](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Introduction_to_referencing) and their essay on [quality control](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Quality_control)
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think certain provisions in "Obamacare" hurt small businesses and their employees by forcing them into hiring practices that penalize growth and flexibility. -- CMV +
+ **Relevant parts of the law:**
1. The Health Care Reform Act states that any employee that works over 30 hours as week must be provided health care if a business is considered a "Large Employer"
2. A "Large Employer" is one that employees more then 50 full-time employees in a calender year. Full-time in this instance means 30 or more hours per week. Employees that work less than 120 Days a year are considered "seasonal" and excluded from any calculations. Hours worked from part-time employees are included in determining whether a company is a "Large Employer". Part-time workers are added into the pool of other employees monthly hours who work more than 120 Days a year and then divided by 120.
So if there are 20 part time employees who work 1920 hours a month that amount is divided by 120 which equals 16 full time employees. Employees are determined to be full time or part time on a monthly basis.
**Background on me and the company I work for:** I am part of the management of a small chain of clothing stores. We have between 60-80 employees who are a mix of full and part time. Because of that fact we are forced to make some strange choices when it comes to hiring.
**We have a few options:** If our goal is to stay under the number of 50 employees it may be beneficial to hire fewer part time employees and ask employees to work 40 hours so that we are not considered a large employer. We could also find a way to take advantage of the seasonal hiring exception for employees that do not work 120 calender days a year.
Alternatively we could limit the amount of employees that can work over 30 hours and limit the effect of being classified as a "Large Employer".
**Who this Hurts:** It hurts the employees. Before we had flexibility in scheduling, now we have to be very careful about hiring someone as full time or part time. In the past if someone wanted to move between the two designations it wasn't much of an issue but now they may have to find other employment since we cannot work with them. It also punishes us for hiring more workers.
It also hurts the business owners because they are punished with increased costs (both direct and administrative). It also makes it more difficult to grow.
**What someone who disagrees with me might say:** "C'mon! Can't your rich business owners eat some of the increased costs?! Providing health care for your employees is a moral obligation. I know I would gladly pay a few cents more if the person helping me in the store got health coverage"
It's not that simple. Businesses are forced to play this game to stay competitive with each other. If one business raises their prices instead of changing their hiring practices they may find fewer and fewer customers walking through their doors since the customer can find the same item for less somewhere else. Sales go down, people have to be let go, businesses close. Everyone has to play by the same rules. If one company stretches themselves further, everyone else has to as well or they will be left behind.
Now here is the punchline. **I support a single payer health care system.** I think all businesses should have to play by the same rules and those rules should be set up in a way that doesn't arbitrarily discourage growth or encourage employers to artificially keep employees from working less to avoid increased costs. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Killing your henchman to demonstrate a point is poor leadership. +
+ In the most recent Ninja Turtles movie there's a scene where one of the main villains has one of his henchmen (a Foot Clan soldier) killed to prove the efficacy of a weapon, while being held down by two other Foot Clan soldiers. Darth Vader is also guilty of this, routinely killing Imperial officers. So does the Joker in the Dark Knight, and this actually almost goes wrong for him.
All three of these examples represent slightly different reasons for killing your henchmen, but I think each one is poor form. In the case of the Ninja Turtles villain, actions like that engender dissent and create a culture of fear and paranoia among your henchmen. I mean those guys just had to hold down their coworker and watch him die, how do they know it's not going to be them next time? If anything would inspire me to quit or revolt, that would definitely be up there.
In the case of Darth Vader, he kills Imperial officers for failing him, which stifles creativity and likely costs him a lot of high quality officers. The Empire is fighting an insurgency and as recent events in Afghanistan showed, mistakes are going to be made, and it's difficult work. I suspect that the reason Vader is constantly saddled with incompetent officers is that he killed all the competent ones long ago and now no one wants to work with him. Also the Empire clearly doesn't promote based on merit, because Vader immediately promotes a guy after the first time we see him kill someone, and that guy sucked just as much.
In the case of the Joker, his plan almost backfires as it's happening. You think when the Joker gets back to his Joker-Cave none of his countless other henchmen are going to be like "Hey, where's Vinny and Don and Jake? Didn't they go to rob that bank with you?" The Joker treats all of his henchmen as completely disposable and useless, which is likely how he sees them, but that's bad for morale. It's not like there's a shortage of villains hiring random thugs for stuff in Gotham. Go seek a job where your employer isn't a constant source of danger.
Machiavelli said that if you can't be loved and feared, it's better to be feared, but he touted Cesare Borgia as a great leader, and that guy died naked and alone of a stab wound. The only case where I think killing your henchmen makes sense is shooting deserters in the middle of a pitched battle, as that encourages continued fighting in the moment over desertion in an "over the top" kinda situation. Otherwise it's bad for business and lowers morale. There are better ways to handle all these situations.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Paralympic Games make no sense since abilities are on a continuum; it's just a big white lie +
+ In my view Paralympic Games (for example swimming where people have no arms/legs) are like a special Olympic basketball for short people; chess championships or a Para-Nobel Prize for low IQ people; boxing for weak, shy and fearful people; eating competitions for those with small apetite; rap battles for the stuttering; singing contests for those with bad voices; beauty contests for people with deformed faces etc.
There is a gradual continuum from Michael Phelps to a generally fit person to someone with a weak body type to someone who lost an arm to someone who has no limbs and so on all the way to Stephen Hawking. Genetics gives each of us a physical limit in what we can achieve in each field, sport or competition. Where you draw the limit for your competition is totally arbitrary and results in a 'Who's the tallest midget?' game.
It's also hard to create a 'common currency' for disability. How much is an extra 10 cm of arm worth measured in degree of leg paralysis? Or should we rather evaluate each person's performance compared to their level of ability? But what about mental illnesses that result in an abnormally low level of willpower? Do we take that into account and say that it was a huge internal struggle for them to even travel there and get into the pool so they deserve the gold medal? Because there *are* mental states where it's very hard to do it, for example strong chronic depression or similar conditions.
I have nothing against any people doing something for the fun of it or for self-improvement and discipline. I think it's really great if someone with no musical talent still picks up the guitar and makes themselves and their loved ones happy with it. And I encourage untalented random garage bands to come together and have a good time playing their songs; karaoke can also be fun with friends who can't sing, no problem. But why organize an official competition explicitly for people who aren't/can never be good at something?
I can see how it can make disabled people feel less left out from these activities. But what about average people who simply don't excel at *anything* (most people)? They are too abled for a para competition but not talented enough for the normal one. Isn't it an injustice that these average people can never feel that they are the best of the world, while someone in Paralympics gets a gold medal for swimming even though they are objectively speaking, quite slow swimmers?
This seems like a big white lie that society tells disabled people and I find it deeply patronizing. Why can't we admit that the personal worth, importance and dignity of people doesn't depend on them being the fastest runners, strongest weight lifters etc. You can be a good person and worthy of love and not win at even a single competition. Most people already cannot win gold medals at competitions in any sport and they just go training nevertheless because they enjoy it.
We have a First League, a Second League and a Third League etc. in many sports and I think it's very offensive to say that the Third League guys just don't have enough willpower to fight their way up to the First League so they deserve to be where they are. A lot of them work their asses off but they just don't have the right body type and genetics to go further up. But then we bring together a First League competition and a 1000th league competition at the Olympics/Paralympics. How does that make sense? I find it very hypocritical.
Change my view in how the Paralympics and para-sport in general makes sense.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:I refuse to go onto antidepressants because I don't want chemicals to screw with my mind +
+ So I have been struggling with depression for a while (mostly the effects of being a repressed gay for most of my teen years) , been in therapy for a while and I am trying to get over it and be "happy" with myself (I still have no idea what people mean by that sometimes)
Anyway my doctor and my therapist sometimes ask me if I want to go on meds since they think they will help me but the idea terrifies me, I just don't see the difference between those drugs and the likes of MDMA and stuff since both screw with your brain chemistry don't they? I am pretty scared of how I will feel on them and if I end up being dependent on them or something.
I am worrying that I am just being stubborn and coming across like I know more than the doctors etc.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think Bitcoins will never be a widespread consumer currency that rivals traditional money. CMV +
+ Reasons why Bitcoins will never be a widespread consumer currency that rivals traditional money:
1. **Institutional Theft**: Hackers have [already stolen](http://www.informationweek.com/security/attacks-and-breaches/bitcoin-thefts-surge-ddos-hackers-take-millions/d/d-id/1112831) millions of dollars worth of bitcoins from large/institutional holders of bitcoins. "Joe Consumer" can't adequately protect his money from this kind of targeted hacking. Right now banks and other financial institutions are charged with protecting traditional money. A bitcoin bank could possibly offer some protection (although no FDIC insurance) but it would erode some of the original stated purpose of bitcoins.
2. **Fraud**: Similar to hacking if someone gains access to your online wallet and spends your bitcoins on goods and services and disappears you have no reliable way to recover the funds. With a consumer credit card you are not liable for ANY fraudulent transactions.
3. **Chargebacks**: Let's say a merchant screws you. You buy a TV online, but instead you get a toaster, or worse you never receive the good. You have ZERO recourse without getting lawyers involved. Most people can't afford a lawyer to settle a consumer dispute. The great thing about credit card charge backs is that they allow you to dispute a transaction if you can prove the transaction did not ultimately occur as agreed and recover some or all of your money. | 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 America is failing and that living here is a mistake. +
+ It feels like America is failing and it is due to many things. 1) I feel like getting into politics in America now is only to make money. Either that or you come in with the right intentions and then get bought out by big corporations. 2) Crazy religious people gaining power in America and taking away from the freedom of other people.
the list can go on and on really, but what it comes down to, I think, is that when two people can't agree on change, nothing will change and we can't move forward. | 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 I could win a fight against any dog, or a wolf for that matter. +
+ I believe that a full grown adult male could fight and overpower a dog of just about any size. I am an average-sized man of very average build, but I believe my intellect and obvious evolutionary advantages (i.e. thumbs, limbs that move in many directions) would allow me to gain the upper hand and defeat a dog or wolf.
For example, I may get bitten (and pretty severely), but I could break the dog's arm, gouge their eyes out, or tear at their ears. I could use rocks and other tools I find lying around. I believe a dog or wolf would be easily turned off by this and give up.
Friends of mine have presented the argument that the dog has no fear for its own life in the same way that I do. It has nothing but a survival instinct and I would be a soft human. This may be more or less true, but I still believe that in the actual situation I would also be full of that survival instinct.
I see movies where people are attacked by dogs and wolves and am never particularly worried, even though characters frequently die.
Anyway, please 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: The Current California Drought is Largely the Fault of Environmentalists +
+ I read a compelling article by Victor Davis Hanson in the City Jounral the other day, which talked about the history of the water projects in central California in the early and mid-twentieth century. Hanson points the finger specifically at the environmentalists who derailed the Klamath River diversion project in the 70s, which would have provided enough water to supply San Francisco alone for thirty years.
Here's the article here if anyone wants to read it. I don't agree with all of his views in this article, particularly his low view of city folk, but I find it well written nonetheless:
http://www.city-journal.org/2015/25_1_california-drought.html | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Education is ineffective at best and indoctrination at worst. +
+ I take a pragmatic and pessimistic view when regarding how other people who only know me as a statistic perceive me. I believe they can only account for me the way an actuary can attempt to render the status of something mathematically -- with an eye for values and eventually profit. That is the origination of this line of thinking. I tend to look at massive scale operations from a serious "how can I make profit off of this" perspective as I believe it is the safest assumption that can be made about people and groups with such a crushing responsibility to fulfill so many needs. I am directing this thought at mass education as a whole because I dropped out of middle school, then high school, and then college. I am not someone who dislikes learning. It was a hilarious and gigantic waste of time to me.
That being said, I very much enjoyed the social aspect of education but I believe that should not be taken into account for this question because I am not attempting to question the benefits of rubbing elbows to either find good comrades for life or nepotism outlets for hard to acquire jobs. I think many of those effects can be also achieved by jobs that require you to socialize, or by being friendly in the right locales.
Like many people who I have met who have similar views I don't find any fault in teachers, many teachers even to this day I find are remarkable to the point that I still get teary-eyed thinking about them. Contrary to this CMV I had wonderful teachers. I want to make the distinction that teaching someone is not managing the education for an entire society and that the practicality of learning something is not what is being questioned here.
I would like to hear arguments for the effectiveness of education in creating people that will produce profit for the community in which pays for their education through their tax dollars. I would also like to hear views from people have have paid for private education and home-schooling. Once again my view on this profit-oriented.
As a caveat, I cannot speak to the effectiveness of education outside of the United States. If you have methods or practices that pertain to outside of the good ol' USA that could serve in transforming the system as a whole to a more profitable practice I would love to hear the methodology.
tl;dr -- mass education is bullshit.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Iced tea (specifically Arizona) is no better for you than soda. +
+ Let's start with the numbers:
Arizona Iced Tea (lemon): 24 grams of sugar in 8 oz.
Coca-Cola Classic: 27 g
Pepsi: 28 g
Ingredients:
Arizona: tea brewed in filtered water, high fructose corn syrup, citric acid, lemon flavor.
Coke: carbonated water, high fructose corn syrup, caramel color, phosphoric acid, flavors, caffeine.
Their first two ingredients are basically identical: water and high fructose corn syrup. Of course, Arizona gets its flavor mostly from tea leaves while Coke gets it from flavoring. They both stain teeth; Coke has caramel color while Arizona again gets it from the tea leaves.
I like both drinks, but I feel at this point that they are both pretty terrible at this point and that they should only be used sparingly. CMV. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV the societal worth of human life is measured by earned income +
+ The market sets the value of goods and services by free trade. People freely determine how much something is worth by agreeing to a trade.
The societal worth of people is the labor they perform. Education increases the quality of labor a person can perform. By voluntary free trade through employment the worth of human labor is set through wages.
People who win or inherit money are not worth more to society because this income was not earned through their labor.
Humans have value to their families and themselves but that is not their worth to society
| 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 telling women not to walk alone at night, wear too revealing of clothing, keep an eye on her drink etc as ways to avoid being a victim of rape is logical and a smart. +
+ Some say that telling women not to walk alone at night, wear too revealing of clothing, keep an eye on her drink etc as ways to avoid being a victim of rape places the burden of responsibility on the woman, not the rapist. Men shouldn't rape anyways, they say.
I would agree that men shouldn't rape, but taking precautions for your own safety is smart and necessary. I am a male, and when driving in a strange/unsafe neighborhood, I wouldn't blast music to draw attention to myself or drive an expensive car. Even though doing so wouldn't mean I would "deserved" to be robbed, it is important for me to minimize the risk. Similarly, one should look both ways before crossing the street. Even though hitting someone with your car is against the law, you want to minimize the risk by looking both ways to ensure safety.
When I'm at a bar, I too ensure that I am the only one who touches my drink, don't show off jewelry/watches etc. It's just common sense.
CMV
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: It is anti-debate to suggest further reading rather than summarising the basis of your argument yourself. +
+ I've always been told that it's a bad argument that can't be summarised for the understanding of other intelligent people, and that by explaining something you gain a better understanding of it. This would mean that anyone saying 'I'm not going to explain- these people have done it far better than I ever could' aren't necessarily wrong in saying that, but not to attempt it is anti debate. This is also true because the reading of these materials creates a time delay, in which the materials must be found time and then have that time put into reading them, which the suggester of the materials is essentially using as a shield. For whatever reason, they have improperly entered debate (either do not fully understand their position or are too tired to carry finish) and are now trying to put you off the scent rather than simply improve everyone's understanding by summarising the argument.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I am struggling to accept evolution +
+ Hello everyone!
A little backstory first: I was born and raised in a Christian home that taught that evolution is incoherent with Christianity. Two years ago, however, I began going to university. Although Christian, my university has a liberal arts focus. I am currently studying mathematics. I have heard 3 professors speak about the origins of the universe (one in a Bible class, one in an entry-level philosophy class, and my advisor). To my surprise, not only were they theistic evolutionists, they were very *opinionated* evolutionists.
This was a shock to me. I did not expect to encounter *Christian evolutionists.* I didn't realize it was possible.
Anyway, here are my main premises:
* God exists.
* God is all-powerful.
* God is all-loving in His own, unknowable way.
Please don't take the time to challenge these premises. These I hold by faith.
The following, however, I would like to have challenged:
Assuming that God is all-powerful, he is able to create any universe that he pleased to create. The evidence shows that the earth is very, *very* old. But why is it so unfathomable to believe that God created the universe with signs of age?
That is not the only statement that I would like to have challenged. Please feel free to use whatever you need to use to convince me to turn away from Creationism. My parents have infused Ken Hamm into my head and I need it out.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: In a classless society, why would anyone choose to go through the hell that is medical school? Classless societies are a pipe dream that will never exist. CMV. +
+ People working "hard" jobs will always be paid more than those working "easier" jobs. If you can successfully run a company of 100+ employees, then you will probably be paid more than someone who supervises no one. If you can operate on another person, restoring lost function to one of their hands, then you will probably be paid more than the person who empties the waste baskets.
In a classless society, there would certainly be a few that decide to go through medical school, for altruistic or other reasons, but most would choose an easier path to obtain their equal payment.
Proponents of a classless society: how do you realistically see the society functioning so that the "hard" jobs are not all vacant? Classless societies are a pipe dream that will never exist. CMV.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Making an event to specifically showcase the "women of" a field does not help with gender equality issues. +
+ I am a student at a fairly large university studying in a field which has a large gender gap. About 10-15% of the students in my major are women, and this is consistent with the industry at large. Each year, there is a concert showcasing the students in my program, where anyone can submit a project/piece/composition they are working on and the best are selected to be featured. It is not very competitive to get into this concert, generally if you apply and your piece is finished or even almost finished and not absolutely terrible you will get in.
This year faculty has announced that they will be hosting an additional showcase concert which will feature exclusively the women in my department. Their argument is that gender equality in our field is very biased towards males and we need to raise awareness of the issue and give women a space where they are comfortable to submit, to give younger girls and example and increase female involvement in the program.
I'm very uncomfortable with this idea right now. I agree that women should be treated equally in my field, and that there are lots of examples of male bias. I don't agree that giving us a special concert is the way to work towards that. I don't want to be thought of as a "women" member of my field, I want to be thought of just as a member of my field as anyone else would be, without my gender being such a significant part of it. It feels almost condescending that there is a 'special' showcase for women, as if they couldn't submit to the normal one like everyone else. I've performed in the department-wide showcase many times with no issue.
Additionally, I don't feel that I am discriminated against by my peers for my gender. Most of the time I forget that I'm in a minority group because I'm not treated any differently and it doesn't matter. It is still a factor in the larger industry, but the young people in my peer group don't really take part in it in my personal experience. From what I've read online about this, it is the oldest generation of people in my field who have the most prejudice against women, and it is gradually going away as new views are brought in.
I know gender equality is a touchy subject, which is why I want to hear other views on this situation. The last thing I want to do is contribute to bias against women, but I don't think this concert is a good idea, it seems to be divisive instead of inclusive.
There is going to be an open discussion next week where we can speak with faculty about our views on this showcase. I really want to consider as many opinions as possible before I go in so that I'm not ignorant or basing my opinion on false assumptions.
tl;dr - My university is planning to host a showcase of work done by only the women studying my major, in an effort to combat gender inequality in my field. About 10-15% of our department is female. There is already a similar showcase which anyone can submit to. I think this is a little demeaning, and that it emphasizes the divide between genders instead of minimizing it.
So, reddit, change my view! Why is a showcase specifically for women in a field good for gender equality?
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think the decision to allow women to serve in frontline combat is dangerous, foolish, and made for the entirely wrong reasons. CMV. +
+ Equality is a bullshit reason to make a fighting force less effective. Any reason other than budget cuts is a bullshit reason to make a fighting force less effective. People will lose their lives because our military has become caught up in the grand social experiment that is equalism, and I believe that is indefensible. Prove me wrong and CMV.
For reference:
Perfect Score for a 52-56 year old male on APFT is 56 pushups/2m, 66 situps/2m, 14:42/2mi
Perfect score for a 27-31 year old female on APFT is 50, 82, 15:36 | 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 becoming upset and using social leverage to pressure you over non-harmful behaviours such as swearing is a form of bullying into compliance, CMV. +
+ Background: I'm a 21 year old half-cast male from Australia, lower-middle class, public schooled, working in IT.
----
First example: swearing.
I think we can all agree that there is no actual ethical or moral problem with swear words in and of themselves. These so-called swear words have been a part of my natural vocabulary for such a long time, I just consider them regular colloquial language; my sister and most of my friends agree that there is nothing wrong with saying the word fuck in public, in front of family or children etc., and I find this to be pretty typical of our generation.
Of course, when I am speaking in a business/professional environment, the dynamics of appropriate language to use in such circumstances etc. and that's all well and good; but when I say something along the lines of "wow, that's fucked up", "bullshit", "fuck ow my finger" etc., I think someone sticking their head into the situation to berate you for your choice of words (and not their meaning or intent) is an inappropriate way of attempting me to conform to their social customs.
Please note: insulting/abusing someone does not fall under the scope of what I'm talking about, that's another thing entirely.
----
Second: discussion of sex.
Not overly graphic depictions, not harrassment, leering or other sexually creepy things directed at unwilling participants; just plain old (what I would consider normal) conversation of a sexual topic.
Eg.: Over lunch my coworker told me that she was thinking about buying a new vibrator, we had a bit of back and forth over colours, prices, styles etc. Someone overheard us and made it known that she was "offended" by our conversation and proclaimed that it was sexual harassment in the workplace.
Another example, we got into a conversation about how fascinatingly specific some of the gay-hankey-colour-codes were, with different fabrics having different meanings, again we got the same response as above.
----
There are many more, but it's typically the source of 80% of the use of the word 'offensive', a kind of mechanism that IMO is the adult equivalent of a 4 year old stomping their foot and telling people to stop it because they don't like it. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I feel that high-end luxury cars (Bentley, Rolls Royce, etc.) are a complete and utter scam. CMV +
+ For about $50k, you can get a car with a fairly powerful motor and a nice interior. Getting up to the $100k range, you get a very strong motor and a nice interior. However, I'm unable to understand the appeal of paying $500k or more for a car that, most likely, performs the same as a $50k car. When I look at luxury cars, I see...tan/cream-colored leather interior, a powerful motor, and that's it. I'm guessing that you're paying mostly for the little sticker that says the name of the car manufacturer instead of any actual benefit to the car. It could be the fact that I don't judge my worth by the things that I own, and I'm unable to understand the idea behind it. I imagine that lower-end Cadillacs and Buicks probably perform the same function at roughly a tenth of the price. | 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 mind personalized ads. CMV +
+ If I get a Home Depot ad after googling "woodworking 101," all the better because that's relevant to something I might actually be interested in. I would rather get relevant ads that are catered to my interests (behavior) than random ads that don't even apply to me (like make-up ads, since I'm a guy). My girlfriend says the ads are coercion and will make me buy things I ultimately don't need, and that tailored versions do this more effectively. I don't agree because I still will think carefully if I make a big purchase. To me, most advertisements are the company's way of getting the word out about a product or service they offer that I may not know about otherwise. If I only find out about products or services that are relevant to me, all the better. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: It's messed up of police officers to be waiting on a residential street 10 mins before the street's no-parking for street-sweeping time zone becomes in effect in order to ticket any remaining cars that weren't moved before the exact start time. Human courtesy calls for an informal grace period. +
+ **The Situation:**
This was inspired by a real life situation that happened to me yesterday morning. Two nights ago when I got home from work, I ended up finding a parking spot around the block from my house on a residential street that had a No-Parking For Street-Sweeping Zone start at 8am the next morning. I normally leave for work between 8:00am and 8:10am, so I set an alarm for 7:50am to remind myself to leave early.
It took several minutes to walk to my car, and when I got into my car and turned it on, the time read 7:57am. As I was walking up to my car, I noticed two police parking enforcement vehicles parked in the spots just in front of my car, and three parking enforcement police officers standing next to them. My car was one of four still parked on the block. Someone else came to remove one of the other cars while I was there too, leaving two cars left by the time I pulled away just before 8am.
**The View:**
**I THINK THIS IS TOTALLY "MESSED UP"!**
I believe human courtesy calls for a short grace period; not for police officers standing ready and waiting for the clock to tick over from 7:59am to 8:00am (according to *their* clocks, mind you) to give you a ticket.
**I get that it's the law:**
Now, the law is the law. I don't have a problem with street sweeping in general nor with no-parking street sweeping zones. I understand that a no-parking time zone has to start at some point, so a line has to be drawn somewhere, and the line is the line and the law is the law, and that's that. I get it. If my car was there at 8:01am, I get the ticket, and that's that. The law does not demand a grace period. The law has a clearly defined cut off and everyone is aware and there's no excuse for being parked there beyond 8am, nor any *legal* reason not to ticket a car left there past 8am.
**Arguments**
HOWEVER, by the police ticketing cars immediately at 8am, and sitting there waiting for it to become 8am so they can ticket as many cars as possible, they demonstrate that they care more about generating revenue from ticket fees rather than making sure residents have cleared the street for street-sweeping. The actual sweeping of the street is not hindered my cars being moved at 8:01 or 8:02 instead of 7:59am. The street sweeper wasn't anywhere in sight in my situation above. It was just about getting revenue. If it was about enforcing the clearing of streets so that the street-sweeper could clear it, then they'd give us an informal grace period. Instead they're there *early*, waiting to ticket residents. That is "messed up" according to someone like me who believes that the police should be there to sever and protect us, not nitpick and fine us.
I believe common human courtesy that all humans should strive to show to their fellow men and women because it makes the world so much more pleasant for us all would be for police officers to not start ticketing cars until a few minutes past 8am, so that residents who are coming to move their cars at 8am are not going to get fined anywhere from $30 to $75 (yup, $75 in my city) for being just a few minutes late or perhaps simply having a clock that happens to be a few minutes slower than the police officer's clocks.
Additionally, this *is* a class issue, as it disproportionately affects poorer residents in my urban city. Wealthier residents have garages and driveways, and the street parking on their residential streets is less congested. They can simply park on the other side of their own street when one side has a no-parking time zone the next morning, and they'll be able to find a parking spot. Poorer residents don't have designated parking for their apartment units, and their residential city streets are so congested that they have to park anywhere they find a spot - even if it's a spot with a no-parking time zone the next morning.
| 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 a fetus has rights worth protecting. +
+ I've long struggled with this and I'd like to here some strong arguments from the other side. I know the benefits of abortion to society, but I can't justify them simply because the net gain is positive - that's opening Pandora's box to me.
For me, just because a human cannot survive on it's own, doesn't mean we shouldn't protect them. Granted, I have absolutely no problem with suicide, so this isn't a religious "sanctity of life" issue. I simply believe that since there can be no informed decision made by the fetus, we have an obligation to protect it.
It's an odd issue for me, I want to make abortion legal and easily accessible from a society standpoint, but I can't reach that position due to moral complications. 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:There is an ethical limit to the amount of money a person should receive as direct compensation for their work and this number is significantly lower than what executives and athletes are currently paid. +
+ Let's assume that we have a CEO of a fortune 500 company, according to the AFL-CIO, in the top 100 highest paid of 2012-2013, all of them made between 15M-75M from salary and bonuses. The lowest paid employees in their company maybe made $20k. Ball park, that means that the CEO is 1000 times more valuable than her lowest paid janitor...
This speaks to me of a kind of hubris and greed that reasons in the following way: The three of us work together, and all make 50k/yr. At the end of the year, I'm promoted to 'manager' of the two remaining workers. Now, it's not 'fair' for us all to still be paid the same, after all I'm in charge. So take the same budget, $150k, and now I'm the 'boss' so I make 80k and so all that's left for the two people I manage is $35k each. Repeat this say 4 or 5 times through middle and upper management, and we arrive at a situation like were in today. Huge executive compensation, but why?
Now, if the maximum salary in the company was 60k and I was offered a promotion to manager, would I somehow be less inclined to take it? What about the next jump, to 70k? and the next to 80? Why isn't it enough that my decisions are now guiding and leading the group and I have received a small merit increase? Why should I also make ~50% to double what the people who report to me are making?
Why rely on a tax system to progressively tax higher incomes to provide services, rather impose a moral code that says companies may not salary(+bonuses) their employees at higher than a net total of 150k/yr during a 40 year career? [that is, liquid net worth should be < 6M and our salary scale should be re-adjusted such that a diligent worker hits this 6M mark after 40 years, while a very hard worker could do it in 20-25). Also, consider the studies that have shown people who make more than $80k/yr report to being just as happy and satisfied as people who make $800k/yr
Now I'd be willing to consider exemptions for Pro-athletes, or other 'time dependent' jobs (artist, architect etc) could still make nearly a million dollars per year, since their 'careers' when they are making a large amount of money could be relatively short. I'm not convinced that the athletes who make 10s of millions work or train 10 times harder than a teammate who makes 250k/yr. Or that the artist who manages to sell his painting for 1M worked a lot harder than the artist who sells it for $1,000
That is, I think that monetary value is inherently subjective and that we don't usefully understand the systems that determine the price of a good, or an appropriate salary for work performed. For example, [how much should it cost per night to board a dog?](http://dogvacay.com/) In this case, regulation is needed.
Lastly, I think once you start making a large amount of money, it becomes nearly impossible to see how you 'aren't worth this much' and so it is up to society to provide the framework we can all agree to before we know how lucky, or talented we might be.
Ok but there's a huge problem; lots of people already have net worth more than 6M, or are paid way more than 150k/yr... and how do we handle telling them?
with that, CMV.
Obviously, since i just brought it up, I'm not that interested in counter arguments about how impractical such a change is/would be. I'm asking for CMV arguments that look at why a maximum salary has little merit and so, why financial motivation is so strong a driver, despite the evidence that it does not making people any happier.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe lobbying (including corporate lobbying) is an essential part of the political process, and must be maintained at all costs. CMV +
+ (copied from a comment I made on another thread)
Lobbying is an essential form of the political process. Politicians can't be expected to be experts on incredibly complex ideas, and it isnt necessarily desirable that they are. Someone that has dedicated there life to science won't necessarily be good politician. Lobbying exists so that people with expertise can provide the government on insight into how their fields work. If the government is about to pass a law that would cause massive non-intentional damage to the shrimp industry, then the shrimp industry needs to send people to government to lobby them, explaining their side of the argument and providing the government with expertise on the shrimp industry. You may not like it, but corporations are a massive part of our society, even if they were completely cut off from influencing government, what affects corporations will affect all of us, if Coke goes bankrupt (for example) then that would cause damage to society as a whole.
Anywho, the point of my argument is that lobbying is not done very well, and leans towards bribery as much as it does to actual lobbying, but illegalizing would be catastrophic for democracy, a man going to his local mp to tell him how something needs to be done about the potholes in his neighborhood is lobbying as much as a massive corporation attempting to influence government decision. Outlawing both would destroy the ability for the people to influence an on-going government outside of an election
TL;DR Lobbying is as much about people petitioning and talking to their elected representatives, as it is about corporations "bribing" corrupt officials. Corporate lobbying provides essential expertise for the political process | 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 kids should be taught at a young age how to properly use firearms as well as the four rules of gun safety. +
+ My argument is as follows:
1. It's better to know how to use a gun than to not know how to use a gun, this applies to all people regardless of age.
2. Kids today have the idea that guns are "toys" and that they are "fun". Early firearm training would change that image and show kids that guns are not toys, and that they can kill.
3. It would prevent accidental shootings (and by consequence, accidental deaths) that are caused.
4. I understand that teaching kids at a young age how to properly use guns can increase risk. However, I would like to say that:
* It would do more good than harm.
* A good instructor should never leave an unsupervised/uneducated child with live ammunition. That being said, Live ammo should be present when the instructor is.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Homeschooling should no longer be an option +
+ Like many of you reading this, I'm concerned about our educational system, whether you are from the US or not. There is always room for improvement. That said, I think homeschooling should be illegal (or severely restricted, i.e. tight requirements for testing, certification for the parents, standard curricula that mimics those taught in public schools) for a few reasons:
1.) From personal experience, homeschooling severely retards the growth of the homeschooled in terms of social and intellectual development.
2.) Homeschoolers do not have access to the same education as students in public school. They cannot share the same level of facilities, expertise in teaching, nor access to different opinions (the basis of higher education) when they are homeschooled.
3.) in an age of interconnectedness, interpersonal skills are paramount. Knowledge of how to deal with people is essential in every job. Being at home interacting with a few people every day does not allow the student to learn these skills.
4.) Motivation: Homeschoolers do the work because Mom or Dad tell them to. People who go to school do not. When they get to college, and Mommy or Daddy is no longer there, which one has a higher likelihood of success?
In short, homeschooling should no longer be an option as it denies the child the basic right to an education that prepares the pupil for society. Instead, it is a breeding ground for narrow-mindedness, and limited social development. CMV reddit | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Being somewhat unsanitary helps prevent you from getting sick. +
+ My view is that frequently exposing yourself to germs helps build your immunity.
I'm not a gross slob. People who know me don't even know I do these things.
I only wash my hands in the obvious cases like after pooping. I never wash them before I eat, which means I maybe wash my hands once or twice each day.
I'll eat food I dropped on the floor.
The idea of using those free hand sanitizer wipes on a shopping cart seems ridiculous to me.
Usually I just rinse my dishes unless I need soap to get off things that are stuck.
I know it's a sample size of two, but I've been sick a handful of times in the past 15 years while a near-germaphobe friend of mine is always catching something.
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 think that the pro-life stance is misogynistic. CMV. +
+ I have heard some rhetoric on how the pro-life stance is "misogynistic ("Misogyny is the hatred or dislike of women or girls") and anti-woman".
I can understand the "anti-woman" perspective to some degree: In order to protect the fetus, women's reproductive rights will have to be restricted.
On the other hand, the idea that the pro-life stance is misogynistic is very strong claim. I remain unconvinced that this is true.
If it makes a difference, I am pro-choice myself. | 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 term "rape survivor" doesn't make any sense. CMV +
+ **Disclaimer: I am not trying to offend victims of rape or make rape out to be anything but the horrific thing it is. Please do not come preaching to me about this. Rape has affected my the lives of those close to me multiple times, and I'm not looking to argue about anything besides the point in my title.**
Calling someone a survivor of something implies that it is a potentially lethal thing. For example, a plane crash survivor. Everyone knows that plane crashes can and do kill people, so if you were in one and you didn't die, you are a survivor. Rape doesn't kill people. It is assumed you are a survivor of something that is nonlethal. "I got shot with a paintball gun, but I survived. I'm a paintball survivor." This seems equally nonsensical. | 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 a large number of the population that area easily mislead and cannot think and reason for themselves. This is the reason we need government regulation on things like employment, health, EPA, and SEC oversight. +
+ Whether you wish to believe it or not, I sincerely believe that there are a large number of people in the US and the world that are exploitable at their very being. They believe whatever you tell them, if you use the right psychological tricks. Whether this be xenophobia, bandwagoning, or tribalism. Because of this, the government needs to be there so that these individuals aren't exploited to the extent of tear-jerking poverty and maltreatment.
We are already seeing a backlash against this type of protectionism the government is needed for, and people are barely able to afford an education, housing, and healthy food, where once this was the norm for a family with a single earner.
Banks are being allowed to work with criminals for minimal damage when caught. Companies are allowed to pollute with minimal overall responsibility. Large amounts of the economy is funneling to the top, and the overall populace is getting less and less knowledgeable on the whole.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe Islamic culture is incompatible with modern society. CMV. +
+ I believe that the Islamic/Arabic culture is at best, incompatible with modern society, and at worst, actually a threat to a tolerant way of life. I base these views on ~~3~~ 2 main points.
* 1. Women are regarded as lesser creatures, and must be subservient to any male, including their own sons.
* 2. Any woman who does not act in an approved manner, even if not a member of that culture, is met with hostility and derision.
* 3. ~~In areas with a high concentration of this culture, there are currently large movements directed towards supplanting the current law with Sharia law, which is antithetical to a modern, equality-driven society.~~
Therefore, I don't believe this culture should be respected or acknowledged in modern society. 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 that price discrimination is immoral and should be legislated against. CMV. +
+ First off, definitions. By price discrimination, I am referring to the practice of offering discounts or different prices to select groups. For example: a student discount on software or a bus ride, reduced prices for seniors at a movie theatre, ladies night drink prices at a bar, "children-eat-free-tuesdays", etc.
Now, I understand the rationale behind this type of business model. By segmenting the market based on disposable income, it is possible to increase profits. There may even be other benefits (i.e. giving women an incentive to attend your bar or club could increase overall sales).
However, I feel that it should be the right of any customer, regardless of market demographic, to be able to demand the lowest price. Anything else is unfair and wrong. 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 it's wrong that people get special treatment under the law for being a member of an "oppressed" group. CMV +
+ I'm from the US and I believe it is wrong that members of certain demographic groups get special treatment under the law because their group has a history of being oppressed. I believe that the government should treat all individuals equally-regardless of religion, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, gender, or sex. For example, I think that admission standards to the military should be the same for men and women. I don't think there should be government funded scholarships for people of a specific race or gender or religion. I think it's wrong to grant a government contract to a company because of the race of that company's owner.
In the US, discrimination based on group membership seems to be acceptable as long as that group has a history of being oppressed.
For example, a government benefit for men only would be unacceptable, as men don't have that history of oppression, but a benefit for women only is more acceptable, because they do have that history of oppression. This leads to a peculiar phenomenon, where a group wants special rights or privileges, and proceeds to try and convince others of how oppressed they are in order to get them.
I think that the only way to have a fair and equal society, is to stop giving people special treatment for the group memberships, not to try and balance it out by giving special rights to those whose ancestors were oppressed. A person should be treated as an individual, and not as a representative of race, gender, region, or whatever other grouping the person belongs to.
I know there are whole branches of philosophy devoted to a different perspective, so please, change my view
-That racial, ethnic, and gendered discrimination is morally okay
or
-That inequality between groups itself justifies discrimination against an individual based on their gender, race, or ethnicity.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:People should not spend time/energy/resources trying to prevent suicide. +
+ I don't understand why suicide prevention is such a big deal. Walks and fundraisers seem to be all over the place and I don't get it. If someone wants to kill themselves, don't they have that right?
Now I understand that sometimes people find themselves in a dark hole and it would be kind of use to help them out of it. But where is the line? Is there a certain severity or duration of depression where it would be acceptable to let these people die? I believe that if people aren't harming others they should be able to do what they want with their life.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: If you support freedom of speech but not freedom from censorship you're a hypocrite, especially where peoples livelihood is threatened (Brendan Eich, Donald Sterling) +
+ The first amendment prevents citizens from government intervention because of things they have said
Censorship is shutting someones freedom of speech down because you don't like what they are saying
If you support upholding one, you must support the other
You do not have the right to not be offended
Boycotting a company because a head of theirs thinks things you don't like and arresting someone for the same reason is just as bad (they both threaten a persons livelihood), and if you do one you are welcoming the other
louis sums it up better than I do
| 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 the death penalty is appropriate under many circumstances. CMV. +
+ I see a lot of people who cry "death penalty" when they hear of a horrific news story. I believe that the death penalty should be used on the most severe and extreme cases, but I dont think its used as often as it should be. Think of the case that was just settled this week; Woman kills her friend and cuts baby out of the womb. I think her sentence is fair (life without parole), but I also wouldnt feel bad knowing she was put to death for her crime. I know a lot of people also are against the death penalty for their own reasons, but why keep someone jailed for the rest of their life with NO CHANCE that they will ever get out? 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 believe the Native American's are to blame for their continued poverty. +
+ So obviously the Native Americans got screwed, anyone can tell you that and it can't be refuted. But I think the native american's could have returned to glory, they could have turned their reservations into respectable countries. But every native american I've ever met has been two things, a drunk and a martyr. They constantly talk about how the white man screwed them, yeah, well the white man didn't put alcohol in you mouth. the white man didn't make you drop out of high school. the white man didn't make you unable to hold a job. There are some exceptions to the rule of course, but as a whole I think the native american's are to blame for their current state.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Although I am technically a racist, I do not consider this to be a problem. CMV. +
+ When I refer to myself as a racist, I do not mean that I advocate for nationalism or a return to *institutional* segregation. The major racial groups of this nation have made great progress in living beside one another in a state of relative peace; I do not wish to reverse these gains.......
In actuality, I am considered by many to be a racist due to my belief in social separation between the races. I do not look kindly upon (or encourage) interracial marriage, although I have no real issues with descendants of interracial unions (in this culture, half black/half white has always equaled black; I accept this, and I consider biracial individuals to be a part of the greater black community); I am strongly opposed to interracial adoption because this cruel practice tends to erase the ethnic identity of impressionable minority kids; and finally, I really do not want to have friendships with people of other races (I prefer to have social contact with people who share my identity and experiences).
While I understand that I am a racist, I do not think that my beliefs are actually harmful. I have never participated in acts of harassment or physical violence, and I do not seek to force my beliefs on others (in several situations, I have been asked to tone down my rhetoric due to perceived offense, and I have always acquiesced.) | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Subseddits with a minimum Karma or age restriction for posting are detrimental to reddit. CMV +
+ I recently visited a sub dedicated to amazon home improvement products and while the content was not particularly to my liking the sidebar rules did catch my eye.
While I think I understand what the rule is for, to keep the sub full of dedicated and caring redditors, I believe rules like this are actually bad for subs and reddit in general. They keep new users from participating in what should be productive discussions. Rules like this also force new users to klrma whore just so they can participate in subs that actively look down on karma whoring.
Rules requiring minimum karma or account ages are bad for reddit. 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 think the phrase "intolerant of intolerance" is just a new way of being intolerant, and that liberalism is not nearly as inclusive and accepting as it claims +
+ I have found that the phrase "Intolerant of intolerance", and the whole liberal movement, is just as closed and intolerant as anyone else, just about new things. I often come across liberal minded thinkers, who say that everyone is entitled to their opinion and should be accepted no matter who they are, yet they refuse to accept people they deem as intolerant for who they are. This seems to include massive groups, such as organized religion, people opposed to same sex marriage, conservatives, non western cultures that have non liberal views, such as arabic culture having a different idea of gender roles (if it's a culture that is more similiar to our own, then it falls under the protected liberal category), and various others. I have also seen this view extended to a desire to remove some of their basic freedoms, most notably freedom of speech and the freedom to congregate.
To clarify, I am not asking to debate individual views of the liberal community (women's rights, gay rights...). I would like to understnad, and perhaps change my view, on how if acceptance and tolerance is such a priority for liberals, how they can reject such massive swaths of humanity as unacceptable and intolerable?
Thank you for your time.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe it is much more difficult for gay males in today's society than it is for gay females. CMV +
+ I feel this way for many reasons, but let's prevent too huge a wall of text.
There is this a general unofficial and unspoken expectation for men to reaffirm their masculinity on a regular basis. For some reason, male homosexuality is quickly associated with femininity. For some reason, femininity is quickly associated with being delicate or even weak. So basically being a gay male is associated with being weak or inferior in some way. Lesbians don't have the same amount of social pressure to reaffirm their femininity do they? And worse case scenario, they appear very sure of themselves, strong, and independent if they come off a bit masculine. Win/win for the percentage of lesbians who happen to also be more masculine.
Many (if not most) straight men actually enjoy the idea of two women together. Straight women however don't generally have this view about two men together. Straight men often have a "that's gross" viewpoint about two men together, where as straight women generally have a neutral or non-grossed-out view towards two women together. **Edit:** You may quickly think this is non-issue, but if you think about it, at least when I think about it, it affects people's outlooks and views in general too. I genuinely believe straight men have less of a problem seeing two women get married vs seeing two men get married because of their mental picture of them in the bedroom. Cmon guys, am I totally wrong here?
I feel like a lesbian is much more likely and more quickly to be accepted after coming out to their family vs if a gay male does. Dick Cheney's daughter (imagine it was his son instead) comes to mind, and I realize I have no tangible valid reason to feel that way, but I imagine I am not wrong.
**TL;DR: Because of countless male/female double standards in society: The battle to be seen and treated as equal is incredibly more uphill and difficult for gay men than it is for gay women. And acknowledging this gets everyone one step closer to this goal of equality for all.** | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Hard work is not necessarily a virtue. +
+ First, let me make clear that I am not saying that laziness is a virtue.
I work *moderately* hard, always take my job seriously and deliver the required results.
But I also take pride in achieving as much as possible with as little effort as possible. I am always searching for opportunities to automate tedious and repetitive parts of my job, and I try to completely avoid taking on projects that have a low return compared to their workload.
Out of principle, I never work more longer than a 40 hour week unless it's a real emergency.
So far I've done OK. I'm an engineer and most of my jobs are 1-2 year contracts for large corporations. I'm not high up the corporate ladder but the salary is high enough to cover all my material needs plus save about 30% for retirement.
**1**- I know that if I worked a lot harder, I would have the chance to be promoted to a director position, but I don't see the point. The net wage would be 20-30% higher, but I would have to sacrifice more than 30% of my time&energy for the corporation. Also, in my field director positions seem less safe than manager positions. Directors cost more and are the first people to be laid off when there is a restructuring.
**2**- I cannot take my achievements to the grave. To me, life is not about achievements but about experiences. Achievements are just a means to an end, which is having awesome experiences. There is a case to be made that social status itself is an "experience" worth pursuing, but corporate titles don't really impress the people closest to me. They only impress people I don't like and don't care about.
**3**- There certainly are situations where hard work is worth it, but working for a corporation is not one of them. Most of the fruits of your labor will go to the shareholders and not to your salary. For an employee, the returns diminish very sharply in the corporate word.
**4**- A higher position *can* mean more autonomy, but it also means managing people which is not something I enjoy. And since I do mostly contract work I already have some autonomy in choosing the projects I will work on.
Having said all that, I cannot get rid of the feeling that I'm somehow letting myself down. Rationally it all makes sense, but emotionally there is still my dad's voice in my head telling me that I should work hard. Is it worth listening to that voice?
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think the DOMA ruling today was badly decided. You cannot draw the connection from equal protection under the law to the unconstitutionality of a uniform definition of marriage. CMV +
+ I've been reading explanations of the ruling. Some say Kennedy, writing for the majority, [was sloppy in laying out the logic of the decision](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_breakfast_table/features/2013/supreme_court_2013/kennedy_s_doma_opinion_and_supreme_court_there_was_no_strong_constitutional.html), which I feel implicitly supports my main point.
I'm stuck up on something that apparently few others see, not even the dissenting opinions. Maybe that's because it's stupid and easily refuted, but I need it laid out for me: no one explains how *equal protection under the law* somehow renders unconstitutional the *uniformly applied* right to marry someone of the opposite gender.
Let me try to illustrate with a silly example. Suppose there was a law that gave everyone the right to record and publish a duet version of *Over the Rainbow*, but only so long as the other person of the duet resides in a different city than you. And say you get some tax break for doing this as a bonus.
Some people may wish to record the duet with someone who lives in the same city they do. They may even despise the idea of recording the duet with someone outside their city. Can they claim the fact they can't get the tax break means they're denied equal protection? I don't think so. They basically have the same status as someone who doesn't wish to record the duet at all. For whatever reason, the law says the tax breaks kick in under only the conditions specified. You could say it's arbitrary but it's not unconstitutional because *everyone has an equal right under that law* whether or not everyone exercises it.
As with other rights, some people don't even desire to exercise the right, or would rather the right be expanded. Such as, some people don't want to own guns and some people want to own (illegal) automatic weapons. It doesn't mean there's no equal protection.
In the case of same-sex marriage there are extra emotional stakes. But I don't think this is constitutionally relevant. One could say the thing we're equally protecting is the *right to marry who you love* but as far as I know that's not a rationale for marriage in statute. Plus it leads to uncomfortable slippery slope questions.
What am I not seeing?
| 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 the Death penalty doesn't serve justice at all CMV +
+ i think the Death Penalty doesn't serve justice. we'll take person A and say he killed and raped 10 kids. He's a horrible person. when he is found guilty and sentenced to death by lethal injection, he dies... and thats the end of his punishment. he doesn't feel pain. there is no long term suffering. there is no justice. he just ceases to exist. which in a way is almost rewarding him. because he could spend the rest of his life rotting away in a cell. thats justice. but to kill him and put him out of his misery is not a proper form of punishment. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I am not religious in any way, but I believe that reincarnation is more likely than the alternative. CMV. +
+ I'm not religious at all, so I don't necessarily believe in any particular religion's pseudoscientific layout of how the reincarnation process works. I also don't necessarily believe in anything like a "soul." So, nothing about my view has anything to do with religion at all.
My reasoning is as follows: from a materialist standpoint, your brain and my brain are just brains. They're just two different lumps of matter and energy. But, there's something different about them: if I put anesthesia into yours, you will quickly observe that time suddenly jumps ahead several hours (because you'll be out like a light and come to a few hours later). In fact, you can try this experiment with a thousand brains, but there's only one of them which will cause this effect. It's the one between your ears.
I have no idea why this is, but if you don't believe me, you can readily verify this yourself empirically! However, if I try this experiment, I'll get a completely different result. It's only the brain between my ears that makes this happen. Our results disagree.
Semantically, I will describe this phenomenon by stating that the number of conscious observers in the universe is not only greater than zero, but also greater than one. I hope we all find that postulate to be reasonable.
I have absolutely no idea how your consciousness works. But, I do know that things like anesthesia seem to be able to turn it on and off. Anesthesia works by disrupting certain physiological processes that are happening in your brain, so we conclude that these ongoing occurrence of these physical processes comprise part of the physical conditions that are necessary for your consciousness to occur.
Thus, we determine that your consciousness is profoundly influenced by the occurrence of certain physical processes. We don't know what they all are, but we do know that when the physical conditions necessary to support your consciousness go away, then your consciousness goes away, at least temporarily (i.e. you get knocked out). And when those same physical conditions return, it comes back (i.e. you wake up).
Furthermore, we note that if you administer anesthesia to any of the other 7 billion of brains on the planet, your consciousness continues, uninterrupted. So the physical conditions necessary for *you* to be conscious aren't the same as the ones necessary for *me* to be conscious. In the following discussion, I care only about the physical conditions necessary for you, specifically, to be conscious.
As it stands, while you're reading this, the proper physical conditions are currently in place for you to be conscious and observe things. They weren't always there - for instance, a thousand years ago, they weren't. However, for whatever reason, these physical conditions did end up arising, somehow. This apparently involved the development of a body and a brain and all that, and the development of a whole bunch of processes taking place inside that brain, and probably a bunch of mysterious other stuff that we know nothing about. But however it works, it all physically happened, and here you are reading this.
In the future, at some point you'll die. When this happens, the physiological processes which are necessary to make you conscious (like the ones which anesthesia disrupts) will cease, and you will stop observing things. Then, your brain and your body will also cease to exist.
Before you were born, things were the same way. During this time period, nature generated billions of brains, none of which caused you to become conscious and start existing. Eventually, for some reason, one did.
So, let's round it up:
When you die, the physical conditions necessary for you to consciously observe things will go away, just like before you were born. And, as far as I know, once you die, nothing significant about the Universe is going to be different pre-your-birth and post-your-death; in both cases, the relevant physical conditions are simply not in place for you to perceive things. We already know that when the universe is in such a state, it is completely possible for it to develop all of the necessary physical conditions needed for you - not me or anyone else, but you specifically - to become conscious. This has been empirically verified to happen at least once.
Occam's razor does not suggest spuriously assuming the existence of a mechanism by which this apparent property of the universe is ever going to change. The only way is if you think something significant about the Universe WILL be different pre-your-birth and post-your-death. This, of course, could be the case, but it is not simpler to assume a priori that it is.
CMV.
TL;DR: In short, when you die, you will cease to have a physical body or a brain, and the last time the universe was in such a state, it eventually led to you becoming conscious.
| 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 believe subjective sports should be allowed at the Olympics, CMV. +
+ Subjective sports cheapen Olympic medals, in an objective sport, the first person across the line of the team with the most goals wins.
In a subjective sport, judges cannot help but be biased towards people that they perceive as being good, or from countries that they like. It's a psychological thing.
On top of that, Equestrian isn't a contest of skill, but rather a contest of bank accounts.
List of subjective Olympic sports:
-Gymnastics/Rythmic Gymnastics
-Equestrian
-figure skating/ice dancing
-Freestyle Skiing/snowboarding
-synchronised swimming
-Trampoline | 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 it is more socially desirable for a person to drink too much than to drink sensibly +
+ Let me outline what 'too much' may be and what 'sensibly' may be.
Sensibly - The person may have had a lot to drink but you would not be able to tell if the person had been drinking
Too much - completely free, the person is clearly drunk. They perhaps are dancing like there's no tomorrow but there's a danger that they could be sick.
Let me ask you: how many house parties have you been too where you think "that was absolutely brilliant; I'll remember that for a long time" and everyone was drinking sensibly? Very few I imagine. On the other hand the parties that you most remember best are the ones where someone is doing something unusual and hilarious due to the amount of alcohol they have had.
Now, I had this conversation with a friend who argued the opposite bringing up the point that the person or people who drink too much may eventually become a burden to the whole party if they're sick. I, however, think that they would not be that much of a burden as you can give them some water and leave them alone, plus they've probably spiced the party up with their antics for two hours beforehand.
Basically, I believe a party where everyone is too drunk is much more desirable than a party where everyone drinks sensibly - even if it results in sickness.
Side note: an argument that references health will not CMV. I am speaking primarily of the 18 - 24 population and do not believe that this is acceptable for those that are much older.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I find the moral questions about eating meat funny. Please CMV. +
+ Disclaimer: I respect vegans and vegetarians and all other diets, even though i can't understand the reasons behind these diets. I like animals in general and i don't like mass farming and unnescessary cruel slaughtering methods.
I think the whole discussion about the morality of eating animals is something between funny and stupid. I often make jokes about mass farming, slaughter of baby animals and so on. It's not like i don't care, i find it amusing that we have that dilemma. I had a couple of ideas for t-shirts, that sum it up pretty good:
* Imagine a minimalistic drawing of 12 chickens stuffed into a tiny cage: "Cheaper by the dozen"
* A symbolic drawing of a slaughterhouse (something like cows on conveyor-belts towards a deadly saw-contraption) and beneath it: "Food... food never changes".
Why my view?
In respect to our digestive systems and our food preferences, we are pretty close to bears. And nobody would suggest that a bear stops fishing, even though he could survive just fine without any meat or fish. But, we are not just born as omnivores, we have that huge brain that tells us: The things we eat have feelings too and you should feel bad about eating it. The same brain told me to eat that darn animal in the first place! We got the teeth, the digestive system, the built-in preferences and yet, the brain tells us: This is questionable on a moral point of view. Why am I not a vegetarian, if that dilemma bothers me? I have no good answer for that. In general, i think we should feed our body, what our body is designed for.. but that does not really apply to the modern days either. Also: The "dilemma" does not really bother me, it's just pure irony in my view and i find that really funny.
How does my view affect my (social) life? For one, my Girlfriend is pretty angry. I showed her the cute little "bacon seed" picture once and every time we eat meat, she is somewhat unsure if she should eat that or not - and for the reasons above, I find that amusing - and then she is mad at me.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:Rapping is considerably easier than singing or playing a musical instrument. +
+ Allow me to preface by saying I love rap music. One of the reasons I like it, however, is because of how serious it does NOT take itself. When people talk about rappers being deep, I laugh most of the time. Especially if they cite Tupac. There are plenty of examples given from rappers who are very conscious and clever, but even those hardly ever say anything I feel holds a candle to good lyrics from other genres. Comparing it to actual poetry I feel is a very immature argument, and usually made by people who never read actual poetry. Also, as someone who has played different musical instruments and rapped, rapping at an elementary level was always much easier than playing an instrument. Singing takes years to learn well enough to do in public, but most people can jot down some typical rap lyrics with ease, and learn to recite them over a beat pretty easy.
Case in point, Eazy E became a famous rapper (even touring the white house) doing something he was terrible at. And rightfully so, because you can be a terrible rapper and still sell a ton of records and actually be considered great at what you do, and that does not apply to other forms of music.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: "A jury of your peers" is a horrible way to determine justice, and "professional jurors" are a much better alternative. +
+ I understand the reasoning behind the concept of a jury of your peers. I have some collegiate level law education but never finished my degree so I understand my view may be lacking critical information, hence why I'm here. The argument is also somewhat US-centric, but I understand that most western countries use the same style of law process.
Anyways, I feel that a jury of random people is fundamentally flawed. It's often said that trials are won at jury selection. I feel this way for a few reasons:
1) Any lawyer worth a fuck excludes jurors that he feels might cast their vote against his/her side - regardless of truth or evidence. If you have a black defendant, the defense wants to stack the jury with black people who have been hassled by the police at some time in their life. The prosecution wants 12 card carrying members of the KKK. Unbiased, neutral juries are basically non-existent.
2) As a whole, people are stupid. I've read plenty of articles and heard from multiple trial lawyers that CSI has ruined forensics for people. Some people refuse to vote guilty if there isn't enough forensic evidence, despite other overwhelming evidence. On the other side of the coin, some people are honestly not smart enough to understand things like DNA. Some people don't have the attention span to sit through Scooby Doo. And these people are deciding the future of people.
3) It's a fairly common joke that a jury is "twelve people not smart enough to avoid jury duty." Very few people view it as an honor to sit on a jury. The pay is almost nothing as compared to most people's normal jobs. Most people view it as a punishment. Thus, those people smart enough to get out of it do in fact get out of it. Thus leading me back to point number 1.
4) Juries routinely convict/free people on emotion, which has no place in a courtroom.
5) The average person has no grasp of the intricacies of laws. A regular joe may not understand the difference between murder 2 and manslaughter 1.
As a superior alternative, I would offer an alternative:
Professional Jurors. People who have a degree in law, or pass some sort of intelligence-related test can enter in as applicants for professional jurors. They'd go through a screening process and background check to ensure they're not part of a radical group of any sort, and I'd even be partial to them not being a republican/democrat. They would have to take an oath of neutrality, and have a limited one time term of service (I was thinking 2-4 years). During this time they cannot earn other income, and can never use their experience to do anything like write a book or sell their story. The position should pay *fairly* well, to the point where you can make a comfortable living but not an extravagant amount.
Their job is to then be a juror 5 days a week and nothing more. The only way they could be removed from a particular jury would be if an attorney showed good cause that they would be unconsciously biased (ie: they're related to the defendant or the victim or whatever).
I understand this system would be far from perfect - however, in my mind it is leaps and bounds ahead of our current system. I also understand that a trial with a jury of your peers is a right guaranteed by the American Constitution. I understand that is not changing any time soon. I am only arguing that professional jurors, properly regulated, would be a significant step forward from what we currently use in the US.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Nuclear reactors *if handled correctly* should be used more openly as a power source. +
+ After the Fukushima meltdown there has been a massive controversy about nuclear technology, ~~this is ignoring the fact that since the end of the cold war, reactor R&D and research have been stagnating. (Not research reactors but research into new reactor types and improvement)~~ and it's removal globally. Most notably in Europe (a tad biased, after all I live there) and in Japan. Here they are not only stopping the building of reactors but also shutting them down. What I don't understand is why we show off the only 3 meltdowns major meltdowns:
* 3 Mile island
* Fukushima
* Chernobyl
And focus on refining the technology and improving it. Not only has Japan and France had success with nuclear power but when the reactors are refurbished and manned with people who know what their doing the the true power of uranium's Mw/kg shines. ~~With Cherenkov radiation.~~
So.
Why don't we use them more often since they are so efficient and safe/stable when kept under conditions you would expect form any power plant?
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: If Portland can throw away 38 million gallons of water for no rational purpose, it should be selling water to California. +
+ So a teenager (not known to be carrying a horrible plague) peed in a reservoir, and Portland responded by draining the entire 38 million gallon reservoir. I believe this to be extremely stupid insofar as a single human's bladder contents cannot contaminate 38 million gallons of water in any meaningful way, and also insofar as numerous animals already "soil" the water daily.
I hestitate to call the move criminally stupid only insofar as Portland claims it has such a surplus of clean water that it could easily drain the reservoir on a whim and refill it several times over (without any real environmental impact).
If indeed this is true, and Oregon can easily afford the water for such shenanigans, then surely it's thirsty neighbor would be willing to pay for some of this excess water. It seems unfair and inefficient for Oregon to pour its rivers into the ocean while Californians have so little water to go around (and so much money with which to buy water).
CMV. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Aqua Man's use of his powers are incredibly unethical. +
+ So I was watching JL: Throne of Atlantis, and the way that they displayed Aqua Man's power over sentient sea life is pretty unethical. He summoned creatures like whales to do his bidding and in particular he exposed them to danger in such a manner that could threaten their lives. Then it occurred to me that his power actually compels the sea life to action and may not give them a choice. The primary reason I think this is worth a CMV is for the simple fact that the purpose of the justice League is to protect all things living, while utilizing what makes it's members exceptional. Aqua Man's use of his telepathy over sea life seems like it is exactly 100% counter intuitive to this. 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 think that voting third party in a presidential election is, overall, a waste of your vote. +
+ At least as the U.S. political environment currently stands. I think this applies to all elections, but to explain myself I'll just give a single example. The obvious example here would be the previous presidential election, fought primarily between Obama, Romney, and Ron Paul. My opinions on Ron himself aside, voting for a libertarian presidential candidate was a waste of a vote for anyone who chose to do so. I believe that anyone who, at least when it got closer to election day, honestly thought that Ron Paul would magically shoot up in ratings and somehow nab the election was either grossly misinformed or simply ignoring the facts in front of them.
It would have been smarter, and I think more pragmatic, to just suck it up and vote for either Romney or Obama. I get it, some people didn't like either of them, but the idea that there really was any more than two options was just an illusion, so it would have been better to vote for whichever you deemed the lesser of two evils, and if you wish, support your choice of third party candidate in other ways so that they perhaps have a better chance next election season. I know this is just one example, but I think the same thinking could apply to any past or future election. I could summarize by saying that in such important instances like presidential elections, pragmatism trumps ideology nine out of ten times, and voting third party simply isn't pragmatic. And with that, CMV.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: War should be fought by weapons embargos, NOT violence and military campaigns. +
+ My proposition is simple:
Wars are fought with weapons. They are literally the fuel for all modern conflicts. A practical and effective solution would be a multilateral approach at demilitarization and weapons embargos.
I say this as a general point as an emphasis on the ideological framework of waging war, not as some easy solution to the problem. I contend that serious movement behind this front will dramatically reduce armed conflict.
Currently, western ideology for fighting wars is overwhelmingly centered around use of force (Syria (2015), Iraq (2003), Afghanistan (2001), Bosnia (1995) etc...). This is obviously not optimal - new ideas must be implemented that efficiently and non-destructively (as possible) reduce the threat of war. I think this can be accomplished with a massive demilitarization campaign.
I will be back later to respond to queries!
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? |
SRS and the Reddit Fempire cannot possibly be considered a legitimate forum for discussion while banning users based on sex, political views, participation in other subreddits, etc. CMV. +
+ They call themselves a circlejerk but we all know they don't see themselves that way. Despite claims to ideological legitimacy, they are one of the most exclusive and ban-happy communities on Reddit, silencing users often for nothing more than their differing views. A community that refuses to hear opinions it disagrees with perpetuates its own closed-mindedness and ignorance. You can't refuse to listen to others and wonder why they don't take you seriously. If the Fempire really wanted to spread its message it would put the banhammer away and engage in actual discourse with those who challenge it. | 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 animal hunting is not immoral. +
+ Animal hunting is not immoral. Many anti-hunting activists like to claim that animal hunting is going to lead to the extinction of endangered species, but the reality is that most of the big game hunting targets, such as deer, wolves, lions, white rhinos and buffalo, are not endangered, nor in any significant danger of extinction. At most, they are merely vulnerable.
Another claim they like to make is that animal hunting is cruel to the animals. This is also false, or at least misleading. Death by bullets is arguably less painful than being killed by a predator in the wild, or dying in a slaughterhouse. PETA and the RSPCA kill more animals than hunters do.
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: The top 1% have earned their money and they deserve to keep it +
+ If people are tired of talking about the 1% I apologize, but I am curious about this idea. Does the phrase "they earned it so they deserve it" apply in this situation? I'm not debating income inequality. I'm concerned with how this "1%" is getting their money and are people angry that they simply have so much or because they are acquiring it by illegal means.
My view at this point is, possibly naively, that these people have earned their share so they are entitled to it and everyone else is just, for lack of a better phrase, sore losers. Please enlighten me and 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? |
I think Iron Man 2 was the objectively superior movie of the trilogy. CMV +
+ I realize that favoring one movie over another is largely subjective, so I'll try to frame this in such a way to emphasize the least controversially bad parts of the movies. I'd discuss the good parts, but this is already going to be long.
**Plotholes, cheating, and general stupidity**
***Iron Man 1***
First of all, the Jericho missile's effectiveness as a weapon of war is never established. The one time it is used in battle is against some mountains. Do you know who lives in mountains? Insurgents. Why would they ask Tony to build them something they're going to immediately waste? Wouldn't it be better to build something they can use repeatedly like a anti-air missile launcher or something that can destroy tanks? When Tony gets busted *not* building the missile, Raza gives him a day, knowing full well that is not nearly enough time to start from scratch to create a missile. Why? So he can finalize the plans for his escape?
Skipping ahead a bit, what is Obadiah's motivation? He's trying to kill Tony so he can take over the business, obviously, but why the rant about "maintaining the balance"? He's maintaining the balance by selling weapons to terrorists...?? And how about Raza's plan to beg Obadiah for Iron Man suits after Obadiah tried to screw him out of the bounty for stark? Now he's just going to trust Obadiah to give him enough weapons to conquer the world?
And finally, at the end. How does Tony survive? He is closer to the arc reactor explosion, yet he is blown away and Obadiah is killed. More importantly, the upgraded portable arc reactor in Obadiah's suit was destroyed, while Tony's original was exhausted. What did Tony do about his heart? Did he have time to craft another? Or are we to accept that "emergency backup power" (otherwise known as 0%) will last exactly as long as is necessary?
***Iron Man 2***
Being as I think this is the superior movie, I have much less to say about it. I will admit that details of Tony's new element are horribly convenient and hard to believe, but they don't break any rules at least. And before anyone mentions it, when Jarvis says it is "impossible to synthesize", he means there are no known ways to synthesize it, and Tony invents a new one, because he's Iron Man. Also, I don't get what advantage the whips give considering they can't cut through Iron Man armor for some reason, but whatever, every movie is equally bad about weapons able to penetrate the armor when it counts.
***Iron Man 3***
I have a really hard time buying that Tony has PTSD from the events of the Avengers. If anything it would have been his time in captivity, or nearly dying from his own bombs. Waking up in a terrorist video is every American's nightmare. But no, a little jaunt in the wormhole followed by a quick nap, that's just too much for Iron Man to take. And doesn't PTSD require a trigger? It just seems to happen at random. The times you would expect it to happen, like say during a fight, it doesn't. So uh...what was the point? Did killing a bunch of people cure his PTSD?
My next main problem is with the Extremis soldier on the plane. It is established earlier that Extremis soldiers are fireproof. and Iron Man kills him...with fire...?? And the skydiving scene was a complete cheat. "I'm going to electrify your arm"??? Yeah, I think we have a word for that. Electrocution. And even ignoring that Tony's suit is suddenly as versatile as Batman's utility belt and assuming that these people won't be charred husks by the time they reach the ground, the people on top are carrying the weight of 13 people beneath them with just their fingers and their clothes. If their fingers don't break, the clothes sure will.
And other people have mentioned this of course, but why didn't Tony use his army of Iron Man suits during the attack on his home? Might've been a great way to find the Mandarin *really fast* by capturing one of the helicopters with his army of Iron Men.
How does Tony summon parts of the Iron Man suit while his hands are tied up? He required very exaggerated arm motions to summon them in the beginning, and he can't move his wrists. Where did he learn to shoot? He has advanced targeting weaponry in the Iron Man suit, he's never had to aim before in the entire trilogy, suddenly he's as accurate as Hawkeye?
Why does Killian decide to torture Pepper by giving her super powers? Why doesn't he just torture her with torture? It is established that Killian can cut through Iron Man armor at will, how does he get trapped in the Mark 42? The Iron Patriot is hijacked and remote controlled to get the President off of Air Force One, how does Rhodes take command of it? If Jarvis can control an army of Iron Man suits all by himself, wtf do we need Tony Stark for any more? And on that thought...where is Jarvis? Tony's house is completely destroyed. Jarvis was presumably on the Mark 42, but that was destroyed along with every other Iron Man suit. So where is Jarvis? Did Tony just murder him to impress his girlfriend?
Why on earth does reddit like this movie, but hate on Iron Man 2? | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I see no reason why the notion that killing is immoral because it deprives people of future life shouldn't also apply to not yet existing people as well. CMV. +
+ One of the main reasons it is considered immoral to kill others is that you are depriving them of the life they would have lived. That, if you assume they would live a happy life, it would be better for them to live than to not live. That it's better to have a happy existence than no existence at all, and killing someone is depriving them of all the happiness they would have had had they not been killed.
However, I don't see why this same argument should not apply to unborn, nonexistent people as well. I'm not just talking about unborn fetuses, but also about people who haven't been conceived. If it's better to live than to not live, why isn't it wrong to *not* create as much life as possible? Surely it would be better for someone to be alive than not alive? Surely people would rather live than not have lived at all?
I have yet to see a reason why once someone is born (or, from some perspectives, conceived) the potential life they have suddenly becomes important. I understand that obviously there's a big difference (they are now alive and weren't before), but I don't see why, from an ethical perspective, that should change the value of their future life. Before they were born they had many years of potential future life, and once they are alive they still have many potential years of future life; why does already being alive add value to that potential future?
This leads me to the conclusion that every child one could have but doesn't is equivalent to killing a person, because you are depriving them of the life they could have had. This means that not having as many kids as possible over your lifetime would be committing a ton of murder. I don't think it makes sense for this to be the case, but I see no reason why it shouldn't be. 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 life was better before. CMV +
+ I earnestly believe that I was born in the wrong century. For me, life would have been much better, say, around the turn of the last century, when we didn't have all these modern conveniences such as internet, supermarkets, mobil phones, etc.
Of course, my view reflects living back then with substantial means. I realise that life has gotten somewhat better for the poor.
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: We have no control over our choices or the direction of our lives. +
+ (Im reposting this without the part calling you an asshole for judging people because 85% of people were ignoring the point and trying to convince me that its good to shame bad people)
This is best explained by this
If there are so many things influencing my decision, especially things I truly have no control over like my genes, how can I possibly have free will in any real sense? I'm just being buffeted around by the winds of chance.
I can think about my choices and then choose, but this is basically a delusion because the reality of the situation is that my entire personality, what defines me and the choices I make, is determined by genetics and environmental influences.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think people on reddit are unreasonably hostile to business interests. CMV. +
+ To clarify, I'm pretty solidly liberal, and I favor higher taxes and increased regulation. That being said, it seems like anything pretty much any company does, besides Valve, is immediately dismissed as a shameless cash-grab. The concept of turning a profit or increasing revenue is often considered morally wrong or downright evil.
The attitude towards piracy is a good example: whenever a company attempts to protect the product that they spent time and resources on from being stolen, it's viewed as proof of their greed. I think this is completely unreasonable. A company has the right and often the need to protect their product. Even if it costs nothing for someone else to download it, the software required a significant amount of money and effort to produce and bring to market. Except in a few extreme circumstances, efforts by companies to curtail piracy are totally reasonable.
Another notion that seems common on reddit is that corporations are evil who only want money and never did anything good for anyone. I think that, while it's obvious corporations want more money, that does not mean they haven't done any good along the way. Tech companies make life easier, agribusiness helps feed an enormous and growing population, and healthcare, while grossly overpriced, provides better treatment options than at any time in history.
To summarize, I think the idea that "turning a profit" and companies in general are evil is unreasonable. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
It is illogical and foolish to believe that science defines truth and logic. CMV +
+ I was just reading the top response (by machinaesonics) to the recent ["CMV: I think there is a chance Creationism might be true"](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1x3one/cmv_i_think_there_is_a_chance_creationism_might/) post. He uses an argument that has always bugged me. He essentially states that, accepting something as truth which cannot be *disproven* forces you to accept that *everything* which cannot be disproven. I *think* that my issue with this line of thought is that by "can't be disproven" he really means "can't be scientifically disproven".
I don't understand why *science* must be taken as the quintessence of truth and logic. I don't see how it is illogical to believe that there is non-scientific evidence for belief in a God. Note that the Wikipedia page concerning the [Existence of God](en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God) includes non-scientific arguments from all sides of the issue. This stance is harmful in, for example, a debate over Creationism. It simply puts the ball back into the Creationist's side of the court without addressing the issue. I love science- but I think it is foolish to put oneself inside of a box that only accepts truth which can be tested in a laboratory.
This is my first time posting here, and I'm not always great at putting my thoughts and feelings into words. So I apologize in advance if my stance requires some massaging! | resistant | 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 good reason for a store to ban the concealed carry of firearms unless they have their own armed security (USA) +
+ I believe that there is no good reason for stores to ban the concealed carry of firearms. My thinking boils down to one simple premise: Criminals ignore signs. By banning guns in your store, only criminals will have guns in your store.
I specified concealed carry because I think it is reasonable to ban open carry. Some people are scared of seeing guns and you don't want to scare away customers.
If a store has their own armed security (usually paired with metal detectors), I can see good reasons for this rule. For example, in the event of an incident, the security team will be able to sort out good/bad people more quickly.
I specified "USA" because gun laws and culture vary widely between countries (although the basic argument holds true other places). In the USA, many law-abiding citizens own and legally carry firearms.
Examples include Ikea, Target, and Whole Foods. These places do not seem to have armed security but they have a little sign on the door that says "gun free zone". I do not understand the purpose of this policy (other than PR). CMV!
If there are other reasons, I would love to hear them.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I see little value in saving endangered species, unless they are clearly connected to human survival. CMV +
+ To clarify; I appreciate the majesty of life, I feel sad when I hear about the poaching of an animal that is on the brink of extinction, and I'm really excited when we hear about a species that has returned to a normal population level.
However, I perceive these as emotional arguments, and struggle with justifying the use of resources, as there is no end goal other than "we can't let this happen!" and specious "the ecosphere is so fragile!" arguments.
I acknowledge that the ecosphere is fragile, but since the beginning of life on earth, species have lived and died. A common refrain to this point is "but never at this speed!" This is simply incorrect; there have been many mass extinctions in the past 3.6 billion years, yet life continued, eventually allowing our species to evolve. Having an unknown outcome does not mean we can ignore probability, and it is unlikely that the loss of a few species (or even many) will present a challenge to the adaptability of life (or human life) on earth.
So, please, CMV. This seems like an extremely unpopular opinion, and I would like to reason my way through it so I can understand where others are coming from. | 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 that math objectively exists. CMV +
+ I used to have a rather Platonic view of mathematics, but now I lean more towards a fictionalist view. Math is very useful, but I think that it is a product of the human mind, a study of how we abstract our world, that has gained popularity largely due to its usefulness. Mathematical concepts don't exist outside the context of the human mind and are not a fundamental part of the universe; we have no reason to think that our models are "true" outside of coincidence.
What we consider "proof" relies on shaky biases and assumptions, and what might be heralded as some cosmic "mathematical truth" is merely a result that we find interesting due to our bias for certain types of problems or its usefulness. | 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 Arthur C. Clarke quote about "two possibilities" in regard to extraterrestrial life is completely wrong. +
+ There's a quote attributed to Arthur C. Clarke that I see on the internet all the time:
"Two possibilities exist: Either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying."
Now, there may be some needed context / elaboration in the original text from which that quote is pulled, but taken alone I think it's a load of crap. The possibility of our being alone in the universe is, in my view, much, much, *much* more terrifying than the possibility of life existing somewhere else. I'm not sure how anyone could find the very idea of life on other planets unsettling in any way let alone terrifying. 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 using AdBlocker is wrong if a website isn't charging you to view its content. CMV. +
+ If you're viewing a website's content for free, I don't think you should be using AdBlocker when you visit. With browsers like Chrome automatically blocking pop-ups these days, the justification for using AdBlocker and similar add-ons becomes even weaker.
Many of these websites survive on ad revenue alone, and indeed, for a number of years, my income was directly tied to the ad revenue the websites I worked for brought in. If a website is hiding its content behind a paywall and then showing ads after you've signed up for a subscription, then I think there's an argument to be made for AdBlocker. However, if you're able to view their content for free, I think you're cheating them out of the revenue they need to to stay up and running by using one of these programs. 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 believe in Jury Nullification in that not only is a person on trial, but also the law that's being used against that person in that instance. +
+ [Jury nullification](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification) is the idea that juries can find a person not guilty even though they believe that she did commit the act with which she's being charged. I find this to be an amazing idea. If we assumed that all laws are perfect, then there's no need for trial by juries. Twelve judges with greater understanding of the law would make better jurist if all we're concerned with is if a person committed an act that's in violation of the law. With nullification, instead we have 12 reasonable people determining if the law is reasonable in this case. Not only is the person being put on trial, the law itself must be defended by the prosecutor as being justified in this specific case.
In the US, with its four levels of courts: local, county, state and federal; it provides a protection against abuses of jury nullification. For example, if a man murders a black lady is found not guilty by jury nullification in a county trial, the state and federal government can still convict him. The reason being though the murder was one act, the different levels of government each have their own laws against murder. The rules against double jeopardy do not apply in cases of different institutions convicting a person as they're different laws.
I not only think that jury nullification is a great idea, I believe it should be allowed for the defense to explain to juries about their right to acquit the defendant even if they believe he committed the crime. This in turn can help lead to changes in laws if legislatures begin to see that the people are not convicting other people for certain laws they find unjust.
To put it in perspective, I see the Appeals, District and Supreme Court as putting the law on trial in all cases. The Jury puts the law on trial for this one case.
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: regular toilet stalls are superior to handicapped stalls +
+ Whenever I'm in the bathroom, it always seems like people first take the handicapped stall before filling in the other stalls. This doesn't make sense to me for a couple reasons.
1. The toilet is lower in a regular stall, so you get better pooping ergonomics. I believe it has been shown that pooping while in a squatting position, or close to it, leads to faster, easier defecation.
2. The handicapped stalls are bigger, so it's harder to see if someone's occupying it. This leads to the awkward lean-underneath-to-check-if-someone's there situation. I have personally accidentally locked eyes with someone while doing that. Not a fun time.
3. If you're not handicapped, why do you need all that space? It's not like your standing or running around in there. You don't need any space to sit 'n shit.
4. You're taking a stall that an otherwise handicapped person may need. Do you want to be the person who walks out of a handicapped stall, while someone is still right outside, waiting for you to finish?
I know all this does not apply to handicapped people. I'm mainly directing this towards healthy people who unnecessarily take up handicapped stalls. Please change my view, or at least elucidate why people choose those stalls first. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Capitalism is cannibalistic +
+
My hypothesis: Capitalism is cannibalistic.
Due to a number of factors, economic actors on the bottom-end of the economy (the poor) eventually drop off the economic map and become non-actors. This leads to a concentration of currency in the remaining population of actors. With more money floating around, prices rise due to supply and demand principles (inflation). This decreases the purchasing power of the remaining actors, pushing more into the bottom end and eventually off the map, thus perpetuating the cycle.
Economic actors drop off the map for a number of reasons, some of which are:
1) Death, or poor health
2) It's expensive to be poor, i.e. low-end actors don't have the purchasing power to take advantage of bulk supplies and other cost-saving measures. Just the same, it's cheaper to hand craft supplies. This overall leads to a reduction of purchasing from the low-end actors.
3) Low-end actors are needed to fulfill manufacturing and production jobs so the cost of manufacturing remains low. But as costs rise, pay must stay the same or fall to make up losses in the profit margin. This encourages companies to move jobs into labor forces that can afford the low pay, like China. Further, automation in manufacturing reduces the number of people who have to be employed to create a product, reducing it's manufacturing cost. But, the product price isn't reduced accordingly, so the profit margin can remain high. This also contributes to creating non-actors.
4) As people struggle as low-end actors or become non-actors, they tend to become alienated by the very economic system that is supposed to support them. With faith lost in the system, they look to take advantage of what they can for survival. An alienation of the economic system then becomes an alienation of society in general. A rejection and alienation of law follows closely as these non-actors turn to stealing or selling illegal goods for survival.
5) At it's core, the exchange of currency is really the exchange of energy; the exchange of one type of work for another type of work. But, the rules of supply and demand arbitrarily change the value of that currency, not so that it best matches the energy invested into a product, but so the most currency gets exchanged for a certain amount of work as possible. The value is then set by psychological factors, not any true scientific or mathematical principles. That exchange of work for the most currency possible directly creates inflation and ultimately undermines the initial goal to attain wealth.
Again, when people drop off the map, the remaining money in the system gathers into the hands of the remaining actors, raising the concentration of currency among them. This increased concentration of currency increases the prices of goods for those actors, simultaneously making it harder for non-actors or slow actors to participate in the economy. That increase in price also counteracts any advantage gained from the concentration of currency. Therefore wealth doesn't actually increase.
The net result is an increase in inflation and a shrinking of the active participants in the economy. Actual average practical wealth per person doesn't increase. The economy literally cannibalizes itself.
Note: I realize regulations can and do change the variables in this equation, along with central banks playing around with interest rates, etc. But, the inherent equation is still there.
| 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 allowing people to have as many children as they want while continuing to give more and more assistance is hurting society. CMV. +
+ I think that with the improvement in medicine and infant mortality rate over the last century, coupled with social welfare programs (which I support), allowing unlimited children and providing assistance for all of them without taking away the children or disallowing the parents to have any more is unfair to the children who have to live in such dysfunction and unfair to the rest of society who have to pay for it. You can't help being poor, but you can help controlling your reproduction habits and there is no excuse for pumping out babies like they are puppies if you can't provide for them. At some point society needs to cut you off, one way or another.
I realized I have this view after seeing this post:
[1]
http://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/1or4vw/somebody_needs_to_be_accountable_and_needs_to/
And I realized I could possibly be wrong after reading this:
[2] http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/idiocracy.png
I do not agree with this comic, mainly because the unique time we live in regarding survival rate of children and abundance of social welfare programs. But XKCD is usually spot on so I want to give people a chance to provide a more in depth argument to sway me.
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 overtly paranoid about marketing and subtle ads is fucking stupid. +
+ I see a lot of the time people on reddit are jumping to crackpot paranoid conclusions every time they see a picture with some product hidden away in the background and accusing the OP of being a "shill" for the corporations (does this not sound like something a schizophrenic would say? I mean it must not because these are always the top comments on every post)Anyway they say it's because "reddit is not for companies to ADVERTISE on" But it's just pointless. I mean these so called "ads" are voted up to the front page BY the community.
I just see no harm in marketing tactics. Like everyone saying "The Interview" hacking thing was done by sony to catch attention towards the film and that the only rightful thing to do is to pirate it.
I mean who cares? At the end of the day it's completely harmless if the product being advertised is nice then buy it, if not then don't. It's not that hard.
The people flipping out about this stuff have to be living off grass and water in order to avoid being a "consumer". That's another thing why is being a consumer such a bad thing on this website? Is it because like everyone here watched Fight Club? If you're not living off of grass and water, in some cabin you built yourself with no electronics then you're a fucking consumer. Plain and simple.'
What harm could being advertised to possible cause on me? Why should I be worried about companies being advertised? Like I'm talking something dramatic not the same "becuz its not right reddit is an adless website for smart ppl" answer I want something to convince me to worry about these subtle marketing campaigns for my own well being. | 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 women earn less than men. +
+ I've seen a million studies that show women make less. I've seen a million studies that show men make less. And I've seen a million studies that show everyone makes about the same.
I think every study that shows that one gender makes more than the other is incomplete or fallacious, and I strongly believe that most studies are done by people who are looking for a particular outcome to prove what they already hope to be true.
When considering all aspects of employment (wages, hours worked, benefits, experience, occupation, and anything else that could be a factor) I seriously believe that men and women probably make a very similar number; a number so similar that there are no grounds for advocating either gender needs more pay. I am equally willing to believe that men make less money as I am to believe women make less money.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Telling People to "Just Be Yourself" With Regards to Dating is Horrible Advice. +
+ I want to clear up some probable misconceptions that people are going to have.
I am NOT saying that it is wrong to be happy with who you are or that it is a good idea to take on a false/deceptive persona to succeed in dating. What I am saying is that far too often people are given advice along the lines of "just be yourself and love will find you when it is right". Another, equally bad piece of advice is along the lines of "You should never try to change yourself. If someone doesn't love you for who you are, you're better off finding someone else."
These sounds like perfectly reasonable pieces of advice. Here's the problem though: this advice discourages people from honestly assessing their strengths and weaknesses and making concerted efforts to improve themselves as a person. It encourages complacency. We should always be seeking to change, reinvent ourselves, and evolve. If people have spent their lives being extremely unsuccessful at dating, clearly something is wrong and something has to be done to improve the situation. People don't accidentally fail at dating.
Unfortunately, this is advice is grounded in the horrifically unbalanced way in which Hollywood depicts romance & relationships. Our society has the broken notion that even the unmotivated , slightly out of shape and comically awkward guy always seems to get the girl. I'm sick and tired of hearing the old and obviously wrong notion that love is something that just falls in your lap rather than something that needs to be worked for and earned. Society doesn't owe me anything. Women especially but occasionally men often fall into the trap of fate and "The One". No magic is involved with finding someone to date. The harsh reality is that if you don't earnestly work on becoming a better, more appealing person, there is no reason for the girl or guy "of your dreams" to want to be with you. If you have flaws, it is better to work on improving yourself than to sit back and expect to find an amazing partner regardless.
Far better if more nuanced advice would be something along the lines of "Don't be yourself... Become the best version of yourself." Working hard to improve yourself is important for any area of life, whether it be academics, sports, business or any field. No one ever told Wayne Gretzky to "just be yourself" when he was starting out in hockey. He still needed coaches to point out when he had flaws in his play and where improvement was needed.
TL;DR Society has the wrong idea when they tell people to be themselves in order to succeed in dating. Hollywood unfortunately pushes the idea of fate and one true soulmate which is not in line with real life. Better advice is to encourage real growth and development, not to fall into a pattern of stagnation. CMV
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: History classes as they exist in the United States are not worth their time. +
+ This probably also extends beyond the United States.
Learning history is obviously important. We need to understand the influences that have shaped the world into its current form. Being able to think that way is important.
Memorizing the years of Millard Filmore's presidency is not.
Easily-accessible data that we can google should not be the focus of history classes. They should focus on making students thoughtful and involved in society. We should teach students about important issues (Cuban Missile Crisis, Watergate, women's suffrage, etc), but not countless details to memorize.
I realize I focused on the subject of United States history, but these arguments apply anywhere.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:The Greek System in college is pointless +
+ Everything about the Greek System seems redundant to me. I feel as if I can do just as good (if not better) by not being in Greek life than being in it. To me the Greek System is just an excuse to rapidly gain friends, social status, party, and it fosters a hive-mind mindset that is overall bad for the academic institutions they are apart of.
In my point of view Greek life does not offer any benefits that cannot be easily accomplished without being a member of it. There is some truth to it "buying friends" though not fully. Any club you join will help this, but Greek life is different than most clubs with it's hive-minded, cult-like attitude.
I am not saying Greek life is a cult, but I am saying I can see the similarities. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Everything is a business. No matter what you ask me about, it's a business. +
+ Everything works for profit, even charitable organizations, they don't even donate 100% of the funds to the needy. War is a business, keep people angry and violent and the governments involved rake the money in. Hospitals are a business, death does not phase doctors one bit, doctors do aim to help patients and surgeons do aim to help people in emergencies, but their passing away does not bother them and so long as they get paid their half-million dollars, they will stay working and the hospitals rake it in. Churches don't pay taxes and even they are a business. They ask for money every service. Mosques do pay taxes and also ask for money and donations. Religious organizations and building are a business. No money received for upkeep, they close down, people must find another way to worship or throw in their cash to keep their places of worship open. You have to pay money to look through those fucking telescope things at public parks.
I get that many services make these charges simply to keep things up and running, but my point is, there's not a thing in the world that does not charge money. Everything works for money. Please, give me an example of something that provides for others which does not run on money. The greedy people outnumber the compassionate ones, it's just not probable to find a service that doesn't charge anything just because the owner is "kind".
| 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 for Medical Marijuana to be taken seriously, specific amounts of specific strains should be prescribed, instead of the current system. +
+ The title is fairly self explanatory, but I'll expand.
Currently, in the state of California, you are prescribed a Medical Card from a doctor. This card allows you to access dispensaries and to purchase whatever strains you desire in whatever volume you want (up to a cap). This is unlike *any* other system of legitimate medication. In order for Marijuana's medical benefits to be taken seriously it should be prescribed much the same way prescription medication is. You should get prescribed specific strains based on their benefits, with specific instructions as to how they should be administered and with what technique.
*Background: I use marijuana medically to treat anxiety and lack of appetite. Before I found a method of treatment that worked I was on a course of Ritalin and then a course of Lexapro. While neither of the medications were effective for me, the method in which they were prescribed was extremely helpful. I believe the same method of prescription would help to legitimize Medical Marijuana*
| 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 when someone close to you dies it is obligatory to tell the people you are with. +
+ Anecdotes time.
1. Today I was working with a co-worker on a project. The co-worker gets me the files he was working on, I look them over and give him some notes. I notice it's taking him an unusually large amount of time to do a routine task and I check in on him. I ask to check out what he has so far to see if it works, so if it doesn't I can save him some time down the line. He says no. Long story short we have conflict (It was utterly ridiculous for him to flat out refuse). At the end of it he says "Sorry man, my friend died today and I'm not at my best work-wise." Great, now I feel like a dick and I was hard on him when he's already dealing with some shit.
2. I'm traveling in London in college with a couple of friends (guy and a gal) who are closer to each other than with me. The guy is straightedge (no drugs/alcohol) but claims he's ok with us drinking. We're at a fish and chips restaurant and we order a beer. We start talking about drinking and I half-seriously suggest he should try it in the way friends do, until he straight up starts crying. The gal asks me to go away while she calms him down, I leave and come back, and we leave. The guy is acting weird all week, and I'm 80% sure he's mad at me. Like, really, really mad at me. Eventually the girl pulls me aside and says "He didn't want me to tell you this, but his grandma passed away and that's why he's acting like this."
I feel like social standards dictate that grieving people have a right to act in nearly any way they want and it's pretty much okay, but I can't help but feel wronged in both these scenarios. I think if someone is dealing with something so profound as death and loss, and is in close quarters with me by nature of work, travel or so on, that I have a right to know that they're dealing with that, and that they have a responsibility to tell me what's happening.
When I think about it without those experiences I'm inclined to believe that grieving people get a carte blanche as long as their grieving process doesn't hurt anyone. But in both the scenarios I experienced, I felt wronged, and a bit pissed at the people who are grieving for not clueing me in. Overall I'm eager to hear what the hivemind has to say either way.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Universities should only and always charge for tuition with a percentage 'tax' on future earnings, which could vary by course. +
+ As I see it, there are two substantial problems with Universities at the moment (particuarly, but not exclusively, American Universities).
The first is that because governments subsidise so much of the tuition, universities are incentivised to offer completely pointless courses, which teach no useful skills. This could either be a totally meaningless course ("Underwater basket weaving 101") or a meaningful course with rubbish content (Engineering, but not teaching students how to differentiate). Either way the student is left virtually unemployable, the state has wasted a load of money and the university has made out like a bandit.
The second is that because governments don't *completely* subsidise education, poorer people who could benefit from university are disincentivised from attending.
One solution would be to enforce in law the requirement that universities can only charge for tuition by 'taxing' the future earnings of its graduates. For example a very high-quality university teaching a very high-value course might take 1% of all future earnings, while a very low-quality university teaching Underwater Basket Weaving might have to take 10% in order to stay afloat. The percentage rake could differ by course, and differ by student (so universities could compete for the best students by offering lower rates of 'tax', because they can be fairly sure that great students will go on to earn a lot of money). This system has a number of advantages:
* Most important: It encourages universities to offer only productive courses, and to ensure that the skills they teach on those courses are productive. It encourages students to pick courses with value, rather than courses they think would be fun.
* It is free at the point of use, so poorer students can always get an education
* It is progressive, because the rich end up paying more in 'tax', but it is not distortionary because everybody is still incentivised to earn as much as they can.
* It *can* work in a mixed market - so for example the government can still subsidise doctors in the UK where the NHS means their wages are artificially deflated compared to the US
* It acts as a very hard-to-fake signal of the University's competence; if the University know that they can spin straw into gold then they can offer low rates of 'tax' to weaker candidates because they can make up the difference through teaching students well. Universities which have a good reputation but don't add much value to students in terms of teaching won't be able to coast on that reputation, because reputation counts for less and less when there is a hard-to-fake signal of *exactly* how good you are.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I should give little or no money to charity during my life and instead save it and leave it in my will +
+ I've been thinking about personal finance recently, and this is a conclusion that seemed reasonable. However, I'm sure I haven't thought of all sides of the issue and would be interested in other points of view.
My reasoning:
I believe that if you have the means, you should be responsible for yourself and minimize the amount you take from others. This includes not only current living costs but future needs such as retirement and health care. I want to minimize the amount I take from public and private assistance, freeing that money up for people who really need it.
A disaster can happen at any time and can be incredibly expensive. In the US this is most likely to be a health issue.
I also want to be able to help my family and friends if they need it. While one could argue that charity recipients are no less deserving than my family, and I agree, I think we all have a unique responsibility to those closest to us. If I gave to everyone who deserved it, I would go broke. I don't have kids currently, but I might some day, and it's better to start saving as early as possible.
Because of this, I think the best option is to save as much as I can, letting it grow throughout my life, and then give whatever is left to charity in my will.
For what it's worth, I'm neither rich nor poor. I make above the median individual income, but less than the median household income.
Thanks
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think abstract art is just an excuse for bad artists to pass off their work as art. CMV. +
+ Every time I walk into an art exhibit and see modern art or something totally abstract, I don't believe it to be real art. I think to be an actual artist, you must have the ability to create something that no one else can really do. Whether it be amazing pencil drawings that look like black and white photos or unique and complicated sculptures chiseled by hand, it has to be something that would make the majority of people awestruck. I see some people taking a canvas and slapping on random coats of paint and trying to say it is art, and people actually buy it. There was a hoax in the 1960's called [Pierre Brassau](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Brassau) where someone gave a chimpanzee a paintbrush and had it paint randomly. The works were submitted and people thought it was real art. I don't understand how people can really think that something that could have been made by a kindergartner is really art. I realize that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but seriously? 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 the best form of argument is the one where opposing sides hold fast until conclusively stopped by firm and unshakable logic. +
+ The following is an unedited response I wrote in a recent discussion with mods about a deleted thread. (Yes, I have no shame.) I will offer no other specifics about that situation and I hold no ill will towards the mods or any CMV sub participant.
This discussion is only intended to be an examination of my beliefs, not a commentary on CMV itself, nor the actions of the mods in this instance. I support their decision and have fully abandoned my argument in favor of restoring the post.
As stated in my reply below, I will be attempting to follow the "spirit of the rules" with all respondents. Please forgive me if I stumble and feel free to call me out on it.
*****
**My message reply for context in this discussion:**
*****
For clarity, the specific assertion is as stated in the title:
**"I believe the best form of argument is the one where opposing sides hold fast until conclusively stopped by firm and unshakable logic."**
Reddit... Change My View.
*****
**THIS IS AN EDIT. THE FOLLOWING COMMENT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE OP. NOTHING ABOVE THIS LINE HAS BEEN ALTERED IN ANY WAY.**
How do I award Delta's and how do I know when to award them? I am new to this process and freely admit my ignorance of proper application. Can everyone please add a comment to any of my posts that you feel should include a Delta for the comment I am responding to?
*****
This may be the most compelling counter-argument I have seen so far, but I still have problems with it. I grant that arguing from "no reason" leads to a conclusion that cannot be disproven through reason, but I don't think I can grant that most topics fall under this description. Even a belief in God rests on reasons, though they be illogical reasons, and these reasons can be challenged through examination.
This is actually getting to the core of a problem with which I am currently struggling. If we begin from the assumption that one should not believe anything without first having good reason to believe (as I agree we should) we are left with nothing to believe in as absolutely nothing can be conclusively proven. At the base of everything is our subjective personal experiences and we have no way to know we are not a "brains in a jar," in a "simulation," or just a "butterfly dreaming" we are a man.
The final inescapable conclusion is that we know nothing and can prove nothing, yet it seems that we exist ("I think therefore I am") and that our (supposedly free-willed) choices alter our experience of "reality." So, I have come to the conclusion that we have no real alternative but to act "as if" reality is what it appears to be so far as we can tell.
Starting from that belief, we are able then to begin describing "reality" and ascribing value to choices and actions based on consequences if nothing else. We strive to define what is "good" and in so doing it is necessary to compare our experience with others and solicit feedback. The best method of mutual inquiry is not to start by saying we know nothing (a dead end if true), but to make a claim to what we think we do know from our own experience: to make a truth-claim about reality. Someone has got to stick their neck out, make a declaration, and defend their reasons under scrutiny.
It is then the job of the other participant to reveal flaws in this original claim. To arrive at the best possible truth, it is necessary for the opposing sides to support their claims to the best of their ability. If the one who makes the initial claim yields to a bad argument (specifically bad logic), then the process of seeking truth has been derailed, just as if the opponant yields to the original claim without making good challenges.
None of this means to suggest that a person should be unwilling to change their position if good reason exists to do so, only that such good reason should be based on "firm and unshakable logic" rather than flimsy and unstable illogical argument.
Does this clarify my perspective? | 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 not covering birth control pills (or other birth control methods) whilst covering erectile dysfunction medication (such as Viagra) is immoral. CMV. +
+ From what I know, the birth control pill (used by 54% of American women) became available with no copay in 2010. However, ED medication was available with no copay for a very long time. I come from a country with socialized healthcare (and thus this would never be a problem), but I am interested in American healthcare since there is a lot to be critiqued. My friend who is American told me that he thinks that it isn’t immoral because
* ED can cause health problems such as depression, insecurity which can manifest into other health problems, etc. due to not being able to have/maintain an erection
* Choosing to cover birth control pills is random and discriminates against women who can’t use pills but may use other methods (such as an IUD)
* That covering birth control pills if it helps with other conditions (PCOS for example) is fine, but covering it just so people can have sex is not
The reasons I think this is immoral is because
* The whole purpose of ED meds is solely to be able to have sex. By not allowing birth control for sexual purposes, you’re discriminating against women and men who agree to have sex the safe way. ED meds may allow sex to happen, but birth control pills allow it to happen safely.
* The biggest issue my friend said was that ED can turn into other problems when left untreated, such as depression. My argument is that being pregnant and giving birth can turn into other problems. Some women (and even some men!) suffer from post-partum depression (therefore BOTH things can cause depression) and I think we all agree that there are far more medical problems associated with pregnancy than ED. Also, given that abortions are not necessarily available, accessible (in terms of cost) or even safe for some women, that isn’t always an option to avoid those problems.
* I believe it discriminates against the poor, who are the people who need it the most. We all know people are going to have sex, and when given the option to do so safely, they will probably choose it. By this I mean that we see higher teen pregnancy rates in states where there is abstinence-only education. Giving people the knowledge of how to prevent birth and giving them the tools to do so, will generally decrease unplanned pregnancies. Poor people don’t have as much money to freely buy birth control and it is unrealistic to ask them to not have sex. I believe this creates a cycle of poverty which is immoral to propagate.
* ED is primarily caused by lifestyle choices. Without addressing all of those things first, it is immoral to cover a drug that can most likely be treated through healthier living while not covering birth control, as birth control protects both men and women from a perfectly healthy fact of life (that people have sex).
* Allowing birth control pills to be covered isn’t random, since it is the most widely used form of contraception after condoms. I believe it is ideal to allow all forms of birth control to be free (condoms, pills, IUD, diaphragm, etc.), but this is a step in the right direction. In ranking from most preferable to least, my opinion is: both ED and contraception covered, only contraception covered, only ED covered, none covered.
CMV!
The delta is also for reiterating the point that I was comparing two things that are fundamentally different, and when actually comparing analogous medical treatments, it is again an economic reason and not a moral reason for these things being covered/not covered.
However, I still believe there is hypocrisy in the (sometimes partial) coverage of ED meds and no (rare) coverage for equivalent female-specific arousal disorder treatments, which can be cheaper than the male equivalent. Another issue to be discussed another day. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Since the German Army is obviously in quite a shabby condition, it should be (mostly) abolished rather than brought back to strength +
+ For background, see this [link](http://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2014/09/26/german-military-struggles-with-hardware-problems)
Currently, the German military forces (Bundeswehr) - struggle with serious problems regarding the state of repair of their technical equipment and lack of recruits since the general draft was abolished some years ago. Currently, the Bundeswehr has serious technical issues sending 6 soldiers to Northern Iraq or the promised weapons to the Kurds in Turkey because of malfunctioning planes; it furthermore has serious troubles sending helicopters needed for [Operation Atalanta](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Atalanta).
Right now, about 4000 German soldiers are deployed in several operations abroad, with an active number of c. 182000 soldiers overall. Current cost of the Bundeswehr are abt. 33,3 billion € per year, quite a big chunk of the 302 billion € spent Germany spent overall in 2013.
My view that the Bundeswehr, as it exists now, is a thoroughly outdated army. It was envisioned and built in the early Cold War, when Germany was divided into two states and lived under the constant threat of becoming the front of World War III. West Germany needed a big army in that geo-political background. Nowadays, there is no state that would seriously consider actually militarily attacking or occupying Germany. The Russians that everyone feared in the 1950s did not attack, and even with Putin's foreign policy malarkey, they won't attack despite being - as I see it - the likeliest candidate, and even that is terribly unlikely. Germany is for all intents and purposes safe from invasion. If it would need an army at all, this army should not rely on huge numbers of soldiers but a small number of armed personell with high-quality vehicles (driving, flying, swimming, you name it) and cutting-edge weapon technology in conjunction with a reasonably-sized portion of the army that would be used for humanitarian efforts, rebuilding, state-building and training purposes abroad. I guess the number of soldiers could be a a quarter of what it is now and still function. I think this is a much more logical Bundeswehr to have in an era where we - luckily - do not have the threat of an all-out nation-state vs. nation-state war but will - sadly - face asymmetrical wars with heavy fighting of militarised groups (ISIS, Kurdish militas, civil war militas as in Syria, Boko Haram etc.). If at all possible, I would even remove the fighters from that new concept of the Bundeswehr and only have it have the humanitarian branch with armed defense.
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? |
I think that *not* eating meat is cruel. CMV +
+ (note, please set aside health issues. I think it's going to confuse the debate but if you MUST... then go for it).
I think that not eating meat is cruel.. specifically NOT eating lamb, chicken,
pork, etc.
Further, they must be killed in a humane manner (as humane as possible).
The one point I want to bring up ahead of time is that the animals MUST be respected and not abused and given a good life. This specifically excludes factory farming which I don't support.
There are basically three choices for an animal:
- the animal can not be born
- the animal could live in the wild
- the animal could be raised on a farm
I think it's better for the animal to exist. It gets to enjoy its life... which , as long as it isn't causing too much harm, is generally a good thing.
This means it could live on a farm, or in the wild.
It's MUCH better for an animal to live on the farm. It receives medical treatment (though basic by human standards). Protection from predators. A reliable source of food. Protection from the weather, etc.
The ONE tradeoff here is that one it reaches a mature age, it's killed and sold for meat.
I think this is a fair trade off.
Further, I think it's MORE ethical for these animals to exist. And the money to pay for them has to come from *somewhere* which is from the market ...
The alternative is to live wild. If you have objections to killing an animal in captivity, how do you feel about them dying in the wild? Starvation, predation, disease.
These aren't fun ways to die.
So in conclusion. It's far better for everyone involved to eat | 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 paying fines is an awful punishment for miseeds. +
+ Basically title. I suppose I can extend this to suing somebody as well, but that's not exactly the same point. It seems a bland punishment that doesn't really fit any crime besides theft / vandalism. You posted something bad on social media? Give us your money. You ran a stop sign? Give us your money. Yes, its meant as a punishment, and punishments are supposed to be things you don't enjoy. But it's a lazy method that says "You did something bad. Give us your money."
On the side note of suing people, I think it's just as ridiculous. Unless of course there are actually "damages". I'm sorry for the pain you went through, but here's $50,000. I hope you feel better now.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:Geoengineering by altering circulation patterns should be the main response to global warming. +
+ Climate-change advocacy focuses almost exclusively on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. That just amounts to making it worse more slowly, which is still making it worse. Of course we should cut emissions, to avoid make the solution (whatever it might be) harder than it already is. But we shouldn't pretend that making it worse more slowly is a solution.
Adaptation will be part of the response too. We're changing the climate, and we're going to have to adjust to the results. But again, it's not exactly a solution. We can do better.
Then there's geoengineering. That currently comes in two flavors: decreasing absorption of sunlight at Earth's surface, and removing some CO2 from the atmosphere. Both are plausible options, and should be researched much more than they are now, and put in place where and as they're cost-effective. But there's a third geoengineering option, which gets no attention: fussing with winds and ocean currents. And my hunch is that the third option will be better.
Weather is chaotic. It's unpredictable, over a time scale longer than a couple weeks. It's not just that it's a huge computing challenge.
It is a huge computing challenge: the sheer amount of data needed is so large that we have to leave out a lot of detail that does matter. But computers have improved to the point where weather forecasts are pretty good over the time range where they're possible.
The computing task is daunting, but that's not why it's impossible to forecast weather beyond a couple weeks. It's impossible to forecast weather beyond a couple weeks because, given two slightly-different initial states of the atmosphere (and distribution of ocean-surface temperature, and of temperature and moisture on the ground, but for simplicity let's just call it "states of the atmosphere"), the difference in the resulting states of the atmosphere grows exponentially with time. It's the proverbial butterfly effect: the initial difference might be the flap of a butterfly's wing, but after the two versions have been progressing for a month or two, one might have a tornado where the other has a clear sky. But it doesn't have to be a butterfly. It can be us. Suitably chosen small interventions will make big differences after a few weeks.
It won't be anything like control: the outcomes have to be among the basic range of possibilities. But there are differences that matter, within that range. It's as though we're betting at the same craps table, but every third game or so we see a chance to weight the dice. Conventional geoengineering involves a lot of work everywhere, to tweak the probabilities over the whole table. Adaptation adjusts the payouts. Circulation geoengineering makes a tiny change at just the right time and place, when the opportunity arises.
It's a complicated situation, not just the roll of a simple die. So there are many ways we may be able to intervene.
A key concept to understand is the Coriolis effect. Wind moves in response to pressure differences. Where the pressure is higher, that pushes air toward places where the pressure is lower. But that's not the direction the wind blows. Matter in motion tends to keep going the same direction; it takes a force to change it. As the planet rotates on its axis, the wind tries to keep going the same absolute direction, not the same direction relative to the earth. In our rotating perspective, it veers off to the side. It keeps doing so until the pressure gradient exactly balances the Coriolis force, and wind flows along isobars (lines of equal pressure) instead of from high pressure to low.
That theoretical condition is called the geostrophic wind. Temperature differences drive the wind by creating pressure differences pushing in the direction that would transport heat, and the geostrophic wind blows crosswise to that. So given a constant temperature distribution on the ground, the geostrophic wind wouldn't transport any heat. There are a number of differences between real winds and the geostrophic wind, but the main one is drag. Drag makes the wind slower than geostrophic, so some air can flow down the pressure gradient.
So if we want heat transported, all we have to do is create drag. Our inteverntions don't have to do any work: the wind would do work on them.
There's hardly any drag more than a hundred meters or so above the ground. So modest drag from [airborne wind turbines](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_wind_turbine) could make a big relative difference. Airborne wind turbines are in a relatively early stage of development, but their promoters claim they would be cost-competitive with other sources of energy. If so, the intervention might even pay for itself.
There's more I could say, such as about the transport of moisture and using snow cover to affect albedo, but I'm getting long-winded already.
Thank you!
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I do not believe that the USA should be considered a Democratic state. CMV +
+ Firstly, let me get something straight. The USA is technically a democracy, in the strict sense that the legislative organs and government is directly and indirectly elected by the people. But, by the same definition, [China is also a Democracy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China) - the local People's Congresses are directly elected, who in turn elect their representatives for the National people's congress.
Clearly, simply having elected representatives does not qualify you as a democracy, and I would assume most people are not willing to call China a democratic state.
Instead, I would argue that what most people mean by Democratic state is one where all commonly held opinions and ideas held by the populous are represented in the legislative process, and that all ideas and ideologies have equal opportunity to gain representation. By such a definition, China falls short, since only opinions within the Communist party's ideology are represented in the NPC. But so does the United States, given the plural, two party system it upholds.
After all, if we look the parliaments of states usually considered to be democratic, we find a huge range of views and ideologies represented. Everything from the usually marginal Green, Socialist/Communist, Libertarian and Nationalist range of parties, to the usually more dominant Social democrat, Liberal and Conservative parties have representatives in parliament. This is not the case in the US nor in China, where the system itself prevents any ideologies not part of the political establishment from gaining representation (regardless of popular support).
I would assume that this view is rather unique, 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? |
All US public schools (jr high-high school) should have a theology class in them. CMV +
+ Religion is a major part of our world whether you want to acknowledge it or not. Whether it be from politics to war, religion has played a huge impact on our history.
That is why I believe that all US public schools should have a theology class. This isn't a class that is to indoctrinate kids, or for a person to say that science is wrong. The class would teach the history of the world's major religions, their beliefs, and how they impact our world today.
We need a class like this more than ever. Just look at the rise of Islamophobia since 9/11 and it's still around thanks to the Religious Right and various other hate groups in America.
As far as which religions, I think a class should cover the most popular following: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism. Of course there is room for various others but those are the big 5 that most people know about.
Whether or not you like religion, you cannot deny it's impact on humanity's history. | 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 that human race would be much better off without countries CMV +
+ From what I can see so many of the worlds problems have spawned as a result of national interest. Countries use humans as pawns to retain their power, they cause war, exploit, deceit and are in constant competition with each other and in the nuclear age countries are the reason disarmament at this point is only a fantasy. Poorer countries are essentially in a race to the bottom when corporations are looking to offshore cheap labour, Would the alternatives to a world without borders be any better? | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe anyone who supports libraries has no grounds to oppose filesharing. CMV +
+ Some common arguments I hear against this are:
* "But the library pays for its copy." So does the original seeder of a torrent. The number of people who use a copy is far greater than the number of copies that were paid for in both cases.
* "Only one person can borrow a book from a library at a time, whereas any number of people can download a torrent." That's true, but unlike music, you're not going to be reading a book every day. You borrow it once, and then you're done with it. Consider the parallel to video games. If you torrent a single player game, you'll probably play it once and then be done with it, which means you could have gotten it out of a library with no difference at all. Either way, you're receiving something while paying nothing.
* "But you do pay for libraries through taxes." Well, you also pay for internet access. In both cases, there's some physical infrastructure that needs to be built and maintained, but once that's done, you can use it to access any amount of information with no additional charge.
* "Authors give permission to have their books lent out at libraries, but artists don't give permission to have their content shared online." I'm pretty sure they don't ask each individual author if they're okay with having their books lent out at a library. It's just assumed that they are, because libraries are so accepted. If libraries weren't accepted and someone proposed them, the exact same arguments that are made against filesharing would be made against them.
* "Stop trying to justify yourself and just admit that you're a thief!" Let's just avoid the ad-hominims altogether, shall we?
In the end, libraries and filesharing operate on the exact same principle, except filesharing is more efficient. If people understood this, the opposition to filesharing would vanish. CMV | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Anti-bully campaigns are detrimental to fixing the problem +
+ When I was a kid, I was always told the old phrase "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me". And for me, it still rings true.
It taught me to realize that nothing people say is going to do anything to me. It is completely inconsequential.
But these anti-bully campaigns aren't doing that. They are shifting the responsibility. They are telling kids that they can't control their situation. They don't control their feelings, they don't control the way they respond. It is teaching kids that everything bad is the fault of another person.
This removes the power from these kids. It makes them think that their happiness is based upon the actions and thoughts of people.
That they must rely on the graces of other people.
And this is in complete contradiction to the idea of being happy with yourself.
People should be taught that their only source of validation should be themselves. They control how they feel, they control what they want. No one else does.
But all these campaigns do is validate their feelings. It causes them to be slaves to them because not only are they unable to control them, they are told that they shouldn't or even can't control them.
People should be the masters of their emotions and of themselves. But each day, every anti-bullying campaign, every time someone takes offense at words, every time someone blames another, all they are doing is relinquishing control.
It doesn't make sense how anyone could honestly support this line of thinking.
Of course, this all started after I was downvoted, a lot, for telling people their offense originates with themselves, it isn't caused by another person and it doesn't grant them special rights.
http://www.np.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/1wnxta/a_buddy_of_mine_had_to_discipline_a_student_for/cf44ghn[1] | 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 athletes contribute nothing to society other than entertainment, and therefore should not be paid more than more useful professions. +
+ I find the world's positive and admiring attitude of the sport's world extremely over-inflated. When I turn on the TV to check out the football or basketball game everyone's talking about, all I see are muscular guys running back and forth down the field or court in brightly-colored uniforms. But that's it. I don't see athletes saving lives with cutting-edge medical techniques or teaching classes or designing/building the newest pieces of technology; these are the things that deserve the money and the admiration, because without these professions (and many more), society would not function as it does today. Why do we glorify athletes and pay them thousands of dollars more than we should for only providing us with a few hours' worth of good television? I'm not saying that I hate athletes or that I hate sports; I'm just as entertained as you are. I'm even a little jealous of their athletic ability, because I'm not a sports connoisseur, but I just don't find what athletes do to be worth what they receive. 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? |
I believe mandatory minimum laws have no place in society CMV +
+ Mandatory minimum laws mean that a judge, when faced with a case that ticks certain boxes, cannot give a lesser sentence than prescribed. Essentially the sentence is given by a piece of paper, this can lead to absurd results and the judge - who's job it is to exercise discretion - is not given the freedom to choose the punishment.
I dont believe this has any basis in law, morality or ethics and is simply a political ploy to gain votes for being "tough on crime" | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe people divide into two groups: "breeding" drones, and thinkers. CMV. +
+ I've observed that there are two basic types of people. Please take note that I don't consider neither of them to be better nor worse than the other, I just think that these two groups differ, but both need themselves to live.
The first group are the most common people. They are the typical pedestrians that you see everyday. They may have boring jobs, as well as fascinating jobs, or none at all. The thing about them is that they don't think about living, they just do it, therefore these people are better suited for living in societies. But they are also easily influenced by the prime instincts that humans have. Their point of life is to find an attractive partner to start a family with, and breed an optimal for their area amount of children.
The second group are the thinkers, they're the eccentric types that may seem somewhat socially impaired. They think about every purpose of what they do in their lives, and try to find a logical explanation. Because of that, they wonder why should they follow the fashion, do what is "socially acceptable" and adapt to their environment. The thinkers don't have to be more intelligent or capable than the common people, they don't have to invent any revolutionary designs. What makes them that group is that they have a skeptic attitude to life.
I feel kind of wrong for dividing people into two basic groups like these, so CMV.
A lot of people get me wrong. As I stated before, I do not believe that any of these groups is better that the other in any way. A lot of people concentrate on particular words I used. For example when I said "drones", I didn't literally mean it, what I meant however is that those "drones" are not mindless creatures at all, they're normal people just like everyone else. They are not the ones that are different, or should be focused on. The people who are different are the second group, what defines them is their individuality and ability to neglect the "socially acceptable" way of life. When I meet a person for the first time, I know nothing about them, and I'm aware of that. I don't make any assumptions about people because that's simply illogical. I can't tell whether a person fits to the first or second group even though I might know them for a longer time, because I can't crawl into anyone's mind and read it. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |