input
stringlengths 114
23.1k
| output
stringclasses 2
values | instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|
CMV: It is not hypocritical to oppose abortion but support the death penalty. +
+ The standard pro-life argument is that a fetus is a person with the same moral status as any other human, and that killing one is therefore murder. Inversely, a murderer has voluntarily given up his right to life by choosing to kill someone else. I don't believe that killing a convicted murderer and killing someone who has literally done nothing are morally equivalent.
Note that I am pro-choice and oppose capital punishment; I just don't think people who disagree with me are necessarily hypocrites.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I hate anecdote in cultural discussion. I get irritated when, in a debate of some social issue, people chime in with their own stories and experiences. STFU about yourself and let's discuss the ISSUE objectively. +
+ This is mostly an online thing, but I see it a lot in the real world as well.
When there is an ongoing debate on some social issue or political discussion or, hell, even a light-hearted conversation, I get *extremely* irritated when people provide experiential anecdote, like giving the results of an n=1 experiment. All I hear when people respond to some debate on healthcare, for instance, with details on their own personal current health situation, is "blah blah blah, I'm a fucking narcissist and I can't discuss a grand, societal concept objectively. Society revolves around me."
I care about the facts - the objective, empirical evidence - not your feelings and personal experience.
(Keep in mind that I am not talking about *opinion*, as that is something else entirely.)
Am I missing something? Change my view please.
| 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 simple probability essentially proves that we are not alone in the universe. CMV. +
+ We know that life has come into existence at least once, obviously. We also have learned through scientific studies that life on earth can exist in very harsh climates.
We know that there are billions of stars in our galaxy, of which a very good amount have planets. Even in the tiniest percentage of the exoplanets we've actually looked at, we've found dozens of planets that are located within their stars habitable zone - meaning that liquid water could exist.
Multiply that by the billions of other galaxies in the universe.
Even if the chance for life existing was a minuscule fraction - say one in ten billion - there would still be at least millions of planets with life. Likely very many with intelligent life as well.
It's true that nothing can be proven without evidence. However, if we look at this probability, it's very difficult to deny the most probable existence of life elsewhere in the universe. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think that video gaming was grown as a male centric product, and feminist arguments against the industry are invalid. CMV +
+ Since the dawn of popular video gaming, by majority, men have been there to see it through. We loved the stories, the lights, the sounds, the simple feeling of a controller in our hands. We studied the science, built computers, dealt with the times when people thought only nerdy guys liked games, and some of us grew up through just those times to make the games we play today.
I am finding it hard, reading online about how women/much if feminism despise how the industry is today. Gaming now one of the highest grossing entertainment industries, and growing every year, it seems that the before mentioned women/feminists want the industry not only to change but to change into what they want it to be.
To give you a idea: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_and_video_games
All over the world, the industry in being criticized by women's groups. Now considered a legitimate form of art, groups propose that because the industry was and is male dominated that women are being denied being able to contribute to our culture. This is one of several brutal criticisms (not being easy enough to learn, difficult controllers configurations, too many male characters), and I for one find it offensive to the artists that have dedicated a good portion of their lives to making these artistic interactions.
I think if you are a woman or a feminist that doesn't like the industry or its games, you should make your own or not play, don't try and force someone else's brush. Try and 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: Encouraging young people to pursue the skilled trades is generally bad advice. +
+ From Mike Rowe's recent AMA to posts on /r/personalfinance, I see more and more redditors advising their peers to forego college and pursue a certification in a trade. I think this is generally bad advice: not because I think that *no one* should go into the skilled trades, but because 1.) I think most people aren't cut out for a trade career, and 2.) the stable income one can earn as a skilled tradesman is maintained by the scarcity of skilled tradesmen. To expand:
**Skilled trade jobs are hard, physical work**: I come from a family of roofers, and live in an area that has been experiencing constant new home construction since the early '90s. My father was a satellite TV installer back when a satellite dish would take up most of your back yard, and a TV/telephone installer after that. Most of my (older) family members have had major knee, back, and hip surgeries in their 40s and 50s, and many have sustained life-altering or career-ending injuries. Physically, I would *never* have been able to pursue a career in the 'family business' (I'm a skinny dude), and I think it's better to work 40 years and retire with your body mostly intact than work 25-30 years and retire because you've destroyed your body and physically can't work any more.
**It's going to be a long time (possibly never) until skilled trades are 'respected'**. I'm sure many people don't care how society views their career, and would laugh in the face of someone who denigrates their job while making substantially less money. That said: there will always be *some* people who look down on the 'dirty jobs', and some people who avoid those jobs because of it. I don't think income level alone will be enough to legitimize certain careers at certain levels of society. I'm not saying it's right: I'm saying it's a reality. Some people will always balk at marrying a sewage technician, even if that sewage technician is making +$100k.
**(The Big One) The only reason the skilled trades are well-paid is because they are scarce**. We will always need contractors, plumbers, electricians, and welders; but we only need so many. In the '70s, everyone was advising young people to go into medicine. In the '80s, everyone was advising young people to go into law. In the '90s, everyone was advising young people to go into technology and computers. Look at the job prospects of those fields today. Medicine is still well-paid, but only because it takes a decade (and hundreds of thousands of dollars) to become a doctor. Starting lawyers are earning ~$40k, after accruing +$100k in law school debt. Information Technology grads have a higher unemployment rate than Theater or English majors. **Any field that experiences a rapid influx of credentialed professionals suffers from depressed wages and high unemployment.** If young people take the oft-proffered advice and enter the skilled trades: their experience is going to be worse. It takes much less time, money, and (please don't be mad at me for saying so) intellectual rigor to become certified as a skilled tradesman than it does to become a doctor, lawyer, or computer scientist. By the same token ...
**Wages and working conditions in the skilled trades have been protected by unionization, which is ever-diminishing**. The trajectory of unions in the US has been sad and getting sadder for decades. Unions are the weakest today that they've been since before the Gilded Age. An influx of newly credentialed tradesmen, desperate for work in an increasingly saturated market, will lead to fewer union-affiliated workers. As union membership decreases, wages will fall. With Right-to-Work laws in a majority of US states, unions will lose power and skilled trade jobs will go to the lowest bidders - skilled trades will no longer provide a middle-class income.
**A college degree is still a worthwhile investment**. Statistically, a college degree is worth somewhere between $800k to $1.2m over the course of a working career. Even if a student takes out $32k in loans (the average for a college graduate), that investment returns many, many times over the course of a career. An investment that provides a very real monetary return while affording the graduate a less physically-demanding career with greater social recognition seems like a good investment to me.
Today, as it stands, few people enter the skilled trades because they are physically difficult and because they don't garner the level of social respect that the so-called 'white collar' careers attain. For the people who still choose the skilled trades - this is good news. It means that their wages are better and they can use their scarcity of labor to control their pay and working conditions. Further, it means that young people who are inherently suited for the skilled trades (because of family background, physical prowess, and/or difficulty with traditional education) have the opportunity to earn a comfortable living in a skilled trade. Encouraging many people who wouldn't have considered entering the skilled trades on their own volition to make that choice will depress wages and discourage those who could have earned a university degree (which would have been a better investment) to enter a lower-paying and more physically-destructive career.
Skilled tradesmen are benefitting from the scarcity of employees in their fields. Let's allow them to keep that scarcity, encourage those who can excel in college to pursue a degree, and encourage everyone to pursue the field that best suits their abilities: not the one that will earn the most money.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
America should abolish the United States Army as a federal force. CMV. +
+ Let me be as clear as possible: I’m talking only about the Army, the main branch of the United States Armed Forces, responsible for land-based military operations. I think that U.S. should keep other military branches (Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard) as they are.
The equipment (tanks, guns…) and the personnel of the current Army should be allocated to U.S. states, so that they can incorporate them into state National Guards. That way the ability to defend the country in case of a foreign invasion would not be diminished, but it would reduce the ability of the federal government to wage imperialistic wars around the world.
As we know, “power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. That’s why we have separation of political powers (into legislature, executive, and judiciary) and a balance of power between U.S. state governments and the federal government. I think military power should have separation as well.
(I gave an example of U.S. Army, but similar argument could be made for other countries with strong militaries, too). | 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 it would be great if I were a bisexual. +
+ To my way of thinking, being a bisexual would be great. The amount of erotica I could view would be increased by a significant degree, the potential partners I could have would be increased, et cetera. I am actually rather disappointed that I am attracted exclusively to females, and have tried, with very little success, to broaden my interests.
I do recognize that bisexuals experience a great deal of bigotry from the general public. However, there is an aspect to my orientation I am going to avoid directly mentioning, in hopes of keeping this topic on topic, that means that I can fairly safely say I already experience as much orientation-phobia that a bisexual would, or more, so the argument of the existence of biphobia will not be compelling.
So, yeah. Besides that, I can't think of any major downsides, while I can think of some major upsides, to being a bisexual in my specific case, and I would choose to be such if orientation could be chosen. CMV.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:Prisoners should be able to receive physical punishment/torture instead of jail time +
+ 1. For every length of prison sentence, there is an immediate (physical) punishment for which, if given the choice, half of the population would choose the prison sentence, and half would choose the physical punishment.
e.g. 8 years in prison, or losing your hand.
2. Such a physical punishment would work equally well as a prison sentence in deterring criminals (as it is equally as bad as the prison sentence)
3. While physical punishments are typically thought of as cruel, cruelty is in the eye of the beholder - allowing prisoners to choose jail time or physical punishment (and immediate release) should not be considered more cruel - it is simply presenting them with an option they previously did not have.
4. Such a policy would dramatically reduce prison costs
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:If you catch a foul ball at a game, you should NOT have to give it to a nearby kid. +
+ It could be a stray baseball, an errant puck at a hockey game or something similar. In the US at least, when a live piece of the game goes into the stands, there is a lot of pressure to give these rewards to nearby kids. I feel it's teaching bad lessons, like giving someone a fish, instead of teaching them how to fish.
When I was a kid, my dad never caught a foul ball. He talked about it all the time. He finally did when I was 11 at an MLB game, one of his proudest moments. We normally went to minor leagues games a lot because they were cheaper, so this MLB souvenir was BIG. He would have me eye up batters (whether the player was batting left or right) and taught me swinging patterns and probability that went along with it.
By 13, I amassed four foul balls at minor leagues stadiums, from that summer, two from the same game.
Years later, in 2010, I snagged a foul ball at an MLB game. But then, it happened. There was a nearby kid, and I felt that moment coming on . . . but luckily his dad told me the outfielder threw him two baseballs during batting practice before the game. That absolved my guilt for keeping it. Since his dad got me the seats, I would've had to give the kid the ball normally, right?
I just think that snagging a "live" piece of sports memorabilia is fair game. Kids get older, they become adults and they learn like I did. No reason to just throw or give me a ball. The ones you earned, have a better story anyway. And no, [I wouldn't take it that seriously](http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/07/08/baseball-shocker-texas-rangers-fan-dies-after-trying-to-catch-ball/).
I am open to hearing how people would handle a similar situation with maybe a disabled kid or a girl vs. a boy. I'm not closed to compassion or other special circumstances. But that's what I think. We have to earn things in life, but fate, luck and skill also play into things. Anyway, I'm ready reddit. 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? |
Everyone is secretly depressed. CMV. +
+ They just have a clever way of hiding it. Usually by form of escapism (music, art, drugs) or smiling, laughing or making others laugh. Everyone I know who does one or more of these are secretly depressed, but don't want to burden others.
Ugh, the sheer number of fake and phony people I see on a daily basis is staggering and frustrating. Why not just be yourself? You don't have to put on a front. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
If campaigns and their funding trick voters into voting for someone they wouldn't normally vote for then we must assume that all forms of advertising and their funding trick consumers into buying products and services they normally wouldn't buy. CMV. +
+ People say money doesn't equal free speech, but money does buy the loudest mega phone. If we are to push to limit funding for campaigns for politicians because we assume they trick voters, then we must also limit funding for campaigns for things like Coca-Cola or Ford because they also must be tricking consumers into buying things they normally wouldn't buy.
Saying that advertising for politicians gives them an unfair advantage vs superior competition but ignoring the fact that advertising gives an unfair advantage to potentially inferior goods and services is ignoring the real issue of the effect of advertising on peoples decision making for their own best interest. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:Gay people are not born this way +
+ First off, let me start by saying it is in no way my intention to offend anyone. I consider myself to be a sensitive kind of guy and would hate to upset anyone. I am open minded so I would love to hear your thoughts on this subject.
My current view on homosexuals is as follows. Homosexuallity has its place in modern society. I could careless if someone is gay or if they get married. We are all entitled to our own way of life and should be able to live it anyway we please, after all it's happiness we are all after. I DO have a problem with the "we are born this way" or "god made me gay" arguments. My feeling is that this is not even close to being true. I believe it is strictly the environment you grow up in that moves you to swing to the homosexual side. Certain events happen that trigger emotion for the opposite sex. Emotion that resides in all of us, but without the environmental pressure most of us will never venture to the homosexual side. You don't have to look far to find gay people. With the way society is today, gay people are more prevalent than ever before. The most common sense of the reason why would be because it's more socially acceptable than ever before. But why? It isn't part of nature's ways. A species wouldn't be created and not be able to breed. It is only natural instinct for males to try and get the attention of females for the sole purpose of reproduction. The human race couldn't survive without it.
Now having said that I do believe homosexual experimentation is normal. Humans are naturally curious and love to explore. I don't believe it to be natural for it to be anything but an experiment. I think it's also in human nature to want to be loved and have attention. I think that's where homosexuallity starts. I feel that there is such a desire for people wanting to be loved and so much pressure from society telling you you need to be loved and have a lover that ultimately people are forced into homosexual relationships. Imagine yourself as a young man. You're somewhat attractive, caring and a nice sensitive guy. Being sort of submissive quiet type you don't really get noticed too much by woman. Feeling the desire to be loved and receive attention from someone on a emotional\physical level, you start exploring new ways to achieve that attention. Who else is going to give you that attention if women aren't giving you the time of day? Other men in your position. Being eager to share emotional bond with each other things move fast. It may not last but your first experiment with another man has proven to be positive in your seek for affection. So now loving your new found attention and still receiving none from the opposite sex it's only logical to keep seeking the same attention.
So you come out and tell everyone you're gay. This only helps you because word usually gets around and other gay men will be attracted curious or at least look. I believe part of the reason gay people lose interest in the opposite in sex is partly due to the fact both parties of the same sex are looking for a lot of affection and emotion\physical connection. Whereas going back to the opposite sex, the desire for the same amount of connection isn't as great or isn't received do to our vast differences.. Therefore it is hard to feel as satisfied by the opposite sex. Now as I said before, I'm a sensitive caring guy myself. I do have a hard time myself getting affection and filling my desire to be loved with woman.
I receive more interest from gay guys than woman. Do to my somewhat submissive behaviour I'm often called gay. I however have experienced being satisfied by a woman both emotionally and physically. I know what that feels like and I have a desire to have that connection. I must admit it is very tempting to receive the almost guaranteed attention from the same sex. We all just want to be loved. Now more on the environmental factors that determines a gay person.
Here is another scenario. You grow up with 2 fathers. Whether is be donated sperm or adoption. With that child growing up with predominate homosexual parents what is that child going to know about hetosexual relationships? Basically nothing besides what is learned from other social interaction. That child is more likely to grow up and become gay itself if not at least open to the idea of being gay, unless impacted by the environment in which they are raised. Their friends have a big impact on who they become. Now in a traditional family a child is less likely to become gay. There is more pressure from the family to become straight and the majority of society is straight.
No person comes out of the womb flamboyant. It is most certainly self taught. It is usually for attention whether it be to attract fellow gay people or simply to get noticed. Again it's the easiest way to get noticed and receive the affection and attention humans desire. A lot of gay people go out of their way to make it known to everyone that they are gay. Because they desire more attention than the opposite sex it able to give (Even if they don't know it's the reason why they are attracted to the same sex). So basically you weren't born gay. Certain things happened in your life that makes you turn to being gay. I find it probably happens to guys, like me, more often than not. Submissive unnoticed guys that have a desire to be loved, but no one to love them. No one to bring up their confidence and make them feel valuable. People feeling the same void will attract each other. In today's society it feels more acceptable to be gay and I believe some people are for that attention and to feel like they are part of something. Gives their lives meaning if they are standing for something, I kind of feel the same goes for today's feminist.
Now if you are gay I want you to love yourself and love each other. You've been through some hardships that straight people will never understand. You as a group have fought a great deal for your rights that you should have had all along. To be casted out by religions isn't fair either. For the life of me I can't find in my religion where it says to hate gays. I can find love one another though.
please reddit change my view.
I will be dense a little ignorant because if your counter argument isn't strong enough it won't help me change my mind
* I do not think being gay is always a choice. I believe social environment and life events play a role
* I agree some genetics play a role, but not ones that directly affect sexual orientation
* Animals have shown homosexual behavior, but so have straight men and woman
* I have not found any scientific data that clearly states being gay is genetic. (most don't if read entirely)
* percentage of gay people from now and the past can not be accurately calculated. We don't know and never will know how many people were gay are really gay and who isn't really gay.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Actual Science doesn't start until you have a testable hypothesis. +
+
My friend and I had an argument about what is science. My initial position was that until you begin to formulate and test hypotheses what you are doing isn't science. For instance, coming up with ideas, being rigorous, and being an expert does not make you a scientist.
This is not to say that ideation, rigor, and expertise are not neccessary, just that you do not have science with without something to test and the means to test it.
As an aside, another concern I had was that we give credence to the creation of ideas without the process then you are labeling a process "science," with its associated authority, when it should not have that authority. Ultimately, the value of science is in how it tests our understanding of the world so why should we allow ourselves to call the entirety of our research efforts science?
Apparently, I've offended people with this view in the past so please don't take this positon as an affront. I actually am leaning towards my view being incorrect, but I was hoping reddit might be interested in discussing the topic and also might remove this sense of ambivalence that I have about the matter. I have done the usual search for answers, but I haven't found a nice conclusion.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The Islamic State will only get worse if it is actively opposed. Instead, soft power should be used to help it evolve into something more moderate +
+ IS seems to be an expression of nationalism, which is, historically, a powerful force that can't be contained. Muslims of the Middle East particularly need an inspiring group identity because their civilization has been falling behind for centuries. If we try to stand in the way, the outcome will not be what we want.
When has dropping bombs ever made anyone less extreme? Peace makes people nicer, not war. Let's wait until things settle down, at which point the West can influence them in the way that actually works: by peaceful cultural contact. Trade. Student exchange. Entertainment. Tourism. Scientific and military collaboration. Intermarriage.
I know how terrifying IS is and I acknowledge that some military action might do more good than harm, but the overall approach should be cultural rather than military. The West had a hand in making the Middle East such a mess. We overthrew democracies and propped up dictators friendly to us. We distorted their economies with our hunger for oil. Now we bomb them because they're trying their own thing? It's not right. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:Holding places in line should be treated as cutting, and it should be discoraged. +
+ Yesterday, I was at an adventure park with my nephew. There was no rides - only attractions like mini golf, rock climbing, bumper boats, etc. Lines can get kind of long, but not too long. The biggest issue is that it takes awhile for people to be finished before you get your turn. Multiple times I had issues where we would wait and wait and then suddenly a group of 10 kids would run and meet their mother infront of us on line. This was completely unfair to my nephew and I. While they had the luxury of enjoying other attractions while someone held their spot, I had a small party and had to wait in each line with my nephew.
The reason I think it's cutting is because lines should be based on how long you have waited for your turn... not when you arrived at the queue first. If a group arrives three seconds before me and then gets to go enjoy other attractions while someone holds their place, we will be waiting MUCH longer than them. Then they can come back when it's almost our turn and take up another half hour of waiting.
It also creates an unfair estimate of how long the line will be. A lot of times you gauge whether or not you will join a line by how many people are on it. If you decide to wait and the, when you're about to go, a huge group comes back and goes ahead of you, you may no longer wish to wait. Now you've just wasted your time in that line.
I understand people have to go to the bathroom but this should be a quick detour and the surrounding people should be made aware. Of course if you're in a huge amusement park or the placeholder's party size is small it won't make much of a difference. However, in my case and many cases I think holding places in long for a long duration of time should be considered cutting. If you want to enjoy an attraction your body should physically be there waiting with everyone else. 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:Living forever is preferable to dying at a normal age. +
+ I always hear people saying that living forever is a curse because that means that you have to see loved ones die over and over again. In media immortality is usually portrayed as being sad. But living forever means that you get to see more things and love more people. Saying you don't want to live longer because you have to see the ones you love pass away is like saying small talk and trying to make temporary friend is useless because they will just go away anyways. As long as you enjoy yourself in the present, I do not understand why people would not want to live forever.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The rate at which one's income is taxed should be based upon average hourly income rather than annual income +
+ The rate at which income is taxed (at least in the United States) [increases with annual income](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#Marginal_tax_rates). Although it is convenient for calculation purposes to simply regard all income within a single calendar year as the same, this system puts individuals who work extremely long hours at a significant disadvantage. For example:
**Worker A** is paid $50/hour, works 16 hours/day, and works 6 days/week for an annual income of $250,272 and a tax rate of 33%
**Worker B** is paid $50/hour, works 8 hours/day, and works 4 days/week for an annual income of $83,424 and a tax rate of 25%
Either Worker B is being handsomely rewarded for laziness or Worker A is being significantly penalized for diligence...
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I feel that people who believe in aborting or euthanizing babies that would/were born with mental illness are inherently terrible people. +
+ I have autism, et cetera, yadda yadda yadda. I've seen a lot of people want to abort their kids because they'd be born with Down Syndrome or autism, or similar things. I know people that don't know I have autism and they post pro-Autism Speaks (A "charity" that aims to cure autism. i.e. no more of us) stuff on Facebook, and I instantly hate them. to me it's incredibly uneducated and borderline evil. If I've known you a while and I discover you feel this way, I part friends. The only people I would omit from that are the few friends I have that are so close we're family, and my actual family. CMV | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV :: I believe physically demanding jobs should not have gender-specific standards in their physical fitness testing. Change my view... +
+
This seems like a plausible answer.
The problem then remains, are these gender-specific physical fitness test obsolete or irrelevant since it's being argued that they have little or no bearing on in-the-field tasks?
So I'm not convinced that these need to exist.
Original query below
I saw a documentary about becoming a firefighter and a separate documentary about the Army's basic training.
They both highlighted a difference in physical fitness standards.
Women were not required to demonstrate the ability to do pull ups and sit ups as the men were. In all cases, they had to do fewer.
([Here are some sample standards for army physical fitness testing](http://www.physicallytrained.com/14-4-test-administration/))
I believe that, in combat or in fighting fires, etc, the standard for physical fitness should not change because of gender. If you need to lift multiple 40lbs tank shells and repeatedly load them into the turret, it doesn't matter if you're a woman or a man. You have to be able to physically do it. If you have a smoke-inhalation victim who weighs 160lbs, and you have to carry him out of an apartment, your strength and ability to save that person is a fixed standard.
Change my view | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I'm convinced no one can be completely Athiest, because denying that there MIGHT be something out there is just as ignorant as a lot of Athiests claim religion is. +
+ When Athiests say there is no God of any religion, that completely disregards all models that include higher powers that aren't strictly of the Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc. religion.
What about the idea of having a higher power that perpetuated the Big Bang and Evolution? Or any other possibility?
I think it's ignorant and the lowest you can be is agnostic and completely unsure, and just knowing that the Bible may not be accurate due to what science says.
I used to be religious, and I used to be Athiestic, and now I'm agnostic. I can understand both sides of the arguments, but I don't think anyone should be 100% Athiest. There's too much people don't know.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I do not feel sorry for them when a vicious murderer, rapist or child abuser is raped in jail. +
+ Referring to [this](http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/23vedm/ju_jitsu_fighter_raped_stabbed_20_times_in_prison/) thread.
I know it's wrong, I would criticise it in others, I know you can't fight fire with fire and that I am not making the world a better place, but when I saw [the photo](http://imgur.com/DYQd706) of an injured child rapist and murderer and just pictured him doing the same to a step son I just shrugged and didn't empathize with him at all nor feel sorry for his suffering.
Please 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 jealousy with regards to significant others is directly related to insecurity and should be seen as a character flaw, not a rational reaction. CMV. +
+ The more I think about our society's approach to relationships, the more I think it's just illogical and outdated. It seems like a long time ago, people got together and said "Hey, it sucks when a person we like shows romantic interest/affection to someone else. We get jealous and stuff, and that's no fun...so let's just make it to where we stick with one person and pretend to only be attracted to them so we don't have to deal with facing our insecurities".
I'm just frustrated because the older I get, the more I realize i'm probably incapable of being truly happy in a sexually exclusive relationship. I keep thinking to myself the rationale behind being exclusive. I try to think about how I would feel if my significant other slept with another man. Part of me thinks that i'd be slightly hurt, but that's only due to my fucking pride and ego. I mean really, it would only hurt because it means that she doesn't think i'm the end-all-be-all of men...but realistically, why should she? We're not wired to only want one sexual partner, so why should we expect our partners to not have wandering eyes? Why should we expect each other to deny our basic wiring and pretend we're something we're not?
I think that someone who is able to open up their relationship has a healthy view of human sexuality and has their ego in check, when compared to people that give in to the petty emotion we call "jealousy". I truly believe this and it's not just about being a selfish asshole who wants to do whatever he wants, despite how it may sound on face value. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Affirmative action would work best if directed at those in low socioeconomic standing, as opposed to those of minority race status. +
+ I know that affirmative action has come and gone here, but I'm not arguing about giving a leg up to those who have not experienced privilege. Rather, I would like to suggest that basing it on socioeconomic status instead of just race would do more to help.
1) If minorities are statistically prevalent in low socioeconomic standing, then providing affirmative action to all people of low socioeconomic standing would still proportionately benefit minorities.
1b) A more minor point, but doing so would eliminate sentiments of people who are white but poor that they are being reverse discriminated against. I'm not arguing that they are, just that this is a perception that cripples the purpose of the idea because it hastens support.
2) There are poor whites who are disadvantaged where a minority in higher socioeconomic standing may fill a quota and be able to qualify for (insert thing here) ahead of them.
3) By making affirmative action benefit all people impoverished, we actually treat everybody with the same dignity, but because of point 1, we avoid allowing traditionally privileged institutions from monopolizing their societal influence for future generations.
Notes:
a) I understand that there is definitely a distinction between privilege and wealth, and I am in no means trying to d an apologist for those who believe in reverse discrimination. I merely hope to highlight that within all of that bullshit may be a grain of truth.
b) I feel that this is the best way to address socioeconomic inequality because:
- educational attainment levels have traditionally correlated with socioeconomic success
- any system that highlights diversity as if it itself is a disadvantage seems to me to be inherently racist. It is not the minority status that disadvantages minorities, but the refusal of the privileged to grant equal status. By granting privilege to people based purely on economic need, it grants them privilege while both allowing its attainment to not be clouted with the ideas of determinism while also preventing those of privilege from refusing to acknowledge resultant achievements due to any perception of reverse discrimination (because right or wrong, the reality is that this perception exists).
I'm sure I'm lacking in some perspective here. I am white and grew up lower middle class, though we tasted poverty on more than one occasion.
So change my view! | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I do not believe in the 1969 American Moon Landing CMV +
+ I really don't see how such a thing could have happened in a time when computers were walls of buttons and lights. The whole idea of it is preposterous. I would like to keep as little people here who are "Patriotic" and view my understanding offensive to America. None of this "Hurr Durr America best country". The way I see it is Russia begins space exploration via Sputnik. America catches on and so do other countries. Then Russia send out a dog into orbit, and countries follow. Then Russia sends man to orbit and other countries follow, except America who sends a company of 3 men to the moon (wtf?). If There have been men there already, why don't they go back? If America is so proud of achieving such an event, why don't they go and colonize it. This happened 40 years ago, why is no one still there?
I may be a bit biased, so bare with me. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I smoke American Spirit cigarettes, but consider them not harmful like other cigarettes. Please CMV +
+ Hello. As the title says, I am an off and on smoker. When I first started I justified the habit because i chose to smoke American Spirits, which claim to be free of any additives and contain organic tobacco. I know the box says that "an organic cigarette does not mean a safer cigarette", but I find myself frequently in denial of the bad effects of smoking, because i just tell myself Im not smoking all those cancer causing chemicals that are in regular cigarettes.
Id like to quit, but I find it hard to believe that there are that many negative effects without all the additives. I realize this is me being irrational, and likely in denial, and I'd appreciate any effort to 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 believe "financial domestic abuse" is a form of abuse. +
+ I saw [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yy7d3uf7qw) from Kerry Washington and Allstate's "Purple Purse" initiative, and I think they're *really* starting to stretch the definitions of domestic abuse.
If party A makes the conscious, non-forced decision to remove themselves from the workforce for whatever reason, I do not believe that party B is being abusive by not granting A equal monetary access. That just makes sense to me, especially if party A is making the decision to not work because party B makes enough money for the both of them.
According to [Doorways for Women and Families](http://www.doorwaysva.org/domestic-violence/the_facts_about_domestic_violence/types-of-domestic-violence/), financial abuse is the equivalent to emotional, verbal, physical, and sexual abuses, and includes the following:
* Having all bank accounts in the abuser’s name
* Controlling how, when, and where money is spent
* Assigning an allowance
* Controlling all or most of the finances
I fail to see how any of this is abusive behavior. If I am the sole breadwinner in my two-person household, I should be able to dictate what and where my money is being spent. As long as an allowance, or a budgeted income, or financial control isn't a tool being used to facilitate physical, emotional, or sexual abuse, then I do not believe those behaviors in and of themselves constitute abuse.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Humans should be allowed to live up to a maximum age of around 65, and then euthanized for the benefit of society. CMV +
+ With increasing amounts of medical breakthroughs and better technology, human life expectancy has been significantly extended. Too extended.
Senior care costs lots of resources both financial wise and manpower wise. For example, Japan is suffering from a shortage of daycare facilities due to the significant amount of resources that were diverted to taking care of seniors. In the western world, the baby boomers will be hitting that age soon and many people will need to abandon their career prospects to take care of both their children and their parents. Health care and social services will also suffer significant strain, and this problem will only get worse because our medical technology is advancing.
Now, other than money, we can look at what else we are sacrificing for these people who have for the most part, surpassed their useful years and can no longer reproduce. We are cutting care away from children and young adults, as well as denying young adults career opportunities as these longer living seniors are holding on to their jobs. Society is out of sync.
My solution is to terminate seniors at the age of 65. We may alter this period by + or - 5 years. For example, if a scientist needs time to finish an experiment, he may be granted to live until 70 to finish his experiments and train his pupils to continue his work. If a couple wishes to die together but have an age gap, one can take off up to 5 years from their allowed lifespan and the other than extend their lifespan by up to 5 years so that their deaths can be synchronized.
This offers a variety of benefits
1. Society will have a LOT more money. Caring for seniors is incredibly expensive. Cutting these expenses will allow funds to be diverted into things that give higher societal returns like education or other social services.
2. Predictability of death will streamline insurance and other processes. Since people will for the most part know when they will be dying, they can plan out their wills in advance. It will stop death from being a guessing game.
3. Productivity of society will increase. This will increase in 2 ways. First, seniors will no longer be able to hold onto their higher tier jobs indefinitely. This means that younger people will have more opportunities to move up the career ladder. Second, caregivers (women especially) will have more freedom to pursue their careers due to not having to worry about caring about their parents/relatives/friends. Both of these things ensure that society and innovation will increase at a steady pace. By terminating seniors, we can also ensure that more attention and resources can be devoted to children.
4. It avoids the moral problems of alternatives such as terminating handicapped people. This is because everyone will grow old at some point, assuming they don't die young. This means that everyone who gets old enough will be subject to this termination eventually so there is no discrimination at play.
Downsides I have considered
1. Some seniors are still working and contributing to society.
Answer: This can be alleviated by the 5 year life extention plan. Seniors in important positions will have an opportunity to pass on their work. This allows young people to constantly move in and keeps the career elevator running.
2. Seniors perform volunteer work
Answer: without having to worry about senior care, the amount of volunteer work that needs doing will itself be cut down. In addition, all the resources saved from cutting senior care will be more than enough to compensate.
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 planned ISIS attack to behead random Australians on camera is no worse a problem than general street crime. +
+ [This](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-18/anti-terror-police-mount-large-scale-raids-in-sydney-brisbane/5752002?r) recently happened in my city and made it to the front page.
People get stabbed to death in australia about every [3 days](http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/3/F/2/%7B3F2788C1-BCCC-49F0-A73F-F71620ABF7A3%7Dtbp045.pdf) and 64 people are beaten to death every year.
This could happen to virtually anyone at any time. I nor anyone else has any reason to be more worried about ISIS than they do about general street crime, but many people will and it will influence the way they feel about our foreign policy.
Recently a Mosque was disapproved for construction in a nearby suburb called Currumbin, simply because the community is so Islamiphobic. This story is being sensationalized by our media and if anything Islamic people should be scared about it because it will mean a spike in possibly violent anti-islamic sentiment.
| 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 African Americans today should be grateful for the Atlantic Slave Trade of the 18-19th Century +
+ Greetings Reddit,
As horrific and racist as my title sounds, I'd like to start by saying that I am hardly a racist person by nature and do not discriminate in my dealings with anyone. This is simply a belief that I've held for quite some time, based on my study of history and observation of present-day situations. Unfortunately I can't seem to bring this up without being called racist, so I'm genuinely interested in hearing a sound argument that doesn't involve that logic.
I believe that slavery gave African descendants a better future in the Americas (particularly the USA) than they would have otherwise had in Africa.
Africa was, and still is, a pretty awful place to live in. Between AIDS and other diseases, famine, civil unrest, inadequate healthcare, lack of electricity/water, and non-existent educational systems, shouldn't African Americans be glad that they are in America now and not Africa? Would today's African Americans not certainly be in a worse state if they had been born in Africa today?
I'm well aware that the initial slaves brought over had to suffer horrific atrocities and it is a tragedy that they had to be subjected to such immense terror. They clearly did not benefit. But their children? Or their grandchildren? The African Americans of today, aren't they better off because of slavery?
So that's about it, Change My View.
But I'd like to say thanks to /u/fibonacciapples for putting a different spin on things by pointing out that I should consider the entirety of time between slavery and today, not just the present state of African-Americans.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I don't think Native Canadians should be given any special concessions simply because they first inhabited the land, CMV. +
+ Native Canadians have been afforded many concessions by the government due to historical reasons. No taxes on reserves, free education, job privileges through affirmative action, scholarship priority, increased hunting and fishing rights, monetary payouts, etc. I feel as if the reasons they have been provided these things is now too far in the past to be a legitimate reason to be providing them anymore. The argument that Native Canadians have been exposed to trauma that makes these benefits necessary is outdated. I think it is well past time that the Canadian government cut these benefits and tried to put an end to this shameless victim mentality that hasn't seemed to actually help the situation at all.
I may just be bitter because I am from Saskatchewan, but please try to change my view. I have grown up with white shame for what my ancestors did. One of my parents have also worked in the poorest neighbourhoods where I live (90% Native) and I feel as if it has skewed my view as well. I constantly see my parent taken advantage of and being made to feel guilty because she is white.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Modelling (particularly Fashion) is the easiest, and least intellectually/physically demanding profession in the world. +
+ I've seen most TV shows on the fashion & modelling industry, seen quite a fair share of documentaries on women in the modelling industry and some models actually claim it's hard.
I think that's ridiculous. I think modelling is the easiest career/job in the world and anyone that complains that it's actually hard has probably never worked a day in any other real job or career.
In fact, I'd go so far as to say there is almost no (or very very little) skill required to be a successful model. And that modelling is the least intellectually & physically demanding profession in the whole world, and any model that makes more than minimum wage (for just modelling) is grossly overpaid.
Change My View.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I think the last three years in Sweden have turned me racist. +
+ In Sweden the issue of increased immigration and if it's a problem or not, and if so how to fix it, has started to bother me quite a bit. I used to be the guy with dreadlocks who listened to rage against the machine. Every view I had was left/red.
Now I no longer feel that way. After moving to a larger city (from a small town) i've started to dislike people more and more, but mostly those whose language I can't understand. Disliking the culture, the customs, the languages themselves.
I feel like the government forces us to interact too. I've been trying to do the "Swedish thing" for the longest time now (I.e just live around the entire situation, not interacting with it). But work programs and other things just seem to force things. Previous workplace was the worst. Worked there for a year, and one in twenty immigrants knew English/Swedish and had zero interest in learning more (they were supposed to take days off to go to Swedish class, but this rarely happened).
For the record I am 24 tears old, a dude, and I do know that not all people of a group of people are bad. But lately less and less seem to be a redeeming factor.
Change my view please.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
The minimum wage should be removed and replaced by unemployment benefits. My gut says there something wrong with this so by all means, CMV. +
+ This was a thought that came to me rather randomly in result to some recent posts on the true cost of Walmart. Essentially the fact that due to low wages we are subsidizing Walmarts. Note this is specifically aimed at the USA since I live there. It probably applies to other countries as well.
The often trumpeted "solution" to this problem is a higher minimum wage. Something like double the current. The problem is that raising the minimum wage doesn't actually change the market pressures. If the market wage is below the minimum wage less people will be hired. To change the market wage either the supply or the demand would have to change. A minimum wage does neither.
Unemployment benefits on the other hand would lower the supply. People would now have a better option. A business couldn't have incredibly low wages because people would just stay with the unemployment benefits.
The fact that these are unemployment benefits vs just a check everyone gets is critical. The latter is close to our current system. People below a certain threshold, the poverty level, get benefits to help them survive. This is much better than the alternative, but it leads to things like the Walmart where much of the profit is in fact coming out of the taxpayers pockets.
Just to get this out of the way here's some common objections I've received and my response:
* **Wouldn't this lead to freeloaders?**
Yes, that's the entire point, but it could be minimized by keeping the benefits fairly low. Enough to keep yourself above water, but not fun.
* **Isn't the government big enough already?**
That's why I'm interested in what I might be missing here. My gut agrees with this, but I can't come up with why.
* **Scams/implementation?**
This is probably the biggest problem I can come up with. What to do about the almost 50% of Americans who aren't officially employed? That would probably have to be something like benefits=unemployment benefits-income.
As I've already mentioned my gut say's I'm wrong, so Reddit what'd I miss. | 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 outside of my acquaintance are not deserving of any compassion or empathy, CMV. +
+ To expand on what I mean, I believe that anyone who I do not personally know or share a bond with aren't part of my life, and therefore aren't my concern in the slightest. That means charity, world news and current affairs are completely irrelevant and not part of my life.
Why should I care what happens to people I've never met and will never witness their troubles? | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The Grandfather Paradox in time-travel thought experiments is an irrelevant concept; a successful trip backwards in time should remove any fear of a massive universe-ending paradox. +
+ NOTE: I posted something similar a couple of weeks ago, but the answers in that CMV made me realize that my argument wasn’t specific enough. I’ll use some text from that last post to refine here.
The [Grandfather Paradox](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandfather_paradox) states that you can’t go back and kill your grandfather, because logically you would never be born to kill your grandfather in the first place. However, I believe that simply going back in time at all creates a paradox on the atomic level. Logical grandfather paradoxes were made up for drama and to relate people to the story. The universe doesn't care if you kill your grandfather, or try to do things precisely the same (you can't), it's already different the moment you take a breath. This leads to reason that if your trip backwards in time is successful, you can safely assume that a universe-ending paradox will not occur, at least not instantaneously. Some implementations in movies (Primer, Butterfly Effect) show that paradoxes create only local or restricted disruptions in space-time, or that the changes “ripple-through” to the rest of the universe; this could also be valid in this thought experiment. However, considering the following conditions:
1. A trip backwards in time has occurred and was successful
2. The traveler is safe and the universe is intact
Then it stands to reason that simply by existing in the previous timeline, a grand-scale paradox couldn’t occur. We shouldn’t consider that killing your grandfather might cause the destruction of the universe and can basically do what we want in any timeline because most likely (with the available information), it would either create or enter a different timeline, or be self-consistent in the first place.
CMV | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I think that life is fundamentally pointless. Change my view. +
+ NOTE: I have no intention of any sort of self harm.
We are going to die at some point, and at that point (or some point relatively soon after) all of our memories, loves, hopes, accomplishments, failures and mundane scratchings will cease to be.
If I surpass any previous accomplishment by any other human, or spend all my days watching Spanish soap operas and eating chips (I don't speak Spanish), the end result is the same: oblivion.
All I want is peace, and an end to stress and worry. To live is to suffer, and death brings nothing but relief.
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: If someone believes that race does not exist, and therefore that racism makes no sense, that person should also consider programs aimed at helping disadvantaged races to be nonsensical, regardless of circumstances. +
+ In discussions of racism that arise on this subreddit, there is a popular refrain that there can be no differences between "races", because there is no such thing as race. Therefore, people who are racist are behaving irrationally, because it doesn't make sense to feel differently about different people based on a criteria that is itself not well-defined.
I see many issues inherent in this line of reasoning, but rather than debating those, I'd like to take this viewpoint as a given. (Though, if I have misstated the viewpoint in some way, then do feel free to correct it and address my points towards a better stated version of this viewpoint, as I'd hate to be wasting everyone's time arguing against a strawman that no one actually believes in.)
Having gotten that out of the way, it strikes me that by the same token for those who subscribe to this belief, that programs that have worked to help disadvantaged races are equally indefensible. These programs have made vast improvements in the conditions of groups identified by the common shorthands of race. Nonetheless, those improvements were not worthy of praise, since they were no different than any other attempt at categorizing people by the failed nomenclature of races.
For example, every time a university analyzed its student body's racial composition, it was engaging in incorrect thinking, and every time a university implemented admissions policies to foster racial diversity, it was chasing nonsense, and in the end all the improved racial representation numbers that universities have trumpeted were not something they should have been proud of since there is no such thing as race.
Have I overlooked anything in my understanding of this viewpoint? CMV
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I think everyone should be screened and treated for depression as a matter of routine medical check-ups. +
+ I have seen a number of CMV's arguing the opposite view (i.e., that depression isn't real, isn't chemically motivated, shouldn't be treated with drugs, etc.) but I would like to look at things from the other angle.
I believe that the number of people suffering from depression is much higher than reported, but, due to stigmas around depression and seeking help in the forms of counseling and drugs, people will often be unaware of their condition or, even if they are aware, decide that they shouldn't attempt to get relief.
From what I understand, seeking psychiatric help is voluntary, and requires will on the side of the patient to decide whether he or she wants/needs to seek help. However, other medical illnesses aren't treated this way; if you go to the doctor for a routine check-up and your cholesterol is high, the doctor will attempt to intervene and the patient is expected to take the doctor's advice. The crux of my view is that I believe the same should be done for mood disorders. Please CMV.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Neil deGrasse Tyson's popularity and presence in popular culture is the best thing to happen to science in recent times. CMV? +
+ His positive portrayal of science and technology in media has done more to help science's cause by both educating people and inspiring youth to take up a science than anyone else in our current times.
From his running the Haden Planetarium, appearing on documentaries, his leading the new *Cosmos*, and to his appearances on both 'real' news networks and shows such as *The Daily Show* and *The Colbert Report*, he has had a profound presence in our culture greater than anyone else currently.
Can you change my view? | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I Think Social Programs like Welfare are detrimental to our society because they don't give people incentive to work harder. CMV +
+ I'm a huge supporter of The Austrian Economic movement, especially the works of F.A. Hayek. I believe that de-regulating markets and letting competition control the flow of consumerism is the way to go economically. In short I believe that government interference messes up whatever market it enters, including social programs.
My knowledge is that some people are just fine with barely getting by. Once they have their sustainable amount of money from the government they feel that they don't have to work anymore. This would be fine with me if it wasn't the taxpayers money. In the U.S. I don't hear of many success stories of those who with a constant stream of money from the government rose to the top of their respective fields. Some Malcom Gladwell book brought up the fact that a bunch of the richest men in the late 1800's grew up in poverty. They got along just fine without massive social programs.
Mostly, I'd like to hear the other side of the story. I grew up in upper-middle class suburban America. I don't want to come across as the rich white guy who doesn't like government-run social programs just because I have to pay more taxes. I don't know from first hand experience how programs like Welfare work. I disagree with these programs in theory but I'd be more friendly towards them if I could hear stories and see statistics that show their value. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I agree with PETA. CMV. +
+ PETA is one of the most universally derided groups out there, but I respect the integrity, consistency and ethical basis of their philosophy (which, at its core, is about anti-[speciesism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism)). While I am not personally vegan, this is because: (i) I am an unethical person who sometimes prioritizes mild increases in my own comfort/pleasure over the extreme suffering of other sentient creatures; and (ii) knowing that my individual actions are a mere drop in a large bucket, I also do not vote. But while I personally am a selfish asshole, I still understand rational ethics and prevailing concepts of empathy/morality, and therefore feel qualified to opine on whether actions are "right" or "wrong" as those terms are typically defined. If you purport to *not* be an asshole but, rather, a fair and ethical person, then the anti-speciesist view that drives PETA is difficult or impossible to refute. PETA's positions are consistent with that view.
The two most common criticisms directed at PETA are:
* **PETA kills animals.** PETA are utilitarians -- they basically examine the expected quality of an animal's life (much like the economic concept of expected value), and if that value is negative, they euthanize. This means that even if there is only a 15% probability that an animal will be left unadopted (or adopted by a shitty owner) and will suffer tremendously, the negative expected value of that outcome can outweigh a larger probability of a moderately contented life. Nobody joins PETA because they like the idea of ending animals' lives; however, anyone who has argued for assisted suicide or euthanasia in humans (which PETA's philosophical forebear, Peter Singer, also supports) should understand that a rational, dispassionate approach to death can be the most compassionate approach overall.
* **PETA's publicity stunts are sensationalist, counterproductive and/or offensive.** Here we're talking about campaigns that compare factory farming to the Holocaust, etc. Through the lens of anti-speciesism, these comparisons are entirely valid. I'll concede that from a tactical point of view, these campaigns may be poorly designed, because they offend the sensibilities of irrational stubborn people. But I still agree with the message embodied.
In most arguments where PETA is involved, I think that generally speaking PETA is correct. CMV if you can. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: It should be legal for people to sell their blood. +
+ Their is a need for blood donation which is not fulfilled.
If there are not enough blood donations, creating an incentive for people would lead to more people giving blood.
It would be easy to monitor the frequency of blood selling for each person to prevent any health risk.
This would not necessarily reduce the amount of free blood donation. Many people like to do it for free.
This shouldn't raise moral issues as long as more blood is collected.
Some might argue that it would increase the price of health. I don't know how much blood is needed, and how much it would cost to fill the gap. My guess is that the price of the treatment of expensive health troubles wouldn't really be affected.
The demand for blood does not depend on the supply. As a consequence price paid for blood should find a balance.
One problem could be that people who are not eligible for giving blood would still sell it. I am pretty sure additional tests are ran on the blood collected. you could just ban for life/X years people whose blood wasn't as clean as they claimed. I am not sure it is enough, but if some people are dying anyway they might be willing to take the risk.
If it is not allowed in many country, there is probably a good reason to it so plz CMV.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: If a politician and their supporters truly believe that what they preach is correct, then they have a moral obligation to use whatever powers in their means to enforce their policies. +
+ I think that it should follow that politicians have a moral obligation to stay in/get into office by whatever means that they consider "for the greater good", which may include lying/tapping phones/rigging elections.
My basis for this follows as such: Let's split all politicians into two groups (assuming that all politicians have a main goal of beneitting the country):
(a) Politicians who "know" that what they preach will be beneficial to the country.
(b) Politicians who "think" that what they preach will be beneficial to the country.
In scenario (a) where a person "knows" what they are proposing will be better for the country, surely they have a moral obligation to do whatever is possible to achieve power so that they can implement their ideas for the country as a whole. If they were not to do this, then they would be knowingly making the country a worse place; hence why I would argue that they are morally obliged to lie/rig elections in order to make a country as great as possible.
Whilst in scenario (b) where a person only "thinks" that they have the best policies to run the country, then I believe that they should not be put into such a position of power over others when they are not entirely sure themselves over whether their policies will be successful.
In a hypothetical scenario, in "Scandal" (SEASON 2 SPOILER), the soon-to-be President Grant won the election because of his team rigging a voting machine in one county. They did this seemingly in the belief that President Grant would do the country more good than his opponent. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVeeXiWjulo <-- I would ignore the Texan's personal opinions and focus much more on the question he asks; if the other guys think Grant is "the real deal", then surely they must get involved.)
[Also just a quick side-note, when I say "know" and "think", I mean from the person's perspective, personally I do not believe that "knowledge" exists, I believe that we cannot ever know something absolutely but when I say "know", I am referring to other people absolutely believing, not necessarily whether it is true or not.]
| 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 controlling ice would be better than controlling fire +
+ So I was reading in a manga where one person has control over ice and can well it into existence whenever they want (I am avoiding giving the same since I don't know how to spoiler tag and I don't want to give the name away since it's a big deal later) eventually the person develops the ability to freeze time for about 10 or so minutes. This development got me thinking since a lot of people I know think that being able to control fire is (no pun intended) hot shit I Began to think that controlling ice would be much better; reasons ?
Ice only needs water or any liquid to be made so as long as I have anything that has any liquid at on such as nearly every place on earth I can make ice, this is not the same with fire which needs oxygen so If I froze the person in a very compact ice shell the person wouldn't be able to create fire since they would waste all the oxygen and I would just keep reinforcing the shell so 1v1 the ice wins
Second profit: I can freeze time and walk into a bank freeze the vault and then sledgehammer bam no vault door I would be able to see all the lasers due to the mist from the ice so I can dodge lasers and bam I am a billionaire who did it with style.
Third I would never pay for gas or ships or anything since I can freeze everything I would just sit down in my nice comfortable chair and have an ice dragon which I would make(it's no alive but it pushes me) to take me anywhere.
4th I would be amazing at places where people want cold or cooler temperature If I see a very attractive girl saying gosh I wish it was colder BAM ice man over here I can do that for you and chill the area down like 15 or so degrees that's a guaranteed hello at least also your cooler ran out of ice don't worry BAM cold beers, who is the savior of the alcohol this guy.
5th personal use: since I would be controlling it I would get used to cold temperatures so when it gets cold to winter guess who gets to go outside shirtless and in shorts since I would be used to the cold
There are obviously more reasons that I will bring up later if asked (I don't know them yet but I will eventually)
So people who would are boring
pyromancers as opposed to the cool as ice, ice...Cyro...mancers??? Please attempt to CMV | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: If all men are created equal, there is no reason to have immigration laws other than elitism. +
+ My thoughts on this are scattered, but I try to be coherent.
Any (at least proclaimed free) country like the US should have no regulation for immigration. Denying the opportunity to move to such a country based on nationality is contradicting the claim that "all men are created equal". I first have to meet certain requirements like a job offer to be able to reside permanently in the US. The vast majority of US residents/citizens has done nothing per se to be there other than being born on US soil. Unless someone leeches of efforts of other (through welfare), there is no real reason to deny entry to the country except for the personal gain of some individuals who already are in the country (who fear labor competition, for example). CMV.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Analog clocks are pointless. +
+ Analog clocks are a throwback to a time when we needed mechanics and gears to create clocks. They are unintuitive, and we are wasting time teaching first graders how to tell time on analog clocks when a superior alternative exists.
Digital clocks are intuitive, easier and faster to read, more reliable, and more accurate. The only acceptable place for an analog clock is on a watch because watches are jewelry first and time-telling devices second.
Technology has improved, and analog clocks are obsolete. People don't use oil lanterns to light their homes, and they don't use horse-drawn carriages to get to work. So why are analog clocks still used so often?
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I can't trust someone who argues from pure self-interest rather than principle. CMV. +
+ If a woman argues about a wage gap, I can only think about Warren Farrell's breakdown of the 25 ways men and women choose different jobs, and see it as pure self-interest.
If a black person supports reparations and affirmative action, I see it as self-interest rather than principled because they are beneficiaries.
I can, however, trust a rich person who gives everything he earns to the poor, because he has every reason not to do it and is doing it anyway.
Basically, the only time I take someone at face value is if they're directly acting against their own interests in some manner.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I think that American culture is absolutely and fundamentally devoid of any value, and represents the worst of any society that exists on this planet currently. +
+ I grew up as an 80's kid, seen the wars of the 90's, witnessed the absurd transition of our culture from the "American Dream" to the "Dream of the Sleeping". I fundamentally, and irrevocably believe that we're on a trajectory towards selfish attitudes, anti-intellectualism, and even more racism than we've seen in the past 20-30 years.
I truly believe we are witnessing the collapse of American society, and that we're dragging down the rest of the world, albeit more slowly than here with us. I believe that we are truly doomed.
I've lived abroad in Europe for about 2 years of my life, returned to my hometown for long enough to realize and truly recognize that on all levels, we are irreparably fucked. We cannot, and never, ever, will fix this problem.
I'm an American. I believe that we truly represent, at this point in history... And I mean, at this point in history, primarily, that we have squandered the sacrifices of our ancestors. I believe, that our government is 100% controlled by those that are of crony capitalist interests. I believe that the worst of the worst case scenarios of our future are more likely than anything that resembles freedom, democracy, or even the republic we supposedly once knew.
I believe, that we are easily pacified by technology, by drugs, alcohol: full disclosure, I have no problem with these things, but I completely believe, and to be honest, stupidity and ignorance are in my opinion should be considered capitol offenses. We claim to be the best on the planet, yet I consider us to be pathetic and weak. We accept the most pathetic societal qualms, we accept "the way it is", and we rarely stand up to the problems we face.
NSA spying, and the movement towards ghetto culture and totalitarian acceptance is something I find to be particularly disturbing. Despite how much this is in the news, I'm blown away at now little anyone talks about it in "the real world".
Seriously, please change my view.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think it's ok for ethnically based associations to exist (ex. Black Doctors Society of New York, Latino/Mexican Students Club), however if "white" variations were to exist it WOULD be racist. CMV +
+ The title is pretty explanatory. I'll give my argument by responding to the following claim:
"So it's ok for them to have a "Black Students Association?" Well if we had a "White Students Association", we'd be called *racist*. They can have Latino History month, but god forbid anyone suggest a white history month."
Yes, actually it would be racist to have a White Students Association. What do you need a white students association for? What does it accomplish? The point of having ethnically based associations is to create a support group for groups that have been disenfranchised in the past. Even though the scope of that discrimination is substantially lower nowadays, the effects of it do remain, and can be sensed in our society and culture. There's nothing wrong with people who are ethnically or culturally similar to bond over a common practice of theirs, however basing that on a "white" identity is pointless and comes off as discriminatory.
I know, however that a lot of people genuinely disagree with these kinds of institutions and claim that *they* in themselves, are discriminatory and racist, or support the idea of a "White Artists Association of LA." My mind is open, 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 the government's only purpose is to protect the citizens objective rights (volition, property, and life) and thus police, courts and national guard are the only necessary government entities +
+ P1 Existence exists
P2 Man exists
P3 Man is not omnipotent
P4 When man mixes his labor and mind into something (earth, wood, etc) and creates something new (food, furniture), then it becomes his property.
P5 Man trades out of mutual interest of both parties
P6 Man creates currency to make the process of P5 easier, thus making currency a substitute for property, goods, services, etc
P7 Man creates society (government) for better trade for all and protection of rights that are required by existence (property, life, volition)
∴ Property is a right because we own our selves and consequently our mind and labor. Life is a right because no man is above another to take his life unless of course the other tries to take his first. Volition is a right because no man is omnipotent and man must be able to make mistakes; no one should force choices for others.
∴ Government's only purpose is to protect these rights and courts, police, and national guard are the only necessary entities.
∴ Forced taxes are a contradiction to existence along with many laws such as speed limits, Jay walking, curfew, and child labor laws.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
You are 100% monkey. CMV +
+ Now no one argues whether we’re vertebrates or placental mammals, even though that also means we’re animals. The fact that we’re apes can now be verified just as easily. For a while, most people thought the word, “ape” referred only to extant non-human pongids also known as “great apes”. There was no consideration given to “lesser” apes, nor to any of the many ancient apes we kept finding fossils for. Mainstream science sources are just now starting to realize that the word, ‘ape’ means a lot more than just chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans, and that it includes a few extinct hominids that are more humanoid than any of these. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I work hard for the income I earn, and shouldn't have to give a higher percentage of it simply because I have more of it. CMV +
+ This is something that I can't really get over. Here is my view essentially: I have worked hard in my life to allow myself to acquire an income that allows me to be comfortable, and have savings, but why should my would be savings go to someone who may not have worked anywhere near as hard as I have? I understand that there are lazy people and hard working people in both the highest tax bracket, as well as the lowest, and so I understand that not everybody worked very hard to become affluent, however there are also plenty of people who are as lazy, and are living off of my hard earned money. CMV | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I'm uncomfortable with dynamic of (male)Dom/(female)Sub BDSM relationships. Help me CMV. +
+ For the record, neither my partner nor I are interested in BDSM sex, nor do I have any serious problems with anyone's sexual preferences - even if they don't appeal to me personally.
That said: I have a hard time envisioning a healthy BDSM relationship in which the male is the dominant partner and the female submissive. I feel like these types of arrangements play into pre-existing unhealthy male-female power dichotomies, and exaggerating them through sexuality only exacerbates the problem.
In normal, 'vanilla' heterosexual sex - the male is already dominant. The act of penetration, inserting oneself into another person, is an inherently dominant act. Gender-equal couples can approach this critically and accept that the power dichotomy exists and is unavoidable and take steps to mitigate it. However, in a male-Dom configuration, the male is not only performing his dominant role: he is emphasizing and exaggerating it. Is it the case that the Dom role becomes parodic in its over exaggeration and that the parody is a source of equalizing empowerment?
The way I see it: female-Dom, male-Sub makes perfect sense. The purpose of non-normative sexuality is to decouple sex from everyday life: to make it a 'sacred space' that is unique (and therefore special) to the couple. A man who is aggressive and dominant in his day-to-day life may feel a great sense of relief from 'laying down his burdens' and being submissive in the bedroom. Likewise, a woman who feels disempowered in broad society can feel empowered in an intimate setting. What doesn't make sense to me is why a woman who is regularly disempowered in her daily life would choose to continue to be disempowered in what should be the safest and most empowering space available.
I'm interested from hearing from people women and men who have or are currently in (male)Dom/(female)Sub relationships. For the men, do you believe in the traditional male/dominant female/submissive gender roles, or are you somehow subverting them? For the women, do you feel that your Sub role is challenging society's expectation of your gender, or do you feel empowered by embracing what you see as your role in the male/female dichotomy?
Again, I'm not passing (or even withholding) judgement of anyone's sexual preferences. I legitimately don't understand, because I've never had anyone explain it to me. In my sexual relationship, our sexual practices are as equal as I imagine is possible, so a power-dynamic sexual relationship is alien to me. I look forward to having my V C'ed.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Steve Jobs is not an innovator but a thief and does not deserve his recognition as a "genius". CMV +
+ Everybody should first watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFeC25BM9E0
Honestly, Steve Jobs has not invented anything. I believe it's also unfair for people to give credit to Jobs for creating all of Apple's devices and ignoring all the engineers and workers who actually designed and created them. Jobs was not technical at all and did now know to how to program. I don't understand why everybody considers Jobs to be an innovator when he hasn't exactly created anything. The only thing I can give Jobs credit for is spawning over zealous apple fan boys.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The moral choice system in Dishonored was a terrible design. +
+ So in Dishonored it turned out that there was a moral choice system. Alright, nothing particularly wrong with that. It also determines the ending. Well fuck. The initial problem with it is that you have to be a mostly good guy or a mostly bad guy to get the good or bad endings, otherwise you get a dissatisfying 'neutral' ending. So the game may as well ask you right off the bat whether you want to play as a good guy or a bad guy since you have to be consistent in your playthrough anyway.
Now that's my beef with most story-effecting moral choice systems in general. The problem with Dishonored is that the system basically forces you to play a much more boring game than what was advertised if you want a good ending. Instead of using all the cool knife kills, assassination techniques, supernatural rat summoning, possessing people to jump off a cliff, you're limited mostly to knockout darts and snuggling them to sleep.
This is a problem in a game where the advertising motto was 'Revenge solves everything' and had spent all of its time advertising all the cool and neat ways to dispatch the despicable traitors who turned on you. It advertises a game full of crazy supernatural ninja assassinating, then punishes you for playing it that way. The game's entire premise is about you being betrayed and then taking your vengeance with a diverse supernatural array of lethal powers, then the game shames you for doing so.
And since the game basically slaps you on the wrist for every dead guard it seriously limits your defensive ability. If I got spotted by the guards I'd just quickload my previous save instead of risking the game ending by defending myself.
| 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 polling should be banned before an election, as it sways votes from candidates that would otherwise perform better +
+ I'm Canadian, so you'll have to keep in mind that I am not referring to a two-party system.
It seems to me that smaller political parties, or underdogs for mayoral races, don't do as well because no one thinks they'll win. People see advanced opinion polls and see the Green Party at 2% of the vote, or Karen Stintz (Toronto election) at 4%, and will decide not to vote for them because it's unlikely they'll win, *even if they best represent the voter's political beliefs*.
You see small parties, or unlikely candidates drop out of races strategically, or voters voting for "the lesser evil" - shouldn't we be voting for who the best candidate is? (And if none represent us, then a "Decline to Vote" option - another discussion, perhaps)
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
If you take illegal drugs and get caught, you ought to be held accountable - CMV +
+ I see redditors constantly complain about the supposed war on drugs and how evil it is, and this bothers me.
My thoughts on the matter:
The government has a duty to create laws that are beneficial for society.
Society has a duty to obey the law.
The government has decided certain drugs ought to be illegal.
I think that the illegal substances are all illegal for a very good reason (i.e. harmful).
I think that the vast majority of people, if not all people, are aware of which drugs are illegal.
I think that the people that take illegal drugs know the consequences of getting caught.
Therefore, I believe that if you decide to take an illegal substance, and you know that it is illegal, then you are breaking your duty to obey the law, and should be punished accordingly. | 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 my data is being mined left and right for marketing purposes. CMV +
+ When it comes to what directly affects me, it boils down to either an ad I might actually be interested in (peaking my interest towards buying something I might want, a win-win for both parties) or an ad I have absolutely no interest in (and would consider annoying, a loss for both parties.) As for behind the scenes, yes, they might know "important" things about me, but why would they ever care about *me*? I'll always be a number to them, no more. With this in mind, I really do feel like the visible benefit outweighs the invisible cost. CMV. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Police discretion is a bad thing. +
+ I am extremely against police discretion.
This view is mainly in response to the argument that cameras held by police would get rid of police discretion, and I argue that this is another reason for police to wear cameras.
If a white college girl is caught with some pot she will get off with a warning after a few tears, because the policeman doesn't want to ruin her life. But if the same policeman finds a black kid with facial tattoos, a thick accent and pants around his knees we see that kid go to jail.
These two did the exact same thing, but since one looks different they get punished. We aren't punishing people for what they do, but for how they look.
Maybe if a few more senator daughters or CEO sons ended up in jail with clear video evidence we'd see change in our laws. Right now the only people that have to deal with unfair laws are those who don't get police discretion and don't have enough sway in our government.
I think that people shouldn't have their lives ruined by a cop finding pot on them. But I think it is much worse to only ruin poor peoples lives because you feel bad for the rich kid who got caught.
This is also shown in how proportionally far more black people are in jail for drugs than white people, but white people and black people do the same amount of drugs. I believe this is largely due to "police discretion".
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Victim Blaming and offering practical advice on avoiding becoming a victim are not necessarily synonymous. CMV +
+ Frequently on internet discussion, the term 'victim blaming' is thrown around a lot and has caused a great deal of confusion to myself and others.
If I say 'she's promiscuous, she was asking to be raped', that's quite clearly blaming a victim of a crime for that crime. However, if I said 'it's not sensible to go to that particular bit of town at that time of night by yourself', am I blaming the victim or am I merely trying to offer advice? Both of the above would arguably reduce the person's likelihood of being raped again in the future.
I hear it said that by offering advice *of any kind*, whether it be 'stop being a whore' or something more constructive, I am implicitly blaming the victim for the crime that has occurred. Is this the case?
If I left my keys in my car and the engine running in the middle of a city, with the door wide open, and then took a half-hour walk to find that the car had gone, could I accuse someone of victim blaming if they suggested I not leave my car in such a vulnerable position? *I didn't steal the car.* The car thief did. Yet we feel different about these two situations. Why are we not able to abdicate responsibility for the safety of our private property the way we are apparently able to do so for our bodies?
Also, I feel I have to add the obligatory:
Clearly, in a perfect world, nobody would be raped or murdered or robbed, but until then, can we try to reach some consensus here? It is an empirical fact that certain behaviours will increase your risk of certain crimes. Suggesting the avoiding of these behaviours, while **neither representing the ideal or the most important** focus of activity (i.e the perpetrators of crime should be made less able or likely to do so rather than focusing purely on the victim) can have a positive effect.
So there you have it. If I offer you advice about avoiding a crime, I am not necessarily (implicitly or explicitly) blaming you for being the victim 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 same sex marriages should be legal. CMV +
+ I really don't see how there could be ANY claim against it other than religion. So please change my view so I can see what it is I'm apparently missing. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think America's greatest days are behind her because of demographics and a crushing budget deficit CMV +
+ I don't have [$53,330](http://www.usdebtclock.org/) laying around (at the time of posting -- or anywhere near three times that as I am a taxpayer, see same link). I cannot envision any situation whereby the national debt doesn't become a crippling burden to the next generation. As a result of the poor demographic trends people will have less children, and the cycle perpetuates until [we end up like Japan](http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://nipponmarketblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/population-pyramid.gif&imgrefurl=http://nipponmarketblog.wordpress.com/tag/population-pyramid-japan/&h=296&w=531&sz=15&tbnid=qQmDr67yaw7uWM:&tbnh=72&tbnw=130&zoom=1&usg=__92NoEJI8c92Gy4cSuXMfy8FqBrw=&docid=5iVOnlJNwJY7YM&sa=X&ei=sfrlUfGKErKp4APii4D4Ag&ved=0CEMQ9QEwAw&dur=230).
I also cannot envision any meaningful changes to any major entitlement program that will result in lowering the deficit in any meaningful way in the future.
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:Selling is the most useful life skill anyone could have +
+ First of all, I will be fairly liberal in my definition of what selling is. It doesn't have to be something that a real estate agent or a telemarketer does.
As a matter of fact, we all engage in selling something, on a daily basis, and how well we do it will largely affect the outcome of our lives. When we are going to an interview or applying for a job, we are selling, the product is ourselves, we are selling them prospective employer the idea of us being a productive worker and an asset to the company. Dating? Same thing, we are selling the idea of ourselves being a good match to our prospective romantic partner. Negotating a raise? Again you're selling. Anytime we are trying to persuade another party of something, we are infact selling.
The problem is, that is not how many of us approach the problem, what I'm suggesting is, by actually having this mindset that everything is selling, we can apply the fundemental theories and techniques of selling things like how to build rapport, buying temperature and the ABCs. If you are applying this mindset, that you are always trying to close a deal, then you will most likely be more succesful in life.
| 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 that retiring MIB agents should be neurolized +
+ So, when an agent leaves the Men in Black they are neurolized so that they don't remember anything they used to do, as we saw at the end of the first documentary. Here is why I think it is wrong:
1. This person just dedicated a large portion of their life (likely 20+ years, based on other agency's retirement policies) to something they probably truly believed in. Wiping all of that away is just cruel.
2. Agents that have family have a cover for why they're not around any more. In the case of K it was a 20 year coma. So, he just wakes up from his coma with a sudden government pension being deposited into his account. K also suffered his entire time in, missing his wife and watching her from a distance. Personally, I would want to remember my sacrifice.
3. If it is for a security purpose, these people spent their entire career keeping the secrets that they knew. Why would they all of a sudden just start spewing the secrets? In other agencies, when you have a clearance you are still obligated by your non-disclosure agreement even after you get out, so why should this be any different?
4. As shown in the second documentary, de-neurolizing can be a real bitch should the need arise. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Anytime a country wants to go to war they should have a vote by the public. Only those who vote "yes" should have to fight. CMV +
+ It's not fair for a government to decide when and who we go to war with without the say of the country. And if we go to war it's not fair to send out those who dont even want to fight, while there are people who are safe at home constantly cheering on the war without lifting a finger to do anything. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: US Soldiers are deceived by a mis-guided sense of honor and pride in what they do. +
+ For the record, I live in the US.
I think that those who join the military are only protecting and serving the interests of the politicians, and do nothing for the American people but put them in more risk of escalated military threats. I believe that the government produces ads as almost propaganda that depict service as honorable to encourage the beliefs that soldiers should be proud for their service in the middle east and countries abroad.
In reality, these soldiers are killing people for political gain and resources, not to serve the American people. Anyone who believes otherwise has fallen prey to the propagandist message that the government encourages. The soldiers who believe that simply following the US in service is honorable are not worthy of the respect that they ask for. There are soldiers that are most definitely worthy of my (our) respect, but many are not because they commit themselves to blind obedience.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I am an atheist who believes life starts at conception. CMV +
+ To state the title in another way, I believe that once the egg is fertilized and attaches itself to the uterine wall, it is a separate human being. I would also note that I will not be debating if abortion should/shouldn't be legal, I am merely stating when I believe human life begins.
**Is a Human Embryo Alive?**
According to the [Encyclopedia Britannica](http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/340003/life), life is, *“a material complex or individual characterized by the capacity to perform certain functional activities, including metabolism, growth, reproduction, and some form of responsiveness and adaptation.”* After conception, human embryos exhibit all of these features.
A fertilized human embryo carries out the processes of metabolism, it grows and develops, it responds to stimuli and maintains homeostasis, and it contains the genetic potential for reproduction. While it is not capable of reproducing at such an early stage in its development, neither is a four year old boy; the important issue is that it has reproductive potential, or to be even more accurate, that it belongs to a genus which can reproduce itself as a whole, as not all particular living organisms are fertile.
All organisms acquire their energy from their environment. And for some organisms, their environment is another organism. Such is the temporary state of the unborn human being until it reaches a transition into the next stage of its life cycle, infancy. The embryo or fetus is getting no "help" in absorbing and processing the energy. It doesn't simply remain passive while energy is actively pushed through it from an external source. By its own power, it actively works to obtain energy from its environment and process it to grow and develop, which it also does by itself.
The mother's womb is not a factory, actively assembling a new organism from passive parts. It is a nourishing environment in which the new organism actively replicates and specializes its cells to grow and develop. The embryo's reproductive potential is also independent from the mother. It exists as a series of codes in the embryo's genes. Lastly, a fertilized embryo does react to stimuli as an independent and fully-functioning organism without being "helped" to do so by the mother.
So clearly it is alive by an objective and scientific definition of what life is. What kind of life is it?
**Alive vs. Human**
It is *human* life. It is not plant life. It is not a chicken embryo. It is a *human* embryo. A fertilized human embryo has its own unique genetic human signature that is different than that of either of its parents. This shows that it is clearly not additional tissue mass belonging to the mother. The genetic material in each cell of the developing embryo has a unique identity separate from the mother's.
As well as being separate and unique, a fertilized embryo is ontologically no different than a human toddler, adolescent, or adult. Nothing is added to or taken from the embryo except food and waste products (which is no different than for any human being). At no point does the embryo undergo any fundamental, ontological change after conception; it simply grows and develops just like a toddler grows and develops, or a thirteen year old girl.
Thus, it is an error to claim, "It's not a human, it's a fetus." That would be like saying, "It's not a human, it's an infant," or, "It's not a human, it's an adolescent." These are category fallacies. The proper answer to these assertions would be, "Sure it's a fetus, sure it's an infant, and sure it's an adolescent. It's a *human* fetus, a *human* infant, and a *human* adolescent." These are simply stages of development in the human life cycle.
A human starts as an embryo, becomes a fetus, is born an infant, develops into a child, grows into an adolescent, matures into adulthood, and eventually dies. Scientifically and philosophically, there is no good reason to believe a human being is created at birth, because nothing is created at birth. At birth, a fetus simply changes location and changes its mode of acquiring food and dispensing waste, but at no point does it become something entirely new or different. Life begins at conception and proceeds through its stages until death. From the moment of conception, the unborn are human beings. 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 an environmental engineer, I give up! PLEASE CMV! +
+ Greetings
I am an environmental engineer, with a degree in environment and land management. I have studied and dedicated my professional life to make a change on our world, to make this planet a better place for future generations and protect it from those that would exploit it for greed and short term gain.
After 15 years of working in the field I am ready to give up. The fact is most people don't give a shit about our planet and the legacy we are leaving for future generations. I have worked hard, sometimes more than 70 hours a week, to see all that I have accomplished destroyed by short sighted corporations and the uncaring government that work for them.
I have been called a useless hippy who works only to stifle profits, I have seen the depths of which government and corporations will go to fuck us all for short term gains and I have lived for many years barely breaking even and financially keeping myself afloat because most environmental jobs that aren't about exploiting the system to maximize a companies profits pays for shit.
Well now I have a wife, a son, banks who are hounding me night and day to pay back my student loans and the dream of offering a better life for my family. This week I have been offered two new career opportunity. One is to manage a non profit organisation dedicated to protecting the last vestiges of forests and wetlands around the city i live in (while paying only 13$/h). The other is for a big construction company, to make sure that it is compliant with the pathetic environmental regulations while it bulldozes over the last natural ecosystems we have (but for more money per month than I ever made in a year)
I am to give my decision next week and I am truly considering for the first time in my life to give up my principals and go work for the money. I need somebody to change my views, but I am so tired of living poor, of not being respected and of seeing all my work be for nothing.
Final decision Edit: First I would like to thank you all for this awesome CMV. It went way beyond what I had ever expected and I don't think I have ever spent so much time typing since my time at university. Like I said in the previous edit, I had already reached a decision by consulting my wife, my friends and my family, but all the incredible advice and the insightful comment gave me great hope that my decision will be the right one for my career, myself and my family. So here it goes
I have decided to take the construction industry job for the following reasons:
- Right now it is an awful time to be working in the non-profit NGO, where I live. The conservative government has slashed all funding in the environment sector and the provincial government only cares about austerity. If I took the NGO job, I wouldn't even be guarantied to be able to keep it for very long if the meager funding dries out.
- I have been working in the same field, with the same people for over 15 years. I am feel enthusiastic about learning new things and working with new people. Also if I learn the inner workings of the construction industry, I may become much more efficient to enact long term meaningful changes.
- I have been living poor (well much more then most engineer do) for the past 15 and I still have some student loans to reimburse. Banks have constantly been picking at my heels and it will be quite a load of my stress, if I can finally repay then and make then STFU! Also having some form of financial stability would be great for a change.
- Although where I live, our society has quite the safety net and I am assured that my child will never lack of his basic needs whatever salary I make, It would be great to offer my family a better quality of life. Rest assured I am not someone who will have more money go to his head. By nature, I am not a great consumer and I am very likely to put most of my money aside for personal projects and even help out the NGO I had worked for and respect.
- I have dedicated my entire life to fight for the environment and that in not about to change, even if I work in a different field. Over the years I have found that enacting change from the outside of a system is next to impossible, so it will be quite interesting to see if change can be had from the inside.
- My greatest fear is that the construction job asks me to compromise to much on my value and that makes me fall into a depression. In order to prevent this scenario, I will be following the advice given by many of you. Quickly put money aside, so I can safely bail out if thing get to rough and have multiple contingency plan if ever it does.
- Finally I must admit that the money does sound attractive. I never had a job that pays so much and I never thought I would. However having grown in a wealthy (relatively speaking) family, I know first hand that money doesn't buy happiness, it just makes misery very comfortable. Since I am a woodsman and love working outdoors comforts aren't that important to me, but it's been forever since I have dreamed of visiting the different forests around the world and for the first time in my life, I may actually be able to do that (If I ever get some vacation time... a concept that is equally alien to me)
Once again many thanks to all the people who commented on my CMV post (yes even the trolls, their idiotic antics proved somewhat entertaining) I wish you all the very best of luck in your endeavours and if anyone wants to help me in my quest to make this world a better place, feel free to go out an plant a tree. In the long run it does actually make a difference. Ardaron9 out!
Tldr: CMV really worked and I no longer believe that going to work for a big construction company is a huge betrayal of my environmental values.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The word 'Retard' (when used properly) is not a slur. This is about language. +
+ "Retard." Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 14 Jan. 2015. [Link](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/retard)
transitive verb
1
: to slow up especially by preventing or hindering advance or accomplishment : impede
2
: to delay academic progress by failure to promote
intransitive verb
: to undergo retardation
I understand that people use the word as a noun, and a pejorative. But I believe that this is a misuse of language, the slur is secondary and a misnomer. The word should not be dispensed with for the sake of political correctness.
I will concede however there is an entry from Merriam-Webster that addresses the use of the word as a noun.
2
re·tard noun
Definition of RETARD
1
: a holding back or slowing down : retardation
2
*often offensive* : a retarded person; also : a person held to resemble a retarded person in behavior
**FROM** [etymonline.com](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=retard) "from 1970 in offensive meaning "retarded person," originally American English, with accent on first syllable."
There is the proof of its use in an offensive way, but the word itself is older than its use as a slur. As a slur it was introduced into our lexicon in 1970's American English.
Maybe my real view is that language is more sacred than our delicate sensibilities.
CMV!
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I am a staunch capitalist that believes nobody is entitled to the money I earned but myself. CMV. +
+ I am American with center right views. I don't care much for social issues but economically I believe in traditional American values. I believe if I work hard I am not entitled to give it to other people. I believe in a flat tax rate even if it means some government programs have to be cut. Now don't completely take my words out of context. I think donating to charities and such is a good thing and philanthropy should be encouraged. But the difference here is that I can choose where my money goes rather than my government choosing for me. | 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 British Monarchy should not exist in the modern world. It should not be idolized, allowed to consult British government, or have any form of power. CMV +
+ The entire notion of a "noble family" being recognized and worshipped in the modern world confounds and disgusts me (and for one of the most powerful and modernized countries in the world, no less). Sure, I understand how their celebrity would carry throughout the centuries... but it's ridiculous that in the 21st century someone should be born into a position of power merely because of their family name. I understand that the actual amount of power the Queen has is fairly small, but it simply seems wrong in principle for her to have any power at all.
**TL;DR The British royal family is the Kim Kardashian of the UK, except with less idiocy and power over an army.** | 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 there is no value in vinyl as a format and that collecting it is just nostalgia, hording or pretentious CMV +
+ There seems to be a prevailing opinion that Vinyl is in the middle of a resurgence (random-first-google-result-source: http://www.nodepression.com/profiles/blogs/the-vinyl-resurgence-what-s-the-deal ), and I find it absurd.
I believe that despite it's analogue nature, vinyl is inherently lower in quality that reasonable-to-high quality digital recordings (256kbps MP3s as the low bar, Lossless as the high bar).
I believe this because I think:
1. The maximum quality of the recording you hear is a union of the manufacturing process of the record, and your listening equipment.
2. You don't listen to vinyl in a vacuum, therefore there's a huge amount of variance based on the players themselves which negates any quality argument.
3. The "warmth" of a record can be trivially replicated with filters and effects - it's a side effect, not an attribute of the format.
4. Any arguments that you can detect the "analogue-ness" of the sound is irrelevant to human ears with our generally poor frequency response range.
5. The only thing "lost" is a big picture, but we've long replaced artwork with music videos and other forms of interacting with music and artists.
As a result, I feel that the only reasons people now purchase vinyl is to participate in some kind of exclusive elitest club, in a world where music has infinite availability. As a result I think the medium of transport itself is entirely irrelevant and has no inherent value.
I think vinyl sucks! CMV!
Value 1. I suppose by definition nobody is entitled to someone else's enjoyment of an experience .'. if the experience gives someone joy, that in itself is enough, even if I feel the experience is valueless to me.
Thus - "Vinyl can be seen as valuable because people think it's valuable. The enjoyment of experience is enough".
I still have no feelings towards the format whatsoever, but the argument that "hobbies and collections are valuable by default to the person that does them" is credible.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Life ends so quickly and we're expected to get it right first time, so there's really no point in living. CMV. +
+ I'm at a fairly apathetic point in my life. I want to give up on my dreams because they seem unreachable. I have around 80 years left and potentially hereditary brain aneurysm. Society and life around us puts so much pressure on trying to achieve your goal with the one life you've got, and if you fuck up or get a dead end, boring job just to pay the bills, you've ruined your life and lost your dreams.
I don't want to be this. I want to dream. I want to think I can achieve them. I want to think I can be anything I want in the one short life I have and find true happiness. 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: Religion should not have any legal protection from the government beyond free speech. +
+ If I make a facebook post saying "I love Jesus", and my boss fires me because he saw it, I can sue him (if I can prove it).
If I make a Facebook post talking about how I believe in aliens and the NWO is out to get us, and my boss fires me because of it, I have no legal recourse. I exercised my free speech, but my employer can fire me for any reason, to include my free speech.
Both "Jesus" and "aliens" are emotional beliefs, and things people believe are real.
Furthermore, I could say 'I like red cars", and if he got wind of that, he could fire me.
Why does belief in Jesus trump belief in red cars and aliens?
If my employer says I cannot wear my Star Wars shirt to work because it's unprofessional, I cannot sue.
If my employer says I cannot wear my turban to work because it's unprofessional, I can.
Why does the turban get a pass?
If I tried to argue that it caused me emotional distress if I didn't wear my Star Wars shirt, because George Lucas might be displeased with me if I didn't, then my boss would consider me mentally ill. Yet somehow if you are upset you can't wear your turban because Allah will be displeased with you, you get a pass.
I'm all for freedom of religion, but why does it deserve any more protection than free speech already has?
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: blatantly deceiving the audience of an advertisement, even if they're not technically lying, should be illegal. +
+ I don't really know how to elaborate on this idea, as it is pretty straight forward...so I'll just give some recent examples I've seen on tv.
- nutella commercial saying that nutella can be "part of a healthy diet." While this is technically true, it is extremely misleading. Who knows how many people have bought nutella now, thinking of it as a health product.
- (same as nutella with basically all kids cereal commercials) these cereals are FILLED with empty carbs and basically zero nutritional value. Again, misleading when they advertise part of a healthy diet.
- basically all insurance commercials...with almost every statement made in these commercials, there's an entire paragraph of small writing at the bottom explaining how the insurance actually works vs how they've made it appear in the commercial (not to mention you can never finish reading these paragraphs before they leave the screen)
I could keep giving examples but I feel like you get the point.
What ever happened to making good, honest products and if they sold, it was because they actually benefited the consumer enough. Why do they have to resort to tricking you, even if they aren't technically lying? | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I am a gay guy and I don't think we should assimilate into the heterosexual tradition of marriage +
+ A lot of people have been asking me that since SSM is a thing in England will I be getting married. My response to this is a resounding NO.
I don't think we should try to assimilate into the very tradition that used to discriminate against us for centuries and centuries, its almost like we want to get acceptance by blending in while being accepted for the way we are.
I have no problem with gay people getting married if thats what they want, but I hold the view that its not really the best for LGB people to mimic this institution.
Just saying in my country at least the wedding ceremony, even the secular form is based on Christianity a belief that hated gay people for centuries so why should we embrace 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 most of sub-Saharan Africa needs an immediate mandatory one child policy. CMV. +
+ Everyone knows about overpopulation. The main question you will have is probably "Why don't you believe we can solve this issue with voluntary birth control?"
The answer is that even those Africans with access to contraceptives still desire large families. There are many reasons for this, but a large part of it is cultural. [This study looked at Nigerian people's reasons to have many children, and concluded that most of it is due to cultural and religious factors.](http://www.bioline.org.br/request?ep08012)
I quote:
[Between 2003 and 2008, most of Nigeria has seen an increase in its fertility rate.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Nigeria) Also important to note is that contraceptive use is only prevalent among the richer sections of Nigerian society, thus meaning that most population growth will be from the lower classes, leading to a perpetual decline in the genetic quality of population.
[In Nigeria, the desired family size for Muslims is 6.0](http://maxwellsci.com/print/ajms/v2-218-226.pdf) In other words, a large part of the problem here is not so much lack of contraceptive access, but rather, the desire of people to have a large number of children.
[Bongaarts wrote:](http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3720911.html)
In some African countries, women actually have a *higher* desired fertility rate than their actual fertility rate. [In Niger, the desired fertility rate is 9.1](http://www.prb.org/Publications/Datasheets/2012/world-population-data-sheet/fact-sheet-unmet-need.aspx?p=1) The actual fertility rate however is 7.0. Why then do these women not have more children? The answer may be biological limits to the human body, or economic necessity. If people can not afford to feed their children, this may finally force a limit on their fertility.
A natural decline to this high population growth is unlikely:
**The question then becomes: Why do African cultures desire such large families compared to non-African cultures?**
The deeper answer may lie in biology. [Organisms vary on a spectrum of /r/K selection.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory) A species that is more "r" has many children, at a lower cost per child, and fewer of these children survive into adulthood. A species that is more leaning towards K invests more resources in each child, and as a result has fewer children, but more of these children will survive into adulthood.
Humans overall are a very K selected species, but the degree of K selection appears to differ between groups. Scientists have known for a long time that infants of different races behave very differently when just born. [Compared to African babies, Caucasian babies are more helpless, while babies children are even more helpless compared to Caucasian babies.](http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xz2jjx_cross-cultural-differences-in-newborn-behavior_news#.UdaxKG3zNRY)
African children in the United States are systematically found to enter puberty at a much earlier age than white children. [Normal gestation length in black women is also a week shorter than in white women.](http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/33/1/107.full)
Black women are far more likely to have twins than white women, who are far more likely to have twins than Asian women. The highest rates of twins is found in Nigeria, the lowest rate is found in Japan. [The reduced rate of twins in whites is caused by this genetic mutation.](http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/12/2659.full)
It seems therefore that the desire in East Asians and whites is to limit their fertility, because this allows them to invest more resources in their children. Africans have less of a desire to invest a lot of resources in their children, and as a result, less of a desire to limit their fertility.
In conclusion, biological differences make sub-Saharan Africans desire much higher fertility rates than whites and Asians, which will eventually lead to humanity becoming completely African unless we implement one child policies in sub-Saharan Africa. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
[MOD POST] The community has spoken - downvotes will be removed from comments (for a week) to see how it goes down. +
+ **This is mod post 12. You can read the previous mod post [here](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1bjud2/mod_post_rchangemyview_is_looking_for_new/), or by visiting the [mod post archive](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modpostarchive) in our wiki.**
**Downvotes don't change views!**
Downvoting is a difficult thing to deal with for many subreddits, but here at /r/changemyview, it's particularly destructive (unless used against trolls.)
Think of a situation in which someone offers OP an alternative argument, to which OP explains why they are still not convinced. They are allowing you to offer a rebuttal - downvoting is a cheap shot and ***won't change their view***. Most people who disagree with someone would like to change the other person's opinion. Being rational and friendly has a much better chance of doing so than downvoting, which would probably just breed hostility or cause OP to shy away. As soon as people realise this, the quality of the discussions in CMV will improve.
**Our solutions:**
1. We'd like you to use the motto "downvotes don't change views", or something to that effect, if you ever notice a situation in which someone is being downvoted for what is clearly no reason other than disagreement.
2. We will being removing the downvote arrow on comments **for one week** as an experiment. We will then make another mod post asking your opinions on how it went down.
The reason why I've been so reluctant to do this is because it is purely a CSS hack, which is flaky due to the fact that some users don't allow custom styles, or are viewing via AlienBlue, for example. So therefore, we thought it would be better to keep the voting consistent rather than confuse users who see a negative score on a comment with no downvote arrow. This may also drive some people to turn off our CSS - something we don't want to happen. /u/spblat also raised the point that a lack of equality gives those who are still able to downvote an amplified voice.
Some of our "long-time users" (I say long time - we've been around for 2 months) may remember when the voting arrows for OP's comments were removed. I was a bit naive in thinking this would solve all of our problems, yet they were still being downvoted due to the reasons above, and they often fell below the threshold.
**If someone has any other suggestions on how to deal with the downvoting, please let us know!**
Also, be sure to [apply for a moderator position](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1bjud2/mod_post_rchangemyview_is_looking_for_new/) if you're interested (we will be revealing the results soon.)
Regards,
/u/Snorrrlax, /u/protagornast, /u/spblat, /u/TryUsingScience | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe dueling should be legal. CMV +
+ Dueling with swords that is, not pistols. But it seems to me that given out medical technology, and if we only used thin foils with blunted tips -so shallow cuts only- duels would scarcely be a fatal affair. Two people who have a grievance and wish to settle it could formally declare they will duel at a set place on a set time, observed by witnesses. A doctor will attend with equipment, and the two may duel. Maybe only to first blood, maybe only until they deem their honor settled. If we're only using thin swords capable of fairly shallow cuts, the risk will be much minimized and the available medical personal should be capable of dealing with any serious wounds that may occur.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
A vegan diet that requires supplements is neither natural nor healthy. CMV. +
+ If a diet requires anything other than the food it prescribes to provide for human dietary needs, it is flawed.
I see many vegan diets requiring vitamin B12 supplements, for example, because vitamin B12 is not found in plants. There are also potential issues with protein, iron, calcium, etc. While supplements can fill the gaps and produce an overall healthy diet, it shouldn't be necessary to rely upon them in the first place. We can get everything we need from food, and I believe that we should.
I find it especially hypocritical when these diets also push the idea of natural, whole foods - but by the way you need to take this pill, too.
In America, both foods and medical drugs are regulated by the FDA, but dietary supplements are not. Sellers are not required to do research studies in people to prove that a dietary supplement works, is safe, and is free of side effects or other risks. Supplements are also almost always self-prescribed without medical advice. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe we need to eschew the "two party system" if the United States is to succeed as a nation. CMV. +
+ Lets define "succeeding as a nation"... at least in loose terms; a healthy economy, healthy, educated citizens who have a good happiness index, low crime rate & peace overseas.
I believe the continuity of a two-party system inherently requires a polarization of issues that only serves powerful people, and is more susceptible to corruption than a multiple party system would be. I also believe a two-party system divides the public and dumbs them down, as they follow what the party's talking points are as compared to thinking for themselves, simultaneously representing only a small percentage of people's views. This benefits no one but the politicians & corporations that wish to remain in power.
CMV | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:On a macro-histoical level, we are experiencing the death throes of Religion +
+ As greater numbers of young people in socially progressive regions identify as non-religious (1), the most conservative areas in the world find themselves more at odds with global society and declare themselves to be its enemy and at war (2). I don't think these two articles prove the death of religion, I think they exemplify a growing divide that is not going to be fixed.
I believe this divide is heading toward a turning point in the macro-history of humanity. People have been moving toward a secularized society for centuries, and in the past few decades it has reached a level where the most conservative and religious elements can no longer find enough common ground to coexist. When this happens, fighting is bound to happen, and if long term trends are to be believed, Religion won't last out the battle.
(1) http://www.pewforum.org/2012/10/09/nones-on-the-rise/
(2) http://rt.com/op-edge/181668-isis-wider-war-us/ | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Emotion is more important than Logic +
+ This may ramble a bit because I'm trying to cover a lot.
I notice a tendency for redditors to have a preoccupation with trying to sound/be logical to the point of cold heartedness and robot-like recitation of College Logic 101 courses. (I swear if I hear "Straw Man" one more time, I'll rip my hair out.) I don't know if it's just college kids flexing their new found argument skills, the rise of Aspies and the socially awkward, or just an increase in people trying to be Sheldon Cooper, but whatever it is, it merely comes across as condescending, arrogant, and dismissive.
First off, Logic itself, while in theory is a perfect concept of linear thought, in practice, it is performed in the minds of human beings. Since human beings are inherently flawed and imperfect beings, the "pureness" of the Logic will be flawed and imperfect accordingly. Warped by the persons prejudices. Skewed by their assumptions. Bent to fit their personal preferences. No human being can actually properly *use* pure logic. At best they can grasp a few of the concepts and buzz words, and flail them around clumsily as either weapon, armor, or both in an argument.
Many seem to think that emotion (passion) leads to the worst of humanity. Anger. Violence. Hate. War. Maybe it does, but it is absolutely worth it in the grand scheme when you realize what good things passion brings to humanity. Art, Music, Philosophy, Discussion, and Literature can all be broken down into mathematics and base components but it was the creator's passion that willed the note from the violin, or streaked brush across canvas. Science and Logic may have been used to chart the stars and manufacture the ships, but it was a sea captain's passion that had him sail off the edge of that map, past "There Be Dragons Here", and into parts unknown. While Logic may have provided the map for mankind to explore the sciences and the universe, it is Passion that inspires men in ships to sail the seas and ride $30b tin cans into space.
Passion may be heavy handed and messy, it may be hot headed and make mistakes, but it will ALWAYS trump Logic for bringing humanity further as a race.
That is why Kirk will always be the captain and Spock will always be supporting him.
Now, all this being said, I'm willing to give a listen as to why being coldly logical is better for humanity than fiery passion, so go ahead and CMV.
*P.S. I'll be off to bed shortly but I will answer replies tomorrow. Thanks!)
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: North Korea should be absorbed into South Korea. +
+ It has become increasingly clear that the country doesn't work for the betterment of its citizenry and I don't see it moving in the direction of ever reaching some sort of an equilibrium in which it does.
The culture there just continue to go in the wrong directly of idolization and total submission and people become more and more programmed to accept that with generations. People are working and are barely able to sustain themselves.
I believe the two countries should be united and South Korean system should be accepted.
This coming from a pinko commie is a difficult thing to state but I think this would be the better outcome than continuing the way it is going. How this is to happen is not really a concern of the topic posted. | 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 modern art such as blank canvases are complete nonsense. CMV +
+ While there are many forms of modern art that I do appreciate, I see a lot of it as nonsense, such as a blank canvas, a canvas with a red line down the middle, and a canvas with a black border painted on, but the rest left blank.
I don't see at all how this could take any artistic passion to create, and I don't think it has any place in a museum, which is where I saw all of the above "pieces" on display.
I feel that art should take some time and effort, and I do not believe the "artists" behind these lazy productions were pondering life for a year or so until they came to the brilliant conclusion that every masterpiece started as a blank canvas and began with one stroke, so they could explain that by doing no work at all and calling it a work of art. 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 NYC Mayor de Blasio's plan to ban horse drawn carriages is misguided and overreaching CMV +
+ Mayor de Blasio has publicly said "it's over" for horse drawn carriages in NYC claiming the practice is inhumane to the horses. These horses are the owner-operators livelihood. I find it hard to believe that someone whose income is dependent on the horse being in good condition would do anything other than care for them to the best of their ability.
I don't see why this is a pressing issue for NYC or why de Blasio feels he needs to expand the nanny state in New York.
My opinion is, if you are opposed to the practice, don't participate. I know a few people that are very into animal rights issues. They would never go to a zoo, but they don't demand the govt shut them down. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Our elections should not state which candidate is of which political party +
+ The elections in the United States of America, as far as I understand, include the political parties of each candidate next to their name (D. for Democrat, R. for Republican, and any other letter for any other political party affiliation for other candidates)
This seems like an election to see which political party should win, rather than each candidate. It allows voters to vote based on their political party rather than their political views. While political views are supposed to be expressed through parties, you can have a liberal republican or a conservative democrat in topics important to you that you may not know just based off their political parties.
A political party notice lets uninformed voters feel good for voting conservative/liberal, when really they may not even be voting for the most conservative or liberal person if they're uninformed. It's just voting for the party for these people. Informed voters know which person is of which party and it probably doesn't matter to them, just the candidate's views. Uninformed voters may just vote based off of political parties despite the fact the candidate may have unstereotypical views in some important topics.
I've heard a few arguments hear and there but I really don't understand why the USA does this, so 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: Arguing solely based on logic and evidence, one could not come to the conclusion that there is(theism) or isn't a god(atheism) +
+ I myself am a strong agnostic (lower case 'g' probably gave me away). I'm perplexed by the attempt to use logical arguments and evidence to prove that there either is or isn't a god. It is my opinion that the only logical conclusion one can come to when invoking that question based on evidence is the claim to not know whether there is a god or not. I understand there are those atheist who were emotionally driven toward an atheistic stance -they are not my target audience. I am looking at those persons who through searching and asking questions related to god and his role have come to the conclusion, through some logical approach, that there is or is not a god.
| 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 community service should be a graduation requirement for high school students. CMV +
+ I recently graduated from an IB school in the USA. In the school, we had to have 75 hours of community service as a requirement to graduate from the school. By administering this idea, the community around the area improved significantly over time. The homeless were fed and given temporary homes and it taught the students about responsibility.
With this in mind, I believe a certain number hours should be mandatory because it
* Helps out the community around the school and the surrounding area
* Allows students to find something that they're interested in
* Teaches students about responsibility by giving them tasks
* Is very easy to mandate (have a student fill out the form, get a supervisor to sign it)
* Improves college applications by adding extracurricular activities
* Doesn't require too much time from the students but can create a significant impact (30 hours requirement from each student in a school of 800=2400 hours of volunteering)
sorry about the format, it's my first time posting. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
There's nothing wrong with being sexually attracted to an underage female that has gone through puberty. CMV. +
+ You know, jailbait. I'm not some creepy old dude, I promise. (I'm 21 years old). But seriously, I don't see anything wrong with thinking that a 14 or 15 year old girl is attractive, or "checking her out" or imagining her naked, whatever, when she walks by. If she is old enough to have gone through puberty, developed large breasts, etc, then she is old enough to have sex and reproduce. You can't control who you're sexually attracted to.
Now, I'm NOT talking about taking action on the sexual attraction and breaking the law to have sex with a minor. I'm just talking about the attraction itself.
**I know that the age of consent is different around the world, let's just talk about the United States where it's 16-18.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Life would be better if you could just ignore politics etc. +
+ Being gay you constantly have politicians either saying how wrong we are or try and suck up to us. In the UK its an election year and all the crap about it in the news etc. already is driving me crazy. I just wish there was a way to ignore it all.
But when I told my Dad I was thinking of not voting he completely freaked out and started lecturing me about "how he raised me better than that" etc. I mean its highly unlikely that anything they could do would really affect me seriously. Most dump their policies as soon as they are elected anyway
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I have no sympathy for addicts. +
+ None. I see "I'm 2 years clean!!" and I think, "Good job having a shred of self control."
I don't understand it. I understand "addictive" personalities. I don't understand letting yourself get addicted to any hard drugs. You *know* you'll die. You *know* it'll ruin your life. I've been offered drugs. I've taken plenty of drugs. It's completely a choice to be addicted or not.
It's for nothing. It's either an escape from your problems (that there are other ways to deal with. healthy ways) or it's because you like the "high" you get. So, you're going to throw your life away for a fleeting "feeling"? No.
There's nobody to blame but yourself for your addiction. You've made the choice to use in the first place. You've made the choice to keep doing it, despite what you *know* will happen.
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 romantic love and friendship are little more than distractions from important issues in the world. CMV. +
+ We often criticize people in our society for not caring enough about important issues that impact everyone (like climate change, economic inequality, social injustice, or erosion of rights and liberties) and for caring more about meaningless distractions (such as the Kardashians, the new iPad, the PS4, and twerking). But I have trouble seeing how friendships, romantic relationships, or sex are any less of a distraction. At the end of the day, they're all things that make us “feel good” and raise our endorphin level, yet those are the same reasons people enjoy watching reality TV, playing video games, or buying crap they don't need. They make them “feel good”. They're “fun”.
People pour so much energy, time, and money into these things, especially sex and romance, and our society is obsessed with them. Look at any newspaper or magazine and there will often be entire sections dedicated solely to sex and dating. Researchers at universities spend taxpayer money to study them. You can't watch a single TV show or movie without seeing a romantic subplot, and it seems like pretty much all of popular music is based on romance and sex. I often hear the refrain “man, if only people cared as much about things that really matter as they do about the latest Call of Duty game or how many points LeBron James scored”. But I think that people spend even more time energy and money on friendship, romance, and sex, and aside from some feel-good rationalizations about how those things “give meaning to life”, I fail to see how they're any less of a distraction. Think of the amount of time and energy people spend on making friends, hanging out with friends, dating, and trying to get laid. Now imagine if half of that time and energy were spent actually trying to do something to deal with real issues that actually impact people.
Of course, sex is required for the perpetuation of the species, so it is, at some level, necessary. But most people in our society obviously don't have sex for that reason. For most people, and most of the time, sex is something done for fun, and that's what makes it no different, in my eyes, than iPads and the Kardashians. | 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 low voter turnout is a problem. CMV. +
+ People often say it is a major problem if not many people vote, and people try to encourage everyone to vote.
I think that if I don't know much about the issues or candidates in a referendum/election etc, there is no reason for me to vote. The vote would end up as either a nearly random guess or just the same as how people I know voted. The more people vote, the more it waters down the effect of people with a strong opinion or people with a lot of knowledge about the issues.
I guess it's better if more people get informed and vote, but many/most don't want to or can't spend the time and effort to do this, so should just not vote.
The counterargument is often that this would allow radical extreme candidates to get power. Well, if they're very obviously evil/idiotic, people would vote. Also, how would the evil candidate fool the few well-informed voters?
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: Within the next 500 years, all life on Earth will be either wiped out completely or to a point where it is nearly impossible to rebuild society. +
+ Several reasons:
* A giant meteor impact will make the planet uninhabitable killing all life (this has already happened six times to Earth according to scientists)
* Some disease will evolve to the point where it can longer be treated or controlled by vaccines and create a worldwide outbreak
* Nuclear war
* Worldwide starvation or dehydration due to diminishing resources and population increase
* An ice age or "hot period" so severe making Earth uninhabitable
My first one of these so I hope I provided the correct and enough content in a clear and concise manner.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Almost all Political Scientists agree that the Judicial Branch is the weakest because it lacks the power to properly enforce their rulings. In order to fix this, the Courts must be given power to impeach politicians of the other branches who ignore and fail to enforce these rulings. +
+ When the branch was formed, Alexander Hamilton said that it lacked the checks that the other branches have (Congress can impeach a president for abuse of power and defund parts of the executive branch, and pass constitutional amendments to override the Supreme Court, and the president has the power to veto and nominates the Justices). When a Supreme Court ruling is declared, they have no power to enforce that it is implemented, an example is after *Brown v Board of Education*
Eisenhower didn't enforce any implementation until violence broke out in Little Rock, Arkansas and yet there still were segregated schools for at least 20 years after this ruling.
The checks in 'checks and balances' is the ability to overrule a branch that is becoming too powerful. Therefore, in order for the Supreme Courts to have that power, they must be able to impeach and remove from office anyone who refuses to act on these decisions.
If you have other ways that you think will give the courts the proper 'checks' that the other branches do, don't be afraid to mention them! | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Road-rage doesn't exist, CMV. +
+ I think road rage is a fashionable pretext for allowing ones self to lose ones temper. Road rage is a cod-psychological scapegoat employed by those who permit themselves to act in an uncivilised manner while behind the wheel. It is part of the common lexicon that future generations will perceive as laughable unscientific nonsense. The notion that the addition of a motor vehicle to a dispute creates a frenzied condition where decency and common social protocol are disregarded has no basis in our understanding of how the human mind works. Using *road rage* to explain or justify verbal assault is never acceptable and a reasonable, self aware person should refrain from acting like a savage under such trivial circumstances. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Most of the issues in American politics should be taken care of by the states instead of the federal government. +
+ In today's political climate, we tend to over-emphasize the federal government. As such, we try to make sweeping laws that govern all 50 states, usually with around 40% of the population unsatisfied. For examples, see laws regarding abortion, voter IDs, healthcare, education, and taxation. Now, I blame this on our media (not intentionally, it's a matter of necessity) only focusing on federal government, but the fact is that people on both sides seem hellbent on forcing the entire nation to succumb to their political ideology. I believe that we should return to a more localized focus on our laws, and leave D.C. to deal with exclusively foreign policy and interstate regulations. That way, a super left-leaning person can be happy in Cali, while a right-winger can live a content life in Tennessee. Voter happiness would go up as the laws more accurately represent their views, and decisions are made close to home rather than hundreds of miles away. Fiscally, states could use money more efficiently by avoiding federal bureaucracy and being able to more easily weed out pork. 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 "Feminism" is outdated, and that all people who fight for gender equality should rebrand their movement to "Equalism". CMV +
+ First of all, the term "Equalism" exists, and already refers to "Gender equality" (as well as racial equality, which could be integrated into the movement).
I think that modern feminism has too bad of an image to be taken seriously. The whole "male-hating agenda" feminists are a minority, albeit a VERY vocal one, but they bring the entire movement down.
Concerning MRAs, some of what they advocate is true enough : rape accusations totaly destroy a man's reputation ; male victims of domestic violence are blamed because they "led their wives to violence", etc.
I think that all the extremists in those movements should be disregarded, but seeing as they only advocate for their issues, they come accross as irrelevant. A new movement is necessary to continue promoting gender and racial equality in Western society. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: A banana is not a good method of portraying scale. +
+ Well my view is relatively simple. Reddit posts seem to use the banana as a method of portraying scale and it seems to me that this is a poor way of doing so, for the following reasons:
1) a bannana is not a uniform size. There are large bananas and small bananas
2) The curve. Bananas are not usually straight. This makes judging their length difficult. It can also mean that it is hard to show the banana very close to the object you are scaling against.
3) Bananas are relatively small, this makes them bad for judging the scale of larger objects. This is especially bad when considered in conjunction with point 1, as any difference between the percieved size of a banana and the actual size will be enhanced for an object many times the size of the banana.
4) Bananas are perishable. This means that it is unreasonable to expect a redditor to have them on hand at all times. I for one do not at present own a banana as being a poor student living alone I cannon afford a fully equiped fruit collection, I only own at most 2 types at a time (at present I own apples and pears).
5) Bananas are relatively large. This may conflict with point 3, but the point is that when scaling small objects (pins, hair ect) then a banana is too large, meaning that in order to use one for scale you would either need to show only a small amount of the banana (therefore making it fairly useless for judging scale) or you would need to 'zoom out' in order to show the entire banana thus making the object less visible and therefore harder to judge scale.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |