input
stringlengths 114
23.1k
| output
stringclasses 2
values | instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|
CMV: I don't disagree with the core philosophy, but I hate the name "feminism" and don't think things like Women's Resource Centers have a place in the developed world. +
+ I think it's worth noting I am a male. I understand the driving force behind the feminist movement, but I think that a lot of the measures that have been taken are now counterproductive to the goal, including the name itself.
Let's start with that. The goal of feminism is, or at least should be, equality. Men and women and transgender individuals and whatever other gender you feel you are should be equal. I'm all for that, but as feminists, why choose a name that now singles out women? Especially considering the negative connotations that are applied to "feminists" due to extreme feminists that seem to be more prevalent in society, whether it is because they are more abundant or because they voice their opinion so much more than the average feminist. These connotations seem to turn public opinion away from the feminist movement. Why not label yourselves as something like egalitarian?
Secondly, when it comes to Women's Resource Centers, like those at many colleges across the U.S., I think that, on the front of equality, these do nothing, like a band-aid on a broken bone. There are lots of great things that they do, but why do they need a specific label for women? You can learn about sexual health? Awesome. You can get support after traumatic experiences? Great! But men need those things too, and it's actually pretty hard for us to come by. Why not "Health Resource Centers"?
Alright ladies and gentlemen, change my view.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe movies on imdb with more than 20 - 30 years should not be open for rating, CMV +
+ I state this because I think movies in general are made/released in the context of their time and that people who see them decades in the future might not really understand them or their importance/quality.
I can give 2 examples: some years ago I saw Citizen kane for the first time, I understand as a movie being realeased in the time of musicals and westerns it must have been an amazing breath of fresh air, but decades away it's looks to me just as an ok movie, so I refrained from rating as it would be unfair to give it a relativelly slow rating.
Another example was the blues brothers: saw it weeks ago and thought it was mainly boring and childish, after seeing the reviews (and trying to understand the high rating) I realized at it's time with those actors, those cameos it must have been something great, just not from my actual point of view...
(this could probably be said about most movies of the 80s)
SO basicly that's it: movies/tv shows should be judged in the context of their time and rating them decades in the future will result in unfair ratings. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: My classmates' cheating devalues my degree +
+ I do not simply mean that I will get a lower grade in a given course because of it, but that it might bring about allegations of "grade inflation" or otherwise call into question the rigor of the program.
**For the sake of argument, let us assume that my individual grades will be unaffected by the actions of my peers**, meaning that the courses are either graded on an absolute scale or that I am sufficiently (dumb/average/smart) enough that my final grade on a curved scale will be unaffected by a shift in the distribution.
I would argue that my individual grades remaining unaffected, however, does not mean that I am unaffected. In a time when allegations of grade inflation run rampant, an abundance of A's and B's in a course can raise red-flags. Furthermore, even if the courses are graded on curves -- so that the number of A's and B's is kept reasonably low -- employers and graduate programs may become skeptical of the rigor of an undergraduate program if they find that their 3.7–4.0 students fizzle out. In both cases, some students have their grades inflated and their otherwise impressive GPA is found to represent lackluster ability, thereby reflecting negatively upon their peers -- some of whom may have actually earned that GPA.
To be clear, I **am not** looking for people to argue against the following points:
1. "Consistently cheating in classes can significantly inflate someone's GPA." I have seen this happen with multiple students.
2. "My grade will be unaffected by the actions of my peers, even if the class is curved." As with the previous point, I have found this to be true.
**I would like for people to argue against the following point:**
"Grade inflation caused by widespread cheating can adversely affect the value of my degree by undermining the integrity and the rigor of the program."
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:Television are obsolete/very close to obsolete +
+ It seems like most people around us at least own a TV. I have not touched TV for at least a year, and when I do it is usually very brief. If I do not have a TV now, I cannot find any excuse to it. I find TV useless when one could afford a computer with decent internet connection. Why? Let me list my reasons.
1. TV alone cannot do everything PC can, and PC can do almost everything TV can. Sure you could watch sport on TV, but you could do the same on internet. Sure you could watch news on TV, but you could watch those same channels on internet, and have other choices such as blogs. Those movie and TV show are available on PC from providers like Netflix, while other extremly popular medias available on computer like YouTube are not available on normal TV. Smart TVs have them, but they cost more than regular TV, and you may as well buy a decent computer.
2. TVs are poor substitute for computer monitor. I could buy a decent 1440p 27 inch PLS monitor like this: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA4JH1H16177
Or I could spend similar amount of money for 720p 32 inch TVs like these:
http://www.bestbuy.ca/en-CA/category/televisions/21344.aspx?type=product&NVID=departments%3BTV+%26+Home+Theatre%3BTelevisions%3Bim%3Bc1%3Br1%3Ben&filter=category%253aTV%2B%2526%2BHome%2BTheatre%253bcategory%253aTelevisions%253bpricerangennn%253a%2524200%2B-%2B%2524299.99
BestBuy may not always be the best place to buy TV, but you still can't get a better monitor replacement with another $100:
http://www.bestbuy.ca/en-CA/category/televisions/21344.aspx?type=product&NVID=departments%3BTV+%26+Home+Theatre%3BTelevisions%3Bim%3Bc1%3Br1%3Ben&filter=category%253aTV%2B%2526%2BHome%2BTheatre%253bcategory%253aTelevisions%253bpricerangennn%253a%2524300%2B-%2B%2524399.99
Other than that, there are other more technical problems to use TV as monitor replacement, and we could discuss it on request.
3. Gaming quality on computer is at least on par with TV, if not better. I don't want to stir up another war of PC vs Console, but I think it is safe to say PC could provide similar gaming quality at the same cost as console. In addition, PC have more choices such as MMO and upgrade potential. This means people could pay more on PC to get a premium experience, while consoles only offer its potential in a very narrow price range. If a person own a decent TV, there is a good chance that he also own a computer. Buying a decent graphic card as an upgrade is not really more expensive than buying a console, and the TV itself cost separately. Again, I will elaborate on this upon request.
4.TVs are not mobile, while laptops are. Even if they are, things like chromebook defeat their purpose.
5. Computers don't really cost more. If you pay for TV channels, then you could pay for internet. I personally find internet more important than the latter. As well, you get could still get access to those shows with internet. As stated in point 2 and 3, TVs are not really that much cost effective either. What is the point of TV now?
View change: TV is useful for a group of people, and especially in a family with young child.
View change: TV is not in danger of rapid decline in at least a few years. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think paternity tests should be a culturally standard part of the birth-giving experience. CMV. +
+ I think by having routine paternity tests done at birth, there would be numerous benefits. Before this gets brought up, in my vision of this, the new parents could opt out if they wanted to, but...
* Definite proof of genetic history. Suppose certain diseases run through the biological father's side of the family. If the biological father of the child is not the "societal" father, this information might fall through the cracks.
* Presumably less difficult/awkward conversations. If the husband/boyfriend/whatever suspects infidelity, or even just wants peace of mind, the issue of trust comes up. With standard paternity tests done at birth, much of this could be avoided, all without having to force a man to accuse his partner of being unfaithful.
* Possibly better for relationships. For some men, myself included, I feel I would be able to have a better relationship with the child if I knew without a doubt it was mine. There would never be any nagging questions at the back of my mind.
* No man would ever get tricked into paying for a child that wasn't his, unless he explicitly took that risk (by opting out of the test).
So reddit, why WOULDN'T this be a good idea? Again, if cost of the procedure is the issue, of course the parents could back out. I am more of the opinion that making this a culturally normal part of the birthing process would be nothing but a good thing.
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 liberal arts have no place in universities. CMV +
+ First, let me be clear that I'm not saying liberal arts aren't valuable. I think they're critical for a healthy society, and I'm an amateur artist and writer myself. I just don't think universities are an appropriate environment for them to be taught in. I think the only subjects that should be taught in universities are ones that meet the following three criteria:
* Difficult to learn without a teacher
* Not subjective
* Not best learned by practice*
For example, if you want to become a writer, the absolute best thing you can do is spend a bunch of time writing. But if you want to learn calculus, you can't do that by practicing algebra a bunch. I think liberal arts should be taught in a more casual setting, like a writer's group, or through tutors, and only harder subjects should be taught at universities.
* There seems to be some confusion, which is my fault. I mean not best learned by practice *alone*. Of course you need to practice calculus if you want to learn it, but you also need someone to teach it to you. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Minecraft should not be the best selling PC game of all time +
+ Minecraft is fun to play sometimes, but it is too basic. I used to have hours clocked into the game because it was like playing with LEGO. I loved it, but now I am beginning to hate most of the things I loved about it. I used to be against people who have said this, but after loosing my lego and minecraft addiction and getting a Steam game addiction, I can no longer get into it because it is too basic and I see it EVERYWHERE! I see it in the bookstores, malls, clothing stores, and in every area of YouTube. Please help me change my view and get back into Minecraft.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe convenience fees are merely bullshit and should be downright illegal. CMV +
+ When ever I go to pay a bill own my own with out the aid of a company I hate the fact that I'm charged additional money merely for my "convenience". The fact that I'm being additionally charged because I handled the transaction myself sounds down right stupid. I feel as if the company should give me a discount or just abolish any additional "convenience" fee charges completely. Companies who charge convenience fees seem to be only nothing but trying to increase profit over actually providing a just service on where both the consumer and the business are on equal terms when it comes to paying due's. I find convenience fee's completely unfair and wrong there for they should be highly illegal. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I feel that reducing games to math and number crunching is killing role playing and takes away the spirit of the game. +
+ RPGs. Pokemon. World of Warcraft. Magic: The Gathering. Dungeons & Dragons...Doesn't matter the game. I've seen a sad and disturbing trend over the years of gamers focusing more on crafting mathematically perfect power characters, than on savoring the flavor of the game.
WoW is especially guilty of this. Everything is reduced to knowingg the best rotation of attacks and then repeating that ad nauseum until the boss drops. There's no flair. No style. No panache. No real fun.
D&D was once the ultimate open ended adventure. No limits beyond imagination, with a few core rules to operate within the world. Now everything is reduced to statistics, math, and number crunching loopholes. Every character has at least one 18 stat. Usually two. How many Rogues are out there with 18s in Dexterity, Constitution, and Charisma? (And usually Strength for those who are particularly shameless)
M:tG, Pokemon, and other card games? I doubt too many players even read the cards beyond the numbers or effects. Who even imagines the battle? The monsters and spells going off?
Even poker, blackjack, and gambling, while not RPGs, have had most of the fun and elegance stripped from them by mathematicians and human calculators.
I have played all these games in one form or another for over thirty years. I belong to subreddits dedicated to them. Almost every post gets reduced to the math instead of the creativity or the story. I blame video games for most of it. The video game mindset has leeched into the soil of pen and paper gaming. When I hear D&D players use video game buzzwords like "spamming", "tanking", and "aggro", during play, I feel a bit sad, because they are taking something SO wide open that anything can happen, and confining it within video game limitations because that's what they know. *"If I push X then X will happen."* What about thinking outside the controller or the keyboard? Imagination and creativity are what makes these games special. Not memorization and repetition of sequences, patterns, and key bindings.
I don't think that is fun nor do I think it is good for games overall. When you reduce games to stats and numbers, you rip away all the skin, meat, and soul of the game and are reduced to manipulating the bare, dead skeleton.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think History is a worthless subject. CMV +
+ The only thing I see history being taught for is so that more history teachers can roam the earth. I see no practical use for a History major. Learning from past mistakes is great. But I just don't see what you could use the knowledge of 'Henry VIII had six wives' for. I've got no idea how you would make any sort of money, or be a productive member of society, or help advance our civilization by knowing miscellaneous stuff like that. The only place I could see anyone applying a history major is as a teacher, which is pretty pointless, seeing as it never does anything, why have someone teach it?
**tldr: What does one do with a history major, and how does history knowledge positively affect our current society?**
Also, please tell me if I need to go into further detail, or I did something earth-shatteringly wrong, because this is my first time posting here. | 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 if internet fast lanes were legalized, the monopoly/duopoly issue with ISPs would solve itself. +
+ I believe the reason there is no competition among ISPs is because of the fact there is nothing to spark said competition. If there was an idea, such as internet fast-lanes, of which the price and speed could be competed about, then two things would happen.
1. New ISPs would no longer form monopolies so quickly due to the competition sparked by fast lanes
2. Internet fast lanes would not simply lower standards for internet, because ISPs would compete with each other about fast lanes and lower prices/ raise speed in order to get more customers, instead of just raising price and lowering speed because there is no competition.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Our superior ability to communicate with each other is the only thing separating us from other animals. +
+ Hi CMV!
I was discussing the differences between animals and humans with a friend today and he argued that humans are superior because of our critical thinking abilities and our abilities to recognize patterns.
I disagree with this POV because he had no proof that other animals aren't as smart as us.
I believe that the only barrier between the abilities of a human and the abilities of other animals is that they can't communicate as well as we can. I believe we have no way of knowing how smart they are because they cannot effectively communicate with us.
That being said, I have no proof either, so I would be interested in seeing proof of either side of our debate.
Thanks for any responses!
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Free-market capitalism is real-time democracy +
+ As consumers in a free market we vote numerous times every day using our wallets. We vote on how humanely animals should be treated by paying this steak-house or that vegan restaurant. We vote on how important environmental issues are by paying this hybrid manufacturer or that truck manufacturer. We vote on cost vs quality, efficiency vs effectiveness, the importance of privacy, on and on, every day.
People start companies to create supply which meets demand. That demand is power we all exercise every day. Wal-mart will disappear if we stop paying it to exist and instead buy local. Facebook will disappear if we stop giving it our personal information. Going down the list of CMV topics, a large portion of them could be solved through majority rule by us changing our actions as consumers in a free-market. And we don't need to wait until the next election cycle to do so.
Of course consumer awareness is important, and can be manipulated through advertising and behavioral economics. But that's no different than voter awareness or political misinformation.
I think when we want change we should look to our real-time power as consumers in a free market. Not occasional forced policies through our government institutions. CMV.
(note this is a repost of my CMV here: http://redd.it/24lrn8. i was having problems with a new mobile app and must have accidentally deleted the post. sorry to all who were having conversations.)
| 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 income inequality is a good thing. +
+ I hear a lot of people these days, especially on this site, talk a lot about how income inequality is Public Enemy No. 1 and needs to be alleviated. However, when I think "income inequality," I think about people making different money based on what the market says is appropriate. I disagree with the idea that there should be a cap on income that people make, nor should there be a range that all salaries/wages have to stay in. What I'm trying to say is, if everyone made the same or similar amounts of money, why would there be incentive to climb the socioeconomic ladder?
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe that there is no level of radiation that can be considered safe. CMV +
+ Consensus reports from the UN's National Research Council’s 16 year long study on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation maintain, "There is no threshold of exposure below which low levels of ionizing radiation can be demonstrated to be harmless or beneficial."
As noted in [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis): "While the French Academy of Sciences stated in their 2005 report concerning the effects of low-level radiation that many laboratory studies have observed radiation hormesis. However, they cautioned that it is not yet known if radiation hormesis occurs outside the laboratory, or in humans."
The U.S. is pushing hard to sway public trust in favor of nuclear power, to the extent they are willing to downplay its very real dangers and risks, and even lie outright to the American people. In the wake of Fukushima and a renewed push-back, pro-nuclear lobbyists have attempted to convince the public that some small levels of radiation are harmless, and may even be good for you--but I'm far from convinced. CMV
To use the example of radiation in cancer treatment, although some patients do recover and therefore benefit from radiation, this comes at a tremendous cost to their bodies. You could argue that the person received benefit, but not that the radiation did not harm them. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe that sex with animals is equivalent to the molestation of infants or the profoundly handicapped. Either both are permissible or neither is. CMV +
+ Presumably very few people think that the molestation of infants and the profoundly handicapped is morally permissible, and so this post is really aimed at those who want to assert the permissibility of sex with animals.
My reasoning is as follows:
* In order to argue that sex with animals is morally permissible, you must argue that either (a) the animals consent or (b) the act does not harm the animals, either physically or psychologically.
* It is perfectly possible to sexually molest infants or the profoundly handicapped without causing physical or psychological harm.
* There is no way in which an animal could give consent that could not also be accomplished by the profoundly handicapped.
* Therefore, if sex with animals is morally permissible, it must also be morally permissible to molest either infants or the profoundly handicapped.
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 many Indie games only sell because they appeal to nostalgia, and that this is an overall detriment to the gaming industry. CMV. +
+ I typically put Indie games into two categories. One are the games that are very unique and often very artistic (e.g. Bastion, Braid), and contribute to the video gaming industry. However, you also have the 50 8-bit dungeon crawlers (too many to name) that are released virtually identical to a lot of games released in the 1980s. They often end up selling respectable copies solely because they remind players of a bygone era in gaming. I think that this will alienate new gamers because they grew up with video games that were developed with more advanced resources, and will hurt the gaming industry as a result.
CMV. | 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 nothing morally wrong with being a conscript who deserts +
+ You hear in history about these men who were forced into the military deserting. In WWI for instance it was so common that they used to lock them up in troop trains to stop them running off, which worked well until a rail crash in Gretna burnt hundreds of them alive.
Or if you look at history, deserters were treated like criminals, they were executed, treated like scum in their homes, in some countries they were blocked from social welfare and other state assistance etc. even when they were doing the right things. A uncle of mine is a white South African and when her Dad refused the draft in the military during the apartheid era (due to his disgust at how blacks were treated) he was disowned by his family, ran out of his house and had to flee to the UK since he had citizenship there. (he claims to be very proud of me his nephew who is currently engaged to a gay black guy...)
My personal view is that if there was a draft over something like the Iraq war I would refuse to serve or desert but if the UK was under attack and threat (like WWII) I would probably volunteer anyway.
Even today the UK government hasn't pardoned or forgiven deserters who were executed under fear or due to disagreement over the war, I think the draft especially in peacetime is akin to slavery especially when its only men who have to do it,
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Most r/atheism types believe in evolution for the same reason creationists believe in Creationism CMV +
+ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22bo6CKJcJM
While funny, I think that video actually illustrates a very good point. A whole pile of smug fedora wearers like to ridicule creationists without any real justification for their arrogance. People who believe in evolution but have not actually studied the science behind evolution for themselves are merely taking other people's word for it. As such, they are no different than people who read the Bible and assume it's true based on faith.
NOTE: I'm not arguing Creationism is true, nor am I talking about people who have actually studied evolution. I'm just saying that people who haven't seriously studied evolutionary biology for themselves have no basis to make fun of creationists because their beliefs are no less rooted in faith. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: There should be an internet police that go around and delete ignorant comments +
+ Ok so, full background, I was a free speech researcher in law school, I have read literally 1000s of cases on free speech law. Not that that makes my opinion any better or more right, but here goes.
I think there should be a subreddit that people can link ignorant comments too. Then, the people in this subreddit will discuss if the comment is ignorant or not, and debate the arguments about this. There should be a bot that tags below comments that have been crossposted in the "ignorant internet police" forum that will allow users on the original forum to debate the comments ignorance outside of the main discussion. *If the comment is decidedly ignorant, the moderator in the original forum should delete that comment.*
I want this to happen because of the idea that free speech isn't a real thing, its just a story we've made up to convince ourselves that its ok for anyone to say anything and justify the idea that everyones opinion is equally valid. IRL, courts should adopt the "absolute free speech" position because you don't want the government choosing winners/losers in public forums.
But on the reddit, it makes no sense to let anyone say anything without consequence. It discourages others from posting in places like /r/atheism or /r/zen because they know that the circlejerk of ignorance will respond to their comment in a mean way even if they have a legitimate point.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
If you are campaigning for president and explicitly lie about a topic publicly and you win the presidency you should be impeached and possibly removed from office. CMV +
+ So, for example, lets say President A said "I will lower unemployment to below 6% by November of next year." If the President does this, then it is all fine and dandy. However, if he does not he should be impeached. The senate should then decide if he is worth of being removed from office. I think this would work because it would force the President A to state how he is going to get unemployment below 6%, instead of just saying blatant lies. It would also add some transparency to the President and U.S. Government, instead of everything being "hush-hush." I agree, some things have got to be kept quiet but blatant lies should be punishable. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe subscription services like Netflix and the NY Times should be legally required to allow consumers to buy memberships that don't automatically renew. CMV +
+ There are plenty of subscription service websites out there where you get access for a month at a time.
Some of these are entirely reasonable (Netflix, Hulu, The NY Times and other content sources) but some are one time use websites (Westside Rentals for apartment hunting, LinkedIn and other job search websites, etc.)
Across the board, when you pay for a month it automatically renews the next month and so on until you explicitly cancel the service. It is described as a time saver, but people often forget to cancel when they're done with the service, and are forced to pay for a month they didn't use.
I think companies should be legally required to offer subscriptions that end on their own after a month and that require action to renew them instead of to cancel them.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
If you consider yourself "pro-science," then you should be for multiple types of governments. CMV +
+ Most of Reddit is very pro-science (pro-vaccine, pro-global warming, atheist, etc.). However, most of Reddit is also very pro-democracy, and tend to be quite liberal.
I find this as a contradiction.
If you're pro-science, then you should also be pro "experimenting with different forms of government." Experimentation is the only way to figure out what's the best, but most of the worlds governments have been stuck as either representative-republics or democratic-socialist. I think one of the reasons why the US government is currently getting away with so much (NSA wiretapping, Drug War, multiple foreign wars, etc.) is because they really have nothing to worry about. Perhaps if more people emigrated or started their own governments within the US, they would have to think twice about it.
Common arguments:
* "You can't have a government within another government!" I think the [Amish have proved this wrong.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amish#Health) And, they're allowed not to pay into Social Security Insurance if they don't want to.
* "There's nothing stopping you from starting new governments right now." Well, there are. Examples of new-governments or micro nations being shut-down by larger governments include: Kowloon Walled City, Freetown Christiana (ongoing conflict), Sealand, and one that tried to start on the Italian coast but was quickly raided by the Italian government (can't think of the name).
* "They have tried, and they've failed so there's no point to try again." Edison tried a ton when he tried to make a lightbulb, but that doesn't mean it should be *illegal* to try; it just means that we need more experimentation so we can learn from our mistakes.
* "Governments already have sovereignty over the land, so you can't just start your own government on that land." Since governments are supposed to be "of the people," then the land really isn't owned by the government, since the government is owned by the people. So if "the people" want to exercise their freedom, they should be able to start their own government (or no government) as they see fit.
I am totally in support of other types of governments, such as socialism, anarcho-capitalism, communism, communes, libertarianism, democratic-socialism, democracy, anarcho-syndicalism, co-ops, anarchism, etc. I think people should be able to do whatever they want, so long as it's under voluntary conditions. That would definitely solve a lot of the political bickering that occurs 24/7 around the world: for example, if someone wanted to be against abortion, they could just move to a country where abortion was illegal. Same with all the other contemporary issues, like minimum wage laws, drug laws, gun laws, etc.
So what do you think? Should people be allowed to try out new governments?
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The movie "The Interview" is an example of cyber-bullying, and making Kim Jong Un mad will do no good. +
+ In the American education system, kids are taught that cyber bullying is bad. Then they get into the real world and see a movie like "The Interview" which is making fun of Kim Jong Un. Imagine if someone made a movie about you that is about people trying to kill you. It is simply cyber bullying.
Kim Jong Un is not a good person, and certainly is not trying to help the citizens of North Korea. However, you can get into trouble in school for cyber bullying someone who has even bullied other people him/herself. If Obama defends Sony for cyber bullying Kim Jong Un, why doesn't he defend cyber bullies in schools? Isn't is freedom of speech too?
| 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 possession and use of all illicit drugs should be legalized CMV +
+ In my opinion humans should have the right to choose what they put in their body and it isn't the government's place to legislate against that. If someone takes a substance that doesn't hurt anyone else why should they be punished?
I am not ignorant to the fact that many drugs carry severe health risks but I think it would be better for everybody to take money away from dealers (and organised crime) and put it into a system that focuses on impartial education not blind prejudice.
I have found there is a taboo about discussing this but I'm really not sure why. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think that the gender wage gap is due to the majority of women's decisions and not discrimination. CMV +
+ I know a lot of liberals are saying that women make 77 cents less than their male counterparts. However, I heard the libertarian's counter point and it's not that they are individually making less, it's just that women work less than men do as a whole. That being said, I want to say that **I am not a misogynist**, I believe women should be treated equally to men in what they do. So if a woman puts in as much hours, does as much work, and have as much education and experience she should be paid the same as a man with the same qualities.
It's just that as a whole, women tend to be the care-takers. They also (as a whole) tend to chose lesser paying jobs. Ie; There's more men in engineering sciences. And there's more women in social sciences (Ie; psychology, etc). I believe that women are capable at doing whatever they want, however, women (as a whole) tend to have interests in jobs that pay less than some men do. And that is the reason why there is a gender gap. I believe we have evolved as a society to not discriminate against someone based on gender and race (for the most part at least). | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:Blaming the Men's Rights Movement for Elliott Rodger is the equivalent of blaming Islam for suicide bombers +
+ First of all, I'm not an MRA, and I think they're essentially misguided and don't understand the bigger picture. But the amount of misrepresentation, shit slinging, and witch hunts being directed at them is frankly disgusting. First of all, Rodger *wasn't even an MRA.* He was loosely part of the Pick-Up Artist community and definitely a Redpiller, but those groups are very much distinct from the MRM. Just for starters, Redpillers are for the preservation of traditional gender roles, and MRA's want to abolish them. For a while now, the worst material from groups like TRP have been getting attributed to the MRM in the media, but it's really stepped up with this recent shooting. Even high-profile publications like [The Guardian](http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/24/elliot-rodgers-california-shooting-mental-health-misogyny) are jumping on the bandwagon.
Secondly, people are claiming that Rodger's actions were caused by cultural misogyny, which is apparently spread by the MRM. A quick glance at a place like /b/ will show you that there are plenty of guys who are just as misogynistic. They're not all going on murder sprees, so clearly something more is going on here. I think the root of the problem was Rodger's feelings of complete worthlessness as a person, and his actions and hatred of women both sprang from there. Furthermore, people seem to be getting offended at the idea that Rodger's documented mental illness played a role. Here's a question for those people: Do you think if Rodger had been getting the treatment he needed, this would have happened? And I'm not just talking about right before the shooting, I'm talking about all the way back, so that he wouldn't have had such a hard time interacting with people. Blaming this entirely on ideology is not only unfair to the MRM, it's also doing a massive disservice to people who need treatment for mental health issues. I mean, if you want to talk about discrimination against the mentally ill, these people would have you believe that if you have thoughts of hurting other people, it's because you're *evil*, not because you're sick and need help.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Wikipedia is the single most impressive collection of data mankind has ever put together. +
+ Suppose our species was wiped off the face of the earth. What better tool could aliens possibly use to gain better insight about mankind? Wikipedia may not be 100% reliable, but it offers a general explanation to almost all of human (and earth's) history. No other resource ever created offers more information about us as a species. In my opinion, this is the single greatest collaboration of information that mankind has collectively put together. Some may argue that the internet as a whole clearly trumps a single source. So for the sake of my argument I would like to keep this discussion limited to one single resource. CMV | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: There is no reasonable way for to morally justify meat eating habits - at least as a middle class person in the western world. +
+ Now let me preface this by saying that you will never meet a more avid enjoyer of steak than me, but its been dawning on me for some time that I'm essentially allowing animals to die for my own selfish pleasure. There is essentially no reason for me to eat meat beyond my own selfish desires. I don't need it to survive and can easily get all nutrients that I get from meat from other sources. Regardless of how humanely the animals are killed (which we all know is often not very humanely at all) the fact of the matter is that a living, breathing and at the very least partially sentient being is being killed for our pleasure, it's simply unnecessary for our survival any longer.
CMV. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Love should not be expected to be limited to one person. +
+ Hello there Reddit. I have been doing some thinking, and realized that I hold a belief that has made my personal life very... Interesting.
I am polyamorous. I can love multiple partners. Or at least, I believe I can. (Some people try to tell me I'm wrong, but can never seem to give me proof on how I feel.) What I believe is that a persons love should not be limited to one partner.
What this means is that I may love Joe and Bill equally. Joe is sweet and sensitive, and will listen to me when I need to vent. But Bill is stable and will kick my butt into gear when I need it. I would bend over backwards for either of them, and I love both of them. Why is this not the norm?
I see people who believe that they can only love one person and beat themselves up for being in love with two people. Sometimes the love they feel for one is not as charged sexually. But others aren't as 'lucky'.
**I'm not saying monogamy is bad.** If monogamy works for you, more power to you. Some people seem to just be wired that way. I guess I'm saying that we should not expect love to be limited, but instead let it grow. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe major roads should not be closed off for events. CMV +
+ Good morning reddit,
On the weekend I had a great time in Toronto, except for the travel due to the 'Pride Parade.' I dont care about the content of the event I just hate that it turned a 5 minute drive into a 30 minute hassle. And I know a lot of other parades and marathons throughout the year close off Bloor st (for those familiar with Toronto) which make it nearly impossible to access the highway. Why can't these parades and events take place somewhere more remote? I understand that they want to get more attention but for people who run into it by chance rather than plan, its often more of a nuisance than an educational experience.
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 recent stabbing of a teacher in the UK highlights the benefits of strict gun legislation +
+ Recently, in a tragic turn of events, a British teacher was stabbed by a 15 year old pupil in her own classroom. It is the first murder of a teacher in a school since the 1996 Dunblane massacre, an event that prompted the Firearms act of 1997, which effectively made private ownership of firearms illegal in the United Kingdom.
In recent years, we've seen similar tragedies to the events of Dunblane in the USA (Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, and Columbine to name a few), prompting national debate over whether or not firearms should be similarly controlled in the states. I'm English, and admit that I will most likely never be able to truly understand first-hand the cultural relationship between US citizens and firearms, and the association with the right to protect your own family; provide resistance to oppression; and exercise your civic duty.
However, it seems that Ann Maguire's murder by a 15 year old pupil highlights the benefits of strict gun legislation. Whilst not a great deal is known about the pupil yet, news articles seem to hint at a similar character to many of the USA's high-profile shooters: a mentally unstable recluse.
Whilst one of the (admittedly extreme) responses to the Sandy Hook shooting, in particular, was that of placing armed guards in schools to protect children, it seems that the benefits of a near-gunless British society have been made clear. As tragic and awful an event as it was, I am of the opinion that - with more unrestricted access to firearms - there could have been a significantly higher number of casualties.
Ignoring the logistical challenge of removing/regulating more closely the vast amount of firearms in cirulation in the USA, I would be interested to hear the rational/logical reasons for supporting a citizen's right to bear arms in a year that has already seen 41 school shootings in the US alone (figure taken from wikipedia, and not every shooting was a case of a pupil being the shooter). As a disclaimer, I don't intend to come across as compelling everyone to "think of the children!", it was a more a case of explaining and contextualising my opinion.
CMV!
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I believe that #ICan'tBreathe is in bad taste and shouldn't be used by media outlets like HLN. +
+ I first saw this on HLN the other day and it immediately made me uncomfortable and felt just plain wrong. It seems like an inappropriate way to honor the memory of Eric and push for change. I'm all for a lot of what thsi campaign promotes don't get me wrong. The hashtag phrase just seems in poor taste. Let's take police brutality as an example. If this was about someone who had been beaten by the cops wouldn't #I'mbeat be a pun in poor taste? Or in regards to the shooting deaths #shitthathurts?
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I went from stocking shelves in a grocery store to programmer in < 1 year, so I believe that the minimum wage is just fine and people would rather complain than put in effort. CMV. +
+ I won't bore you with my life story but I'll give you a good idea of how I developed this thinking.
When I was 26 years old I was a college dropout (but high-school grad) and had no skills whatsoever, so I moved from job to job a lot. I found myself hating my life at 26 with no future or prospects, so basically every day I'd go to work, then I'd come home and play video games (they are what helped me get away from the reality of life). On the weekends (if I wasn't working or staying indoors gaming), I'd go out with friends.
A friend of mine in Seattle was posting some nice pictures of his apt./car on facebook, I basically started talking to him and we got to talking about jobs, I basically said "I wish I could do what you do man", to which he said "well you can learn", and he basically talked to me about how he programmed and that most companies didn't require a degree, but skill.
**Long story short**, I would wake up an hour early every morning learning to program and whenever I came home, would spend all my time learning some more (instead of gaming). I'd go out about once a month on the weekend as opposed to **every** weekend. Nine months later I quit my job and got an entry level programing job where my salary wasn't too bad (still much better than stocking shelves). It's been about 6 years since I made that decision and I've finally broken six figures (though I admit it's only that high because it's a major metropolis). However anywhere else in the country I'd be making at least 80k.
The point I'm trying to make is I really think that people who complain are not necessarily lazy, but have no initiative. They'd rather facebook or game or watch pointless videos than learn a skill in demand. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not the best way to improve farm animal welfare +
+ Title is mostly to get attention, and I'm working from a specific set of assumptions. My argument is as follows:
1) The chances of the entire world adopting a vegan/vegetarian diet are slim to none
1a) Therefore, there will always be a market for meat and other animal products
2) The food market, like all other markets, operates on general principles of supply and demand
3) Meat farmers can use techniques exhibiting a range of costs or benefits, both in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare.
4) A vegan or vegetarian diet denies demand, and thus potential revenue, to all meat-producing farms, regardless of how humane or environmentally sound their practice are.
4a) Since the majority of farms are large factory farms, I concede that this is probably good for animal welfare. **However**:
5) Purchasing meat from farms known to produce their meat in an ethical way not only denies demand to large factory farms but helps improve the market share of ethical meat-growing, which seems as though it would be even better for animal welfare.
My general view is that people should probably as a rule eat less meat from better growers, and that will make for a bigger shift in growing practices than simply people dropping out of eating meat altogether. Moreover, this practice would be much easier to "evangelize" than a vegetarian or vegan diet. Face it, meat is tasty (and non-factory meat is often tastier than factory-farmed meat, at least in my own anecdotal experience)
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
State and municipal governments shouldn't be allowed to give subsidies/incentives to corporations CMV +
+ I find it ridiculous that states have to have bidding wars over corporations to keep jobs and a stable economy. You have businesses that stay in a particular state just because of subsidies and the simple fact that they're given by a state government opens the door for a lot of corruption.
They're largely ineffective, and they give corporations the ability to threaten to leave in order to get more money or tax breaks.
That money is better off elsewhere and unless incentives/subsidies from governments to corporations is done away with across the board it's going to continue getting wasted on getting corporations to retain jobs or stay in an area with no real gain.
Especially when incentives are used to retain jobs that would otherwise not be retained, we're just putting off the inevitable. We're trying to keep jobs that we don't need. We should be focusing on using that money to expand markets that will create new jobs that are actually needed, rather than throwing it at corporations to retain jobs they don't need. | 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 college students should only be required to study courses relative to their major. CMV +
+ College students in America are required to complete all courses in their major in addition to a number of general education requirements. For example, I am a biology major but I also have to take courses in history, english, foreign language, arts, etc.
This is a total waste of money and time for me. I could complete my degree earlier if these classes were eliminated, leaving me with less debt and providing me with an even stronger foundation in biology.
I understand that basic math and writing skills are important in all areas of study, so I would be alright with having math and writing courses still be a part of all majors, with the opportunity to be placed out of these courses if proficiency in them is exhibited.
The idea of a well-rounded student is a fantasy. Students often do whatever it takes to get a decent grade in gen eds and all of that information gets flushed right out once the class is over. Even if taking those classes does make a person slightly more knowledgeable, none of the students who enjoy those classes would rather have taken them than have less debt. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Nativity scenes are antisemitic. +
+ This has nothing to do with the celebration of Christmas excluding religious minorities, it's because traditional nativity scenes reinforce negative stereotypes about Jews.
As the story goes, when Jesus was about to be born his parents were travelling to Bethlehem, but when they got there the inn was full, so Mary had to give birth in the barn. The problem is, if nativity scenes are any indication, baby Jesus was still in the manger when the three wise men came to visit and give him Christmas presents. Most people know Jesus was born on Christmas, but less realize that the wise men didn't show up until the Epiphany twelve days later.
Are we honestly expected to believe that no vacancies opened up at the inn for almost two weeks? Because that would be the most unbelievable aspect of the entire story if you ask me, and it seriously strains credulity to begin with. Even miracles make more sense in the context of the birth of the Son of God. Maybe a virgin really could give birth to a deity, or a new star could magically appear over the birthplace, but there's no reason for the inn to miraculously have no rooms come open for nearly two weeks. Plus Mary and Joseph would be the first to know when something came available since they were basically squatting in the garage and would surely notice when patrons came to get their ox or camel or whatever before leaving.
The obvious implication is that Jesus' chintzy Jewish stepdad was such a tightwad that he was willing to let his pubescent wife and her newborn baby sleep in donkey slop if it would save him a few shekels. Joseph probably would have made that barn the family's permanent rent-free residence if the wise men hadn't showed up bearing enough cash and prizes to go live it up in Egypt. After all, why did they stay so long anyway? It's not like Mary needed the time to recuperate. Thanks to baby Jesus' healing powers even her hymen immediately regenerated, kind of like the redhead vampire from True Blood or the cheerleader from Heroes. (Not the real life Hayden Panettiere though, you know those gigantic Klitschkos split that wide open.)
MERRY CHRISTMAS!
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I just can't bring myself to care about money CMV +
+ Money's just money.
If money can be *anything* then it is essentially nothing. If the main thing about money is that it is fungible (that is, money can be exchanged for a fancy new car or a great house or a pretty wife, etc.) then it essentially has no inherent value.
And people who have a whole lot of money have a whole lot of nothing.
How does it affect my life?
Well, I just don't worry about it.
When I have money then I spend it or give it away.
And when I don't have money, then I just don't spend any. I don't worry about paying my bills, or savings, or my credit score or anything like that.
TBH, it drives my family crazy.
I figure as long as I have enough for a cup of coffee and a little bit of food, with enough left over for some art supplies, then I'm happy. I have a vague sense of worry over what happens in the future, but not really.
I just can't bring myself to care about money. CMV | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think Ken Ham won the debate with Bill Nye. CMV! +
+ Preface: I'm an atheist. I love Bill Nye, I think Ham is a fraud and a lunatic.
So why do I think he won?
Well, Nye's focus was too factual. He was never incorrect that I'm aware of, and his points were good, but they weren't on-point for the topic of the debate.
Just as Ham managed to not address most of the questions the moderator asked, Nye managed to not fully address the topic of the debate.
Lets be clear, the topic was "Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?" To prove this, Ham merely needed to demonstrate that scientific progress can be made while still holding a creation belief. With testimony, he did that. He also illustrated that one could believe that things like evolution and physics are driven by their creator. Nye, on the other hand, never demonstrated how creation belief hinders scientific progress - how it is non-viable. Only how it is wrong and silly. I think he could have won by pointing out that Ham's statement of "nothing will change my mind" is the antithesis of scientific thought and is why creationism isn't viable. | 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 I Should Bother Voting. +
+ Hello, fellow redditors! I'm Grim, and here's your chance to tell me why I'm an idiot and yadda yadda yadda. Here's the deal: I'm a 22 year old White Male living in the state of Indiana in the United States of America. My first presidential election was in 2008, and I voted for Obama. I'd already written off the Republicans as the slaves of corporate lobbyists, private interests, and Christian Fundamentalism, and I still believe there's not a single republican worth my support in any way, shape, or form. I was one of those idealistic, optimistic young voters who honestly believed in the power of Democracy. I bought Obama's (false)Hope hook, line, and sinker, and aside from that, I didn't see any alternatives to him that were even remotely palatable. Romney and Santorum were both about as Crazy fundy as presidential candidates got, and Gingrich had Wallstreet so far up his ass that putting him in office would've been, in my opinion, only slightly less worse of an idea than electing Adolf Hitler.
So here I was: One vote to cast, only one option that seemed viable. I put my faith, my trust, my hope in Obama, and he fucked me. He fucked all of us. Gitmo is still open. The wars in the Middle East are still on. In some states, homosexuals still have to be afraid of being true to themselves. The rich keep getting richer, and those of us below the poverty line just keep sinking deeper and deeper into the mud. In short, I realize now that voting for Obama was a waste of my time and energy, and a huge blow to my ability to trust the American Political System.
So what do I believe in? Well, I like to keep it simple: I believe in an end to the Drug War, because it's been a complete and utter failure and a waste of everyone's time, energy, and money. I believe in an end to our participation in the Middle East conflicts, because again, we have achieved nothing: One dead dictator, thousands of dead civilians, a "secret" prison full of accused terrorists, who if they weren't terrorists going in, I could hardly blame them for being terrorists if/when they get out. Our soldiers deserve causes worth fighting for: Not Imperial Conquest and certainly not a war that does nothing but line the pockets of the Military Industrial Complex.
I believe in reasonable restrictions on gun ownership, but never an outright ban on handguns, shotguns, rifles, etc. I believe that it's not the government's business, nor anyone elses', who you love and who you marry. I believe in the complete and utter separation of church and state. I believe that, if corporations and business aren't going to pay their employees a fair wage, then a minimum wage (That's a whole other CMV) must be set that is enough for people to get by on without having to resort to working three jobs. if McDonalds can triple the pay of their CEO to 13.8 million dollars, then I can call bullshit on a raise in the Minimum Wage destroying the economy!
I believe that education is a universal right for all humans, and it shouldn't be denied to someone just because they can't afford it. I believe that Climate Change being caused by humanity's rising consumption of fossil fuels, and I want to see the government take an active role in shifting us away from their use, while funding and supporting alternative energies. I believe in spending our budget responsibly, and working to make a better country in the long term, so that it's a country I'd actually want to start a family in.
I don't like either party. Neither of them are anywhere near my stance in politics, and I don't know where to begin looking for alternatives, if they even exist. I'm sick of watching the American People elect morons and greedy, self serving jack-nozzles, and I can't allow myself to be a part of that endless circlejerk anymore.
So here's the TL;DR: Given the disgustingly revolting state of the American Political Scene, should I even bother voting? If so, then provide me with some pointers for where to look for good candidates. I'm looking for parties outside of the ludicrous "Red vs Blue" Spectrum. I still want to believe that the system can work. So help it prove itself to me.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:The "Right to be Forgotten" ought to be abolished, or at the very least heavily limited. +
+ I'm making this claim for 3 reasons.
1. It's a restriction of free speech/expression. This is a pretty basic concept, but the ability to just remove bad things about you compromises the freedom of speech. It's no different than a sedition law, except that it is carried out by an individual rather than the government. It sets a very bad standard.
2. It is easily abused. What if a politician has a negative article about him removed, and voters don't learn information that could change their opinion of him?
3. Your actual actions ought to define people's opinions of you. Obviously, if an article or source is spreading things that aren't true, then they should be removed on grounds of slander or libel not the right to be forgotten.
Obviously, there are going to be a few exceptions. Anything illegal or false should be removed, and I'm certainly not supporting revenge porn. But as a whole, the right to be forgotten is harmful. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe that the shortcomings and supposed failure of the US academic is not a failure purely of the academic system. CMV +
+ I believe that it isn't entirely on the system of standardized tests and overworked teachers that the US isn't among the top ranking academic nations of the world. I believe a large portion of the failure of the system isn't the system itself, but the culture of the United States as a whole.
As a culture the United States seems focused more on the glitz and glamor and stardom cultures than personal success. You rarely, if ever, see headlines celebrating academic and scientific achievement in the public eye and I feel that this lack of attention to intellect is largely impacting the current generations.
The United States on average has more instructional hours than other higher ranking nations so it can't purely be Hours in = Success out, so I feel that the external factor is the lack of focus on success outside of sports and celebrity. CMV.
This observation may also be colored by growing up in Southern California, if it is, I will gladly see other points of view from around the country. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: National elections don't matter. +
+ Unless you live in a swing state/riding, your vote isn't going to make a difference.
But outside of statistics, let's say that you do live in a swing state; policy decisions regarding taxation, spending, the military, legalization of substances, etc. will remain unchanged whether you vote Democrat or Republican, Conservative or Liberal, Conservative or Labour, etc.
If Romney had been elected, the country would more or less be in the same place it is today. If Harper is re-elected over Trudeau, the country would more or less be the same place it is today.
Politics are a form of entertainment and has no real bearing on the direction of a country.
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 most fat people are useless, unattractive, and pathetic, yet I am a fat guy. CMV. +
+ When I see a guy who is fat, I am appalled he allowed himself to get there. I am a big guy myself, (over 300 pounds currently, probably the fattest I've been in my life) but also capable of performing physical feats that a lot of in-shape people cannot do. (Such as cartwheels, diving rolls, ect.) Where am I wrong in judging these people? I understand the concept that some people have no control over it, because it's a medical problem, but that isn't the case for most of them. Why are they unable to perform physical feats that anybody with a nominal level of agility can perform?
Please change my view, because right now, I see a fat guy who gets tired walking up stairs and I think, "This guy deserves to be unhappy."
I should point out... I think I'm spectacular. This is not a pity party for me. I merely dislike OTHER fat people.
I know this is after you all replied and I'm sorry but... Edit: I should clarify that I've been a fat guy my whole life, and I don't mean every fat person. I put it in the title but forgot to put it in the actual post. MOST fat people. I think it's a thing of confidence. I see a guy who just slouches and he's fat, and I immediately dislike him. | 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 that accepting transsexualism is actually regressive, in the sense that it actually reinforces gender stereotypes and roles. +
+ I think the more progressive stance to take is that feeling more attuned to one gender or another doesn't mean that it has to identify you entirely as a person, as in it has to label you as one thing or another just because you have more masculine or feminine feelings or personal traits (or ones that are traditionally considered masculine or feminine at least.)
IMO, I see a person as a man or woman based entirely on their biological sex. That's literally the only thing that would make sense to me. Gender in itself appears to be an entirely social construct, and not a good one. It forces people to feel like they have to adhere to one mode of behavior or another.
But biological sex is, for the most part in terms of meaningful distinctions, is pretty objective. It's why I can't see a transgender man and say "yeah that's a woman" (or would that be a cisgender man/transgender woman? I've yet to always get that nomenclature down correctly.)
But yeah, this seems to conflict with most of my other personal beliefs, I feel like there's something that I'm missing, but I've delved deep into the subject and I still can't find it.
---
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe education should not be mandatory. CMV +
+ I do not think that education/schooling should be mandatory. Why? Because some of us are just not made for theories learning and are more manual-type people that prefer jobs like construction, truck drivers and plumbers. Our society is headed towards failure because nobody wants to do these jobs, but we need them. What's the point of showing a future truck driver how to graph a function? By doing this, we could alleviate the cost of education and help the ones that really want to learn instead of cramming every teenager in a classroom to learn how many electrons has an atom of potassium. | 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 most people are inherently good, don't need to be told what to do, and can easily deal with a few bad eggs without outside intervention. CMV. +
+ TL;DR I don't think we need a government. 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 the distinction that Anarchists place between "private property" and "personal property" is unjustified, CMV +
+ I recently posted a [CMV](https://pay.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1pvqbq/i_believe_the_notion_of_anarchy_being_desirable/) about anarchy in general, and I was not satisfied with the result. I still hold the belief that anarchy in general is silly.
Part of the reason I think the last CMV was unsuccessful was I made it too broad. This time I want to focus on a particular aspect of anarchy that seems to be fundamental, and that is the idea that "private property" is illegitimate, while "personal property" is legitimate.
I don't care, in this thread, about the views of so-called An-Caps. That may be another thread for another time. I won't be responding to anyone who tries to argue using "An-Cap" terms, because I believe it is outside the scope of this thread.
I believe the definition of "private property" to be all that property which you have a right to according to the state and its records. This includes for the most part only that property which is valuable enough to concern the state with, e.g. land, real estate, and the like. You need not use this property on a regular basis, since the state enforces your right to it whether or not you are there.
I believe the definition of "personal property" to be all that property which you have a right to according to a naive notion of property (i.e. if you claim its yours, and it seems to everyone like its yours, then it is). This includes mostly that property that you either hold in your hand, on your person (clothes), or that you occupy regularly (a personal vehicle, your personal home, etc). To maintain meaningful control over this property you have to hold it in your possession, or at least be seen to be exerting control over it directly, on a regular basis. This is because, if you leave a small possession (say, a shirt) out on the street for a while, and nobody knows who it belongs to, someone can come pick it up and take it and nobody would think its stealing. Even the state doesn't know whose it is, and it cannot enforce an unknown owner's right to it.
I am quoting here someone from the previous thread, expressing a view that seems to be common among anarchists:
My response to this was as follows:
This is nonsense. It requires force to maintain ownership over anything, but only when someone is questioning that ownership (or simply doesn't care who owns it).
If someone trespasses on my private property that I hold absently, it would require force for me to remove them from it.
If someone trespasses on my private property that is the home I live in on a regular basis, it would require force for me to remove them from it.
If someone steals the shirt off my back, which I was obviously using at the time, it would require force for me to take it back.
Why does everyone insist there is a distinction?
I did not get an answer to that question. So I believe the distinction between "personal property" and "private property" is unjustified.
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 generally until you have tried something yourself, you have no right to judge it. CMV +
+ This opinion came about mostly in relation to drugs, but I think it applies to nearly all walks of life. It's totally unfair to judge someone for smoking weed if you have never tried it yourself (for those who read that sentence and write me off as an /r/trees idiot, I've tried it, but I don't smoke). You don't have any personal experience on which to form your opinion. For all you know, it's nothing like what you're judging.
This line of reasoning can also be applied to music. It's amazing how many people judge Justin Bieber and Miley Cyrus' music without really listening to it. I'm not saying they're great artists, but imagine their fans telling you the Beatles suck even though they've never heard a Beatles song. Totally unjustified.
Where it's impossible to go through similar experiences (Men judging women for abortions, for example) I feel that you can form opinions about the act, but not the people doing it.
I'm eager to hear your perspectives on the matter. We'll see if you can CMV.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: You shouldn't be in a relationship with someone who isn't willing to shave your butthole +
+ I think that an important yardstick for whether or not you should be in a relationship with someone is whether or not they are willing to shave your butthole.
*Clarification:* In this post, when talking about shaving buttholes, I mean with trimmers. I would recommend against shaving buttholes or any form of pubes with a close-shave razor.
* *Shaved buttholes are superior to un-shaved buttholes.* For people without much natural butthole hair this may seem like a non-issue. For people like me, butthole hair is a common nuisance. It can easily become dried out and cause irritation. During any type of anal play, it can get pulled, which is painful. A smoother asshole is also much sexier. If you are sexually attracted to butthole hair, I would consider you the outlier and this discussion is not for you.
* *Most things can be done alone, but shaving your own butthole is difficult.* Sexual release can be achieved through masturbation or casual sex. Group activities such as movies and dinner can be done with friends. You can reduce your share of the rent by acquiring a roommate. Even raising kids is increasingly being done by single parents. If what you need is love, y'all motherfuckers need Jesus. Contrarily, shaving your own butthole is as close as things come to having to literally bend over backwards in order to accomplish.
* *Someone who is willing to shave your butthole is someone you can depend on for anything.* Without butthole shaving as a yardstick, it's anyone's guess as to what they'll feel they're above doing. You could very well get stuck unclogging all of the toilets, or having to go with those big zits on your back unpopped. Worse, what if they are similarly squeamish when you're choking on a carrot, and they let you suffocate? Butthole shaving could mean the difference between life and death.
* *Anyone who will have sex with a butthole, but isn't willing to shave one, is immediately suspect.* This type of personal clearly cares about their own sexual gratification than your own butthole's comfort. Obviously, them being willing to shave your butthole isn't necessarily an indication that you should marry them either, as they might just be shaving your butthole for their own personal enjoyment.
*Other comments:*
* Though I would consider an unwillingness to shave buttholes a dealbreaker, I would avoid bringing it up at the first date, or even the second. In many ways, "I would shave your butthole" is practically synonymous with "I love you" and should be handled with care accordingly.
* Buttholes are not for everyone. Needless to say, if you're the type of couple who aren't ever going to go near each other's buttholes, this discussion doesn't apply to you. More power to you.
An unwillingness to shave my butthole is a dealbreaker. 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: Tattoos should be more commonly perceived as a desperate self esteem enhancement +
+ The most common reason for tattoos is self-expression, which makes sense. They are intended to stimulate a certain social perception that is in some way emotionally rewarding to person with the tattoo. In my experience, tattoos are usually social signals that the person is youthful and/or present minded, belonging to a certain social grouping, and/or especially sentimental about the object of the tattoo's symbolism.
Self-esteem is usually highly tied to one's own perception of their social importance. Thus, on this basis tattoos increase self-esteem in some manner because social importance should be synonymous with the type of social reward they are trying to get from people. All this seems reasonable because everyone wears clothing, drives nice cars, has nice houses, buys nice things, socializes with certain people, etc... all usually with the purpose of increasing this aspect of self-esteem.
But getting a tattoo seems somehow more extreme. If I suddenly decided to commit to wearing one T-shirt with a specific design on it from now until the day I died (assuming I could wash it or buy an exact duplicate), I think that the level of sacrifice in terms of my commitment to a specific thing would seem a bit of a relatively extreme method for acquiring that self esteem.
The tattoo should signal that you are willing to risk the fad fading, it looking bad in old age, that you will be signalling lower social status, and thus that you are not overly intelligent for taking these serious ramifications so lightly. Relative to all the other ways we get self-esteem, does getting a tattoo not seem relatively desperate? Since desperation is usually not a socially desirable quality, shouldn't tattoos be less prevalent than they are now? This is all based on a lot of "usuals" I realize.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/swim-in-denial/201310/if-tattoos-could-talk | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe our life is deterministic. CMV +
+ This subject is probably highly physics and philosophy related.
My first language being french, please forgive me if I made mistakes and correct me. I did not go very far in school (as I didn't go to university), but I still had some physics classes and I believe I am somewhat thoughtful. This is going to be a very simplified, vulgarised and shortened version of my thought on it.
Defining deterministic: For me, deterministic means if there is only one possible way (well in that context). Determinable is different, as my definition of it is being able to determine it.
I believe that the existence (I don't want to use the word universe here) is infinitely big, and infinitely small. We have no proof for that whatsoever, but as years go by we have always found smaller and smaller particles, and my personal bet is that it will never stop. Same goes for big things (planet, solar system, galaxy, universe). That's just my personal thought on it and to be honest it doesn't affect that much the rest.
If we throw a ball, we can estimate the position of the ball after a certain amount of time. I say estimate, because for me being exact is impossible. It's impossible to mesure something with infinite decimals. You can mesure an object to be 10,{insert enormous amount of 0 here} cm, you still need more 0 to be perfectly precise, to be exact. In clear, it is impossible (or I don't see how it would be possible). The point being, the perfectly precise position of the ball after a certain amount of time is therefore impossible to determine, indeterminable. We can still a pretty damn good estimate, but not perfectly on it, or atleast no way of knowing how close we are to it. Why is this? Because we lack information. I am pretty sure the formulas to calculate such thing are good, but we need to first information to be infinitely precise if we want the result to be infinitely precise too. I don't think we will ever be able to get that.
So, we can't mesure things properly.. what's next?
In my opinion, things exist even if we don't know they exist. The good old "If a trees falls in the forest..". For example, I am pretty sure smaller particles than we know of exist at the moment I'm writing this, just like electrons existed 5000 years ago. Not being aware of its existence doesn't deny it. Which means, even if we can't perfectly precisely mesure a thing, that thing is at a perfectly precise position. Thus, leading me to "undeterminable doesn't mean undeterministic". I won't explain longer here because I'm trying to be short but I'll gladly extent any part if you don't understand one part.
So you're saying it could be deterministic even if it's undeterminable, huh?
Let's go back to the ball. If we would have all the needed perfectly precise information on it, plus all the same information about he environnment of that ball or everything that could affect it, we could in theory predict its exact path. Most likely, this would need us to be aware of the exact movements of all the particles involved, from atoms to electrons to smaller that I don't know the names of to everything involved. Impossible, but if we could, we would have the exact path. For in theory an unlimited amount of time (if we still ahve the information needed about everything that could ever interact with that ball).
Now that means that if you put the ball on the exact same pattern, to the smallest particle involved.. it would do the exact same thing. The exact same path, bouncing on the exact same particle, stopping on the exact electron that it did the time before. Highly theorical and undoable, but I still believe it is true.
Wow nice, a ball is deterministic.. what about humans?
Humans, animals, stars, animals living on a planet a trillion lightyears from here.. whatever. It is all made of particles. All made of atoms, electrons and smaller-things-that-I-don't-know-the-name-of. If we would know the exact, the perfectly precise position, speed, acceleration, etc of every single smallest particle of every single object in the universe (actually I would say existence, considering in my mind there is something bigger than a universe containing many universes containing many galaxies containing many solar systems.. etc), that logic would say that we could predict the exact position of all those said particles the moment after. And the moment after, and the other and the other. We could predict the future perfectly, without a doubt. Of course, this is impossible to achieve. It is simply totally impossible to acquire that sort of information, and the amount of information needed is just monstruous. But.. perhaps you remember my point earlier? Our awareness or not of something doesn't change the existence or not of the something.
After all that, I would predict that if the existence is in a certain pattern, and we would to put it in the exact pattern again (once again, in a totally perfect way, which is impossible), it would do the exact same thing again (thus putting it again in the exact same pattern and again and again! hehe. Don't worry, I think this is impossible to achieve). What does that mean? It means that there is only one way out. If things are in a certain perfectly precise way, it would follow the perfectly precise way the moment after.
Impossible to mesure, thus undeterminable.. but still deterministic.
TL;DR: I believe our existence is deterministic. Why not? | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Please dissuade me of my horrible misogyny before I do something drastic! I had a male upbringing and it makes who I am invalid. I just want to die. +
+ Hi, I'm a mtf transgender person, and my lack of understanding of the female experience is making feel disgusted with myself and want to die. I have all kinds of horrific misogyny and feel like a fraud for being trans. I posted to r/askwomen but they pointed me here. Please help!
Um, some of my horrible views:
*I'm not sure what the problem with guys staring is. I can see that it's a problem. A lot of people say it's objectification, but isn't that viewing someone as non-human? Isn't it more sexualisation? Is it just creepy? What is it?
*I feel like both women and men are at risk from violence. Although women are at far more risk for rape, and that's much worse emotionally.
*I think that male victims of rape and domestic abuse are taken less seriously and have fewer available resources.
*I'm not sure what the exact problem is with sexualised imagery. What is it? And isn't a problem for both men and women?
*I think the gender pay gap is partially caused by difference in occcupations and the tendency for women to spend more time on childcare. I can definitely see a lack of respect for women in the workplace, but I don't think it's the entire cause.
And I probably have all kinds of other disgusting misogynistic misconceptions. Please, women of CMV, help me understand the female perspective before I invalidate myself and commit suicide over this. I really need your help.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe some inmates should be sent to the army, CMV. +
+ Some crimes (not murder or rape) should not always mean prison to invicted, I think people should be sent to the army and get their shit together in an order/discipline world where they would learn meaningful life morals and comradery.
They also could learn skills and a job and be sent back into society.
I believe being jailed with murderers and rapers when you have sold drugs (for example) is disproportionate and leads you to humiliation and victimization by the current justice system.
I'm anti-war but I'm pro-army, in France we use to have 1 year of army when we turned 18 (legal age to vote and become a citizen). I believe now that it is no longer mandatory people are becoming for individual and fail to live among each other.
My dad and my uncles have been doing it at their time and they told me that whatever society group you belonged to, this was a good melting pot of people from different horizons. Everyone at the same level and sharing unspeakable bounds.
The discipline and order is not only a bad thing and allows us to learn how live in a group and respect each other. Of course not everyone had a good experience mostly depending on your officers but privates would bound to face the rudeness of it. | 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 people who travel to war-torn and oppressed areas have no right to act surprised when bad things happen to them - CMV +
+ Disclaimer: I'm not saying anyone "deserves" anything, only that they don't get to act shocked about it
Every other day, we hear of someone from a western country (usually the US, but that might just be because my news is biased toward the US), that travels to a tumultuous area (Iran, Egypt, etc.) and finds that they somehow aren't immune to getting caught up in it.
Most recently, we see the story of a Norwegian woman in Dubai who was raped, and then jailed when she went to the police.
I am by no means saying that she deserved it, or defending anyone in Dubai, but I don't think we have the right to travel to a country with vastly different cultural beliefs, and then act surprised when we get treated according to those beliefs.
Change my view about this. Convince me that westerners really do have the right to travel to these kinds of places and expect to be safe the whole time. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Pinker's "The Better Angels of Our Nature" Is Probably Factually Correct In Its Claims About Violence, But It Ignores A Crucial Point About Value. +
+ First, this argument is largely targeted towards people with secular views on well-being and value. My personal view is that things have value because we value them. If you believe value comes from God, then this probably won't apply to your views as much.
My argument is that Pinker is probably right that the general trend of human history has been towards signficant and widespread moral progress (i.e. abolition of slavery, the spread of human rights), but this fails to account for the absolute numbers and the signifigance they have. It always bothered me in school when they would say that 1/2 is the same thing as 2/4...not if the absolute numbers matter! It's not enough to say that a greater *percentage* of people are enjoying less violent and more cooperative lives. The core problem is that, in absolute terms, there are more people suffering today. I've even heard Pinker admit this when talking about his book. He acknowledges that it is true that more people are suffering the consequences of violence, but that it is also true that even more people are not. This, for him, seems to mean we are making progress. I can't see it that way.
The problem comes when this claim bumps up against my own views about what makes something right or wrong. I don't believe one happy person balances out one miserable person when it comes to what matters. I tend to take a view similar to that of Sam Harris, in that what matters is reducing suffering. Period. So, in our current state, what really matters is that we have *increased* the sum total of suffering in the world. Whether or not we've also increased the amount of happiness in the world by a greater margin is irrelevant. The universe now contains more suffering conscious beings than it did in the past. Therefore, we have not made the kind of progress I would hope we would make. We have not reduced suffering. We have increased it in absolute terms. What has happened in relative terms is important, because it means things could be much worse, but it can't really be seen as an improvement. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Shielding children from sexuality is a bad idea at any age +
+ In all western societies I am aware of, there are laws preventing children from being exposed to sexuality* of any kind. I believe the effort of not exposing children to sexuality is not based in facts, and may actually be harmful.
There are various studies researching how children are affected through early exposure. Unfortunatly, virtually all of those studies target abuse situations, making it hard to draw conclusions about non-abuse situations. Nevertheless, several of these studies suggest emotional abuse is far more damaging than sexual abuse. To me this suggest that it's the emotional part (being forced) of the sexual abuse is the actual damaging part, not the sexual part.*
While the above may sound like a neutral point of view, I'd like to argue that shielding children of any age is actually harmful. It perpetuates the stigma of sexuality being a dirty and undiscussable thing. It robs (young) children of the ability to discuss sexual topics, making them more susceptible to sexual abuse.
I think parents, educators, and others should allow young children to become aware that sexuality exists. We shouldn't censor 'nipple gate' and we shouldn't put internet filters on our kids computers. Instead, we should treat sexuality the same way we treat violence. We should allow children to guide their own development, help them deal with it, but steer where necessary. (With this greater freedom, more guidance might be required, though)
*PS. I'm a father of a 6yo. I am aware that the above is not a widely held opinion, and acting on it is both legally and socially unacceptable. Due to these restrictions, this is mostly a mental exercise.*
**Clarifications**
* I consider all sexual relationships between adults and children abusive. I'm not advocating pedophilia here.
* IMHO "being exposed to sexuality" includes nudity, sex ed. It is definitely not limited to sexual relationships.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Humans have natural urges for sexual diversity as well as companionship. Monogamy is not a sufficient lifestyle for fulfilling ones needs. Non-monogamy can be done ethically, and takes more communication and maturity to practice successfully. +
+ Monogamy by definition restricts a person from fulfilling sexual desires outside their relationship. Everyone has sexual desires outside their partnership. Giving that up is not an unselfish act, it's an act of self degradation. The ability to embrace your partners acts of desire is the truly unselfish act.
Additionally, this should be especially true for young people. Teenagers and young adults have priorities (school, work, volunteering…) and tying themselves to someone else should be a distant thought. They should be honest and forthright about their desires. Any young person requiring a "serious commitment" for a relationship or sexual relationship should be shown the door so that they can find another young person that wants to settle down early.
This is my first CMV submission. I anticipate some poor communication. I anticipated some great conversation. I also chose a subject matter that most of the American culture just doesn't have any experience with or tolerance for. With those things said, I should not have been surprised that it felt more like "defend your view" than "change my view." I apologize if my initial reaction to this was less than friendly. Thank you for the conversation everybody.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Reasonable people can disagree on being conservative or liberal, but in American politics, it's unacceptable to align yourself with Republicans. CMV +
+ I have my own personal convictions when it comes to issues like whether schools should be privatized, where government should or should not have regulatory oversight, and the intersection between government and business. On untestable, ideological issues -- capitalism versus socialism in the abstract, for example -- I see plenty of room for reasonable people to disagree.
But when I think about politicians and businesspeple putting these ideologies into action, I see the facts as falling far more negatively on the GOP side of things. Let's be precise about my position: For every one blemish by a Democratic politician -- and there are many in my view -- there are two examples of a Republican doing something equally or more unsavory. My claim is that, for example, Republicans like Paul Ryan and Rand Paul who argue for cuts to benefits systems cite research that doesn't support their arguments; Democrats do those things, but they do them less. For every story about a Democrat bending the truth, there are five stories about a Republican saying or doing something incontrovertibly disgusting, stupid, or immoral: see Todd Akin, see Herman Cain, see the dollars funneled into climate change denial by the Koch brothers.
I may think socialized medicine would work in America, but there's relatively less data there. The amount of ad hominem smearing and ignoring of truth happens demonstrably more on the right in American politics, and even if you consider yourself a conservative in theory, it would be irresponsible to support the Republican party. CMV. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I see nothing wrong or immoral with having to pay for healthcare. CMV +
+ Now obviously I don't agree with the super high price inflation that most US citizens are subjected to but I do believe that the idea of paying for healthcare is completely normal. If I want top notch medical service I would feel much more comfortable paying someone for good work than risking getting poor treatment from a government institution. Also, I want to pay for my healthcare and my healthcare only. I would rather bite the bullet paying for care when I need it than having huge increases in taxes to pay for everyone else's. However, I have heard good things from the other side, that a universal healthcare system does work but I have trouble believing that it is any better than paying for my own. 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 moderators should have the power to change titles of posts, CMV. +
+ I can understand that letting the user change titles can lead to a variety of problems, getting a good comment, question, etc. up to the front page and then editing it into an advertisement or hateful statement, for example. However, fairly often news articles will end up having to be tagged 'misleading' or 'rumour', though the tag is significantly smaller than the title and *if* you notice it, it's after you've read the statement and it can easily end up slipping your memory that it was just a rumour or misleading, especially if you don't feel like clicking the link and deciphering the truth yourself.
I don't see why a mod can't just edit a title rather than tagging it, so that instead of saying "X is Y" it says "X is rumoured to be Y" or "X is Y if Z". Also, the ability to edit obvious spelling mistakes, that would take up a lot of a mods time, so just do it for posts that make it to the front page perhaps? | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV - Mobile websites are a relic of the early mobile internet era and are inferior to actual websites when using your smartphone. +
+ Full disclosure I use an iPhone but any smart phone can handle this.
There isn't a single instance where a mobile website is preferable to a full site. The information is gutted and moved around making the site difficult to browse if it's something you are familiar with and less useful because the information is presented in a mobile-friendly way. I believe smart phones are prevalent enough among phone users who want to use the Internet that it outweighs the "some people don't have smartphones" argument. 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: Fermi's Paradox means we will never become a space-faring species, or die trying. +
+ There's a explanation for Fermi's Paradox called the great filter, which posits that one of the chances in Fermi's Equation is 0. Some disaster exists that stop space-faring intelligent life from coming to exist. Since we are still around I believe that means that the great filter still lies between us and space-faring. I don't think we're some impossibly special case that made it passed the 0% test.
At first I thought that the great filter was Nuclear War, but that doesn't seem to be happening and even if it did it'd be something the human race could potential survive. It's certainly no guaranteed extinction.
So my next conclusion was Climate Change, but even the ecological apocalypse that would be, it's survivable. That spun off into the realisation that if an apocalypse did occur there'd be no recovery, we've burned all the easily accessible fossil fuels. Our second chance would hit a roadblock, without fossil fuels we wouldn't be able to extract anymore fossil fuels. Our recovery wouldn't make it to the steampunk stage.
So extinction might not even be needed to stop us from becoming space-faring.
I recently read about [the EM Drive](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EmDrive), reactionless engine that would allow anything to be propelled to relativistic speeds with an amount of power that could be accessible to individuals.
This could be easily weaponised with kinetic bombardment, a 1kg satellite can do as much damage as any extinction-level asteroid when accelerated close to the speed of light.
But even if none of the above is the issue, Fermi's Paradox means there's something that will prevent us from becoming space-faring.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I really don't think there's any justification for piracy, and I totally support increasing DRM. CMV. +
+ I'm seeing a lot of piracy posts around here so I thought I'd chime in. First of all, piracy is stealing, it's really as simple as that. Not only that, but you're also probably perpetuating a decline in jobs in the software industry (not sure if true, but theoretically it makes sense). Secondly, I don't see any way anyone can justify pirating something without losing their credibility. A person who tries to justify stealing, claiming that piracy is OK, is in my mind a person with low moral standards. Thirdly, I support anti piracy technology because it goes along with my view that piracy is not right and I think companies should definitely go for ramping up DRM, and forcing people to actually buy their games. I'm an aspiring concept artist who is looking to get a job in the film/video game industry and I don't want to lose my hard work to piracy.
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 don't think energy drinks are unhealthy as people say they are. +
+ I drink a can of Monster Zero a day. My friends and co-workers are aware of this habit and have not been quiet about their veiws of my consumption of such drinks. Generally, they tell me that I will get a heart attack one day for drinking a can a day of Monster. However, I do not believe these drinks are THAT bad for you. Yes, it would be better not drinking them(especially for my wallet) but I don't think I am gonna die in ten years from heart disease from drinking them.
Firstly, let's campare a 16oz can of what I drink a day to a medium Tim Horton Coffee( yes, I am Canadian). A can of Monster Zero is 135 mg of Caffiene, the coffee(14oz) is 140 mg. This is where I get annoyed with my co-workers. I only intake 135 mg of caffiene a day( unless I have those rare days where I drink two tops) while most of these guys would drink two or sometimes three medium cups in one work day! So if anything, I am comparatively less in danger to suffer from some kind of caffiene sickness or, heaven forbid, a heart attack.
Sources: http://www.caffeineinformer.com/tim-hortons-coffee-caffeine-content
http://www.caffeineinformer.com/caffeine-content/monster-absolutely-zero-energy-drink
While energy drinks have caffiene, I understand they have Taurine,B12 vitamins, and Gaurana. From what I have found, yes they can be bad for you, if one drinks WAY too much energy drinks or mixes it with booze. I don't do that, I limit myself to one a day(as mentioned, 2 if it is that rare day I need to stay awake all day) and forbid myself from mixing it with booze. Plus anything in large amounts will have negative effects on your body, whether it is coffee or energy drinks.
Source: http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/natural-health/dangers-of-taurine/
So to conclude, I do not think they are SIGNIFICANTLY bad for you. Yes I have read the story of the kid who drink 2 a day and died but from my knowledge he had a heart condition and it would be like someone drinking vodka everyday with a liver condition; of course you are gonna put yourself at risk. But I merely find it hypocritical that people in my life tell me I am doomed when they intake more crap than I do in one day.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I'm seriously considering leaving the Sci-Fi/Fantasy Con Community. +
+
OP:
I’ve been thinking about this for awhile. Probably a couple of years at the very least. But I kept putting it off because I wanted things to get better, to heal, to change. I worked side-by-side with people that I thought were pushing for a better con community for fans. With a few exceptions, in the nine years I've been working with the con community I've seen:
1. More harassment, either verbal or physical.
2. More sexually-charged environments, with more children in them.
3. More predators using cons as a place to find a cheap dinner.
4. More exploitation of fans. (Higher prices for less. Special fees for signings, special premium packages, more fans crammed into the same space, making guests inaccessible, etc.)
5. Less support for the emerging artists, authors, actors and 'little people' that are actually what supports a local fanbase.
Small Tomatoes Press has done a lot over the years to support the con community. We've provided prizes and auction items. We've done presentations for several cons. When the business had to move, we looked into our local options and quickly ran away. It is so toxic.
These cons are hurting people. They are hurting a lot of people as far as I can tell. How many poor underaged girls does con security need to scrap up off the floor of a drunken party before they shut the friggin' parties down?
There are still some very good people involved in the larger con community and some cons have a lot of good people working for them. But they all seem to be fighting the same problems over and over and over. I don’t think it’s getting better because it seems like at every con there are several key players are total creeps. The community seems to accept with varying degrees of disappointment the under aged peep-show vibe and pandering to various special interests groups that have nothing to do with Sci-Fi, Fantasy or Gaming within the con space.
But the most damning issue is that most cons no longer seem to be for the fans. They've turned into trade shows for companies, actors and authors that serve nerdy tastes. If a big name shows up, it's almost impossible to get face time -- they are surrounded by security and whisked from one monotone panel to the next. Everyone is there to see or be seen.
I still have a great deal of affection for my home con, but even it has some struggles in the last few years as it has gotten bigger.
| 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 get why people do walks or bike rides to support cancer/AIDS research, or other causes. It seems like a huge waste of time/money when instead people can simply donate money. CMV. +
+ It just seems like these large events that involve hundreds or thousands of people are a huge waste of money and resources. They close city streets, make cops/security/traffic police work overtime.
If you want to get people to donate to a cause just ask them...it makes no difference to me if you're going to run, walk or bike a few miles.
It seems like making these big events is simply a way to keep the business behind the charities going rather than actually helping the cause.
Imagine how much more money would go to the causes if they didn't put on these big events.
Please CMV. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Schools would benefit from being (entirely) privately run. +
+ As said above, most services run by the government can be run privately, such as the postal service, security, and transportation (and are run better). I cannot understand the arguments saying that the same could not be said about the education system. Having costs determined by a family's income may not lead to perfect equality, but would still be an improvement over the current system. The money saved by the government could be spent on things with more importance, such as the possibility of socialized healthcare.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
If more feminists openly disavowed radicals, then people wouldn't be so quick to label the entire movement as akin to a hate group. CMV +
+ Whenever a radfem does something abrasive and potentially unjust in the name of feminism, you'll always have those who will say that "they aren't real feminists" or "not all feminists are like that". While they're quick to tell this to the average person, how often do you see them out in public decrying the actions of radical feminists?
I like to think of it as "guilt by association". You have a feminist and a radical feminist. The radfem is shouting the usual "cishet white male oppresion" spiel and how they should tear down the patriarchy by any means necessary. The regular feminist doesn't agree with the radfems reasoning, but since they are supposedly fighting for the same goal, she ignores it, and wonders why some people treat her with disdain before she even says a word simply because she identifies as feminist. She's being viewed as being supportive of the radfems since she isn't speaking out against them with nearly the same fervor that the radfems harbor.
A lot of the focus on feminism is attracted to the radfems, like the ones who harassed those guys at the cathedral in Argentina. He who speaks loudest is heard, and since the radfems(there are varying levels of radical by the way, not just the shrieking pseudo-terrorists) are constantly out-voicing intelligent feminists, it's beginning to leave a stain on what started out as a great movement.
If regular feminists would hold rallies and protests against radfems just like they would about other issues, then feminism wouldn't be demonized as much. CMV. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
The new Whose Line Is It Anyway is terrible for many reasons. CMV +
+ 1. The presenter overdoes the "you have to stop this right now" way of using the buzzer even when it's not necessary.
2. She laughs too much at the jokes it almost feels fake.
3. 3 ads in a 30-minute show compared to 1 in the original British show, one of which is just before the credits.
4. Having guest stars and leaving out the contestants just feels lame.
5. For some reason it feels like they know what's coming up, they go directly where they're supposed to go even before the presenter tells them to.
6. She mentions the points too often and forgets to assign points after contests even though they don't matter.
7. No direct interaction with the audience which means what's happening may have been prepared.
That's all I can think of for now. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: People under 16 shouldn't be charged as adults after committing a crime +
+ In a lot of ways I think that you should only be able to be charged as an adult if you are over 18 (aka legally an adult), but I decided 16 is a better number, because it is a reasonably developed age, and is the age of consent in most places.
I think it is very hypocritical to consider some one who is 14 or 15 a child when it comes to the age of consent, but an adult if they commit a crime. How can you say that child is not mentally developed enough to have sex with some one older, but is mentally developed enough to know the consequences of criminal actions. If a child commits a violent act, I think we should focus on rehabilitating them, and less on punishing them anyways.
There was just a case where a 10 year old boy in Pennsylvania is being tried as an adult after killing a 90 year old woman. How could any one possible consider him as an adult? He is 10 years old, if any crime was committed against him, the punishment would be harsher since he is a child. Any one able to explain this to me?
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I like laughtracks. CMV. +
+ I've heard the argument too many times: "Laugh tracks are awful!" "That tinned laughter ruins that show!" "When you take out the laugh track, Big Bang Theory is so awkwaaard, it's the worst!"
As a TV junkie, I get that the shows on air with laugh tracks right now aren't the best comedies. I'm sure plenty of people here hate How I Met Your Mother, Two and Half Men, or Big Bang Theory. They're not exactly clever, simply easy-to-watch, low-brow humor. They're an entire different breed than Parks & Rec, Community, or other single-camera shows, and people make fun of their laughtracks for it.
But I try thinking about the other shows that Reddit loves: Fresh Prince is beloved on here, yet I've never seen a Reddit comment criticizing the laughtrack. Seinfeld is a classic, and the film style of the sound stage, multi-cam setup, and recorded laughtrack have never been an issue. Going back to the best comedies of television, Friends, Happy Days, Cheers, Mary Tyler Moore, I Love Lucy - all gems, all with laughtracks. I don't think any show on their air "relies" on their laughtrack any less than these ones - Ross Gellar or the Fresh Prince would certainly seem awkward if you cut up the format of the show.
So while some people think that laughtracks shouldn't have a place on TV, I say the opposite: I'm glad that we still have shows of the same format that was accepted for so many years. Yes, it's not quite as realistic, and yes, I'm glad that TV comedies have also evolved to have these amazing single-cam shows like Modern Family and Workaholics. But while the multi-cam, laughtrack-ridden, low-brow humor shows that we have on TV right now aren't exactly brimming with quality, I'm still happy that they have a place on television. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Although I'm an Atheist, I believe religion to be an overall positive thing for a society. CMV +
+ For some background on myself, I'm purely atheist. I have formed my beliefs solely on scientific knowledge. I believe that we, as a species, have evolved from single celled organisms, contrary to many of the religious explanations for our existence.
With that being said however, I think religion is a very important part of a healthy society. The first major reason I think this is I believe there are some parts of life that are too dark for us to deal with effectively. This recently hit me when I was comforting a family friend who had recently lost his son to suicide. The father was somewhat religious and the only thing that brought him any comfort was the fact that his son could be up in heaven, and that he may see him someday. As an atheist, I personally felt that his son was gone and never going to return. However I felt it would be most appropriate to hide my atheism, and just try comforting him with the idea of him reuniting with his son someday. There are many similar situations that can be found when looking at some of the dark aspects of life. In these situations, I feel that if there were no religion, there would be many more mentally unhealthy people in our world.
A second reason I believe religion to be beneficial to society is the sense of justice that in instills in many of it's followers. Religion provides this in many different ways including Karma, going to heaven/hell, eternal rewards or punishments for deeds, etc. What all of these forms of justice have in common is they are all very reliable. You can't hide from Karma/God in the same manner you can hide from the law. I think it's a positive thing for a society's people to believe that there will always be justice. Without this belief, many would be more likely to commit crimes, feeling they could get away with it and face less consequences. Furthermore many who see unpunished injustices would be more likely to take things into their own hands. For example, if a man encounters an unfaithful wife, then without religion he may choose to seriously harm her. Many would argue that "you don't need religion to have moral integrity." While for most of us I agree this is true, I still believe there are many in our society who WOULD be less moral without religion.
I acknowledge that religion has done some harm in the past, but I still feel that, practically speaking, any healthy society must embrace religion to an extent. I try to keep an open mind to all sides, so by all means 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? |
Since Hitler's actions were the result of his beliefs, he should not be condemned. CMV +
+ First off, I do not support Nazism. I am merely suggesting that the Hitler was a simple follower of a belief. People should not have the right to claim that his belief is fallacious simply because it is destructive to others. In fact, Hitler should be commended for his beliefs, since he was the leader of his own religion and we are followers of another. The Holocaust, I believe, is not a mortifying calamity that most people perceive it as. Instead, it should be viewed as Hitler's rite to his own religion.
My argument is often ignore or taken as a joke. I really just want to hear how and why people perceive Hitler as an evil mastermind, when he was simply following ideals and his own morals. | 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 something deeply dubious about "Citizenship" classes +
+ In the UK we have recently implemented "[Citizenship](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-citizenship-programmes-of-study/national-curriculum-in-england-citizenship-programmes-of-study-for-key-stages-3-and-4)" classes for secondary school children. In rough terms the stated aim is to endow a child with basic knowledge about how the political, financial and legal systems of Britain work.
The format of these classes often revolves around discussion of topics such as diversity, equality and so on. According to a few (left-wing) friends who work in education, the effect of these classes is often to promote values of the Left, and often end with religious kids being shouted down by their peers.
I tend towards the classical liberal line myself, so most of these values being promoted are not entirely against my own political thinking. Yet I do find it troubling that what seems to be a very politicised subject has entered the classrooms apparently by the backdoor. Whilst there are certain values that schools probably should promote (obedience to the law, respect for individual rights), these classes seem to be fostering conformism rather than scepticism, which seems to me to be the wrong priorities for an educational establishment.
Clearly such classes differ over the world, and some will be more heavily politicised (and in different directions) than others. Whilst I do think children should be educated about the nature of their country's politics, laws and so on, it seems more should be done to guard against it becoming a propaganda tool for the Left (more likely given the general inclination of teachers) or the Right.
CMV.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: As a part of background checks, teachers at public institutions who soap box publicly and identifiably should be fined or fired. +
+ Everyone should be allowed to have the ability to stand up for their rights and what they personally endorse, however teachers are a highly influential part of the way children develop and if a child or more likely a Teen is influenced by the soap boxing of their instructor/teacher professor it is to the detriment of that individual forming their own opinions at least publicly at the risk of scrutiny from their instructor.
I mentioned soap boxing and being publicly identifiable as the criteria because these types of people are more likely to let their political passions drive other aspects of their life. Furthermore, I don't just mean this in the capacity of public forum such as public space, but social media accessible to the curious students of teachers. As it is, a lot of instructors do hide their personal musings and associated content that's on social media but for those that don't they should be fined or fired, or punished in some capacity at least, that is meaningful enough to deter them from doing further damage to their young charges.
Lastly and to clarify, I don't think if a teacher has a stalker it should be the end of them. If they are hiding behind a distinct unique screen name like everyone else that is worth due consideration because as I have stated, they should be able to practice and endorse their political beliefs, just not at the expense of the kids.
CMV if you can. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe giving to the homeless occasionally is better for me than it is bad for them. CMV. +
+ I feel guilty whether I give or don't give to the homeless. We've all heard how giving to homeless people can support addictions or foster a cycle of dependence. However, I feel that the personal gain I get from maintaining an altruistic nature and keeping people as people outweighs any harm that I cause to them. I think, in the long run, that motivates me more to help in more substantial ways, such as volunteering, which I do frequently. So even though I may be doing more societal harm than good in the short term, I think it pays off in the long term. Why should I not behave this way?
| malleable | 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 there is any problem with the discrimination laws passed in AZ. CMV +
+ First let me start off by saying, I don't care for people who discriminate upon the basis of any extraneous factor such as race or sexual orientation. Please do not confuse my view in this way. I believe that all businesses have the right to give or refuse service to anyone, for any reason. They will then pay the price for such discrimination in the form of lower sales and greater customer dissatisfaction, which will lead them to perform worse than a business that does not discriminate. The government which represents all the people, certainly has no place to discriminate or deny service upon these bases, but private organizations in business for their own self interests, should not have this restriction. Perhaps in the rare instances of government imposed monopolies such as local government agreements with cable companies, there can be a restriction. But elsewhere in the free market, businesses should have the right to choose whom to do business with, and suffer the consequences of pain to their business when they engage in such discriminatory practice. | 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 Economics is largely a backwards field rooted in pseudoscience, unscrutinized cultural biases, and political manipulation. +
+ Before I begin - I want to clarify that I do not believe the fundamental intent of the field of Economics is invalid. There is definitely a utility to exploring how goods and services are distributed across a society and many fields have benefited from certain basic concepts developed in Economics.
But on the whole, I generally think Economists are full of it. Now I am by no means an expert in the field and this perception may just be the result of my own ignorance, I got my degree in Physics. But it seems to me that the field is defined by political agendas (whether they be extolling the inherent benevolence of Free-Market Capitalism or pushing for greater involvement in the economy) rather than the objective and open-ended pursuit of knowledge as found in the sciences and to a lesser extent the social sciences. Economists seem hopelessly rooted in the worship of figures like Smith, Ricardo, Keynes, and Marx, stubbornly committed to reworking their theories into something that sort of fits the economic realities they can't ignore and jives with the political principles they like. While most Social Sciences seem to have an issue political agendas, Economics looks completely and fundamentally broken in its lack of rigor. Even in fields like History or Anthropology where there is considerable politicizing, there is a broad consensus on the fundamentals of methodology and the legitimacy of certain ideas that keeps everyone on the right track. Meanwhile, you have Economists like Paul Krugman and Steve Keen not just forwarding their respective political platforms, but disagreeing about the **fundamental operation of economies.** I haven't seen anything like this in any of the other social sciences. I haven't seen Sociologists debate whether or not social stratification even exists, Linguists reject the idea that cultural pressures can change languages, or Archaeologists fight over whether or not settlement patterns can tell us about cultural evolution. When I read about each of these fields, I see a clear progression in their work: a refinement of methods, a building of knowledge, the revision of basic assumptions to fit new data.
Then I read pieces by influential Economists that [basically confess the cluelessness of people working in the field](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/magazine/06Economic-t.html?_r=0) on the one hand and on the other hand assert that their theories [don't require empirical validation](http://mises.org/epofe/c1p2sec2.asp) and I can't help but think "Wow, the emperor has no clothes." While Economists (hilariously) try to create an air of credibility to their work by expressing their theories with mathematical formulas, the doesn't change the fact that the basic ideas that underpin the field are based not on empirical data but rather the assumptions they've made about the world and humanity. ( [A Mathematician put out a critique about Economists' use of mathematics a few years back that I really enjoyed.](http://ineteconomics.org/blog/inet/economics-not-math) ) It continues to be rooted in empirically invalidated and scientifically outdated ideas like humans being fundamentally individualistic and rational simply because that is the way Western society currently likes to understand itself. The fact that this has gone largely unchallenged in the field and that many of the field's seminal concepts were derived from the [haphazard reworking of Newtonian equations](http://books.google.com/books?id=xA4Y3lkcpscC&pg=PA179&lpg=PA179&dq=david+ricardo+newtonian+equations&source=bl&ots=JrCF7Cot_s&sig=tCpgQ31mlctVtDToQ2A6GUsWYa0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7lMdVKSTJ4WGyASx2YIQ&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=david%20ricardo%20newtonian%20equations&f=false) says that both in terms of its internal discourse and topical theorization, Economics is very shallow and just about keeping the illusion of knowing what you are talking about. Psychologists have embraced Neuroscience, Historians have begun to employ Computer Science, Biology has come to play a fundamental role in Anthropology, and Geography is constantly reworking itself to incorporate the work done in the hard sciences.... but Economists seem intent on ignoring the work of other fields and pretending they have all the answers.
Economics has limited predictive power and every time Economists claim to be able to explain something, some new economic catastrophe occurs and they're all left scratching their heads, trying to figure out why their explanations don't conform to reality. But the worst part? The worst part is the fact that of all the social sciences, Economics has the most sway in our society. It isn't supported and respected as a field because it tells or explains economies very well but rather because it feeds into whatever businesspeople and politicians alike want to hear.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I don't think diversity is important. CMV +
+ For reference, I'm a lower class straight white male in America. Ever since I was little, I remember being constantly told just how wonderful it is that we live in a diverse nation with a spectrum of people. For a long time, I ate it up.
As I move into adult life, though, I'm starting to become very jaded on the whole thing. It seems like America, Canada, Australia, Europe and Scandinavia must open their borders and become halfway houses for every down-on-his-luck asshole who wants a slice of the welfare pie. Why is it these nations only that must become less white? Give up their culture, or at least "make room" for the kinds of people we are traditionally aligned against (see: the difficulties second and third generation Islamic immigrants have integrating into European society)? Why doesn't Japan have to become more diverse? Russia? South America or Africa?
And then at the institutional level, what's with all the carte blanche these people are handed out? Maybe it's my university specifically, but it feels like whites, even non-American "diverse" whites, are under the microscope to make sure none of us flip out and start saluting the swastika. Meanwhile, the paper is running articles about racial crime "quotas", saying the campus police are morally obligated to arrest more white men to match the spike in black male crime (this year we've had high-profile incidents of black students expelled for fighting, firearms on campus, rioting, rape, theft, etc, it has been particularly bad). A few weeks ago they even ran an opinion piece saying that the university has a "duty" to expel/fire white students/faculty, and to no longer accept/hire whites, to make room for a more diverse student body! I work on campus, and the other week someone found "WHITES WILL HANG" written in a bathroom stall. No one said a thing about it. Meanwhile, the chancellor cried on camera a few months ago when "the N word" was similarly found. Thursday I overheard a black student telling another, "It's not rape if she's white. It's payback." How are we supposed to accept this Chicago thug culture? How is this good or positive in any way? Why are we inviting this behavior into our community? What benefit does this bring? I can't imagine ever inflicting rape upon someone, but *I'm* the one required to take "tolerance" and "integrative" courses?
I recognize these are individuals and that you can't judge a group by their behavior. I work and learn with people from around the world and different backgrounds, but here's the thing: They want to integrate, to assimilate, to become a part of the America tapestry. Meanwhile, so many more simply want a free ride on my back. People make a big deal about, "Oh, it's 20XX, the white man's burden is gone, get with the times! We don't live in the 40s anymore!" But I feel like the burden has shifted, now I work and work to pay for other peoples' EBTs so they can buy shitty food and lotto tickets. I myself qualify for welfare (Native American heritage), but I would never consider it anything as a last resort, just as my mother did when she was a teenage mother with an infant son and no partner. When a group or culture presents serious, recurring problems, what are we supposed to do?
The thing that annoys me most, too, is how you can't question any of it without some sociology/philosophy double major coining a new anti- -ist -ism -phobia about it. The facts are all around us, but we're too swept up by the feel good, "I'm not racist at all!" ideology to realize we're blowing it all on a dream, a fairy tale. And people say, "Well, the benefit of diversity isn't for YOU! It's for them!" So what? What the fuck does that mean? I have to labor so that people who legitimately hate me and my people can "succeed"? We're stuck in a fucking twilight zone where western cultures bitch about how evil the West is, while everyone else either tries to modernize and meet western standards or moves to the West anyway. And when you ask people, straight up, "What's so good about diversity?" the response is always something as inane as, "OMG don't you like Chinese food and ethnic music?!" or it's some buzzword bullshit about how people different from me have different ideas, blah blah blah, but we've gotten along pretty damn well for the past couple thousand years.
I guess I just really want to know why things have to be this way. There's a very clearly defined border between genocide and open borders, why can't we remain comfortable with who we are? Why is the most successful, prosperous, inventive and advanced civilization known suddenly the great villain? Why does everyone unflinchingly accept just how great it is when studies show it's not? Why are people so quick to pat themselves on the back over it?
I don't think diversity is important. CMV | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Many buildings that are considered masterpieces are only valued because of their age and would be considered garish eyesores if built today. +
+ This post is inspired by [this](http://np.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/31j6kt/the_official_residences_of_the_president_of/) conversation that I had on another subreddit. While I am not opposed to traditional architecture or its revivals ([this](http://archsoc.westphal.drexel.edu/New/UVA-9.jpg) is one of my favorite buildings of all time), I think that a lot of what is today considered to be excellent traditional architecture is, in fact, quite garish and ugly and would not be considered to be beautiful by most people if it was being built now, right next door to you. (I'm particularly talking about baroque Classicism.)
Can you tell which of these pictures are from legitimate historic buildings and which are from the palaces of dictators? (I've included a couple pictures of rapper houses too)
[Whose house is this?](http://cdn.hiphopwired.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/6_rlvrk.jpg)
[This?](http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/02/10/article-2556035-1B5BFE0D00000578-168_634x439.jpg)
[Whose spectacular mansion is this?](http://www.bucharestdailyphoto.ro/photos/2010/02/IMG_4220.JPG)
[What tyrant lived here?](https://indifferentreflections.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/dsc_0032.jpg)
[Who lived here and when was this built?](http://www.thenational.ae/storyimage/AB/20140226/ARTICLE/140229383/EP/1/1/EP-140229383.jpg&MaxW=640&imageVersion=default)
[Putin or Kremlin?](http://en.rian.ru/images/18142/76/181427612.jpg)
[Tacky or tasteful?](http://for91days.com/photos/Istanbul/Dolmabah%C3%A7e%20Palace/Dolmabah%C3%A7e%20Palace%20-01%20130501%20For91days.com.JPG)
[Hmmm...](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-WJTI3dx8lj0/UoBqoNP9j8I/AAAAAAAAAMs/4qL_MZHCw14/s1600/268595.jpg)
Obviously, not all historic mansions were like that and [even some royals had taste](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/Kensington_Palace,_the_South_Front_-_geograph.org.uk_-_287402.jpg), but I'd say that a lot of the historic buildings in this set (which include Versailles and the Moscow Kremlin) would be considered to be the height of bad taste if built today.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: it is impossible for a text post to be NSFW +
+ First, I am not talking about lewd ASCII art or text posts with image links. I am talking about simple, textual posts that happen to touch on adult subjects. Labeling these posts "NSFW" is not only pointless, it is often counter productive.
Think for a moment what the "NSFW" label is meant to accomplish. The "NSFW" flag helps you decide not to click something, because clicking it will display a graphic image that is visible to your employer and coworkers if they are in the same room. If I'm reading a paragraph of text, my bosses and co-workers cannot tell the contents of the text unless they sit down and read it. In fact, they *only* way they would understand that I'm reading a sexually explicit story is if they are reddit user's themselves, and recognize the red "NSFW" label. | 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 drag performers are participating in the equivalent of blackface/minstrel shows for transgender individuals. CMV. +
+ A few years ago I went to a drag show at a local gay bar, and an MtF friend of mine got in a huff about it. She explained that, due to the exaggeration of masculinity/femininity that the shows portray, as well as lampooning the idea of cross-dressing/gender bending, it was damaging and offensive to trans individuals. She drew the comparison to blackface and how parallel exaggerations were used to demean people of African heritage at the turn of the 19th century. I countered with the notion that (predominantly) gay male performers were marginalized as well, to which she pointed out that a non-white person in blackface would be equally offensive. I also tried to use the argument that they were also part of the transgender spectrum, and she pointed out that a lot, if not most of the performers were not experiencing any sort of gender dysphoria, but were merely doing it for the "fun". I went to the show that night anyway and saw a drag performer doing a caricature of a geisha girl as well as others also exploiting cultural stereotypes. It was then that I fully understood my friend's point. I've been opposed to the shows ever since. No one I know, including the performers themselves have ever been able to give me a good reason why the shows aren't offensive and why a progressive LGBT community wouldn't oppose their existence. I think Reddit can. CMV. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Buying / breeding pedigree dogs is antiquated and harmful. +
+ Genuinely looking for a good reason why some people are so caught up in the purity of their dog's blood line, cause I'm just not getting it. The way I see it, while developing specific breeds at one point made sense because dogs served different functions, at this point it's doing more harm (in the form of inbreeding and creating a market for irresponsible overbreeding) than good and doesn't need to be practiced any more.
**Wanting a dog with a specific personality // need a specific breed for a specific job**
Disposition and manners are going to have a lot more to do with upbringing, imo, than species. Obviously that's a generalization, as something like energy level cannot be trained out of a dog. But it's pretty easy to gauge things like that in a dog whose bloodline you don't know by just hanging out with them a little- terrier/shepherd looking dogs that are bouncing off the walls are probably going to be high energy. That doesn't require a pedigree to determine. Similarly, I can't think of a reason why a service dog would need to be 100% of a specific breed. Looking for a general type of dog makes sense, but why you would need a purebred lab and couldn't make do with a lab-x from a shelter is beyond me. Mutts are intelligent and trainable and possess the physical attributes required of any dog job. Not all of them, obviously, but not all purebred dogs are cut out to be police / service / drug dogs either. The training and weeding out process is in place regardless, there's no reason a mutt couldn't go through it and I'd be willing to bet just as many would come out on the other side as the pure dogs.
**Purebreed for the purpose of keeping a breed in existence // breeding for show**
These are not wild animals which humans have been killing off via habitat loss and poaching. Specific breeds were created by man, and it's cruel and unnecessary to inbreed them to the point of mental and physical illness for the purpose of maintaining some man-made breed standard. Dog shows seems superficial and meaningless to me and nobody's ever been able to articulate a reason why they aren't.
I get liking a particular look. My family has two little mutts and I love them to bits but fantasize about getting a Great Dane when I'm out of university. However, I really can't conceive of a reason why I'd need to ensure that a dog I'd adopt was 100% Dane to satisfy that desire. I'll visit a bunch of pounds and find a Dane-ish looking dog, or go to a Dane rescue, and be ecstatic with whatever doggy I find.
Please change my view so I can be more empathetic when people tell me they got their dog from a purebred breeder and I won't secretly judge them anymore!
| 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 government is spending way too much money and needs to start saving to cut costs +
+ I think the US has a spending problem and needs to cut costs. We are accumulating too much debt and I'm afraid the system will implode if we don't do anything about it. Although, I strongly believe in a safety net for all Americans (such as basic income), I also believe that we can't afford it and I'm losing hope as to whether our problems are solvable since Democrats and Republicans are always fighting about our financing issues/debt.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think that the laws liberals create to try to help the poor in America are statistically and morally wrong. CMV. +
+ I try to be respectful to all views, but I can't grasp this one. In America today, we have so many programs in effect to help the poor, from welfare to unemployment benefits to extreme tax breaks. First of all, statistically, the Keynesian way of thinking here is off. The rationalization for giving all these advantages is of course in the ideal that the economy is going to be stimulated. I will give you that, yes. Poor people are more likely to spend their money routinely on groceries, especially when they are more likely to have more kids or family members at their residence, BUT, this way of thinking only favors the poor and burns anyone from the middle class to the high tax bracket. My idea of the best economic plan is a mixture of the flat tax (a percent, not a flat rate which people confuse) and supply side economics. The flat tax ties up many complexities and loops holes that are under the current progressive tax system, and some other things I'll get to in a minute. The supply side part ensures that the economy will be stimulated without the over saturation of enforced taxes (Laffer). A combination of both will bring maximum satisfaction from both the government and the American people. Now to the moral part. Do you think that it's right to have the government support the poor to the point where they don't have to work? It's already happening in Germany where there are so many social programs where the poor could just live off the government. We aren't too far off in the US, when you can exploit the system for the same effect as in Germany. Is that good morals for any of that? The government's money solely comes from the people, you can say that the poor are living off of other people's hard work. Isn't that the exact reason why writers sue for plagiarism? Millions and millions of hard earned dollars are being circulated right in the hands of people who don't work. Yes, there are poor who do deserve more than they earn, but should the government be a part of that process? I think not. | 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 approve of gay pride parades. CMV. +
+ I have nothing against homosexuals and they deserve to be accepted in society and get married like everyone else but I believe the approach is all wrong. I think it's wrong trying to promote gay pride by dressing in leather and latex. If people want others to accept gays then they should make people see the gay community as morally upright people that most of them are instead of portraying themselves as kinky sex crazed people. Also dressing lewd will do nothing but freak out the homophobes and disgust families that want things to be "rated G" for their young children. I think all the things people do in gay pride parades just hurt their cause more than help it. That's why I believe gays should be a bit more family friendly if they want more acceptance. | 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 a $70,000 individual annual salary is more than enough to live damn comfortable anywhere in the US +
+ Really? Why would anyone want more? A $70k salary is enough for you to pay for comfortable housing, transportation, and expenses even controlling for cities. The average American earns much less than $70,000 and gets by just fine. So why would anyone want to earn more than $70,000? How would more benefit you? If you have a job that pays you a $70,000 salary, chances are you would have vacation time. What would an extra $30,000 help you do that you can't do with your existing salary? There's no marginal utility as far as financial comfort is concerned. | 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 electric vehicles should not be mass produced... yet +
+ To start this off, let me say that I one day want to work in manufacturing (currently going into junior year of chemical engineering) and thus I tend to view the monetary aspects of issues too much.
Pros of electric vehicles:
~Great for personal use (<100 miles daily)
~Very quite and often comfortable form of transportation
~Low cost to operate on a daily basis for the user
~Can be powered through renewable energy sources
~Mass production fuels innovation
~Promotes the awareness of sustainable behaviors
~Can be powered from a home easily
Cons:
~Upfront cost (everyone loves Tesla, but that's a ton of money. Even the Leaf is very expensive for what you get if you compare it to a combustion subcompact)
~Sourcing of some materials (lead has been phased out, still reliant of rare earth metals though)
~Typically challenging to recycle (Tesla has done a good job at mitigating this)
~Very low mileage (especially cheaper models)
~Won't work on current infrastructure for a decade or two on a mass scale
~Burden on non electric purchasers. This is one of my biggest concerns. If you can afford a Tesla, you really shouldn't need a $7,500 tax break!
~Artificial cost due to fleet standards lowering the cost of EVs and Hybrids while raising the cost of standard vehicles
~Pointless if the energy comes from coal (the nation is doing a fantastic job at lowering coal dependance though currently)
~High cost of replacing the battery every 5-10 years
~Current low production of rare earth metals will restrict the mass production of electric vehicles until production picks up
~Dependence on foreign nations for some rare-earth metals
~Many vehicles simply demand too much energy to be battery powered (construction, military, freight, etc.) and these vehicles contribute quite a bit to current vehicle emissions
~Many purchasers of EVs simply purchase the vehicles as a status symbol with no actual care for the environment
~In some areas, EVs contribute to congestion (CA allowing EVs to use carpool lanes and thus taking away incentive to carpool (which protects the environment more than owning an EV anyways))
So my viewpoint to summarize is thus: EVs are wonderful concepts and should continue to be worked on. They should not however be mass produced yet. We need to continue our work on energy storage, production, and delivery first. After these aspects have been improved, then we can begin the mass production of EVs again. | 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 slaughter of horses for meat is no different than the slaughter of cows, pigs, chickens, goats, etc., and it should be allowed in the U.S. CMV +
+ The ASPCA (whose efforts toward aiding dogs and cats I support) posted a link to this article on Facebook: http://blog.aspca.org/content/day-horse-aspca-takes-federal-action-americas-horses
The comments on the FB post were mostly along the lines of "disgusting" etc. I highly doubt every person expressing that sentiment is a vegetarian. Why do people single out horses as being untouchable, but have no problem with current animal slaughtering for meat?
------
To clarify a few points I see recurring in your rebuttals:
1. I understand and agree with all of the ways in which horses are useful/enjoyable to man while living. I don't understand how so many see this as a reason to not breed horses for meat. I don't mean that ALL horses HAVE to be killed and eaten, for Pete's sake. People who want to can still keep horses for pleasure, work, riding, whatever. Just like we have some fish as pets and others we eat.
2. All of the issues with the safety/medical safety of it, I think, would be resolved it if were legal and able to be regulated, the way all other livestock processes are. Are there places that treat animals inhumanely in their livestock processing? Yes, but you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. You penalize those who do wrong, and don't make generalizations.
3. "Well, AudgieD, why don't we eat cats and dogs then?" Because nobody in the US wants to. Horse meat is becoming an issue because there's a market for it. So, obviously, somebody wants to eat it.
4. "Oh yeah, AudgieD, why don't we just eat humans then?" If you aren't able to make a distinction between the value of human life and animals, you need more help than reddit can offer. Also, put down the bath salts.
--------
Also, for all those who seem to think it's cold of me to be dismissive of "emotion" as it relates to this topic, I thought it might be worth mentioning that I'm a female. I'm just trying to look at this objectively, as I think we all should. | 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 care that most women find the gaming community to be an "All boys club" and think that it's not my problem and women should just grow thicker skin. CMV. +
+ Unfortunately my view is purely based on anecdotal evidence, sweeping generalisations, and little fact. So you might be able to do this easily.
I'm aware that typical boys and girls are raised in completely different ways and while this may be a problem in itself I'm just talking about the current attitude towards women in games.
When I was younger I was your average geeky kid. I had my friends who were the same way and we were seen as the weird kids that popular boys would make fun of. By extension we'd gain the same derision from the girls about our interest in games and how they were for losers. This was an attitude I found through all aspects of my education.
By the time I'd finished university games were only just coming around to becoming acceptable for boys in general. Women still treated me like a loser for stating it was an enjoyable pastime for myself and I'd even catch a lot of flak along the lines of "Why don't you do something more productive with your time?"
So now that games are mainstream and popular, and somewhat cool, I notice a lot of women are legitimately enjoying games. Great. Nothing wrong with that. Good on you for enjoying a fantastic recreational activity. But I also find that they don't like the existing culture that has arisen because it has been an "All boys club" from day one.
But they're the ones that made it this way. I've heard it time and time again from guys in games and back in the BBS days about the shit we'd get. Especially from women who could make some pretty brutal remarks. We wouldn't mind what other guys said as it'd never be that bad. It was always the girls who would say things that would particularly cut because we wanted to be liked by them or to have them talk to us as equals and not as if we belonged on the bottom of their foot.
So geeky boys fled to this refuge to play their games and something that was a huge jumpstart to the gaming community was competitive online games. People can get pretty competitive. Women and men alike. As such all elements that are available to you are used to try and give you an edge and as such is trash talking. It's because it's acceptable to say absolutely absurd and hyperbolic statements to rile and distract your opponents. The closer to truth the better. As such the insults women get are going to be tailored towards things that are applicable to them.
I don't trash talk. But we've all played enough (if you're a gamer anyway) to know that it's a huge part of the culture. Pathetic and whiny? Sure. But it's still there.
So I think that over time yes this will change but it's mostly the fault of women* in the years gone past for treating your average gamer like shit. I'm in no hurry for anything to change as I grew up with it and a lot of guys did too. I mean the average age of the gamer varies between 28-35 but it's always male. We're the problem in a sense that will change in time if women adopt games on masse like we did.
Oh and Farmville etc doesn't really count. I'm talking about games with a competitive element and where you have to interact. Playing Bejewelled on your phone means you play games. Not that you're a gamer.
I could ride a BMX down the street but I wouldn't call myself a BMXer or whatever.
Anyway yeah I'm a jaded and sexist dick. I don't mean to be rude but I know how this sounds. CMV.
We say absolutely over the top hyperbolic things to one another like it means nothing to us, because it doesn't and it's part of the game, but the mainstream media doesn't understand that. They take the comments at face value because they don't understand otherwise.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The world is the best it has ever been and most of the people I talk to think it's the worst. +
+ It seems like there is a growing opinion that america-- nay, the world entire-- is going downhill or ending, when it seems like the opposite is true. You're no less likely to be killed by a fellow human than ever before, there is less poverty, death, famine, crime, war, and disease in the world. There is more access to clean water, running water, healthcare, travel, information (free), and opportunity than ever before. Scarce resources are a problem, but it seems like humanity always finds ways to solve problems (no more oil, okay, we'll try ethanol.. it'll cost money, but we can do it probably).
I believe the answer would be we're genetically predisposed to fear mongering as it helped our ancestors to be extremely cautious and nervous back when there were more dangers out there than just human beings and we were naturally selected to be averse to smelling the roses. But right now, by most markers for 'good stuff' it's the rosiest mankind has ever been. I mean imagine being born even 150 years ago. Literally any other time in the history of humanity it was worse to be alive then now, yet people act like the end times are nigh. I'll bet ever generation in the history of earth thought the world was getting worse, when it's exactly the opposite. An ignorant shmoe in 1912 (or 3 BCE or 1200) could think that and it's okay for me, but now the facts are overwhelmingly clear and the willful ignorance irks me. Maybe it's part of our nature, but humans have the propensity to outgrow their nature. It's a reason we've done this well. Also think an explanation could be 24 hour news cycle and social media. You hear and see bad stuff a lot more than you used to so confirmation bias makes you think it's worse when it's really better. There's a lot of LAPD stuff that's not so good in the news, but compare than to even 1980's and 90's and it looks like kindergarten cops.
So anyways, either smell the damned fine roses or change my view!
PS: And if it's global warming you're worried about, I think it's gonna be bad, but not the end of humanity even if the worst predictions become true.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Dashcams should be required on cars. Truth shall set you free.. from insurance scams and indefensible premiums alike. We need better factors than traditional ones such as speed/age/gender. +
+ Around half the states and provinces across US and Canada ban use of dashcams for reasons that are questionable and indefensible to an average person such as privacy laws barring recording out even in public road.
Legal world has not caught up to what the technology can offer which is video footages of actual driving AND the state of driver himself. I argue that this has much better correlation to a person's driving risk and that insurance companies are afraid to employ this over traditional factors used in statistical risk assessment such as speeding, age group, and gender (one of the biggest controversial factors). | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe TOR isn't NSA-proof. CMV +
+ According to wiki,
From my understanding, TOR is secure if the endpoints aren't compromised. But if TOR is govt-run, then I suppose it wouldn't matter. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: To improve fire safety, all buildings should have a real time log of occupants accessible to the fire department +
+ One of the dangers of firefighters is looking for people who occupy a building on fire. They need to fully explore the building looking for occupants. With a real time list of occupants they could spend less time searching. They would know who was in the building and check that all are accounted for during evacuation.
To reduce the costs of implementation only buildings when built, renovated or sold would need to be installed with occupant logging technology. The technology could read an RFID tag to reduce the time and cost of maintaining the occupant log. Later as more buildings include logging other uses of the data could be made.
Building fires cause about [$9 billion](http://www.usfa.fema.gov/statistics/estimates/index.shtm) in damage per year. Adding an RFID reader to a building costs about [$500](http://www.rfidjournal.com/faq/show?86). With about [1 million](https://www.census.gov/construction/nrc/pdf/newresconst.pdf) new homes per year, cost would be about $500 million. With this large volume costs would drop as some systems cost only [$67](http://www.amazon.com/Finger-Engine-Transponder-Immobilizer-Keyless/dp/B00HCAYQ0G/ref=pd_sim_sbs_e_3?ie=UTF8&refRID=1GVWQAMQMFKZ76E49YEK).
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Listing the weight of unpeeled potatoes in a recipe that calls for those potatoes to be peeled is ridiculous +
+ Every recipe I've ever come across lists the weight of potatoes to be used as their *unpeeled* weight, even if the potatoes should be peeled before use. Because potatoes vary wildly in size, and because the skin represents a nontrivial amount of a potato's mass, the mass of peeled potatoes you wind up with in the end varies too much for the original requirement to be useful. It should be the unpeeled weight, not the peeled weight, that should be taken as a measure.
To demonstrate this, consider the following example. A recipe calls for 1 kg of unpeeled potatoes. The [density of unpeeled potatoes](http://go.key.net/rs/key/images/Bulk%20Density%20Averages%20100630.pdf) is 614 kg/m^3 so 1 kg is 1000/.614 = 1628 cm^3 of potato volume.
Now let's consider a batch of small potatoes. For the sake of simplicity, we'll say that all of them are identical: they are perfectly spherical and have a radius of exactly 2 cm. We'll also say that their skin is 1 mm thick (in practice, we probably won't be able to peel off that little, even with a good peeler, so I'm being conservative). Given that the volume of a sphere is V = 4/3 * π * r^3 we can see that each potato has a volume of 33.51 cm^3 which in turns means that 1 kg of potatoes contains 48.6 of these small potatoes. The peeled potato has a radius of 1.9 cm and its resulting volume is 28.73 cm^3 --a difference of 4.78 cm^3 per potato. Multiplied by 48.6 potatoes, the total loss in volume is 232.3 cm^3 which translates to 142.6 grams, or 14.26% of the total mass.
Performing the same math for a batch of bigger potatoes of radius 3 cm (which is again a conservative number; potatoes vary much more in size), we find that each potato has a volume of 113.1 cm^3 resulting in 14.4 potatoes per kilogram. The peeled volume is 102.16 cm^3 meaning a difference of 10.94 cm^3 per potato. Given 14.4 potatoes per kilogram, that translates into 157.5 cm^3 of lost volume, which is only 96.7 grams or 9.67% of potato mass.
So given a batch of small vs big potatoes, the difference lost to peeling in both scenarios is 45.9 g per kg, which amounts to one whole medium-sized potato.
In practice, the difference will be seriously bigger: the amount peeled off is more than 1 mm of skin, and the difference in size between the potatoes will be more than 1 cm of radius.
Naysayers might argue that one medium-sized potato in a kilogram doesn't matter all that much. Obviously these people are not potato lovers. Given the deliciousness of baked potatoes and the resulting dog-eat-dog competitiveness around the dinner table when it comes to eating them, every potato counts.
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 #LikeAGirl video/campaign fails to address the real underlying issue +
+ While it is important in that this video addresses the issue of "like a girl" as an insult, which is at root inherently sexist; it fails to mention that this insult is most regularly directed at boys. I think the underlying issue is that boys and girls are expected to fit certain roles, the emphasis on boys who are expected to be good at sports etc. If this wasn't an issue - if such expectations weren't applied to boys, as well as breaking the stereotype of girls being the "weaker sex", the insult would never be used and therefore this campaign would be entirely unnecessary.
Link to the video, for those who haven't seen it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjJQBjWYDTs | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The government should not recognize any marriages. +
+ I think that the government should not recognize marriages of any kind. I'm not saying people getting married is a bad thing, but I don't think that it's the government's business. The government should instead have a contractual union which would grant the benefits of marriage to people. This would help people who wouldn't get married now, so that, for example, caretakers, etc., could have visitation rights while not being married to somebody. You could also have a multitude of involved people. This contract could be voided by unanimous declaration of both parties.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe we would be much better off with smaller countries and smaller governments. CMV. +
+ I think a government is a non-legitimate form of power. There is no form of mutual contract between me and the government.
Also: private solutions are most of the time much more cost efficient and provide durable solutions (no solutions to be popular until next elections).
(A lot) less taxes, more responsability and more freedom (because more money).
Second: smaller countries can provide a lot more efficiënt solutions on small scale. For problems that need to be solved, there is always the form of bilateral agreements between countries.
All in all, I don't see any positive side on large governments and large countries. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |