input
stringlengths 114
23.1k
| output
stringclasses 2
values | instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|
CMV:The recent cheating scandal involving teachers Atlanta is not the fault the convicted teachers but instead of high standards placed by standardized testing and thus the teachers should not be convicted +
+ Link to article for those unaware: http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/14/us/georgia-atlanta-public-schools-cheating-scandal-verdicts/
A long read, but worth it if you have the time: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/07/21/wrong-answer
Recently 9 teachers in Atlanta were sentenced for their roles in a large coordinated cheating effort involving elementary and middle schoolers and their standardized tests. Some of these teachers have been sentenced to jail for 7+ years and many fined upwards of 50k. I believe that while it may be easy to simply blame these teachers, it is more important to understand why these teachers felt the need to cheat. They did so because of the high stakes placed on the schools by NCLB (No Child Left Behind). These put immense pressure on teachers to get their students test scores up and instead don't allow teachers to focus on the individual needs of each student. I also believe that the punishment given is far too strict. Yes, what the teachers did was wrong, but it is not worth of 7+ years in Jail.
Anyways Reddit, CMV, I'm open and education is a large interest of mine and will be happy to discuss this with you guys!
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
"I was only following orders" is an.....iffy defense. CMV. +
+ So my dad and i got into a discussion as to whether the Adolf Eichmann defense, also known as the Nuremberg defense, of "i was only following orders" was a good enough reason for anyone to plea, and we were both stuck; neither of us could really decide if it was or wasn't. So i will let /r/changemyview be the decider.
To be clear: in my research, i never found and evidence of Adolf Eichmann saying "I was only following orders", the closest he ever said was during his 1961 trial was as follows:
"I cannot recognize the verdict of guilty. . . . It was my misfortune to become entangled in these atrocities. But these misdeeds did not happen according to my wishes. It was not my wish to slay people. . . . Once again I would stress that I am guilty of having been obedient, having subordinated myself to my official duties and the obligations of war service and my oath of allegiance and my oath of office, and in addition, once the war started, there was also martial law. . . . I did not persecute Jews with avidity and passion. That is what the government did. . . . At that time obedience was demanded, just as in the future it will also be demanded of the subordinate."
-Adolf Eichmann
I went into the discussion with my father leaning towards a "no" towards this question, but, through playing devil's advocate, i came out of it leaning towards "yes".
I keep coming to this example: if Eichmann had been told in person by Adolf Hitler to murder someone, and Eichmann said "no" to Hitler's face, Hitler would certainly ordered Eichmann in front of a firing squad. With this I argued that the higher up the Chain of Command you are, the more guilty you are. But Eichmann was not near the bottom at all. He oversaw the execution of Jews in Budapest.
Eichmann, in my opinion, had justice served to him by being convicted. He stated over and over that he was too insignificant to do anything about the genocide, but that simply isn't true. He claimed he was ashamed of what he did but, while he might have been after the war, during the war he showed no remorse.
I am so unsure on this. Reddit: CMV! | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe that most rapes are about sex and not "about power". CMV. +
+
Let me be as clear as possible.
It is often repeated that "rape is not about sex, it is about power." Many commentators actively claim that rapists are not motivated by sexual desire, but rather, by a desire to assert one's authority or dominance. This argument is frequently accompanied by the claim that a main motivating factor in rape is a desire to subjugate or dehumanize women. *I do not deny that such assaults may occur*.
What I claim is that many, many acts of sexual assault are primarily motivated by sexual desire, and any concerns about asserting dominance or authority are entirely secondary. I believe that a typical sexual assault begins with a man deciding that he would like to have sex with a particular woman, and that woman not reciprocating. The man is frustrated that the woman will not reciprocate *primarily because he has a strong biological urge to copulate, and not because of some urge to assert his authority*. Note that I do not claim that this in any way makes rape okay. If you want to round up all the rapists and shoot them, I might just be on board. But I do believe that many rapists are motivated primarily by an urge to have sexual intercourse with a woman who doesn't reciprocate.
I believe that it is *so obvious* that many rapes are primarily motivated by sexual desire and not a desire to assert dominance, that to deny it is *ludicrous*. We can all agree that most men want to have sex. We can all agree that many men will take what they want when they believe they can get away with it. We can all agree that in many cases, a man *can* get away with rape. Often it is even *easy* to get away with rape, given the he-said-she-said nature of it; unfortunately, beyond-the-shadow-of-a-doubt tends to be in favour of the rapist. Given all of this, *how is it possible* that a large proportion of rapes are not motivated by sexual desire?
Furthermore, I believe it is a mistake to pretend that sexual attraction is not a factor in sexual assault. I believe that this ignores *the most common cases of sexual assault* in favour of less common cases. I believe that this obfuscates the real issue and obstructs our understanding of what causes sexual assault.
To summarize,
- I acknowledge that not all cases of sexual assault are identical, and that perhaps some are motivated by a desire to exert dominance.
- I believe, without a ton of evidence, that a large proportion (probably most) sexual assaults are **primarily** motivated by a biological urge to copulate.
- I believe that ignoring this is destructive and a mistake.
To change my view, you may:
- Provide evidence that shows that the proportion of rapes which are motivated by a biological urge to copulate is relatively small.
- Find a hole in the above argument.
For the purposes of this discussion, I would like to exclude cases where rape is used as an act of war or where the level of violence is well above the minimal amount of violence required to commit sex. I think that this leaves the majority of cases, especially in modern western society. I would also like to keep the focus on cases where the rapist is a man and the victim is a woman. I think that the cases that I am excluding are unique enough to be dealt with separately.
I would like to clarify a few things about my position here so that you know what I'm asking you to change.
Here is a quotation from [a recent Guardian article](http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/29/rape-about-power-not-sex) which summarizes the position that I am against.
(*Emphasis mine*)
As far as I know, this is the dominantly held explanation for rape among sociologists and especially in gender studies departments in universities. Rapists are not motivated by sexual desire, but rather by a desire to limit the sovereignty of women. I believe that this is a ludicrous and counterproductive position to hold.
Some (many? most?) rapes are acts of violence which are (maybe, I don't know what motivates them) motivated by a desire to subjugate women (and men) and exert dominance. These cases are touted by those who hold view that I mentioned as evidence that rapists are monsters who seek only to limit the sovereignty of women.
I believe that the vast majority of rapes in Western society (I don't know about elsewhere) are not motivated by a desire to limit the sovereignty of the victims, but rather, motivated by a desire to get laid.
I believe that my view is supported by Occam's razor when you consider that men often want to have sex with women who don't want to have sex with them, and men often take things by force when they believe that they can get away with it. Why should sex be the exception to this rule?
CMV
---
Don't get me wrong, I believe that there are all kinds of motivations to commit rape, and many of them are only tangentially about sex. Rape as an act of war comes to mind. This article
http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/16772/rape-its-not-about-sex-its-about-power-anger-and-violence/
provides a few counterexamples acts of terrible violence that included sexual assault.
But this article, like so many others, goes on to claim that rape is *never* about sex, that it is *only* about power. How could this *possibly* be true? For the purposes of this discussion, I would like to exclude incidents of extreme violence like the ones listed in this article as counterexamples. I am talking about things like date rape, and incidents where the assailant is known to the victim. These are extremely common; I know several girls who have been victims. Typically, the assailants are people who have either had relationships with the victims, or have expressed desire for the victims. How can anyone say that that type of offence is not about sex?
These are some facts that I hold true:
Fact 1. Men want to have sex.
Fact 2. Not all men get to have sex.
Fact 3. Sometimes men will attempt to take what they want by force.
Given these, how is it possible that men never attempt to take sex by force because they want sex?
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I belive AA is only a temporary solution for alcholics. Not a healthy long term solution to treat addiction. CMV +
+ I came across this today on [Reddit](http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/1h6tb5/til_bill_wilson_the_well_known_cofounder_of/) .
While most of the comments sympathize with giving the guy a damn drink, I find it very disappointing that a person dedicated to help alcohol addicts broke down and caved into his problem. This is usually what happens to these people who devote their entire lives to AA meetings and then all of a sudden stop. I've known people who are in AA. Someone in particular who has been going to meetings for 20 years once downright told me if she stopped, then she would go into a downhill spiral of abuse. The program to me seems that it strips away your will and makes people rely on dependence of being addicted to this program instead of alcohol. The cravings for these people don't seem to stop and they seem unable to make a strong personal choice to quit. Instead they rely on these people constantly re-enforcing them which simultaneously makes them feel helpless without the program. This on one hand can be a great environment and a very welcoming community that some people need. However, it's not something that I believe is a healthy way to quit and stay sober.
Also on a different note, for Non-Christians it can be very awkward because of the heavy influence god has on meetings. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Not everyone should vote. +
+ If you find yourself uninformed about representatives or issues, you should not nor should you be encouraged to vote.
This to me seems common sense, yet in many or most elections people are attempting to get people to actively vote who otherwise would not, such as teachers giving extra credit for voting or businesses offering incentives to employees who vote. I understand people should be encouraged to understand the issue at hand and to research representatives, however *people who do not should not be encouraged to vote.* The reasoning behind this is simply that these choices should not be made at a spur of the moment or without conviction, as then we get representatives voted in who hold no qualifications but who the voter may have "heard of once or twice."
Thank you for your time and I am honestly willing to change my view.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe copyright and patent law should be completely abolished. CMV. +
+ I think that copyright and patent law are no different than government impose artificial monopolies. I believe that people do not have an inherent right to the works they invent, and that if they want to keep complete control of it they should either never release it to the public, or release it only to those with whom they have a private agreement (in other words a contract).
I feel that sharing and changing creative works (or inventions) benefits everyone, and we all as a society become wealthier from it, without anyone being hurt. It is in my view a win-win situation.
While i do admit that some authors or scientists might be more reticent to create new works or inventions, i feel that that negative of the nonexistence of copyright and patent law would be outweighed by the sheer amount of new derivative works. I also acknowledge the possibility of certain things seeing their development impeded due to the near inability to make a profit off of them (for example medicine), in that case i think that a combination of public funding and something like "kickstarter" would be enough to balance that out. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I'm convinced, and I have good reasons, that women taking the last name of the men in marriage is extremely silly, boarderline unproductive. CMV +
+ First, I'm a Chinese guy born in Taiwan and immigrated to USA when I was around 10 years old; this was about 15 years ago. My personal culture is a mix of many different cultures, as I believe you take the best traits of a culture and behave the way possible, all of these cultural practices needs to have been through your head and makes good sense. With regards to a behavioral topic that no culture I've experience has gotten the right approach, I must make up my own.
Certain cultural practices are not inherently good or bad, they can remain (or not remain, it doesnt matter)
On the subject of taking the husband's surname, I actually feel more strongly against it than just boarderline unproductive, it's almost disrespecting the woman.
1. Marriage (although symbolically a discrete event) is a continuous event. From the day the pair met all the way to the day the pair depart from each other (due to breaking up, divorce, or death), it's continuous in its meaning and effect and how people should behave when they're married or not married.
2. Identity, which your name has a lot to do with, your family (representing your past, education, etc) is a big part of your identity.
3. By 1 and 2, why would changing surnames make any sense (other than tradition, which whenever someone says it's because of tradition and not give any better reason, I say, oh, so your daddy told you this is the right way to do things, so it's the right way to do things... thanks, no.) 2 people's relations will change from not married to married, vice versa, but it's not a big enough change to represent changing your name, your identity (which some people may argue that name is just names, it doesnt matter, in which case this whole discussion is pointless.)
4. We're not talking about the children's surnames, and let's not, that's a whole different topic.
5. She's not a part of my bloodline, she is family and whatnot, but can a family have people of different surnames? of course, why does it matter? I'm convinced that surnames are part of (a decent portion) of a person's identity, the person shouldnt just change it.
6. In fact it gives the information that the children, in fact the family is a union of two bloodlines, that's important, and their contributions are both very significant.
7. You may say this is a act the girl takes to show devotion to me, but what about me? shouldnt i have an act to show how much devotion I have to her? Any argument about it being some sort of symbolic act, I can just reverse the role and say, why dont I do it? Is there something special about me being a guy that makes it so that this is a one sided process?
8. In fact, because this is a tradition coming from patriarchal descent, it makes it more fucked up. Okay, check this out. My grandmother on my father's side was part of a family with some money, and my grandfather was a orphan, a nobody (at the time they got married), so my grandfather had to actually take my grandmother's last name, for a pretty significant duration of their lives...
9. We cant have this fucked up shit anymore, it's not about money, it's not about who has the "greater" family, it's not about that I'm the guy and she's the girl, it's not about, it's about a union of two people.
Like normally with cultural practices that arent good or bad, I would allow it depending on if I'm okay and if the other person is okay, but this cultural practice is straight-up shitty to me; I just cant allow it (not that I have any power, the girl is her own person, she can do what she wants, I explain why it's fucked up... it's not to the point where I will literally step in to stop it.)
I dont know... help me. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Banning whole demographics from blood donation is partially responsible for blood shortages +
+ So I have AB- blood type which is apparently pretty rare and there is apparently a shortage of plasma as well for AB people so I would love to be a donor.
BUT in the country where I live I am double banned, firstly for being a gay man which immediately gives me a lifetime ban since its seen as acceptable to assume that we are all HIV+ or something which is pretty unfair to be blunt. You would think they could test the blood for HIV or something. Also since its purely based on self deceleration as well so I question its effectiveness to be honest.
The other reason is pretty crazy, its because I lived in England in the late 90s when mad cow disease was a thing, however only a tiny handful of people showed signs of the human form of the disease so i honestly wonder what the chances of anyone actually having BSE if any.
You see the news sometimes complain about a donor shortage, but denying people the ability to donate based on outdated assumptions is a bit much to be honest.
Some people argue risk with reference to the gay ban but what about Africans from the HIV hotspots, surely they would be more likely to have it than a gay man in a monogamous relationship with an HIV- partner?
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Houses should be carpeted when cost is not a factor. +
+ I grew up in a house with carpet, and I'm aware of the downsides of carpeting -- harder to clean, attracts dust, more expensive. However, aside from the aesthetic consideration of carpet vs. hardwood flooring (which is entirely subjective), carpeting is objectively more comfortable and pleasant to walk on. Walking on carpet barefoot, I don't feel all the nasty bits of grit and dirt that accumulate in any house under my feet. On hardwood floors, I feel *everything*, down to the smallest fleck of particulate matter. Not only that, but it sticks to my feet, so now I'm walking around feeling like a human Swiffer pad.
Carpet will of course leave dirt and residue on your feet too, but not if properly vacuumed often -- and I would argue, hardwood floors allow dirt and particles to slide around more easily, so if you have some dirt accumulation under a table or a sofa, it can more easily make its way out into walking areas as the result of a slight breeze, whereas in a carpeted house, the dirt tends to stay where it is until vacuumed.
I just can't figure out why people would consider hardwood flooring a more enjoyable option than carpeting, unless they're just constantly thinking about the cleaning vs. comfort tradeoff.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
i think that the united states constitution should be scraped and re-written. cmv +
+ i'm not saying that we should forget everything in the constitution, but the words themselves are written in an earlier English that needs to be translated. i think that the incorrect or vague translations of the constitution leads to some ambiguity and allows for legal loop holes. these loop holes and ambiguity creates openings for those with power to infringe on the rights of others.
also the constitution is over 200 years old and doesn't cover many of the problems we face today. i don't know who should re-write it but my point stands. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I do not plan on voting. CMV +
+ For context, I am a seventeen-year-old living in the United States. When I turn 18, I plan to register as an independent; when election days come around, I intend to go to the polling location and submit a blank ballot. I intend to remain somewhat politically involved aside from voting, at least to the extent of knowing what the issues are and where I stand on them.
Here are my reasons for not voting:
Voting, at least in the United States encourages an us-versus-them mentality, creating a vicious atmosphere. As a quick example of this, /r/politics was focused almost entirely on tearing Mitt Romney and the Republicans down last election season, building them up as the most evil people on the face of the planet.
The voter is asked to accept a political party's complete list of economic and social ideals. You cannot separate individual issues at all--you have a few packages to choose from, no matter how much you may disagree with parts of each.
By the very nature of this, voters are encouraged to agree with one side on all or almost all things. Because a person chooses to support a side, views presented by that side will tend to appear "better" than views presented by the other side, regardless of the views themselves. People who join and actively support one political party or another submit to a certain degree of mob mentality.
The United States has many corrupt government officials and something of a culture of dissatisfaction with elected officials. I see this, in large part, as a result of voting. Voting selects for traits such as charisma, popular appeal, and so forth, rather than competency in governing. In addition, the process encourages--almost necessitates--lying.
Even once officials have jumped through the hoops required for their elections, they will often make decisions based on what certain groups of their constituents want. You see this in actions such as the Republicans calling for a repeal of Obamacare (perhaps not the best example, but the first decent one I thought of): absurd proposals with no chance of succeeding, created purely to show that the politicians uphold the views of those who voted for them.
Beyond all this, voting itself depends on the people, and that is perhaps my biggest problem with it. Everybody is encouraged to vote. If a person doesn't vote (and makes that clear), they are generally looked down upon--often considered unworthy of even holding political opinions. Becoming politically informed is given much lower priority. As I see it, this results in people voting when they really shouldn't be--voting not because they care, not because they have honestly and thoroughly researched and come to the conclusion that Candidate A is superior to Candidate B, but because it's expected. This gives the informed votes much less value--every thoughtful vote is drowned out by a dozen thoughtless ones.
Building on that, voting gives people a sense of having "done their political duty." It is an entirely symbolic gesture--individual votes, of course, do not carry any weight at all--but it frees them from doing any more politically. If you're a voter, you've Done Your Part to support the democracy!
I could go on, but this post is getting too long as it is. The reasons above should provide a good start, at least. In short, I prefer the symbolic gesture of not voting to the symbolic gesture of voting because I see a lot of systemic problems caused by the act and concept of voting.
I am fairly firm in this viewpoint. I am posting in /r/changemyview because it is an abnormal viewpoint and I have held it for long enough that I suspect I am not giving fair consideration to points that support voting. I do not expect my view to change completely, but I would appreciate a different perspective on things. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe Balisongs, or "Butterfly Knives", should be legal to carry. CMV. +
+ For those of you who are not familiar, [this](http://www.terryguinn.com/knives/knifepix/028%20balisong%20lg.jpg) is what a balisong is. I'm not sure about other states, but Texas has made it illegal to carry butterfly knives. I am also speaking on behalf of single edged balisongs, no double edged or "dagger" style knives (although, all things considered, I think having those prohibited is stupid as well, but that's a different argument for a different day).
My reasoning.
1. They are in no way more dangerous than other knives that are already legal. Butterfly knives are pretty awful in terms of fighting or attacking as far as knives go. They have a loose grip (because it's separated into two parts), lacks stability that many other fixed blades and assisted blades (which are legal now) have. Furthermore the blade, even in higher end models, is prone to wobbling.
2. The main reason they were illegalized in the first place is due to gang affiliation. They're flashy and "scary", which I personally believe is a ridiculous premise to prohibit something. Now I agree, people shouldn't just be waving around their balisong like an idiot in public, but that's as simple as being covered under already existing "brandishing" laws. If it is not covered (which I'm pretty sure it is), the law should be made to envelope that aspect, rather than banning their carry outright.
3. The next main counterargument is simply "if they're so much worse than other knives, why do you need to carry them?" The logical fallacy that "if you don't need it, we should ban it" is an overall problem in this country to begin with, but I won't revel on that too much. I feel comfortable using my butterfly knife around the house. It's one of my favorite knives, for no other reason besides subjectivity and familiarity. I don't think it should be prohibited because "better options exist". I believe that's fool hearty.
Change my view. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I don't think being a bandwagon fan is as bad as people make it out to be. +
+ Say you live in a city and never really cared about sports, when suddenly the local team starts winning. Many people who have rooted for their teams for a long time will respond to bandwagon fans with utter disdain because they didn't stick with the team through thick and thin, and only started caring once the team started winning.
However, being a bandwagon fan doesn't seem horrible to me. I agree that when people pretend they have always cared when they actually haven't, that is annoying and I have a low opinion of those fans. But joining in the hype around you as your city/region celebrates and gets excited about a sports team? That is only natural! I don't think we should begrudge people who share in this experience starting with a successful team, rather than paying their dues with a bad team and having some claim to loyalty when the team is better.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
If someone in a relationship has a celebrity crush, I don't view it as harmless. CMV? +
+ If my SO had a celebrity crush, I would not be okay with it, despite having heard a lot of people call it "harmless". I began to feel more strongly on this after seeing a documentary about a husband who's wife was *obsessed* with a celebrity, even admitting she would have sex with him if she got the chance. But he shrugged it off as "harmless" for a couple of reasons:
1. She would probably never meet him and therefore it wouldn't affect the relationship.
2. The celebrity status gives a false representation of who that person actually is, and therefore he felt it was as if she was fantasising over an imaginary person.
While these points make a little bit of sense to me, I still wouldn't be able to get over the fact that my partner was thinking about another man in such a way. Nonetheless, I would like to feel more relaxed about 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: I believe that people have a duty to attempt to determine the motive of an unknown person in their home before taking lethal action against them. +
+ This sentiment shows up in gun control debates a fair amount: Someone will claim that they will shoot an unknown intruder in their home, with no questions asked, because _even the slightest_ risk that the intruder will harm/kill them, their wife, or their children justifies killing the intruder. I believe that these people are dangerous and delusional, and that if in a court it is determined that someone shot at an intruder without determining or attempting to determine their motive, they should be convicted of murder or attempted murder.
The reasons I believe this are fairly simple. There are enough instances of someone mistaking someone who has lawfully entered the home for an intruder, that attacking someone you suspect to be an intruder but don't know to be an intruder is irresponsible. Some instances of this are when a teenager invites their boyfriend/girlfriend into their home without telling their parents, or when someone mistakes a relative for an intruder at night. Or, someone might forget they gave permission. This actually happened to me recently, when I asked our neighbours to water our plants while we were on vacation. I returned from vacation earlier than they expected, and they came into our house while I was home and I didn't know who they were or why they were there (until I saw them and realized they were watering our plants). There are also cases where a person is an intruder, in that they entered a home without permission, but is not dangerous. Drunk people wandering into the wrong house is a common example. In these cases, it is irresponsible to attack them without first ensuring that they are dangerous, such as be hearing or seeing them break down a door, window, or etc. or by seeing that they are wielding a weapon, or if neither of those are the case, then by telling them to halt and identify themselves.
I also disagree with the notion that _any risk at all_ of harm to yourself or your loved one justifies a drastic action like shooing a gun. People take risks with their family every time they get in a car, if _any risk at all_ justifies extreme action, they would refuse to drive with their family as well.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think infertile parents who use surrogates to have children instead of adopting are selfish and driven by egotism. CMV +
+ I've tried to write this several times without being personal, but it always comes back to my own experience. I'm an adoptive parent, and I know a lot of other parents who used surrogates. Their reasons included wanting a kid that looked like them, that would carry their genes into the future, that was their own race, or, as one plainly put it, they wanted to come as close as they could to "being like everyone else" and making their own children. I haven't been able to say it to these people's faces, but I think they're selfish and I think less of them because of what they did. There are so many kids out there that need homes. Finding yourself unable to conceive creates a tremendous opportunity to do good, and using a surrogate is just going to great lengths and expense to run away from that opportunity and wallow in selfishness. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe people who complain about spoilers stupid [CMV] +
+ I believe people who complain about spoilers are just flat out stupid. I mostly believe this because of the [sheer](http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/08/spoilers-dont-spoil-anything/) [amount](http://jezebel.com/5829815/spoilers-make-a-story-more-even-better) [of](http://bigthink.com/artful-choice/time-to-rename-the-spoiler-knowing-how-something-ends-may-actually-make-it-more-enjoyable) [Articles](http://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2011/aug/17/spoilers-enhance-enjoyment-psychologists) I have read on the subject proving that spoilers actually make things better. People think I'm crazy or wrong for believing this despite these. CMV. Make me understand.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe that the copyright companies have it right when they talk about ThePirateBay, and it is stealing. CMV +
+ I am a pirate too. I have payed a maximum of 40$ for games I bought, but have downloaded more than $500 worth of them probably. I know I am stealing, but that doesn't mean i try to justify it. Why should people like me be allowed to get games that have taken hard work to make, for free? | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Prostitution should be fully legal and regulated. (Perspective of the United States) +
+ I believe that prostitution should be legalized and culturally acceptable in all 50 states, but I've only ever held this belief and never had it really tested; hence my post here.
My reasoning is that it would generate a great deal of income if taxed which should counter balance the offset of proper regulations and police action against those that do not pay taxes.
It would also lead to a healthier view of sex as it would become readily available to many members of society. Those who feel that they have little or no control in their lives would feel as though they have more control as their sexuality is fully explored.
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-is-new/news/news/2013/docs/20130415_thb_stats_report_en.pdf
http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/glotip/Trafficking_in_Persons_2012_web.pdf
1. Separate licensing must be required of Pimps, Brothels, and Prostitutes. These licenses require US citizenship to obtain and must be of age 18 or older. Brothels would be required to have employes that are fully licensed and stand to have their license revoked if they act in violation of the law.
1A. Any Pimps or Brothels which prohibit one-on-one access between their employees and law enforcement agencies would be given a extremely heavy fine and would be immediately inspected for trafficking. Any Brothel guilty of trafficking would lose their license and the owner placed in jail. Each member would also undergo inspection to determine whether or not they are also guilty of trafficking.
1B. All Johns must have a valid Drivers License or State ID and be the age of 18 or older. Any Pimp, Brothel, or Prostitute that does business with a John in violation of this is given a large fine.
1C. Escorts will be required to have licenses as Prostitutes even if they do not engage in prostitution. Entities that arrange for escort services with Johns will also be required to have Pimp licenses, regardless of whether or not sexual intercourse occurs.
2. Pimps and Brothels are required to submit their employee records with proof of STI testing. Self-employed Prostitutes must also meet this requirement.
2A. All forms of prostitution are required by law to make use of condoms and dental dams where appropriate. Any in violation stand to receive a massive fine and potentially have their licensing revoked.
I would contend that prostitution is *not* a good idea if those bear minimum regulations are not met.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The fact that a Qatar World Cup would have to be held in the winter is not a compelling reason to oppose it +
+ In case you don't know, the world of soccer/football/futbol/Fussball is in turmoil over the Qatar World Cup, to be held in 2022 (which is really not that far away). There is a ton of controversy about this. Qatar is inhospitable to tourists who want to drink and party and may be treated badly because of their gender and/or sexual orientation. They don't have the infrastructure to host a World Cup, and are rapidly trying to build it in time with slave labor from India and Nepal. They almost certainly secured their hosting rights via bribes. And one of the most controversial is that they lied and said that they could hold a World Cup in the unbearable Mideastern summer, a claim that FIFA has now declared to be unfeasible and which has prompted FIFA to declare that the Cup will have to move to the winter.
The issue is: A winter World Cup would wreak havoc on the big European leagues, where most of the world-class players play, and which usually are still running in the winter. The top-level players will have to go missing to attend the month-long World Cup, not to mention the training camp beforehand, not to mention the burnout they would undoubtedly be suffering afterwards. This could also mess with the entire schedule of the season, the pre-season and the seasons before and after. It will require a major adjustment that will undoubtedly affect the results of all those leagues.
With all that conceded, I still regard this as an embarrassingly petty complaint. And I want to make clear that I agree that all the other stuff is in fact quite serious, *including* the fact that they lied about it being played in the summer. But just the fact that World Cup teams will be playing in the winter? No, that's not a compelling argument. Yes, it will be a difficult adjustment for the Euro leagues. *They can deal with it.* Plenty of leagues also have to deal with losing star players during the World Cup and continental competitions. The European leagues will adapt accordingly.
Yes, the top footballing talent is concentrated in Europe. The World Cup, let us not forget, is a *global* competition. Ideally, every single country that can host the event will do so. It is not the responsibility of the rest of the world to adjust to Europe's schedule. There is nothing about hosting a World Cup that requires it to be held in the summer; if there is a clash with some part of the world, it should be on them to adjust to the World Cup, not vice versa.
Again, this is not to say that the World Cup should be held in Qatar, which has provided many reasons it shouldn't be allowed to host a global event of this magnitude. Perhaps in conjunction with those reasons, you could make a case that a shift in the traditional schedule is a bridge too far. But on its own? Meh. I'm sorry that Madrid United FC might have to play without Ariaga II for a few months. Whatever. Get over it.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
"Proper grammar" is unimportant. CMV +
+ The point of language is to facilitate communication. If all party's understand what is meant, then communication is facilitated, everyone should be happy. For example, If I said, "My friend and me are going to the store." You would know exactly what I was talking about. There would be no ambiguity. However, because it is not "proper grammar" I would be ridiculed, corrected, ect. I understand that grammar is important, because with out it we could not communicate effectively. However I feel that if all party's understand what is meant, "proper grammar" is unimportant.
P.S The response "people will not take you seriously if you have bad grammar" will not change my view because that is the problem I think aught to be fixed. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
As a Canadian, I don't think anyone who is a politician is worth voting for, CMV. +
+ I just don't see that any of them represent anything that a) I hold to be Canadian values or b) I hold to be my own values. I believe that the majority of political parties are interested in supporting the poor and vulnerable only as much as it also supports them, or their rich friends to do so.
Since I've been old enough to vote, I've had Chretien come visit my province while it was massively flooding and then call an election immediately after anyway, because the time was ripe in the populated center of the country. I've had Martin with his Adscam crap. And I've had Harper with his complete disregard for our environment, for rules and transparency, and now he's pretty much completely embroiled in scandal.
On the national scale, I also was part of a team organizing an event supporting a justice issue, and we had a politician come out and speak. This politician essentially turned the entire purpose of the event on its head, and used it to basically campaign against opponents. (vague on purpose to avoid doxxing myself).
Provincially I grew up with Gary F**** promising not to sell the jets, and then selling them. I guess we had a couple not too bad provincial leaders, because I can't remember them. Last couple years I've been in Quebec, and basically the option was between a party that was known for being incredibly corrupt, and between a party that uses fear of the English to push some really bigoted and regressive laws into the province.
At a municipal level, Sam Katz seemed like a real slime-ball until I moved out to Montreal, and saw mayor after mayor go down there. Meanwhile the mayor of Laval was heading the Italian mob. I think that the mayors of Canada's cities are pretty much just fighting to be the least effective, and the most corrupt mayors ever.
All this hate on politicians has me really despondent about where our country is headed, so please: CMV. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: All crime is directly manufactured by the government +
+ Before you downvote this as tinfoil nonsense, just imagine this..
By definition crime is a violation of laws created. At the risk of sounding like an anarchist, it would seem that more strict laws directly create more crime. [Prohibition, for example](http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html) directly increased the consumption of alcohol and tons of violence associated with the new lawlessness of the industry. I know this is a tired argument for the legalization of marijuana, but imagine how much *less crime* we would have if a common substance was decriminalized.
Imagine a hypothetical situation where the consumption of meat is made illegal. There would be mass uproar, of course, and people would still want to eat meat illegally. Most of us would become criminals over night. Think of the magnitude of the illegal meat industry.. entire states would be controlled by meat-gangs and we would have armies of cattle farming rebels all across the countryside. Murder, assault, theft, and every other universal-ish offense would skyrocket.
So at one extreme, we have a very strict and nosy (1984-esque) government that results in tons of crime and undesirable behaviors. What's at the other extreme? What if **murder was legal**!? This is extreme and I'll probably get stoned for saying that^420blazeit but just stop and think about it for a second.
Think about the American Frontier in the early 1800s. Everyone packed heat, everyone was a potential murder victim or murderer. The law was there but they were on the same level as the lawless. Everyone was equal in the eyes of Smith & Wesson. This is a very idealistic view and it's dramatized and romanticized in fiction and non-fiction but I also believe it's part of our (the world's) cultural identity. There's a part of us that ***desperately wants*** the freedom of the Wild West or the Walking Dead or a galaxy far far away.
All I'm saying is that maybe we should embrace that part of us. Let's decriminalize being human. Let people do what they want and deal with the consequences. Just because something is legal **does not mean that people will do it**, actually it's the opposite. If the government wants to end crime, maybe they should stop creating it.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe the dream that freer markets will solve all our problems is flawed. I believe hoarding defeats the system. CMV. +
+ I'm no expert on economics or ideologies, but...
The point I keep hearing is that all problems come back to price manipulation in one way or another. "The government interfered, artificially inflating..." and so on.
I don't see how a private entity hoarding resources (money) isn't price manipulation.
* I've heard the argument that you eventually have to stop hoarding to buy stuff that you need, but that only ensures a trickle. If you love money (resources) more than good food, you can save $10 and spend $1.
* Allowing “some” inflation, as I understand it, is price manipulation and not a free market. I’m not sure “some” inflation is even a barrier as investment vehicles keep up with inflation.
* I've heard that hoarding money doesn't hurt the economy and everything still works regardless, the values just shift. But if that's true, that's just acknowledging that you can manipulate over time.
Here’s my analogy: Let's picture a small island with a few thousand people. They use a commodity standard so that money approximately matches resources, is finite, and government isn't assigning any monetary values. Let's call this time "A". Then, one guy comes along who is good with the free market and very committed, hard working, etc. He loves nothing more than to own more money and resources, a money hoarder.
He piles up 10% of the money on the island before anyone notices through diligent saving (or hoarding, depending on your perspective) and sacrificing anything but basic needs. Eventually, 10% of the money is out of circulation, so the price of everything falls by 10%. Nobody cares because all prices fell together. Let's call this time "B". However, one person is different. Our beloved hoarder can now buy goods using his stockpile at 90% its previous price. This makes collecting more even easier, and eventually 10% becomes 20% becomes 90%.
He can control prices over time. Price manipulation, by a private individual. He has power of coercion over other individuals granted to him entirely through the free market.
Finally, to relate to our world: Consider that most wealthy individuals keep only a tiny fraction of their wealth "liquid" and a slightly larger fraction "semi-liquid".
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I do not believe in "natural rights". CMV +
+ Rights are entirely a social construct. They only exist in the context of a community that accepts and enforces them.
I think the claim of "natural" rights is actually somewhat disingenuous in a political discussion because it implies that your personal moral values are somehow an objective law of nature, beyond debate and criticism. But this is not true.
Rights are ultimately a moral code, making them inherently subjective, and do not exist outside of a society that implements them. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Championship rings/wins are a team stat, not a certain player's determination of greatness. +
+ I'm a huge basketball (NBA) and american football (NFL) fan. I love watching athletes that are a lot better than me compete against each other for an end goal like the NBA Finals or the Super Bowl. However, I don't believe the number of championship rings/wins determines how a great a certain player is. For the NFL, a common fun argument to have is determining who's the better player between Tom Brady (NE Patriots Quarterback) and Peyton Manning (DEN Broncos Quarterback). People will bring up all kinds of arguments like QBR (Quarterback Rating), # of Touchdowns, or # of Interceptions. But it really bothers me when someone says Tom Brady is better because he "led" his team to 5 Super Bowl appearances and 3 wins, compared to Manning's 3 appearances and 1 win. No, the team for that year won that championship, the quarterback played a part sure, but the team as a whole won it. The same can be said for the NBA. Michael Jordan has 6 rings. Kobe has 5. Lebron has 2. Kevin Durant has 0. Bill Russel has 11. All of these players are phenomenal athletes, but the teams they played with during their championship wins (minus Durant) worked together to get that ring.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I plan on buying an iPhone 5s. CMV. +
+ Up until now I have never had a smart phone. I have always stuck with the old flip phones, mostly because I didn't want to pay the monthly data charge. I just entered my first year of college and decided that now was the time for my long overdue upgrade. I decided to wait until the iPhone 5s was at least announced to see what if any new features were added. I know some people hate apple and insist that there are much petter phones available for a similar price or cheaper. As of now, I still plan on getting the iPhone because I believe it is a better phone. 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: Incumbents should need more votes to get elected than challengers +
+ Incumbents have the advantage of being able to grant political favors immediately, better financing, gerrymandering, and name recognition. Challengers need a boost to make it fair. This would cause higher turnover, which would be good because:
* It would reduce the corrupting influence of non quid pro quo contributions by making it more uncertain how long the purchased influence would last
* High turnover of representatives would disrupt the habits that form which serve their interests over the people's, such as proposing the most contentious bills to wring money out of lobbyists
* When a majority of representatives are freshmen, they will be more idealistic and less jaded, and this will help them serve the public good
I'm not sure what the best way to implement it is, but maybe just decrease incumbent's vote tally by 15% or so. My view is that something like this *should* be done, not that it's likely under present circumstances. | 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 prayer does nothing to change the world. CMV +
+ Prayer as an act of reaching to a deity for help or comfort has no appreciable effect beyond what can be achieved by normal positive thinking.
Praying to end world hunger or to get a job has no effect unless you or someone else makes the decision to achieve the goal. These goals could also just as easily be achieved without prayer.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The obsession with the hygiene of fast-food restaurants is overboard. +
+ I just read the AMA with the ex-KFC store manager. Someone asked what was the most horrible thing he had seen, and [he said:](http://www.reddit.com/r/tabled/comments/2f02ys/table_iama_kfc_manager_i_will_truthfully_answer/)
Now, I am thinking, I never use tongs or gloves to pick up ingredients when cooking. Sometimes when I drop things on the floor, I just pick it up and rinse it with water and continue, rather than throwing it away. When I was still eating with my mom, sometimes we found a strand of her hair in our food. She would have whooped my ass if I acted up and demanded my money back.
We all do this, it's not a big deal. A strand of hair doesn't do anything to the food. I have never got sick from cooking with my bare hands, as long as the cooking is well-done. You don't have to eat everything sterile.
So why do people get so upset when incidents like that, which are definitely not common, happen in fast-food restaurants? Besides, fast-food is incredibly cheap. For what you pay, fast-food restaurants maintain an incredible standard of hygiene. In fact, I'm willing to bet that it's mostly more hygienic than your average home-cooking.
I believe that people are just looking for excuses to condemn the corporations over things that are already more than they bargain for.
| 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 World Peace is within our grasp. I challenge You to CMV. +
+ There are generally two reasons as to why living beings will cause harm to others of their kind:
1. - Desperation. Feeling the instinctual need for food, water, resources, social acceptance, etc.
2. - Revenge. Violence that is met with punishment will typically grow into more violence, even if the punishment was intended as "justice."
**Justice is blind, and it is keeping humanity in the dark.** I know it is a hard thing to accept, but the only way to truly bring peace, eliminate jihad, "be Christian," or whatever you want to call it, is to respond to violence with understanding and Love. That means **looking at life through the eyes of others** before deciding that they should have to experience **more** pain for an event that originally caused you some pain in the past. It is much healthier to forgive and forget than it is to seethe in vengeful rage. Sometimes a little pain can serve as a good way of teaching or learning a lesson, that is why it exists; though these days it is being abused. Constantly wishing pain upon others will only bring it upon yourself.
Now admittedly, there are those who cause pain to others due to mental illness, but that is typically the result of a rough childhood, which is usually directly or indirectly caused by a scarcity of resources or Love.
However, as the human race, **we do have** the technology and resources necessary to eradicate scarcity and much of the world hunger and pain that currently exists; although people raised in materialistic first-world countries rarely have the heart to actually do so, the world **is** slowly changing. All of the people I know would rather help someone than hurt them. But for the people in charge, it is hard to make generous decisions when everyone has been conditioned to do *whatever they need to do* to earn as much money as possible. You know you want to, and damn, I do too.
I simply can not imagine how all of the starving people must feel when there are people on this Earth who are surrounded by more wealth in a single day than an average first-worlder can hope to make in a lifetime. | 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 anyone receiving govt. benefits should be drug tested. +
+ Recently there has been talk, in my state at least, of drug testing welfare and food stamp recipients. This idea has a fair bit of support and got me thinking. Shouldn't anyone taking my tax dollars have to prove to me they aren't spending the money on drugs? Veterans want a check, piss in a cup please. Same for politicians, police officers, firemen, really anyone getting a government pension or benefit. Some of these are already tested as a requirement for getting the job so why not all of them? Is it possible to have a policy like this that could be fair to everyone?
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: My life will peak in post-secondary school, and I don't have much to look forward to after that +
+ I'm in my final year of high school, and I'm extremely grateful about my life. I have a good number of friends, I've dealt with some anxiety that used to drag me down and I'm much more confident in social situations. I'm passionate about a lot of different things - hobbies, consuming media, gaining more and more knowledge. I'm planning on going to university for a subject about which I'm very excited to learn, and although it'll be a lot of work, I'm expecting university to be a huge amount of fun as well - a whole new social life, a new setting, different activities, and most of all freedom.
However, based on pretty much all descriptions of adulthood that I've read, things aren't very good after that. I've heard, many times, that people end up in office jobs that are mentally draining, and that whatever subject they were passionate about in school has become monotonous and dull. I know that many adults have a really hard time keeping up a social life, and trying to improve it is difficult. I've also read that as you age, your perception of passing time changes, and the years seem to slip by in an instant. I think that's one of the scariest things I've ever heard.
Right now, I love so many things about my life, and I want to believe that as an adult, I'll be doing something I enjoy, and still doing the things that I enjoy now - having friends, writing music, reading great books and watching great movies. But based on what I've read, there's a chance I'm going to become this: a person who works all day at a job that's tiring, who comes home feeling exhausted every day, who does something during the evening that doesn't require much thinking - like watching TV - and who goes to sleep early in order to be a little less exhausted the next day. Someone who has some friends from university still, but doesn't see them very often - maybe once or twice a year - and otherwise doesn't do much socially. Someone who, although they might not notice, isn't really *doing* anything, and won't be for the rest of their life.
I really don't want this to be true. I've met some adults who are amazing people, and whose lives seem interesting beyond anything I could want. However, I know that many adults aren't like that at all - they become "static" people, and that could very well happen to me. Change my view.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe the capital of a nation or state should be the capital of that nation or state. CMV +
+ I live in the largest city in my state (Chicago, Illinois). We have more people in our city alone than the rest of Illinois, which is comprised of farmland and other smaller cities like Joliet. Because of this, we should have the capital based here as well. I believe that a more accurate view of the majority of the people would be expressed if the capital was based in Chicago. To further this, the capital of the US should be NYC and not Washington DC. I also believe that the capital of China should be Guangzhou, not Beijing, as this would allow a greater percentage of the people to be heard (not that it matters for China, but that's a whole other CMV). I have these views because they would progress the democratic state of many countries if their most populous city was also the capital. If the most populous city were to change, then so would the capital. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Yahweh is no more benevolent than Cthulhu or Khorne. CMV. +
+
Deuteronomy 32:42
Reading the Bible, it seems that Yahweh, the Jewish/Christian/Muslim god, really likes killing people, especially infidels. For example:
* Yahweh kills Onan for pulling out. (Gen 38:10)
* Yahweh kills all the firstborn Egyptian children to prove a point to a Pharaoh who he hardened the heart of. (Ex 12:29)
* Yahweh forces his believers to kill their family and friends. (Ex 32:27-28)
* Yahweh kills 14,700 people for complaining about his killings. (Num 16:49)
* Yahweh sends serpents to bite people for complaining about lack of food and water. (Num 21:6)
* Yahweh sends an evil spirit to cause 1000 people to burn to death. (Jg 9:23-27)
* Yahweh accepts a human sacrifice. (Jg 11:39)
* Yahweh orders a genocide of the Amalekites. (1 Sam 15:2-3)
* Yahweh kills Saul, his seven sons, and all their soldiers for not killing all of the Amalekites. (1 Sam 31:2)
* Yahweh slowly kills a baby to punish David for adultery (1 Sam 12:14-18)
* Yahweh sends bears to kill 42 boys for making fun of Elisha's bald head. (2 Kg 2:23-24)
* Yahweh blesses Judith above all women for cutting off a sleeping man's head. (Judith 13:6-10)
There are many more examples of malicious, petty killings by Yahweh, but I believe this is enough for you to get where I'm coming from.
How is this any different than "Blood for the Blood God!" (I'm making comparisons with fictional deities because no other gods that are actually being worshipped seem quite as bloodthirsty)? And how can Yahweh claim to be omnibenevolent after such obvious malevolence?
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Hugo Schwyzer is evidence that the label "Feminist" is useless and possibly counterproductive, CMV +
+ Hugo Schwyzer, at least for a time, was considered a male feminist whose work non-feminists would be directed to.
- He tried to kill a woman.
- He writes sleazy articles about women.
- He writes racist articles.
- He used his position of power to sleep with his students.
- He used emotional blackmail to shield himself from criticism.
Now a lot of this was pointed out before his recent meltdown, but feminists like the writers of Jezebel supported him, something they would never do with a man of the same history who didn't fly the feminist flag.
This is the heart of the issue. Most men support equal rights for women without calling themselves feminists. What's more, they haven't done many of the terrible things Schwyzer has done. It's like with Christianity; a preacher can commit sex crimes and still be thought of as a "pious" man simply because he's a preacher. "Sure," they say, "he's not a perfect man but it's not like he's one of them." One of them being the average non-Christian who would never molest a child. Feminism has found itself in the same trap where people are judged by a label and not their actions.
Hugo Schwyzer isn't just evidence of how useless labels are for those who want to accomplish good, but an example of how they create a hiding place for the worst among us. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I don't believe that sexism is the cause of sex discrepancies in the workplace - CMV +
+
I'm active in a few Feminist and Men's Rights subs, though I self-identify with neither group, and I am heavily involved in gender justice in my personal life outside of the Internet. I'm also heavily invested in science, data, numbers, charts, and everything that is logical and objective. If you expect to change my view by linking me to your blog, don't expect any deltas.
First and foremost, I can never put this into large enough capitals, unconditionally SOMEONE calls me a gender essentialist. GENDER ESSENTIALISM IS WRONG. IT IS PROVABLY WRONG. THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED BELOW APPLY ONLY IN THE AGGREGATE, AND INDIVIDUALS WILL DIFFER. SOME MEN WILL ENJOY FEMALE DOMINATED FIELDS, SOME WOMEN WILL ENJOY MALE DOMINATED FIELDS. [Watch this video for 60 seconds, psychologist Steven Pinker and I agree 100%](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFDJJ1KydgE&t=12m12s). Further, I do believe that sexism can cause a single person to choose a stereotypical gender role. I just don't think that sexism is to pervasive as to cause the massive gender discrepancies we see in fields such as speech pathology, turfgrass management, dental hygiene, engineering, and child psychology. I'd believe around 4% of discrepancies are caused by sexism, but that the major causal factor is sexual dimorphism.
I pull from my earlier post on /r/FeMRADebates: http://www.reddit.com/r/FeMRADebates/comments/1jvvgg/on_gender_roles/
---
At the population level, we know that there are biological differences between the male and female brain. Just like the rest of our physical body, there are more similarities than differences, but differences do exist. I'll list them and some citations below. I personally believe that these differences in brain structure cause differences in behavior. I also believe that culture influences our behavior, obviously, but I believe that our biology also plays a large part. Biologically, there are studies showing that male newborns show relative more interest in mechanical toys, while female newborns show relatively more interest in faces. Yet culturally, we sexually prefer a specific body type (which changes from generation to generation). Norway, considered the nation with the greatest gender equality in the world, still has a society with 90% female nurses and 90% male construction workers.
Given the cited differences in brain structure at the population level outside of culture, I believe that this influences behavior specifically in choice of profession. I believe that women will tend to choose roles associated more with language and emotion (speech language pathology and human development and family studies both have 49x more women than men). While men will choose roles associated with spatial reasoning (turf and turfgrass management is 99% male), and aggression and danger (firefighting has 24x more men than women, and the military has 9.5x as many men as women).
---
My beliefs surrounding the topic:
* INDIVIDUALS WILL DIFFER. GENDER ESSENTIALISM IS OBVIOUSLY WRONG. You can find examples that contradict the population level findings, obviously. [Some women like the military, some men like nursing.](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/21/business/increasingly-men-seek-success-in-jobs-dominated-by-women.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)
* Men are not better than women, women are not better than men
* [Men and women are equally intelligent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_human_psychology#IQ)
* Due to the high plasticity of the human brain, [people of any gender can learn the skills required for any profession](http://www.royalsoced.org.uk/cms/files/advice-papers/inquiry/women_in_stem/tapping_talents.pdf) equally well, [research has shown that while mathematics is mandatory, men and women perform at equal rates](http://www.wisecampaign.org.uk/files/useruploads/files/wise_stats_document_final.pdf)
* There is no such thing as a "man's job" or a "woman's job"
* Forcing traditional gender roles on people is unethical, cultures should be open for individuals to choose their own path in life
* Wanting a role that is traditional for your gender is not evil
* There is no gene or hormone for specific job roles, like "barista" or "engineer"
* [Sexism exists](http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/09/14/1211286109.full.pdf)
* Culture affects choice of profession, but so does biology
* [Workplace gender discrimination](http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2007/06/art2full.pdf) is [not a factor](http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009020.pdf) in [professional choice](http://vimeo.com/19707588#)
* By being interested in a profession, you will have a tendency to perform actions related to that profession
* If you practice a skill, you will get better in that skill
* Changes in proportions in job roles can be due to reduction of sexual discrimination, or changes to the nature of profession itself (ex. addition of aggression, addition of emotion)
Differences in the brain (not an exhaustive list). Note that many studies disagree with one another, but it is generally agreed within the scientific community that differences definitely exist:
* Areas associated with spatial reasoning and mathematics develop earlier in boys
* Areas associated with language and fine motor skills develop earlier in girls
* The male brain is about 10% larger
* The frontal area of the cortex and the temporal area of the cortex are more precisely organized in women, and are bigger in volume (associated with memory, attention, awareness, thought, language, and consciousness)
* Neuron density is higher in women (more neurons by volume)
* Language processing occurs over a larger area of the brain in women than in men, notably in the right hemisphere
* Women have relatively more grey matter, while men have more white matter
* Visual and spatial areas of the brain are larger in men
* Males have a proportionally larger amygdala, while women have a larger hippocampus
* Males have more male sex steroids like testosterone (associated with muscular development and aggression)
* Females have more female sex steroids like estrogen (associated with physiological development towards a caregiver role)
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=his-brain-her-brain
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811904006822
http://cercor.oxfordjournals.org/content/9/8/896.long
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2773139/
http://www.nutrizionista.it/pubblicazioni/sex_differences_in_the_brain.pdf
http://www.webmd.com/balance/features/how-male-female-brains-differ?page=2
http://www.longwood.k12.ny.us/lhs/science/mos/twins/jimtwins.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOY3QH_jOtE
http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_chalks_it_up_to_the_blank_slate.html
http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/labor01a-eng.htm | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
The Iraq War was both just and necessary. CMV. +
+ Alright, I think it's time that I had a proper discussion about this. **I firmly believe that the decision to move Iraq, the Middle East, and the region into a post-Saddam Hussein era was a moral and legal imperative for the United States and the international community and that force of arms was the only feasible way to accomplish that.** That's my position, in a sentence. I hope the post title doesn't misrepresent that.
Here's why:
1) There are four reasons for which a sovereign state may lose or sacrifice its sovereignty under international law.
* It has invaded or occupied a neighboring state.
* It has violated or proposed to violate the Genocide Convention
* It has displayed promiscuous and frivolous behavior with (or plainly violated) the Non-Proliferation Treaty
* It has actively harbored internationally wanted terrorists and gangsters
Iraq is the only modern state to have violated all four of those. It had attempted to annex Kuwait and make it part of Iraq, as well as engage in a pointless border dispute with Iran that cost thousands of lives. Saddam had issued a direct order to exterminate the Kurdish people of Iraq. He did this using biological and chemical weapons. Further, he maintained a department of state for the concealment of nuclear weapons. Although none were found during the invasion, he had stated that he wished to rebuild the nuclear program once the sanctions ceased. Finally, his country was the homebase of Abu-Nidal, Zarqawi, and the Achille Lauro hijackers from the PLF.
This meant that the international community had a duty, as well as a right, to remove the regime from power by any justifiable means, including and up to use of deadly force.
2) Saddam Hussein and his crime family had sole ownership of all of the natural resources and imports to Iraq. The sanctions were in effect because he was able to use his power to keep the Iraqi people in his jaws, while they starved. Furthermore, he was in possession of some of the largest oil reserves in the world. He was able to do as he liked with them, and he was the sole profiteer of them. This was, in my opinion, an outrageous offense to anyone who cared about the economic well-being of both the country and the Middle East as a whole.
3) Saddam Hussein only ever called a cabinet meeting when he ordered one half of the cabinet to shoot the other half, sealing them in complicity with his regime. A person could be publicly executed for spilling their coffee on the newspaper that had Saddam's face on it, after which the person's family would be billed for the bullets. People died horrible deaths every day for no other reason than the egotistical glorification of a known psychopath and criminal. Morally, an international community that had any regard for decency could not stand by while this regime behaved like that.
Note: this is **not** an endorsement of the Bush administration. I believe wholly that their execution of the war was abysmal. Their reasons as stated to the American electorate were appallingly cheap and demagogic. They didn't level with us on any of the goings-on in the war while it was happening. They may have even committed a war crime or two. But, that isn't what this question is about.
This question is not about 9/11. My case would have been exactly the same in 1998 (with the exception of Zarqawi, I believe). In fact, it would have been almost complete during the Kuwait War. This question is not about mistakes that were made. It's solely about whether we, as citizens of a global community, were willing to stand by with our guns holstered while our Iraqi brothers and sisters were under the control of the Saddam Hussein regime.
CMV.
1) Some of you guys have had the best arguments I've yet heard against my position. Definitely the best on reddit. I'm gonna keep coming back here, for sure, and not just for my own post. Thank you, sincerely, and keep them coming.
2) Having said that, I feel the need to make something abundantly clear: my contention is not "America has made nothing but good foreign policy decisions ever since the Declaration". It's also not "Bush did the right thing during his execution of the war". It's also not "Bush Sr. was right". It's also not "Bush Sr. was wrong". It's not "X politician made Y statement and that proves me right". I'm very deliberately **making my own case**, separate from any case anybody else made. I'm serious: if I get one more post that starts with "BUT BUSH SAID..." I'm going to go all Bane-backbreaker on my laptop.
3) But seriously, keep it up.
4) <3
5) Also, I'm going to bed right now. It's midnight here in the Philippines and I need sleep. If you leave a response, I'll answer it sometime tomorrow. Scout's honor.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Politicians should post AMA's (or things closely related) +
+ When it comes to voting for an elected official of our government, I feel that the system is very outdated.
In order to inquire about who we feel should be voted for, we must know who out there exists. Therefore, we rely heavily on marketing campaigns to inform us of the individuals who are running.
What this ends up doing is it makes it so the few people in the population of the country are eligible to run because they are the few who can raise the funds required for costly campaigns.
Even after we have been informed about the candidates running, we are forced as a nation to come together and debate for ourselves, what we think about the information given.
If politicians, and their staff, were to instead talk directly to the people through forums such as AMAs, then we could essentially cut out speculation and hear what we are voting for directly from the mouths of the politicians themselves.
The first thing that comes to mind might be "millions of people collecting to forums would take an excessive amount of resources to cater to".
Yes that is true. It is hard to imagine a single staff working for a politician to be able to cater to the demand of people inquiring.
However, if the money spent on ad campaigns was instead directed to hiring staff members to speak on the politicians behalf, then they could essentially train and employ enough people to take a huge chunk of the inquiries being thrown at them.
If a movement were started that could get the majority of the population to agree to only vote for candidates who participate in open discussion forums, then I feel we the people would be more likely to choose candidates who's best interests are out for the people and not for the corporations who support the funding behind their ad campaigns.
| 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 buying a used game is - in most situations - more morally objectionable that pirating that game - Please CMV +
+ I am not a gamer, I have never purchased a used game, nor do I condone piracy. I also do not, and will not, subscribe to the belief that breaking any law is automatically morally wrong.
As I understand it, shops like GAME buy used games from members of the public and then sell on those games for a significant profit, passing on none of that profit to the publisher. I understand that game developers / publishers are now developing techniques like DLC and online passes in an attempt to combat this problem - for the purpose of this discussion I would like to exclude cases in which the buyer then purchases DLC or gives money to the publisher by some other means.
Whether you buy a game used or you pirate it, the publisher makes no profit from you. Given this fact alone, it seems that the two options would be morally equal.
In the event that you buy a used game, you are monetarily supporting an industry that costs publishers money by pushing used games over new. I would say that this is a moral negative, and tips the balance in favour of piracy. Not only that, but when a game that uses centralised servers is bought used, you are in fact costing the publisher a little whenever you access those servers. I believe that when a game is pirated, accessing the publisher's servers is not normally an option, and therefore this is not an issue.
I am not saying that no one should ever buy a used game. My understanding is that piracy usually occurs on PC and used game sales are almost entirely of console games, so that may create some disconnects in my comparison. My arguments really refer to a scenario in which someone has the choice between the two options. I also recognise that pirated games often offer less features, most notably online play, and that that can be a perfectly legitimate reason to opt for a used game over a pirated one. I had also considered arguing that the restricted features of a pirated game may increase the chance of the customer then going out to actually buy the game to gain those extra features, although I suspect that someone who originally pirated the game may be fairly likely to opt for a used copy.
Please change my view.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Parking/Speeding tickets are primarily for revenue generation. +
+ Tickets issued by police for parking and speeding violations (hereafter referred to as "tickets") are, in my view, primarily for generating money for the state.
People claim that they're to prevent speeding. There is nothing preventing the establishment of a system of points where every time you're pulled over for speeding, you get assigned a number of points on your license. After a certain threshold, you lose your license for a week, then a month, then a year, then permanently.
This serves the exact same function that the current ticket system supposedly does without the extortion aspect of the fines associated with them.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think that Obama hasn't made any good decisions since he took office. CMV +
+ I think that the president hasn't made any good decisions since he took office. I think he is the scum of America, downright Yelawolf style crook. If you can give me examples of some good things that he has done, that would suffice, I mean it's good to have an open mind and I don't want to seem purposefully ignorant. I'm surrounded by people who share the same ideals as I do, if you get what I mean. Can you name like 5 things he did well in?
I live in New Jersey and I am 17 years old, I wish to gain an unbiased and factual answer for this. Thank you. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I believe that the whole concept of your twenties being a growth period and too early to settle down is counterproductive. +
+ I’m in my early twenties, and I’m exposed to a lot of messaging that portrays your twenties as the time to screw around and figure things out, and your thirties as more of a time to settle down and figure things out.
Basically, I think the age at which you’re expected to act like an adult and expected to be capable of making mature decisions has gone up significantly.
It used to be:
0-15ish childhood > 16-60 adulthood > 65+ senior
Then it became:
0-12ish childhood > 13-18 teenage years > 18-65 adulthood > 65+ senior
And now it’s:
0-12ish childhood > 12-18 teenage years > 18-26 semi-adulthood > 26-65 adulthood > 65+ senior
The increased financial dependency is likely due to the recession, and I’m not faulting anyone for that, I know it’s not our generation’s fault that it’s harder for us to afford a house.
But I think there’s this general sense that we as twenty somethings are simply destined to not know what we’re doing and to screw up. It’s the whole “Your brain doesn’t finish developing until you’re 25” thing.
I want to be clear that I’m certainly not judging anyone for wanting to have fun or for spending their twenties traveling, I just think the cultural idea has shifted to the idea that settling down at 23 is weird and not something you’re supposed to do. Or even that a 23-year-old is somehow developmentally incapable of handling the responsibilities that come with settling down.
The only way to learn how to function in the adult world is to actually learn, and it’s like some people think that they’ll be hit with a magical bolt of lightning on their 30th birthday that teaches them how to buy a house, marry the right person, raise a kid, and open an IRA.
For centuries, people my age raised children, married, bought/built a home, etc. There is no reason why I wouldn’t be able to learn to do the same, but it’s like that option isn’t really presented to me.
I’m a 23-year-old woman, and it is weird and socially unacceptable for me to be actively thinking about whether a guy is marriage-material or actively wanting a baby.
My friends are getting married straight out of college (after 5 years of dating), and a number of people have basically tried to tell them that they’re too young. I think the common rhetoric is that “I’m a totally different person at 30 than I was at 22, therefore the same thing will happen to you. So you shouldn’t make that decision when you’re only 22, you don’t know who you’re going to be.”
Which I think is kind of bullshit. You can grow as a person after getting married to someone. The solid majority of people get married before they have kids, and both of their personalities, hobbies, and worldviews will change tremendously. However, no one tells you that you shouldn’t get married until you’ve already have kids because you’re going to be a completely different person post-kids.
I know that marriages at a young age fail, but I think it’s kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy because “sensible/responsible” people are more likely to wait until they’re older because that’s what they’ve been taught to do. And if you get married young despite it not being normal for your socioeconomic group, you’re going to get a lot of negativity and you’re not going to have as many friends sharing the experience with you.
And I don’t think that’s a good thing.
**TL;DR The age at which you are expected to act like an adult and want adult things like a baby or marriage has shifted, and I think it’s counterproductive.** | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Cruises are best way to travel on vacation +
+ I think that anytime you would like to travel somewhere, you should go on a cruise. It is the most cost efficient way to travel and the most luxurious for the price. Most large cities are on the coast and you are able to travel anywhere. Cruises are also full of activities to keep yourself and your kids occupied during the trip. Why would anyone like to travel any other way? Room service, room cleaned twice daily, amazing food (all you can eat), daily entertainment, and ways to relax. 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 being too sensitive when faced with questions has caused transsexuals to be considered outcasts. +
+
I feel that because transsexuals are a fairly new community that has recently reached the mainstream consciousness (in the US), the rest of the country has a lot of questions. I often see interviews with transgendered people turning into the person being offended by the wrong usage of pronouns or questions about transgendered life (bathroom visits, partners responses to the transition, etc.). These are questions that straight people who have never met a transgendered person would have. In order to understand the culture these questions will come up, its not to berate or belittle the person. The more we understand the culture the easier it will be to integrate it.
http://americablog.com/2014/02/cnns-piers-morgan-villified-amazingly-pro-transgender-interview.html
Interactions like the link above show my point in how a simple dialog cannot be had, and the community instead attacks anyone who missteps boundaries that they didn't know existed. This tends to make the trans community alienate itself from the rest of the country and make them seem worse then I am sure they are.
I was wondering if there is another side to this? Maybe someone from the trans community can help me out here. To clarify I am not anti-transsexual I just think the way they handle press is doing more harm then good.
Update 4/10: Some of the statements in the comments made me rethink my stance on questions regarding GRS, genitalia and other obviously invasive questions targeting Transgendered people, I now know that those are wrong to ask in most situations unless you are very close personally to the individual you are asking. I still believe that something has to be done within the Trans community about their response to people who misuse pronouns on accident, or in other ways overstep boundaries that are not obviously apparent to the uninformed. | 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 non-violent protests are pointless. CMV. +
+ I feel like non-violent protests don't accomplish much besides wasting the time of protesters and their resources. Governments and corporations are marginally affected and as soon as people and the media lose interest they will continue about their business.
For example, In Bulgaria, there have been protests against government corruption for over 3 months, but the government refuses to aknowledge them.
In Romania, there have been anti-corporation protests for almost 2 months with not much success, the government actually protecting the interests of corporations.
I could also mention the Occupy movement that hasn't had much success up until now.
I think they should push harder for what they want and at least intimidate the entity they are protesting against. I'm not an advocate of violence but protesters should use at least a modicum of force when they have a clear, defined goal in mind. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Indian guy here, I feel Gandhi is given too much importance and limelight today, in a systematic attempt to delete historical importances of other freedom fighters, and raise his status to an unnecessarily saintly level for benefits of obviously related people. CMV. +
+
Gandhi in textbooks, gandhi in prayers, everywhere a photo hung about him and how saintly he was. He and Nehru, aah yes..anyone knows what Nehru ever did for pre-independent india? What about Savarkar, Tilak, RMRoy, Godbole, Karve, Bose, and the entire platoon of 1857 freedom struggle torch bearers? Why do school textbooks seem to ignore them, why does no school child even recognize their photos? Books showing flaws in Gandhis character are banned frim the country. Seriously CMV. My kids are going to see Gandhi worshipped in a temple while other freedom fighters will decay into historical nothingness. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe anonymity is good for kids, CMV +
+ Views expressed by people on the internet tend to be a little different than those expressed by the general media, for obvious reasons. My viewpoint is probably less unpopular here than it is with the general public. That said, the media, and most people IRL, seem to hold the belief that anonymity is dangerous, for kids and teens in particular, because bullies and mean people can hide behind their words without having to face any consequences. Anonymity is treated like bad words, or weird pornography—people respect its right to exist, but they don't think it has any place in kids’, teens’, or for that matter, any normal people’s lives.
In short, I think this is bullshit, in a couple layers. For one, the idea that society keeps people in check by imposing consequences for saying hurtful things strikes me as deeply flawed. It seems to be the same system that ostracizes “different” or “weird” people. Society operates under a hierarchy: the greater status you have, the more weight your words carry. Thus, someone higher up the food chain can get away with saying or doing almost anything to someone lower down the food chain, facing little consequence. In my experience, bullying is usually the result of the bully using their greater power to prevent the bullied from fighting back.
I also believe that the way to combat these issues isn't to hide the internet from kids, or convert it into an extension of society. I think parents and schools should educate them about the internet. And I mean actually educate them about it, not just say “the internet is scary, stay away from it”. Because telling them to avoid it isn't going to work, and without understanding how to deal with it, kids are going to treat it the same way they do real life.
The reason I care about this issue is that I actually think there is some serious good that can come out of anonymity for kids. The internet is a great place for temporary escape from a difficult real life, and anonymity is an equalizer. Some people would like to think that people with greater status have all earned it, and outcasts deserve it, but that often isn't the case. Anonymity allows kids who are different, who wouldn't otherwise get their voice heard, to have the same playing field as more popular, confident, higher status kids. And I don't think it's right to ignore that.
I don't get to talk about these kinds of issues with many people I know in real life, so I am genuinely interested in any alternate viewpoints. I'm just tired of hearing the same assumptions, and certain points not addressed. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think psychology is not a real science, and there for useless as a specialty, CMV. +
+ I have real issues referring to psychology as science. The scientific method has the foundation of fact, and it's constructed by logic. Psychology attempts to construct with logic, but lacks the foundation of fact. It's based on assumption, probability, and inconsistent statistics.
The reason for this lack of fact is the random variable: choice, and conscious will.
There are oxymoronic terms used, too, like: personality disorder.
So personality is unique to every individual, it's shaped by their choices and experiences. Some might argue, like me, that core personality never changes through out life. You can't wrap it up into a box and label it. So to call something, that has no clear shape to begin with, disorderly is an oxymoron.
Frankly, in my humble opinion, if people would stop trying to be "normal" and accepted their uniqueness, the world would be a better place.
Now I'm not saying human behavior should not be studied, very much so, it should even be thought, and learned. My main issue is calling behavior inconsistencies diseases.
I think a priest or a hooker can offer the same services as a psychologist, so why specialize in it?
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
[CMV] Killing people based on actions they have done or traits they have +
+ I think we should kill those who are mentally and physically disabled, as they are a waste of resources and cannot physically or mentally contribute to society. We should also kill rapists, murderers, armed robbers and other violent criminals which we have concrete evidence for. If not killing them, they should be subject to physical labor with no pay. I think this because we are wasting money and resources on keeping people alive. I know executing costs a lot more than life imprisonment, but this is because of judicial fees. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Star Wars episodes I-III are better than IV-VI +
+ Just completed a marathon of the series, and for my money, the first three were just more enjoyable.
The story was quite rich; the rise of Palpatine, the clones, Amidala, Anakin, the role of the Jedi... Each arc wasn't just a progression of linear events building up to Episode IV.
There were some amazing set pieces too; Darth Maul against Obi Wan and Qui Gon, Anakin vs Obi Wan, Jango Fett.
Next to the new ones, the old episodes seem slow, linear a little dumb.
I accept there are plenty of faults with the first three episodes (I'm looking at you, Jar Jar). I also accept that much of what we accept now as standard fare for sci-fi is off the back of Star Wars, but my argument is simply that the first three episodes (in episodic order) more enjoyable and engaging than the latter three. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I don't believe that having "In God We Trust" on American currency is a big deal. CMV +
+ I understand the part about the first amendment, I just really don't think that secularists are being oppressed and I don't think it's doing anybody any harm. I'll buy the justification that it's traditional, not religious. But I'm open to anything. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
The United States should switch to approval voting, CMV +
+ For those unfamiliar, [here's a wiki link](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting). Basically, it just means you can vote on more than one candidate at a time.
In our current system where you can only vote for one candidate there is a lot of incentive to polarize voters as much as possible. Additionally, candidates with similar platforms end up hurting each other.
As a simple example, imagine your group friends are voting on where to go for a weekend trip. 2 friends want to go to the beach in Beachtown. 3 friends want to the beach in Oceansville. And 4 friends want to go to camping in Treesburg. Camping wins for having the most votes despite more people wanting to go to the beach. Approval voting would allow the beach goers to cast secondary votes which would more accurately reflect the views of the voters.
This gives smaller candidates a better chance at getting the votes necessary for greater recognition, and ensures that they don't draw votes away from other candidates who share a similar platform. I think switching to this system would be a good first step to de-polarizaing elections and getting a wider range of ideas and candidates into elections and allow. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
People are making excuses or think they are too good for minimum wage jobs when they say they can't find a job CMV. +
+ I am 22 and have been employed in 5 different jobs moving up each time since I was 16. If you can't find a job you are not trying hard enough.
My parents have had jobs since the day they were old enough to work. My dad had work since he was 12. Every member of my extended family has some sort of job or is retired. Be it work that requires a major or a crappy McJob a job is a job.
If you are unemployed do some leg work and get a job. stop making excuses. sure you went to school for 4 years for a job but you don't have it. Get off your high horse and get a job. My cousin has a masters in Electrical engineering and he is currently delivering pizzas until he gets a job for his major.
After all isn't a little money better than no money? It's your own fault you can't get a job.
| 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 doing any kind of drugs are wrong, because they give only temporary happiness. CMV, please. +
+ I have a very resolute moral stance on drugs, from Marijuana, to coke and LSD and meth and everything else in the category of "Drugs." I say that that people do drugs because, at the heart of it, the drugs make us feel better. Confidence boosters, or raising our spirits, or simply making us happy. So I wonder, "well, why are you unhappy?" and then tell the person to 'Fix that', because you don't have to do drugs if you are happy. I also worry about addiction and (I personally believe) that I might have a very D.A.R.E- like view about certain drugs besides Pot. But ultimately I think it is about being unhappy with life and I think it's stupid to do drugs because of it. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe that the world needs the United States more than the United States needs the world. CMV. +
+ Without the United States of America (USA) policing the world, the world would find itself worse off than it currently is with the USA not policing the world.
Reasons why USA policing the world is necessary:
Europe can not be relied upon to provide stable leadership for the world. This is not Europe's fault, there are just simply too many cultures and too much history to allow for a unified Europe. World War I and World War II were the direct results of Europe managing its own affairs. Even more recently, Europe failed to provide meaningful stability in [Bosnia](http://carnegieendowment.org/1995/11/06/america-bosnia-europe-compelling-interest/47sl) without America stepping in, and toppling [Qaddafi](http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlemagne/2011/06/libya-europe-and-future-nato) would have been near impossible without America's support. Furthermore, the European Union is finding itself falling out of [favor](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324637504578567573242500846.html) with no clear [leadership](http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/23/germany-economic-leadership-eu) in sight. Europe also cannot be trusted to [stand up](http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/eu-china-solar-deal-highlights-tough-climate-for-green-jobs/2013/08/28/7010ab82-09db-11e3-89fe-abb4a5067014_story.html) to [China](http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/27/eu-china-solar-idUSL6N0GS2WI20130827) which leads in to my next point:
China must be contained by somebody. China often argues that it is ["rising peacefully";](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China's_peaceful_rise) however, China's [conduct](http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asiapacific/china-will-not-shy-away/794812.html) in the [South China Seas](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323324904579042742806878158.html) disproves that, especially when when one looks at this [map.](http://international.iteem.ec-lille.fr/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/map_china_sea.png) Let's also not forget about what China calls the [Diaoyu Islands](http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2013-08/22/content_16914526.htm) and Japan Calls the Senkaku. China has become more and more [aggressive.](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-08/japan-files-china-protest-after-ships-approach-disputed-islands.html) More importantly, though, is that [more](http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/04/18/china-tibet-australia-idINDEE93H04N20130418) and [more](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2158156/The-Dalai-Lamas-recent-trip-Britain-reminded-Tibet-matters.html) [countries,](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/sep/27/dalai-lama-banned-south-africa) including the [USA](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/6262938/Barack-Obama-cancels-meeting-with-Dalai-Lama-to-keep-China-happy.html) and [companies](http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bb94c39e-9ae2-11e2-b982-00144feabdc0.html) are bowing to Chinese demands for censorship and changes in the official line. As their influence becomes more pervasive throughout the world, who will stand to stop it when it manifests itself as an actual attack?
The Middle East needs America.
This one sounds ridiculous, but far from it. I will not argue that America Iraq and Afghanistan; however, I will argue that America sending a signal to the rest of the Middle East that they are no longer interested in getting involved will cause more loss of life than if America intervenes. Iran can be seen as the biggest threat to peace and stability in the Middle East. If Iran thought that they could act with impunity then we could see Israel wiped off the map, as well as any other groups that Iran does not get along with, because they would, in effect, become a regional power. This leads to my final point.
If America were to withdraw from the world and stop being the, "police" of the world, we would instead see a rise of regional powers to fill the power vacuum that would emerge. It's not too hard to see who those would be: In the Middle East, Iran. In Asia, China. The European Union would continue on, though Russia would more than likely be a huge agitator. Brazil would more than likely become the South American regional power. Two of those powers listed are terrible options, and the chances that all four of them (five if you count the USA) armed would not lead to a devastating war are slim. The United States of America must continue its role as police of the world, because the world needs the United States more than the United States needs the world. 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 that scholarships specifically designated for a certain race are racist. CMV. +
+ There are a lot of scholarships out there that are only for African-Americans or only for people of Native American descent.. As a Caucasian female, I fail to see why this doesn't count as racism. If someone were to designate a scholarship for a Caucasian person, it would be immediately declared as racist. Just like I don't believe that someone's skin color or ethnic descent automatically makes them inferior to others, I also don't think that being a certain skin color/ethnic background makes it okay to separate someone out for positive benefits. | 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 singing takes talent or deserves the praise it gets. CMV +
+ I have always held this opinion, and it tends to make some people angry, but I haven't really been satisfied by counter arguments I've been given. Now, I do acknowledge that people can work on their singing ability and practice hard, but in general I just see people getting praised for the sound of their voice. They didn't choose or work for their natural voice, but all the praise they get makes it seem that way. It seems to me that it's something you're born with, and not something that requires skill. For instance, if a little girl does a talent show at 8 years and has a decent voice, she will be treated like she's mastered a musical instrument. She can't change the way she sounds, she was just lucky to have a nice sounding voice. Compare that to practicing guitar all day every day, learning music theory deeper than just scales, and the technicality required to actually play an instrument rather than just using your own voice, and I feel like singers don't deserve the spot of generally being the one most recognized for their talent in a band. To me it just doesn't seem like a skill, if you have a nice voice you can sing, whereas with other musical instruments you have to actually work to get good. CMV? | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Special care should not be taken when dealing with introverts. +
+ Furthermore, I don't believe in a strict dichotomy between introverts and extroverts. I believe people may have MORE introverted tendencies, but to fully identify as an introvert only serves to be self-limiting in social situations. Perhaps this belief contributes to my belief that no additional precautions or care need to be taken when dealing with supposedly introverted people in social situations. I have seen people who call themselves introverts complaining about being talked to by extroverts and being "forced to talk" by being asked questions. I feel that in a social situation it is completely normal to try to talk to everyone in the group and try to hear from everybody. I don't think we should have to put on kid gloves to deal with people who don't like to deal with people. I think this doesn't apply to people who may be autistic because their reason for possibly not liking social situations is because of a disorder and so I have more sympathy for them.
| 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 marching band, cheerleading, dance, etc. should be considered sports. +
+ Now, before I begin, I want to make it clear that I am not the stereotypical sports jock who puts down non-traditional "sports" like cheerleading and marching band. I am currently in high school marching band, and have never been good at any actual sports.
A sport has always been a competitive activity that involves either individuals or teams competing against each other to win a game or match. Sports have clear winners that can be determined by either the amount of points an individual or team wins (ex: football, soccer, tennis, etc.), or which individual or team finishes first (ex: swim, track, etc.).
Therefore, anything that cannot be determined to have a clear winner should not be considered a sport. Even if you don't accept this definition, there is a clear difference between artistic activities and athletic activities. Athletic events require mostly physical fitness and coordination, and have a clear winner. Artistic events, like marching band and dance, may require physical activity, but mostly utilize one's creative interpretation. Additionally, artistic events cannot be judged objectively, and artistic competitions almost always have judges who use their own subjection to determine the winners.
Now, for some reason, there has been a strange push in the last decade or so to define just about any and all extracurricular activities as sports, especially in high schools. When meeting someone in high school, instead of asking what that person enjoys to do, the primary question seems to be "what sports do you play". While this isn't really part of my main argument, I think a possible reason for this trend is the desire from students to feel included in the world of sports, despite not being "good enough" for traditional sports.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: America should get rid of the Grand Jury system +
+ This was inspired by the events in Ferguson, but it goes beyond that. If a government agent is put before a grand jury for a crime, the prosecutor and the accused are both playing for the same team. The system is not adversarial, which means that justice will, most likely, not be served.
Grand juries are meant to force the prosecutor to present at least enough evidence to convince the public that the case should, indeed, go to trial. If they were fulfilling that purpose, we would expect at least a few percent of the cases they hear to not pass the test. However, [according to fivethirtyeight.com](http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/),
So they're obviously a rubber stamp court, doing what the prosecutors want them to do.
Since they don't fulfill their positive purpose (forcing the state to bring a good case) and they do seem to fulfill a rather negative one (protecting government agents from prosecution), I think we should get rid of them.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe people should be held responsible for their actions and not the people they derived the ideas of said actions from. CMV +
+ In another medium, [this](http://www.examiner.com/article/another-couple-found-guilty-of-murder-for-parenting-by-to-train-up-a-child) article was mentioned. The morality of events in the article is not relevant, except that there are people who believe the author should be held responsible for publishing a book like that that would give the idea to potential parents they should discipline their children a certain way.
Excluding the possibility of some psychological conditions, I believe that my actions are my own responsibility. If I infer something from a book and do something criminal, even if the authors themselves believe it was the right thing to do and intended to convey that message, it is on me for performing those actions. Anything different is a slippery slope and pulls into question the very freedom of speech.
Harassment, however, is a different situation.
But if someone publicly says something like "all gays should burn", it is not their fault if someone actually follows through with such an action. That doesn't make them any less of a douche for making that initial statement, but they shouldn't be responsible for other's actions. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe black people are more racist than white people. CMV. +
+ I live in the deep south. From my experience (I am a white 18 year old female), black people often show much more hostility toward white people than white people show toward black people. It seems to me that black people are the major cause of the racial tension and "boundaries" that still exist. I know that there are racist people in every race, but black people seem the most racist. This opinion of mine has troubled me because many people do not agree, and I do not want to believe something that is wrong. Most importantly, I don't want to hold any racist beliefs. Please help cmv. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe the "we are all equal" rhetoric for equal rights for races/sexes is damaging to the movement because it falls apart when we aren't. CMV. +
+ It is simply true that everyone isn't equal. Some people have biological advantages w.r.t. intelligence and physique.
The reason I get behind equal rights is simply because I think everyone deserves equal opportunity in spite of their talents.
I'm not even claiming that I know the truth of how equal people are, but I can't get behind denying someone rights because they may be inferior. That is all.
To give an example - if the foundation for equal rights for blacks and whites is that they are equal - if research presents itself that they statistically aren't - it would damage the case.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe vegans are an insult to the human evolution. CMV +
+ We have evolved from eating raw meat into cooked meat, there is absolute no reason to relinquish the freedom of eating meat for veggies. Meat helped grow the brain, better the human biology, everything imaginable to make us who we are today. Go for alternatives such as protein shake does not compensate the nutrients that meat gives like iron, fat, unless with other alternatives. Sure we are going to save animals, down the level of green house gas, but it is absurd to think one can be vegan for the rest of one's life without meat craving, because we are omnivore.
Sowwy guys, first time posting if the title is off and bit insulting D:
Yes, I tried to play the devil's advocate, I needed justifications of my friend's claim about been vegan is a good choice, and I highly appreciate all the well written arguments from this post, thank you all! | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Smoking marijuana isn't as idiotic as it's put out to be. +
+ The way I see it, you can either do it or not do it. So, what is keeping me from doing it? As any other euphoric substance it can be addicting which makes it a risk. I believe the risk is worth taking. However, it's considered a gateway drug. I understand this concept in that after feeling this sense of euphoria, you would want to got further with it. Then, there's the social aspect where you are categorized as a "pothead". I believe that when you are of age, marijuana is very similar to alcohol in that you just need to be a responsible person.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Eminem is gay +
+ After seeing his cameo in The Interview it all kind of clicked.
* If eminem came out as gay publicly it would destroy his image and kill off a lot of his fanbase. He would still be popular but he wouldnt sell nearly as many records as he does now.
* In his cameo he says he leaves a trail of gay breadcrumbs in his lyrics, which is when I realised...
**Kill you**
Pretty big gay breadcrumb right here.
**My Name Is**
So he hits puberty, can't stomach the real him, and kills him off?
Again, hits puberty, takes the hetero sex symbol of the day, rips off a symbol of her womanhood and hits her with it. That sounds like he's frustrated with his sexuality to me.
**The Real Slim Shady** (think about that title)
A lot of this song seems like he's talking openly to his young 'macho' audience, trying to justify his homosexuality
Yeah I might be gay and that seems gross, but your parents fucking is gross to you even though you'll grow up and be a parent who fucks one day
He just wants to get on tv and be his (gay) self, but he cant, yet tom green can hump a dead moose.
I think his cameo was a cathartic moment for him, because he got on tv and let loose under the guise of satire.
Speaks for itself.
I think eminem is gay, but cant come out publicly because of how it would affect his career, so he leaves a trail of gay breadcrumbs in his lyrics. I realise this isnt something you can definitely know is true or false but I think these lyrics (im sure there's more out there) give a lot of weight to the theory.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Some modern Libertarians hypocritically deny that Civil Rights are Rights +
+ I believe the modern Libertarian (as defined by people like Ron Paul) is hypocritical when they don't support the Civil Rights Act. I believe they've selectively refused to recognize particular rights for arbitrary reasons (It's not in the Constitution!) or for ulterior motives.
The modern American Libertarian ascribes to particular rights:
1. The right to privacy
2. The right of free speech
3. The right to property
4. The right to a fair trial
Modern American liberals add a couple more rights (ie from the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights)
1. The right to an education
2. The right to life
3. The right to equal protection against discrimination
Many Libertarians however, deny that equal protection against discrimination should be a Right. The modern Libertarian doesn't believe in "protected classes" - that you shouldn't be discriminated against for your sex, race, and religion in terms of business transactions.
Libertarians publicly acknowledge that racism is a bad thing... yet go ahead and declare that anybody should be allowed to actively practice racism in business and in personal life. I think that's hypocrisy. If you believe something is bad, you should outlaw it. I believe stealing is wrong... that's why everyone has a right to property ownership and a fair trial. That's why the Right to Property exists, to make the world a more fair place and to promote a "good" - where people should profit from the fruits of their labor.
The Right to Property and the Right to Equal Protection are very similar in many ways. Both demand a change in *behavior* of people. In nature, you are allowed to thieve and steal however you want. The Right to Property protects people from thieves. The Right to Property restricts your freedom to take anything you want. In nature, you are allowed to discriminate and be an asshole however you want. The Right to be protected from discrimination protects minorities from private persecution. It protects people from being hassled and from being denied services for no reason other than stupid ones, such as the color of their skin.
Many modern Libertarians don't stand up for Civil Rights because they don't have the moral integrity to stand up for what is Right. That's why they deny everyone else common sense positive rights such as the right to life (and thus access to things like healthcare), the right to education, etc. They don't have the integrity to say that these things are *good* things that should be promoted by society. They instead give some bullshit about how the "State" has no right to interfere with our lives, even in positive ways! **Yet at the same time they fully accept the State's intervention on matters concerning property or their own privacy**.
Why do people get to enjoy the state's protection in matters of property, but suddenly when it comes to Civil Rights, state protection is suddenly out of bounds????
**TLDR**: I believe when Libertarians say that "freedom from discrimination is wonderful, but it's wrong to force people to behave a certain way!" is a cop-out. It's hypocritical to deny a Right because it requires government coercion, when all Rights require government coercion to enforce. The state coerces you into returning stolen property; it coerces you into attending your trial; it coerces you to stay out of your neighbor's backyard. There's nothing wrong with government also coercing you into fairly trading with people, rather than refusing them service solely because of racism or sexism. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
People who have a stable lives who have mentally and physically sound children live more fulfilling lives than people who choose material or non-family centric lifestyle CMV (mostly looking for opinions from parents) +
+ Since this is an emotionally charged topic, I would like to state this is one part CMV and one part DAE regret the fact they had kids. If you don't have kids, don't expect to have much leverage in this conversation. For the sake of eliminating lurking variables, most counterpoints will require experience. But I understand not all counterpoints will require that.
* People of varying backgrounds with children report it as the most important and fulfilling part of their lives.
* People who express regret of having children most often do so because their relationship is\was unstable, their children are mentally or physically unsound or they had children at the wrong time in their life.
* People who have children who have also achieved material (or extrinsic) success rarely state a preference to the material side of life.
* People that dedicate their lives to an external cause or purpose are satisfying extrinsically purposed goals. People that dedicate their lives to their children are satisfying intrinsically purposed goals. When you become a world class guitar player, you are satisfying goals that society has told you are important. When you raise a child successfully you are satisfying goals that are innate to your being.
* External causes and purposes : Living an material lifestyle (working extremely hard to make a lot of money and deriving great pleasure from both the act of making money and life's material goods), working to become a celebrity (and assumably working much more than having a child would normally allow), dedicating your life to strictly political, social or non-primary interactions such as travel, hobbies, music etc.
* People with stable lives and children rarely state that they wouldn't trade these things for their children. For the sake of clarity, some examples. Rarely would someone tell even a close friend that the wouldn't trade their world travels, Ferrari, or fame for their child.
So it goes to reason, that if you are generally stable and haven't been given unusual circumstances with your child, that your life will probably be more fulfilling than if you had dedicated your life to an externally satisfying goal such as becoming a celebrity.
*For the sake of eliminating lurking variables please list if you've had children (and if they had mental or physical problems) and whether or not you were in a stable relationship and had a stable career. If that isn't listed I will for the purpose of the debate assume you have no children. If you list that you have children but nothing else, I will assume you were in an unstable relationship without stable well paying employment.*
**I am most interested to hear the reasoning of people who have stable careers and relationships who had mentally and physically sound children who regret the decision why. I am trying to exclude all outliers and lurking variables to see if this is a sound general opinion. While I am interested to hear "I would have liked to do X first, but I wouldn't change it" I am more interested to hear people who outright regret it.**
The converse of this is that if you have a child with a mental or physical problem, you are much more likely to be unhappy with children. If you have an unstable life, you are much more likely to be unhappy with children.
And thus if you have children but these issues, it probably is not that your children don't make you happy, but rather circumstance or your personal issues which are making you ultimately unhappy. Not the act of having a child itself. Though a child could or probably does compound these issues.
**To be 100% clear. The act of HAVING or NOT HAVING children is not selfish on either side. All acts of humanity are selfish, I do not believe in altruism. That is a separate discussion. For the sake of this discussion we are all rationally selfish, no matter what choices you make in life. So this is not a discussion on "not having children doesn't make me selfish."**
I have formed this opinion from the observation that most people who have worked their way into a place in life where they have achieved some sort of extrinsic goal have done so at the expense of their family or they outright don't have children.
I myself have achieved limited material success in my life and also satisfied an extrinsic goal of mine (running a successful business). I do certainly understand that achieving success requires a level of dedication that often excludes family. In my case, that meant properly timing a child. After achieving this limited material and extrinsic success and goal obtainment, upon reflection I realized these things were far less important than my perception of what their importance would be. I ultimately had to reject the fact that these were even noteworthy goals to have. And that ultimately my relationship and family were orders of magnitude more important.
I am in a 9 year relationship this February. We have a daughter and we both have stable careers. The relationship has taken serious effort to remain stable, but I believe most or all relationships require this. Since monogamy is inherently inhuman. If we were unable to remain stable, I would have rejected the idea of having a child (with my partner). If I was unstable in my career, I would have rejected the idea of having a child (until such a thing was possible).
People who have achieved political, social or material goals that don't' have children, can't really form an opinion on the topic. They can be happy, but they don't know if having a child would make them happier and whether or not they would trade that success for their child. I have not met and rarely if ever see people who have both success and stability in their life mention they regret having children.
So when I meet people who say they don't want kids I assume they're either not ready, haven't yet realized that the goals they have in life externally imposed and not really important (a derogatory way to put this is that they're shallow or self centered, I prefer to state that they are immature. Since I made the same error and could only correct that error after obtaining my life goals and realizing the mistake in assuming these values from the system.)
My observations and discussions with other parents have as of yet satisfied my opinion on the matter. This also made me realize that the indoctrination that we go through is much much more powerful than I had thought. To achieve one's ultimate goals in life and realize they are not the most ultimately satisfying thing in life, is sort of like figuring out the secret decoder ring. After you do it you feel happy for a little bit, and then realize it's more like finding out you need to drink more Ovaltine. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I believe that people with above average reading speed who text and drive have moral superiority over slow readers who text and drive +
+ Today I was at the DMV in line at an automated registration sticker dispenser. You go through a few prompts and it dishes out new registration documents.
I realize I'm going /r/iamverysmart on you guys, but the dead hesitation I witnessed as each person went through the prompts kind of blew my mind. The woman ahead of me got to a prompt that said something like "Session about to expire due to inactivity, touch anywhere on the screen in the next 15 seconds to continue." I can't describe how tempted I was to step in and touch the screen as she was processing this sentence. She almost jumped when she realized what was going on.
The guy after her chose the "Spanish" option, and I still could have done it 3x quicker.
Already I'm guessing there will be animosity at me being condescending or thinking I'm some kind of savant. Really I'm of average intelligence but grew up privileged and my parents ensured that I was good at reading at a young age. I just read quickly.
What clinched it for me was when they had to enter their prior registration number. One... digit... at... a... time. Even though I'm not of great intelligence, I know that most people are orders of magnitude worse at processing information than I am.
For this reason I feel better poised to handle texting and driving. Lately I've been putting my phone in the back of the car to quit the habit, but I've done it consistently for 8 years and if I read like most people then this wouldn't be possible.
CMV by explaining why I should feel equally bad regardless of my texting/driving ability. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe people should be given psychoactive drugs that increases their productivity, like stimulants (Adderall, etc). CMV +
+ Apparently my original account got shadowbanned or something, so asking again:
I remember seeing some posts in askreddit about ADHD medications, and I was amazed when people mentioned how they were able to get motivated and focus on many activities for hours they would otherwise find boring and soon quit, like studying or just trying to learn certain topics. I think one person read about how mechanical clocks worked and designed one for himself while on the drugs. Based on these evidences I think they can be used to make people learn more, like in schools and many other possible environments. And if people know more and are motivated to something productive this will likely lead to better society in general.
I do realize potential side effects these drugs can bring, and how they can fuck people up both mentally physically if abused. Governmental regulation on usage of these drugs and help to people will help decrease these disastrous outcomes. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe that the left is significantly less responsible for the government shutdown than the right (basically it's the republicans' fault). CMV +
+ [In these clips, Jon Stewart explains why](http://www.thedailyshow.com/collection/429537/shutstorm-2013/429508). In [this blog post](http://fixingdebtcrisis.blogspot.com/2013/03/battling-poisoning-of-our-minds.html), there are links that talk specifically about the corruption in Fox News, and even [a video explaining the problem with Obamacare](http://youtu.be/A90inFea3sA).
What's stopping the republicans from editing obamacare [in the same manner that they did with the safe drinking water act](http://www.independentwatertesting.com/education-center/148-what-is-the-halliburton-loophole.html)?
and If [their Romney-Ryan budget proposal cuts the government by 91%](http://youtu.be/vv51e6kJX1M), then why do they hate the government shutdown? | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: If I'm ever on a jury, police testimony will hold no more weight to me than any other witness. +
+ I believe police testimony is no different and no more reliable than any other regular citizen's testimony. People can lie, and people can recall incorrectly; the fact that someone wears a badge doesn't change that fact. If it comes down to a cops word versus someone else's word without any other evidence, there is IMO no basis for a guilty verdict.
Also, in the same vein any police testimony on what a defendant told him during an interview means nothing to me as well. Rules of evidence be damned. It is quite simply unfair that anything you say to a cop can be used against you but not for you in court; and that there is an actual exception to the rules of hearsay that a cop can testify on what you said to him. I will believe what a defendant says on the stand over what a cop says he said in an interview.
| 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 most people have negligible influence on the world and therefore their views are meaningless, CMV +
+ People waste many hours engaging in political debate and philosophical discussion when really they have practically no influence over what actually happens anyway - surely they would be happier devoting themselves to their hobbies and mastering the work that supports them in doing so. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Frozen is unbearably sexist. CMV. +
+ No male character in Frozen is anywhere near as developed as the female characters. They are foils used to give the women purpose. Either they were written into the story to make the narrative function, to develop the female characters, or to be laughed at. Frozen supports the notion that males only exist to enable and entertain females.
There are three types of male characters in Frozen:
- the non-personality worker bees in the background
- cute, friendly, harmless, meaningless characters such as Olaf, Sven, the trolls, Weselton, the sauna dude
- romantic interests
Most of the men in Frozen are faceless, speechless background, such as the workers, soldiers and assassins. Not a shred of personality is given to them. They do exactly as expected until they accomplish their task or perish. It should also be noted that of the few moments when nameless villagers are given lines, only the men are complainers while the women are compassionate and understanding.
It's fairly easy to understand the basis behind the cute, funny characters. Every children's movie has them, and they are almost always male, especially the ones that are actually funny. What Frozen implies, however, is that if you can't be sexy and if you want to have a personality, you'd better be fucking cute, and even then, abandon any hope of dignity or meaningful interaction. These comedic reliefs are not people so much as cartoon characters who exist only for the women's laughter. When Weselton asks Elsa to dance, his over-the-top shenanigans elicit a loud burst of laughter from the sisters, which Weselton unnaturally and conveniently doesn't hear, underlining that the comedic relief only interacts with the women when it is convenient for them. Then the sisters sober up when they realize someone actually has to dance with the fool. We're left with the impression that men like Weselton are to be mocked and, if it's not *too* much trouble condescendingly placated.
One would expect the romantic interests to have reasonably complex personalities. Taking Jasmine from Aladdin, Beast from Beauty and the Beast, or Nala from Lion King, Disney animations have set a fairly high standard for love interests with their own set of motivations, flaws and unique abilities. One would expect Frozen to carry the trend but actually both Kristoff and Hans are extensions of the first group of males, the non-personality workers. They have very little on their minds other than their relatively non-complex tasks (ice harvesting, getting rich and powerful), and actually the two men have nearly identical personalities (non-personalities), just different socio-economic situations. Kristoff offers a tiny variation in that he's a little brattier and more anti-social than the other men, but that's a difference that never gets fleshed out and is quickly forgotten.
Beyond that, all of the clever lines are given to the women. The men only say what is most expected. Whereas the comedic males are decidedly abnormal (which is why they should be mocked), the romantic interests are pure conformists. When Olaf unwittingly declares his love for summer Kristoff, and not Anna, is given the task of questioning his experience with warmth. The women are given the narrative space and resources to work through their own personal struggles or personality quirks (Elise and Anna both simultaneously say "chocolate"!), while the men patiently stand by, waiting to respond to the women's actions (such as when Elsa mimics singing and accidentally hits Hans, who forgives the error in full gentleman stride) in thoroughly typical ways that support and enable the women. Before turning villain the closest Hans comes to offering a divergent viewpoint from Anna is when he tells her it's too dangerous to go after Elsa. Anna responds "No it isn't." a thoroughly unconvincing response which still is potent enough to immediately snap Hans back into his role as a tool for females to use. It might be argued that Hans is so cooperative because of his secret plot, but Anna accepts his support without question, as though, to her, unthinkingly agreeing with whatever the female wants was only normal for a man.
Kristoff is meant to portray the more realistic man, which is why he is the correct suitor for Anna, but he's just as unthinking and conformist, just slightly more inconvenient in that he pushes Anna's feet off the dash of his "freshly-lacquered" sleigh, and covers her mouth with his glove when he's afraid they are being hunted by wolves. Kristoff doesn't hold any contentious or remarkable opinions, to the point where he belittles Anna for her risky judgment. "Who marries a man she just met?" asks Kristoff, as though if only there were a precedent then Anna's marriage would have his blessing. Kristoff's abrasiveness is meant to be a turn-off, but it only ever manifests itself in annoyance to Anna's quirkiness, such as correcting her when she mispronounces his name, complaining when she helps to fight off the wolves, whining when she doesn't have a plan for when she finds Elsa and glaring at her when she demands that they leave the sauna/general goods store that night. In all situations Anna gets her way (she hurls the missile that drives off the wolves, his whining is immediately interrupted by external events and they leave that night) emphasizing how baseless and impotent Kristoff's misgivings about Anna are.
It should also be noted that the only time men exhibit any agency of their own is during a villainous act. Weselton uses his agency to out Elsa as a sorceress and call her a monster in front of the town, Hans only steps away from his bland, conformist persona in order to betray Anna. Every other male action in the film is benign and obvious.
Some might find it unbelievable that Frozen's two princesses, who spent their childhood shut-in with essentially no social interaction, have such fully developed personalities. The real amazement is that none of the male characters do.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: If men have to pay more for car insurance, it is only fair for men to earn higher pays. +
+ I understand that statistically, males tend to get into more accidents and therefore should pay more. However, statistically, you can prove a man might be more efficient than a woman in a certain job and therefore should earn a higher pay, or at least have a higher chance of getting the position.
I dislike gender roles. But this seems to me like a double standard that is somehow acceptable and taken for granted, while all the fights for equality for both sexes fail to mention this deal. So, CMV!
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
the 2nd amendment is outdated and should be done away with. CMV +
+ the military has more weapons than the citizens do so over throwing the govenrment just sounds insane, as well would be illegal. only people with an actual need for guns should have them since we have so much violence with guns in america, making it easy to get them just puts people in danger. I belive if we ban guns, eventually the bad cities will become bettr due to less crime and thus sustain the economy with more people wanting to visit a now safer city, which would lead to more police being able to be hired and keep the city even safer. CMV | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think it is unfair to have to choose specifically what to do with your life by the time you're 18. +
+ It seems like college really pushes you to decide and commit early on when in all reality I feel they should help in the decision process when it comes to future career. | 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 any drugs should be illegal. CMV +
+ Personal, recreational drug use is a victim less crime, and yet the majority of our prisons are filled with these "criminals". I think that if anyone has a really bad problem with drugs, they should be sent to rehab only, not prison.
I also believe that we should better educate our children about drugs and what they do to you. If kids knew how bad they were and how they can hurt you for the rest of your life, they may be less likely to try them. If photos of meth addicts were shown, maybe kids wouldn't think it would be cool to do it.
Maybe it would be easier for people to get off the drugs if they were able to tell people in their life about it without fear of getting arrested.
I hope you guys can 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: Batman is not noble; he's a corporate authoritarian, and the goal of his "defense" of Gotham is only to perpetuate his brand. CMV +
+ Bruce Wayne grew up a heir to a huge fortune and was indoctrinated into the corporate world. When he "reinvents" himself, the only way he knows how to create a public identity is through branding; that's why all of Batman's gadgets are so heavily bat-themed, and in the earlier versions of Batman even had a Bat- prefix.
Throughout the history of Batman, the hero has refused to kill the villain and instead has him institutionalized or put in jail, from which the villain (the Joker, Scarecrow, etc.) inevitably escapes and returns to terrorize the city again, giving Batman an excuse to continue fighting crime.
Everybody thinks Batman is really cool, but I think it's horrible because Batman is a symbol for corporate America bombarding us with hyper-charged caricatures of our culture and selling it to us as their "brand". When we root for Batman, we root for that mentality. Somebody explain to me why I should see Batman as a role model like so many people do.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Football is an institution which causes more problems than it solves, and receives far more money than it deserves. +
+ First disclaimer: I don't like football; I've never seen the appeal of men kicking a ball around a field while lots of people scream. I'm putting this here so my biases on the issue are clear.
Second disclaimer: as a Brit, I'm focusing on English football, not handegg. References to the latter are fine where relevant.
I don't think football provides any external benefit to society - by which I mean, it doesn't actually help anyone outside of the football industry. All I see, when I see football supporters, is people trying to assert their dominance over other people by reinforcing the status of "their" team, or putting down the other team. This is usually light-hearted in uni circles, but I know this gets a lot worse.
The 100 hour war, between Honduras and El Salvador, was triggered by a football game. Granted, the game itself was a small block removed from an already very unstable Jenga tower, but it seems to me that all football does it bring out the tribalistic, irrational animal in people that allows the 100 hour war and the Hillsborough disaster to happen. I can't see it as a tool for peace or friendship or discourse or understanding; all I see is anger, rivalry, shouting. It reinforces the same sort of in-group-out-group "You belong to a different tribe therefore you are bad" mentality that leads to xenophobia, and from there, racism and overzealous nationalism (read: UKIP.) This sort of mentality is something we need to keep a lid on, I believe, if we want to have a more peaceful society.
I'm aware, though, that there's likely a lot I'm not taking into consideration, and that my strong dislike for football has coloured my views no small amount. I'd like to gain a rounder perspective on the issue, so please CMV. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I feel /r/Atheism is more about embracing hatred towards religion, and less about embracing Atheism +
+ Title is fairly self explanatory. The latest front page post of the sticker that says "Guns don't kill people, people with God kill people" has led me to write this CMV.
I am not a religious man, so I don't feel this is a biased CMV.
I feel saying "Gun's don't kill people, People with God kill people" is equal to a religious person saying "Guns don't kill people, people *without* God kill people".
I feel /r/atheism is an extreme side of Atheism, and is as evil as an extreme religious sect. It harbours hatred towards a particular group of people; people who hold a different life view than their own.
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: It is utterly unethical under any circumstances for Scotland to not take on its share of UK debt if it votes for independance +
+ Simply put, Scotland's residents and companies have contributed towards the debt. They should therefore help pay off the debt.
Government debt is LITERALLY government expenditure less tax receipts. It is disingenuous for any Scottish person to say 'Why should we pay off a debt we shouldn't contribute to', any Scottish person who has used a road, absorbed photons from a street light etc. has contributed towards the debt.
Furthermore, Scottish people actually consume more government spending than in the UK per capita (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10692466/Scots-each-receive-1300-more-spending-despite-oil-tax-drop.html). And the average Scottish person is poorer than the UK average, decreasing tax income. So it is safe to say that the average Scot has contributed MORE to the current deficit than the average Englishmen.
Furthermore again, the two largest government bailouts following the 08 financial crisis were for Scottish companies (RBS and HBOS).
An argument I have heard is that if UK aren't willing to share the £, then Scotland is under no moral obligation to pay back the debts. This is morally equivalent to a couple with significant shared debt divorcing, and one saying to the other 'I will only take on my share of the debt if you give me sole custody of our children'.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe watching the movie IS a good substitute for reading the book. CMV +
+ With The Great Gatsby movie coming out a friend of mine scoffed at the idea of me seeing it without reading the book first. He holds the belief that I have encountered often in my life, that a film adaptation is somehow "beneath" the book.
Now the argument I generally hear for that is a movie distorts the story through it's interpretations by the actors and director. My response to that is...so what? Why should I give F. Scott Fitzgerald's creative work more weight than I do Leonardo DiCaprio's? They are both telling a story, and quite frankly I don't care if the adaptation strays from the original. The other argument is that a movie cannot capture the full details of a novel. My counter for that is often novels have to overload you with details to create a vivid physical picture. Film can accomplish that much more quickly.
Just to clarify, I am not trying to belittle the artistic merit of novels. I won't choose a movie over the book because reading is "boring" or anything like that. I simply think that film can be an equally valuable medium to convey a theme.
I'm realizing I should have reworded my stance. No, a movie is not a perfect substitute for a novel. I don't argue that they are different experiences, just that one is not intrinsically better than the other. Essentially it boils down to, if I was limited in my ability to only experience one over the other, I don't think the novel should be the default simply because it is the source. My fault for not being more clear. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Installation art (especially at the Tate Modern) is criminally boring, just Duchamp's Fountain over and over again. +
+ Duchamp's Fountain questioned the status quo. The popular consensus is that it is an early and successful example of asking the question, "what is art". But hasn't almost all installation art since then been Duchamp's Fountain over and over again. A tent in a gallery, a dirty bed in a gallery, a shed in a gallery etc etc.
Almost all contemporary installation art is criminally dull and boring. The 100th attempt at asking the question 'what is art' just leaves me dripping with apathy.
The greatest crime that Art can commit is to be boring. Just sitting there, letting out a heavy sigh as people walk by. All the boring toys end up at the bottom of the toy box. But with modern art installations in museums, it's the opposite. They're proudly put on display.
I wish this kind of art didn't have the reputation of an STD in England, but it does. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
[MOD POST] Genderless January +
+ One of the biggest challenges is how to balance the desire of OPs to discuss topics where they want to examine their view with alienating our regular contributors by having the sub dominated by frequent repeat topics. Recently, discussion of "Gender Issues" has become virtually constant, to the point that we're both driving some good contributors away, and almost becoming defined by those sorts of discussions.
So, we are going to experiment with "Genderless January". For the rest of the month, any posts on "Gender issues" will be removed. These include topics such as feminism, abortion (financial or medical), men's rights, rape, GLBTQ, etc. As always, the moderators will use their discretion to determine whether a topic is allowable. Please report posts that you think may be in violation.
Note that for all of these topics, a simple search of the sub will turn up many threads, so users should still be easily able to find information that they are interested in.
We welcome your feedback, and will assess the effectiveness of this approach at the end of the month. | 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 in same sex and traditional marriage but not other types of marriage +
+ I believe that individuals of the same sex should be allowed to get married because I don't see the harm in allowing them to do so. I just frankly don't see an issue why it.
On the other hand, I was reading people replying about polygamous marriage and incestuous marriages and how they should be legal as well.
I can make an arguments as to why one would be not okay but I feel like I'm just making excuses because incestuous marriages seems "wrong". But I don't know why I see them as being wrong if that makes any sense. :/ | 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 Edward Snowden can get a fair trial in the US, CMV +
+ That is not to say it will be easy, but it rarely is when a person is well known, or has kept their name in the public eye for a significant time. Also working against him is the nature of the crimes dealing with Classified Information, however both of these has been dealt with in our history, to say that it is "impossible" to have a fair trial is an insult to our judicial system and any potential juror.
Legally speaking, I see no reason he cannot get a speedy trial, it would likely be public, but there is a concern because of the nature of the information. I think that we proved during the Manning trial that it is possible to try a case with National Security implications. As to impartiality, I have never believed that breadth of coverage HAS to effect the jury, that is up to people, and their willingness to make a final judgement on a preponderance of the facts presented in the case. CMV | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Feminism does more harm than good and should be replaced by humanism. CMV +
+ I'm not saying that feminism does **nothing** good. I'm saying it does more harm than it does good.
Here are a few things that feminism **at its worst** is guilty of. Feminism at its worst is guilty of:
• diluting the definition of rape so much that it qualifies almost anyone as a rapist or rape supporter. Comparing consensual sex to rape is insulting to actual rape victims. It can also cause psychological harm by causing women to victimize themselves, believing they have been raped when they haven't.
• creating a mindset that makes women "play the victim": becoming oversensitive to anything and everything that could possibly be twisted as being offensive.
• spreading misinformation, such as comparing part-time female workers to full-time male workers in order to compare salaries, or creating a standard for rape that greatly increases the rape statistics in some studies.
• claiming that the natural impulses of women are the result of brainwashing from a patriarchy.
• claiming that the natural impulses of men are oppressive towards women.
• inventing standards that men ought to know and live by that are so contrary to our nature and full of self-hatred that it would be harmful to society if universally embraced.
• reinforcing all of these ideas through rhetoric and confirmation bias.
I realize that **many of these bullet points only apply to some feminist organizations**, but even the best of feminist organizations are giving merit to those harmful organizations, and are still guilty of some of these. **Any good claimed by feminism could have been accomplished just as well if not better by humanism.** That's why it's better if feminism just merged with humanism and stopped giving merit to the harmful feminist organizations.
Feminists aim "to advance women's equality, non-violence, economic development, and, most importantly, empowerment of women and girls in all sectors of society." [(source)](http://www.feminist.org/welcome/mandp.asp) These are goals that humanist organizations can accomplish without the harmful reinforcement of rhetoric and victim playing. I would argue that even the good that feminism produces is purely incidental, and the logic in which they arrive at a good idea is often misguided at best -- while the same points made by humanists are often well thought out. **Also, any good produced by feminism is vastly outweighed by the harm that it causes.**
--------------------------
Here's an analogy for why feminism would be better represented by humanism:
Christianity is like Judaism, except that it entails more doctrines and beliefs.
Humanism entails the goals that feminism wishes to accomplish, with the added benefit of not focusing on one sex. So in a sense, humanism is like feminism, except that it entails more beliefs.
A person claiming to be Jewish who describes their firm belief in the Bible and Jesus' divinity is not accurately representing their beliefs. It makes no sense to claim that you are Jewish and then give a description that is Christian. It makes more sense to call yourself a Christian.
In the same way, a person claiming to be a feminist who describes their goals as "fighting for equal rights for both sexes" is a person who is claiming to be a feminist but describing humanism, and therefore they should just consider themselves a humanist.
--------------------
This is the way I see it, and I could be wrong about this subject and am willing to change my view, but I think I make a good point here and that feminism should die out and be replaced entirely by humanism. CMV | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Margaret Thatcher was a terrible person. +
+ I have grown up in rural Ireland in a patriotic area and have been raised to detest Margaret Thatcher. In the early 80s while on hunger strike she denied Bobby Sands and other IRA members the title of political prisoners and they died shortly after despite massive public outcry. Her time as prime minister saw huge decay in Britain's old industries as poverty became widespread in Wales, Scotland and North England. People I know from these areas hate her. But recently to my disbelief I met a man from London who believed she was a great leader. She is also referenced as "The Iron Lady". I cannot stand this woman and how anyone can infuriates me. | 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 glad that Pirate Bay was brought down. I see no moral justification for piracy of modern movies and games. +
+ The most upvoted comments concerning Pirate Bay always hold it to some impossible level of importance. It comes across as people thinking that piracy is justified because big studios charge too much money for their goods.
I understand that Piracy can force the market to adapt in order to lower prices or allow for easier access, and this leads to the birth of Steam or Netflix. What I don't understand are the people that hold it as some sort of right to have access to anything and everything at no charge simply because they have an internet connection.
There is no situation where I would illegally download a move that was just released in theaters (or before it was released). That is flat out stealing, and harms the industry as a whole. There is also no situation where I would pirate a recently released game for the same reason.
Further, the argument of "They don't deserve my money" that people always throw around concerning the likes of Ubisoft or EA is an incredibly idiotic argument to justify piracy. If there is a product by a company you want to consume then purchase it. I don't agree with the human rights violations that happen in China or Bangladesh, but that doesn't mean I'm justified to steal the products produced there in lieu of boycotting them.
I feel like I should add as an addendum that there is one situation where I have thought it was justified to pirate a movie, and would have if I had been able to. My father was bedridden while fighting Lung Cancer and wanted to see the second Hobbit. There was no way he could have sat through it at the theater, and we knew he wouldn't be around long enough for a DVD release. That is such an extreme case though, that I hard think that it can be used as a justification for the existence of the Pirate Bay.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Please change my controversial view about animal rights, abortions, killing the mentally handicapped and almost all morality. +
+ First I want to make a few disclaimers: I have read most of the CMVs on this topic and I did not find a satisfying response. Deep inside I feel my view is wrong (at least it is perceived as wrong in all my social circles) and I sincerely want to find a way to change it. I also apologize for the upcoming wall of text, I hope I have covered everything, if not, feel free to ask.
I think I could summarize my view into **“Life itself has no intrinsic value, instead the ability of self awareness, consciousness, complex thinking and feeling, especially pleasure and suffering (the theory of mind) gives it the value it has”**. From this, I can unfortunately derive many really unpopular views:
* “Abortion is not wrong”
* “Killing animals is not wrong in most instances”
* “The concept of animal rights is mostly wrong”
* “Infanticide is never wrong”
* “Killing severely mentally handicaped person is not wrong”
* “killing a vegetative person is not wrong”
Just for clarity, I don’t think everybody should necessarily obey these rules. I’m perfectly fine with others protecting animals or not wanting to have abortion - you can still obey the rules I’m arguing against, you just don’t have to.
Now a bit of an analysis about why i hold my view:
I hope the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic value is clear, but just to make sure: Intrinsic value is value “just because”, extrinsic value is that someone values the thing because it provides something to someone. Therefore killing a human is wrong because of their intrinsic value; killing a wild animal is not wrong because it has no intrinsic value; killing my neighbours dog is wrong because it provides them with extrinsic value; killing my dog despite a stranger not wanting me to is still right since they have no right to my dog’s extrinsic value.
Now, why do I think that complex thoughts, consciousness, awareness and pleasure and pain are the things I think give value to life? I came to these by simple observation and thought experiments: *Would I mind being tortured if I couldn’t suffer? - no, this just does not compute. Would I mind being deprived of pleasure if I couldn’t feel it? - no again. Would I mind dying if I had no consciousness, self awareness and wasn’t able to think complexly? no - again, I am unable to comprehend the concept itself.* And if I cannot comprehend it, it simply can not harm me in the moral sense.
I think that here it is important to distinguish between pain and suffering. I acknowledge that most animals ate able to feel pain to a certain extent. By pain I mean nerve impulses telling the brain or the central nerve ganglion that something is wrong in certain part of the organism. I however think that this is distinct from actual suffering, to which an organism must have highly developed brain and consciousness. I also think that there is difference between instinctive behavior which is preprogrammed in the organism and the actual capacity to have complex thoughts.
From this, I conclude that only humans and maybe certain human-like animals (depending on the scientific consensus) possess the attributes that make their life valuable and therefore only those entities have the intrinsic right to live.
Where do I draw the line? Despite being well aware of the sorites paradox, I think my logic still stands. It is so because if the sorites paradox was to my reasoning, than exactly one of these would have to necessarily be true: “Nothing has an intrinsic value” or “Everything has an intrinsic value”, both of which don’t really solve anything. I therefore apply the logic that ordinary human being has an intrinsic value and non-human animals (except maybe the great apes) do not since they do not have a sufficiently developed brain to meet the required cognitive capabilities.
Now to the point with abortion and infanticide. From the above I assume that their life has no intrinsic value. But fetuses and infants can once become a grown human, right? I simply think that another important aspect as to whether or not is it right to kill somebody is the continuity of the conscious attributes above. For a killing to be wrong, an entity has either be able to experience them right now OR must have been able to experience them in the past and must be able to experience them again in the future. The examples of this and the thought experiment itself are as follows: *If someone kills me right now, it harms me, therefore it is wrong. If someone kills me in my sleep, I am and was before a conscious entity and the consciousness will likely resume once I wake up; it would harm me if someone killed me, therefore it is wrong. But if I was never able to experience consciousness and I am not experiencing it at the moment, I don’t really lose anything, therefore it is not wrong to kill me. Similarly, if I am in a coma and will not ever wake up, I am not conscious now and won’t be in the future either, so it is not wrong to kill me.*
So, from all of the above I conclude that it is not morally wrong to kill animals, fetuses, infants, mentally handicapped people and terminally ill patients who will never wake up, as they all lack the cognitive capabilities that give life the necessary intrinsic value. I really hope that I covered all of the aspect of my view, if you don’t think so, feel free to ask anything you want.
I thank you in advance for reading all this and for maybe giving me arguments to CMV to a more acceptable one so that I can discuss this topic with friends without looking like an absolute douchebag.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: It is morally wrong for professors to teach with heavy bias in foundation/required courses +
+ I currently attend a large public university in a major city (which will remain unnamed, but I’m sure some of you can guess.) As a student in the Liberal Arts College of the University I am required to take a certain number of General Education courses – to my knowledge all students except those in credit-intensive tracks (such as the art school) have to take these courses. These courses include English, Science, Race, Global Studies, Humanities, etc.
The assumed goal (as the goal posted on the university website is a pretty standard and ambiguous mission statement,) of these courses is (along with making you pay for what I consider to be unnecessary credits and often times extending a 4-year college program to a 5/6-year college program,) to make students more well-rounded and knowledgeable on topics outside the course of their study. For example, a chemistry student will learn how to successfully write a paper in their required English course, which they might not learn in their degree track (but hopefully should have learned in high school.) They will also potentially find inspiration and an honorable use for their degree in their required Humanities course, which outlines the injustices of pollution on third-world countries.
I am in the process of taking the last of these courses and most of them (all but one) were very clearly biased in a specific and similar way. The professors teach theories as 100 percent truth, as if they aren’t the most highly dispute topics of academia, and with no clear indication that there is another option. This wouldn’t bother me if I didn’t see 30 other students around me writing this information down and studying it as it if were undisputed fact. Some of these students will go on to use this information to decide their majors and ultimately their careers. In the same way a lot of people agree that forcing children to go to "Jesus Camp," (tried to link to the video of the kids crying, Youtube: 'jesus camp' for reference lol) is wrong and that the child should not be subjected to that or at least be given alternative options so that they could form their own decision:
I believe it is morally wrong for professors to teach classes that the University requires with large amount of bias (political, economic, racial, etc.) especially to freshman/sophomore students – without making their biases clear and providing alternative theories/arguments against what they’re teaching.
NOTE: tried to be as unspecific as possible
Also: please excuse poor/high school-ish writing as I do not write often
| 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 polyamoury can lead to stable long-term relationships. CMV! +
+ If you want to have multiple sexual partners, that's fine, but I don't think you can have long term, STABLE relationships with multiple partners at once. I feel that involving more than two people in a relationship causes jealousy issues. For example, in a 3 person relationship, I'm sure someone will marginally prefer one of their partners over the other. How can you fully trust your partner if you know they prefer someone else over you? And maybe some of the partners are happy, but it seems inevitable that someone will feel less satisfied. Overtime this jealousy and mistrust will cause the relationship to collapse.
I also feel that polyamory is primarily based around sex, not love. A monogamous person can love their friends, but they only sleep with their partner. It seems like the only thing separating polyamorous relationships from a monogamous couple w/ friends is that the 'friends' in the polyamorous relationship have sex. And like I said above, I don't feel that having sex with multiple people leads to stable, lasting relationships. Its seems like polyamory is a doomed attempt to combine the sexual freedom of being single with the stability of a monogamous relationship.
In the end, I don't really care if other people choose to have rocky relationships. However I do worry that there are people who prefer monogamy but feel pressured into polyamoury by someone they deeply love. I think polyamoury can lead people with low self-esteem to forgo their own needs and submit to a more dominant partner's desire to sleep around. For example, look at societies where men have many wives. It leaves such women with few rights and little power.
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: Public anonymity online is a dangerous concept that causes much more harm than good. +
+ I've been discussing this with some friends, but I thought I'd post this here, too.
I've honestly yet to hear a sound argument that would convince me that having widespread anonymity over the internet (or on video game networks, or chatroom comments, or message boards) is a good thing. (Or at least, that the good outweighs the bad.)
I understand some people have social anxiety and that they don't feel comfortable posting as themselves, that's a fair point.
But I believe the harassment, the threats, the racism, homophobia, and just general douchebaggery would be nearly eliminated if there were real names and real consequences for your words/actions online.
I'd love to get into a good conversation about this... because I think it's a very interesting topic to debate. So please, CMV!
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Incest, pedophilia, bestiality and even cannibalism, if consensual, are no less immoral than homosexuality. +
+ I was watching [Louis CK talk about gays](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eb-JZSyhWSc) and that gave rise to this question.
A bit of clarification:
* Consensual pedophilia: Sexual relationship between an adult and a child that involves the consent of both.
* Consensual bestiality: The animal involved is enjoying having sex with the human. I don't know if this is ever true but let's assume that we have a case in which it is true.
* Consensual cannibalism: The act in which a person kills and devours another person by their permission. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
The political climate in America doesn't change fast enough because our intelligent, young people are too cynical and apathetic. CMV +
+ If young people voted in similar numbers to old people, things would be very different.
The only place I've EVER seen young people discuss politics is online. Not just that, they know WAY MORE than the people I interact with that LOVE to talk politics/follow the news/etc.
It goes MUCH deeper than this, however. The internet's 24-hr "New" cycle that rewards the "zingiest" responses, instead of the most well-thought out ones.
In the rare instance that the good responses float to the top, it's quickly forgotten when someone asks the same thing the next day, and the person who cared enough to legitimately respond is gone.
Someone is always waiting in the wings to score "big points" by parroting the same tired-old "nothing's gonna change" line or something close to it.
The combination of joking and cynicism leads to a climate where no one gives a damn, and those that DO are openly ridiculed. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Engagement rings and weddings are unnecessary wastes of money +
+ I believe that expensive engagement rings and elaborate wedding ceremonies are a waste of money and only serve to make women feel spoiled and/or special.
Our society shoves the idea of a "dream wedding" down the throats of little girls, convincing them to believe they want a pretty wedding and engagement ring. Really, the money most people spend on these things could be put to much better use, like a down payment on a car.
An engagement ring serves zero purpose, and weddings only last a day. People who are really, truly in love would get just as much joy out of getting married at City Hall with a small reception for family and friends at a park or a cheap banquet hall.
Anything further is just people seeking attention and the approval of society.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I believe "White Guilt" and other factors is crippling our reach for equality +
+ I am reading an excellent book called [White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era](http://www.amazon.com/White-Guilt-Together-Destroyed-Promise/dp/0060578637) by brilliant African-American author Shelby Steele. Where I have had a general idea of the results of the civil-rights movement, Steele gave me much more valuable insight from a man watching the shift of civil-rights from the 1950s to today.
Steele makes numerous points that I find fascinating and agreeable. One of the simpler points is that *superiority does not equate equality.* This seems obvious, but you'll chuckle when you hear its practical applications. In the 1800s and a little over half of the 1900s, blacks were terribly prejudiced against physically, mentally, emotionally, and just about any horrid way you could think of through means of slavery. Gradually working their way up, we've gotten to a place where blacks, as well as other racial minorities are treated as *equals,* at least under United States law.
So now we, whites, experience something called *white guilt.* It resulted around the 1960s and caused any minuscule sense of racism to be **extremely** taboo. But you may think this is good, no? We're being conscientious of how we're speaking and acting. How is this bad?
Being sensitive and watching your mouth/actions is fine. Allowing it to elevate someone else simply due to their skin color is flat out wrong. *That's* racism in itself.
Steele equates white guilt directly to black power; to him, they are both nearly the same. The reason for this is that white guilt gives black power. We (or at least, many of us, or whites who were raised to be extremely politically correct) are all now so scared of being called a bigot, of being called a *racist,* that we'll do anything or avoid anything to be not accused as so. Because who wants to be called *intolerant,* right?
Just the mere fact that your skin color or gender can elevate your opportunities in modern society is just sad. Take university/college admission quotas, for example. Many universities have requirements on diversity that must be met every year or else they may lose some funding. Take a white student who puts a lot of effort into their school work and achieved above-average grades, and a non-white student who potentially put in a lack of effort into their school work and achieved average or below-average grades. I have no issue with scholarships or grants that are offered toward racial minority students, (heck, I don't have a problem with free tuition at all!) but when it comes down to it... The university would most likely accept the non-white student with the lower GPA than the white student with the higher GPA. Achievement or effort doesn't always matter here. Skin color does.
My bottom line is, if we **really** want equality in the United States, religion/race/sexual orientation/gender/whatever, then we need to start acting like it. Stop beating up minorities or majorities and just be *people.* Is this too much to ask?
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think the penalties for simple, avoidable mistakes while driving should be more harsh. CMV +
+ There are way too many negligent and otherwise incompetent drivers on the road, and the penalties for this should be much more harsh. Having to deal with incompetent drivers is the worst part of being in a car. I do not think that the fines should be higher because that will not solve the problem. We are way too generous letting people keep their license after proving a blatant disregard for their own safety and the safety of the people unfortunate enough to have to share the road with them. Below are some examples of how I would like to see penalties handed out in the future. **These are only meant to be a representation of what I am talking about when I say that the penalties should be 'much more harsh'. I do not want people to try to change my view on how long a person should lose his/her license if they commit one of the infractions below, I only want to debate whether or not the concept is rational.**
*I will preface this by saying that I live in the US and have no idea how other countries penalize drivers for similar infractions. I am also ignoring all additional penalties enforced by outside parties: insurance companies, civil lawsuits, criminal charges, etc.*
*****
^(After having your license suspended, drivers will be required to take a driver's education course, pass a written driving competency exam, and take a 'behind the wheel' driving course with a certified instructor, until the instructor deems that the offender is capable of driving without supervision (similar to what teen agers do to get their license in the first place)
**Crashing into a stationary object (building, telephone pole, stop sign, etc)**: License suspended for a minimum of 30 days.
**Crashing into a another car**: License suspended for a minimum of 7 days. Written apology to every person whose time you wasted by slowing down traffic.
* penalty doubled if the car you hit is not moving
* penalty tripled if you are in traffic or a city
* penalty quintupled if you hit another car while rubbernecking another accident
* driving privileges suspended indefinitely if you run into another accident on the side of the road.
**Driving slow in the passing lane**: License suspended for a minimum of 7 days. Written apology to every person whose time you wasted by slowing down traffic.
^(*slow* is anything less than or equal to the posted speed limit for the area. Additionally, if you are being tailgated or people are passing you on the right--I don't care how fast you think you are going--you aren't driving fast enough. Get out of the passing lane.)
**Impeding the flow of traffic**: License suspended for a minimum of 7 days. Written apology to every person whose time you wasted by slowing down traffic.
^(Similar to the previous, but enforced in any lane. If you are not keeping pace with a single car around you--I don't care how fast you think you are going--you are making the road more dangerous by forcing people swerving around you. If you ever think, "Wow, everyone is driving so fast", you should actually be thinking "Wow, I must be driving so slow")
**Attempting to merge while going under the speed limit/hitting your breaks in the merge lane**: License suspended for a minimum of 7 days.
^(Nobody wants to let you over when you're at a full stop in the merge lane and you're fucking with the cars behind you who are trying to use the merge lane properly. Nobody wants to let you over when you are going under the speed limit. Merge lanes exist for a reason--get up to speed, or keep driving around the cloverleaf until you are going fast enough to drive on a highway.)
*****
These would be the penalties for the first offense. The length of suspension should be larger with each subsequent suspense.
I could probably keep going for a while, but I think you get the idea. So, CMV
*****
Q: Why?
A: First of all, I think what I proposed is a lot more constructive than the current system. Currently, if you run into another car you are responsible for paying for the damages to the person unfortunate enough to have his/her entire day interrupted by your negligence. This is a great rule, but it doesn't go far enough because it doesn't address the original issue. Nothing is done to improve the offenders driving ability, there is no evaluation of whether of or not the offender was evan fit to be driving.
Q: What about weather/car malfunction/acts of god?
A: These penalties will only be enforced if it is determined to be driver error (which IIRC the legal system already determines this for accidents for insurance reasons). Weather/car failure/etc can make it harder to driver safely, but it doesn't make it impossible. These will have to be handled by a case-by-case basis
Q: How does the driver know where to send apology letters?
A: This system would work via GPS and a mobile app like [Waze](http://waze.com). When there is an accident, everyone within a certain radius of the collision gets a notification at which point you can opt-in for an apology letter via the app. Once you opt-in the driver gets your information (email or address based on user preference and privacy concerns) at which point they will be required to apologize to everyone on the list. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |