input
stringlengths 114
23.1k
| output
stringclasses 2
values | instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|
CMV: Most moms who go back to work saying that "we just can't afford for me to stay home" are lying to themselves. The reality is "staying home with my kids is just not important enough to us for us to be willing to change our current lifestyle." +
+ Before I get into my argument, here are my caveats:
* I fully believe that *some* moms truly truly cannot afford to stay home and must go back to work, but I believe this is a small percentage of the moms who say things like, "I really wish I could stay home, but we just cannot afford it." Specifically, single moms are, of course, amazing. Most of the moms I am challenging with this post are in two-adult households.
* I am *not* saying that all moms should stay home with their children. If a mom justifies going back to work because she doesn't really enjoy staying home, great! Go back to work, and know that you are being totally honest with the world and yourself. If you have any other reason for going back to work, other than some version of "we can't afford for me stay home," great! Have a great career! You are not to whom this post is addressed.
* I know that I am being terribly gender exclusive with my language. I fully support dads that want to stay home. In reality, though, I have never met one. Every person I have heard give the "can't afford to stay home" line was a woman. In reality, though, my argument would be just as valid if a couple considered the dad staying home but concluded that "we just can't afford for him to stay home."
* I personally see value in a mom staying home until all the kids are in school. To me, I do not see much value for the family in her staying home after that. **BUT THIS IS TOTALLY MY OPINION AND IS IRRELEVANT TO MY ARGUMENT.** I don't really care if you think moms and/or dads should stay home or not. I only care about why they believe they are not staying home.
Here is the core of my argument. **Many women convince themselves that they really want to stay home with the kids but that their current financial realities, over which they have no real control, will not allow them to do so. **Essentially, they are convincing themselves that powers outside of their control are dictating that they must go back to work.
I believe that, for most families who use this line, this is nonsense. There are usually options: moving to a smaller house/apartment or a cheaper town, cutting expenses (going out to eat less, cheaper vacations, consigned clothes, cord-cutting, etc.). Due to all kinds of cultural pressures, of which so many of us are largely unaware, many families legitimately feel like they cannot go without cable TV, cook dinner for themselves each night, go on cheaper vacations, etc.
I know that this post sounds incredibly judgmental. To be transparent (if you couldn't guess already), my wife is a stay-at-home-mom (SAHM) with our 11 month son. She worked in a great career until our son was born. When she had been home for a few months (technically on maternity leave from work), people began to ask when/if she would go back. When we said that she would be staying home, we were consistently met with the same reaction: "Oh, that's *wonderful!* I *really wish* that I could stay home with my X kids, but we *just can't afford* that." Often, the dad was making more than me! What? I started to get annoyed. I was not angry because these moms went back to work (do whatever you think is right), but that they were all giving us really crappy rationales for their decisions. If you want to go back to work so that you can stay in your nice house, go to the Caribbean every few years, and eat at the nice restaurant in town a few times month, that's cool, just say that. If, on the other hand, you went back to work because you just felt like you had to and never really considered making the kind of lifestyle (i.e. economic) changes it would require, then that's really sad.
Ok, reddit, change my view!
*One quick note: I have never done one of these before. I tried to be honest and direct with my view, given the point of this forum. I recognize that it sounds pretty snobbish and, well, mean. Please be assured that I never really talk this way when having an actual discussion about this stuff with working of SAH moms.*
| 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 referring, in a single work, to centuries as both the "1800s" and the "19th Century" is confusing and should be discouraged. +
+ Before pointing out the reasons for their existence, I do understand that the deficit is because of the century 0-100 AD, which is referred to as the "1st Century", making the 100s the "2nd."
However, it is better to stick with one term or another, especially when little reference is made at all to Ancient times. It stands to reason that when it comes to referencing centuries versus specific years, that the numerical system rather than the ordinal system is obviously superior; we can both designate the "1900s" and "1914", but we cannot designate an individual year with "20th century."
This system also makes it more difficult for non-English speakers to understand, as they have enough on their plate figuring out our mish-mash of a language, let alone how many dates they could get wrong during translation. Hell, I sometimes get it wrong when I'm not paying enough attention, especially when it gets back into less recent history - English speakers know automatically that "19th century" and "20th century" refer to 1800s and 1900s, but how many of us automatically make the shift when we hear "7th century"?
The only issue I can see is that when discussing Roman-era history, around the time 100 BC-100 AD, it might make referring to the "1st Century", 1-100 AD a little more difficult. However, the problem persists even in BC with the confusion of the ordinal century lagging behind the actual year date.
My CMV is that this is a confusing system and bad for international students, casual readers, and even for historians and archaeologists. The below proposal is just a suggestion for discussion, and shredding it, as I'm sure this subreddit will, will **not necessarily** change my view on the whole subject.
Therefore, I think that, when referencing these two centuries, it might be more instructive to refer to them in a similar manner that some refer to the most recent full decade, the "oughts". Given that 2000 is technically part of the 1990s, this means that 2001-2010 are referred to on occasion as the "oughts" when referring to decades, in lieu of the '20s, '30s, and so forth. So we should refer to the 1st century AD as "the ought century" AD, and then continue with 100s AD, 200s AD, and same for BC.
That was just a suggestion. On the greater subject, however, Reddit, CMV!
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe that there is no such thing as a truly selfless act. CMV +
+ I think that a truly selfless act does not exist. There isn't a person who does something in which he does not have a personal gain. Even a "truly selfless act" like that of charity is to make you feel good about yourself. You may say that soldiers giving their lives to save the country is truly selfless, but then they know that they would gain a name in the history for themselves. Also, it's not just in case of dramatic acts as these, even simple tasks like giving the directions to a tourist are done for self-satisfaction that you have helped someone. So correct me if I am wrong but I think that there is no such thing as a truly selfless act. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I am pro-gun rights because I think people who can't defend themselves against most attackers (me, for example) need to level the playing field. CMV. +
+ I am a small (under 100 lbs) female. I do not currently own a gun but I would like to buy one and learn to use it just in case I ever need to defend myself against a person much bigger than me. | 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 inheritance is bad for society as a whole in a modern society CMV +
+ I believe that inheritance of wealth inevitably prolongs the concentration of wealth in the hands of a small elite group of people and that this is bad for the majority of society.
It minimises social mobility, leaving more people locked out of a decent life. It limits the number of voices with real influence to the same people and families.
It makes even less sense in a modern society because we are so less isolated than we used to be. We are more inter-connected than ever and how our money works doesn't reflect that.
I'm not entirely against allowing small amounts of inheritance like £250,000 but certainly I think anything above 1 million should be taxed either at 100% or 95%.
I'm aware that it is natural for parents to want to provide for their children even from beyond the grave but the current system disproportionately favours a small group of people.
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 investing money is akin to betting on sports. CMV. +
+ I'll often see very conservative people who would never gamble or bet on sports griping about their portfolio's performance. However, I see investing as just as much of a gamble betting on sports. In both instances you have safer bets you can make, or bets that higher risk but ultimately with a higher reward. The more experience you have the better the chances that you'll have better outcomes. Also, the more you study sports teams, or the more you study businesses and business models, the more accurate your "bets" will become, with the main point being that in all scenarios you're trusting your money to a hand that is not your own (unless you actually work for said company, but that’s not to be concerned with in this discussion).
As a bonus, I think fixing sports matches parallels with insider trading in that they both give a predetermined outcome to the initial investment, further underlying my point that both investing and betting on sports inherently rely on assessing a risk and making a gamble.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think direct democracy would be the greatest form of decision making for the American people if applied now, CMV +
+ I don't know much of ancient Greece and how they toyed with it, however I feel that if our nation has established a constitution that works (as ours seems to, when correctly followed), abolishment of both the Electoral branch and decision making powers given to the Legislative branch would be the best thing the country could do.
In my idea of how it would work:
* Congress can write, advocate, and argue for and against laws
* Congress cannot decide on these laws, they can merely campaign for them
* Every six months, all proposed bills, etc., will be put up to vote. Every citizen may vote, or not
* Majority rule is enforced, no more than 51% is needed, thus eliminating the need for recasting the vote, tus eliminating postponement of a law
* Constitutional law may need to be **Slightly** expanded on to set some ground rules for all further law
* It needs to be very difficult to change the constitution for the above reason
What could go wrong? I think it really works, and will get America what it wants, not what politicians want. | 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 NSA does not have ulterior motives in the running of its Surveillance Program - CMV +
+ I believe --contrary to popular sentiment-- that the National Security Agency does not have any ulterior motives in the running of its PRISM surveillance program. I am of the belief that the NSA's aim in running the surveillance program is truly for national security purposes in a post-9/11 world. The National Security Agency themselves have stated that the program was established for legitimate national security purposes; couple this with the fact that the Surveillance Directorate as a terrorism detterent makes logical sense. Change my view. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I believe once a felon has been convicted and served their time, the only restrictions that should be placed on them in later life are ones which prevent them from re-offending in the same way. +
+ If the way they are treated once their time has been served takes away form how they live their life, for example as Ched Evans is not being allowed to play professional football, which is his job and should not factor in his actions, no matter what they were, then it as if saying that the jail-time they have served is not sufficient punishment for their crime. If one believes this, then what is the point of our justice system if the decisions that are made are not final, it is not the choice of the public to ruin the (hopefully) reformed person's life, because if they are not given the chance to rebuild and live a normal life, then why release them from prison.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Japan was right to specifically exclude artwork in its recent "child pornography" ban. The U.S. should follow its lead. +
+ Pretty sure this is one of those "< popular opinion >" ones, just curious if anyone disagrees with this.
So, for about 15 years it was legal to possess CP in Japan. You couldn't make it, or distribute it, but if you had it saved all you really had to say was "I got it from some other guy" and send police off in another direction. Obviously this is problematic, and it becomes hard to accurately enforce a law like this. Recently they passed a law that banned possession too, bringing Japan in line with most of the world. However, in the interest of protecting freedom of expression they made it clear that animated comics, 3D images/video and OVAs featuring animated minors were not criminalized.
Now, I think we all agree that there's a big difference between animated pics and the real deal. My claim here is about Japan specifically saying "animation does NOT count". This has a key effect: it protects the makers and consumers of material in which there is no victimization. In many places in the US, even if these animated materials are not outright banned the law is worryingly vague on the issue. If LEO wanted to, they could decide to enforce "obscenity" law on citizens at their own discretion. It's reasonable to expect that if you put an animated picture of porn (let alone porn with someone who is seemingly a minor) in front of a bunch of [WASP](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Anglo-Saxon_Protestant)s or WASPish people, they will declare it obscene and disgusting. Thus, the work is not protected and you could be imprisoned for it.
I'm not sure, but this argument is based on what *should* be and not the practical effect of the law. IIRC, up until a decade ago there were still places where it was a crime to have gay anal sex. I bet hardly anyone was ever caught and punished with this law, but that didn't mean it was okay for the law to exist. A shitty law shouldn't' be supported just because it doesn't have a big effect on people. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Developers of games that require their servers to play should be (morally) obligated to compensate players when they eventually shut down servers +
+ These days there are quite a few games that require company-side servers to run, the most notable group of which being MMOs but recently there's also a growing trend of non-MMO games that have some form of always online DRM. Now eventually all of these games will be no longer profitable for the company and the servers will be shut down, preventing anyone from ever playing the game again.
The two examples that hit me the most were EA's BattleForge (a RTS game with trading card elements) and NCSoft's City of Heroes (a MMO about being a superhero/supervillain).
Whilst I think it's perfectly within the company's ethical and legal rights to shut down servers for something they want to discontinue, I do however feel that often nothing is being done for the fans that still played the game.
My view is that if a company decides to shut off the servers to one of their products they need to do everything they can (within reason) to allow people to play their product outside of their servers. What I mean by "within reason" is that, if required, they should upload the entire game's source code and all required server files aswell as allow everyone to download their own unique account data so they can continue playing with their characters. Or, if possible (so not an MMO), simply remove the always-online DRM.
What I consider not to be in reason (although if the company wants to, all the more props to them) is for the company to have to make the server files compatible with a normal PC, for them to create modding engines, etc.
The fans of the game can certainly find ways of making the game work for them, it's just that companies currently refuse to give them anything to work with.
I believe that there's no real reason not to give players a chance to continue playing your game. If you're done with your product there's no reason to not make your code publicly known, nothing is lost for you. | 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 voice control for computers is a useless gimmick. CMV. +
+ I don't understand all the appeal of voice control (Siri, Google Now) in computers today. Voice is not information dense; any form of input or output you can do via voice you can do faster via other means. If there's anybody else in earshot, you also look like an idiot. So... why is it around?
I think it's because it looks "cool" the handful of times you actually use it - either in the store, or at home after opening the box. The reviewer who doesn't actually use the device for very long is also similarly impressed.
Beyond that, though, it's a gimmick. CMV. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I don't get the appeal of Google Glass. Please enlighten me as to why it's so awesome. +
+ Alright, so I'm a typical American consumer. I have a smartphone; it's not a high end one but it lets me browse the internet when I'm out and about and I have a few apps for it.
I was lucky enough to get to try the Google Glass at a friend's who was part of the group who got them early. But frankly, I don't see the appeal of glass over, say, a regular smartphone like the one I have now. From what I can tell, the smartphone I have is superior to Glass in every way.
PRICE
For one, Google Glass is $1,500. Compare that to just $300 for the 32GB Iphone 5s. I understand that it's brand new and the price will eventually come down, but for now, that's way too much.
SPECS
* 5 Megapixel camera for Glass, compared to 8 Megapixel for the Iphone.
* 720p video camera on Glass, compared to 1080p for the Iphone.
* 12 GB data storage capacity for Glass, compared to 16, 32, or 64 GB for the Iphone. This doesn't take cloud storage into consideration, though.
CONVENIENCE
One of the big things that I hear touted about Glass is convenience over a traditional smartphone, thereby justifying the price. But let's break that down a bit.
* I can't play games on Glass very easily, such as Tetris or Angry Birds that I can easily play on my phone with the touch screen. These are games that sort of require a touch screen in order to play effectively.
* The voice feature is nice, and is very responsive, but what if I want to send a text to someone and don't want everyone around me to know what I'm saying? What if I want to visit a website but not have everyone around me know? I could use the touchpad on the side, but it's not as quick as the keypad on my phone. Even if I got used to it, it's still probably still not as quick.
* Glass isn't a phone in and of itself, functioning more like a handsfree device. So this means that I'll have to carry around my regular phone in addition to Glass. So that means yet another device in addition to my phone that I have to charge every night and find a place to keep. But I can't keep it in my pocket like my phone, since it's glasses, and they might get crushed. I don't have a purse. And I'm certainly not wearing it clipped to my collar like a tourist because it might fall off my shirt and get smashed. I'm not wearing it on top of my head because that will look really stupid and, again, might fall off. So I either have to wear it all the time, or get some loose, big pockets to put it in.
So there goes the whole convenience argument right out the window. I'd rather just take two seconds to pull my phone out of my pocket whenever I need to use it than have the "convenience" of having it all right in front of my eyeballs all the time but at the cost of not having anything to do with the freaking thing when I'm not using it. Also, I'll still have to use my regular phone for many things, and still have to pull it out of my pocket when I need it anyway.
What else has Glass promised? Browsing through Google's app store, the list of apps available doesn't seem too impressive compared with apps already available on a standard phone. "Augmented reality?" So, like, I'm walking down the street and see Yelp reviews for all the restaurants appear in front of my eyes? Or see driving directions pop up right in front of me?
That would be great if I ever actually went anywhere, but I've lived in the same town for years and pretty much know all the good restaurants and know my way around already. I go on a road trip maybe once a year and I just use the GPS in my car. Works great.
What else? Night vision goggles? Uh, okay, if I ever need to see in the dark and don't happen to have a flashlight or the light on my phone, that'll be great.
So, all you glass enthusiasts out there, please tell me what the appeal is of Google Glass.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: We Should Not Have a Death Penalty, even for Monsters like Tsarnaev +
+ Simply by allowing the government and courts to legally kill people, we're opening up a slippery slope ensuring at least some innocent people will be killed, should new twists in their case be unearthed. Look at the Tawana Brawley case where a brutal, racist gang rape by six white men turned to be entirely fabricated by the black female victim. Sadistic rape is enough to warrant the death penalty in at least a few jurisdictions, and was used to falsely convict and lynch black people in the past. By allowing for a death penalty, you're opening up a horrific can of worms and the potential for abuse. Texan governor Rick Perry has shown to be quite trigger-happy with it, killing clinically retarded criminals and even one guy after he was already acquitted.
Do people want their catharsis? Undoubtedly, but I think it's a better idea to just lock monsters up in Supermax under a four point restraint 23 hours a day, so they can regret their existence and go mad from all the guilt and boredom. Contract it out to private companies, so taxpayers pay for as little of this as possible.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
The US is suffering institutional decay, much like Roman and Chinese empires did before their collapse. Justice is for sale. Extortion is routine (court settlements). Police powers are excessive. The legislature is corrupt. CMV +
+ Every branch of government is in decline.
Judiciary- It exists to answer important questions, and settlements and plea bargains don't do that. Often the best course of action for an innocent person is to lie and accept a lesser charge rather than go to trial. Encouraging people to lie is not what justice is supposed to do. And people who can afford better lawyers get better outcomes.
Executive- Police are becoming militarized. SWAT teams do things that should be routine and nonviolent. The gulf between the populace and those who enforce the law has never been wider. Police training even uses cult tactics to break down the psyche of new recruits and rebuild them as Police. It's become Us vs. Them.
Legislative- Senators and representatives take cash from lobbyists. They claim this does not affect their votes, but statistics says it does. Even if it only appeared to be corrupt, but actually wasn't, that would severely erode confidence in government and would require change. The truth is they tangle up the tax process because that gives them leverage, they support corporate interests the most because they pay the most, and they collude to ensure this situation does not change. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Women playing in Mens' sports leagues is sexist. CMV +
+ Jennifer Welter has just signed for the Texas Revolution indoor Men's American football league. People are applauding the team for being modern and applauding the woman for pushing herself.
FIFA, in 2004 denied Marbiel Rodriguez from joining a men's Mexican football (soccer) team. Many people called FIFA sexist, and that because "we are living in the 21st century" she should have been allowed to play. They say that because it is a competitive sport then women should be allowed, and not discriminated against.
But I believe that allowing women IN is sexist. If a man can't join a women's team, that is just an insult to women's sport. Are people saying that the women's leagues are less skilled? Surely that is sexist...
The only way to be truly equal is to let men into women's leagues too. And that just defeats the point of having separate leagues. We either have gender separation or total integration.
This is an insult to women's sport worldwide, saying that if they are good enough to play with men then they can is just stating that women are worse, which is sexist.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Pork is the most versatile of all meats +
+ Pork, is by far the most versatile of meats. It has more variety than any other animal can offer.
The ears can be used for dog treats.
The shoulder is used for pulled pork and similar dishes.
The arms can be used for sausage.
The loin can be used for roasts or dishes like pork chops.
There are both spare and baby back ribs.
Hind legs are what we consider to be ham (whether lunch meat or ham steaks).
What's important here is just how different all these parts are and the resulting dishes. Also I am only counting dishes consisting of pure meat, I'm not counting anything that can be used as just a part of a dish such as in stews or chilis. I believe that no other animal can compare to the variety of meat offered by pigs.
CMV! | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Venezuela is not a socialist country but a communist country. +
+ I don't know anything about Venezuela. I just read this article (http://www.cityam.com/article/1393351308/how-socialism-has-destroyed-venezuela) about how socialism destroyed Venezuela, and how the people there are pissed because the government has too much power and control, because of "socialism". From what I understand, socialism is supposed to be democratic and acknowledge the point of view of the middle class. In socialism, there should be no poverty, no suffering, and no need for a revolution unless someone is opposed to the system because they want to be self-sufficient and independent (which I can understand, but this seems to be more about poor living conditions and less about individuality). Socialism is similar to communism because economics are controlled by the government, but socialism is supposed to be less authoritative and more democratic, and clearly that is not happening here, which is why I think this is communism and not socialism.
In case anyone is wondering, I stumbled upon this article on a Libertarian blog post about why Bernie Sanders should not be the next president of the United States due to his socialist views. I always try to make the argument to Libertarians that any nation where the people are suffering is not the true intent of socialism and Marxism, and that free market capitalism is, in fact, more likely to result in poverty than true socialism. You are welcome to debate me on this as well. I'll admit I'm still fairly new to economics as I am a senior in high school so any information you guys can give me, from a capitalist perspective or a socialist perspective (or even a resource-based economy perspective) is appreciated!
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think relationships and sex aren't worth the effort to get, CMV +
+ It's kind of sad how many people are desperate for a relationship or to have sex. I used to be like that, but then the desire just died away over time. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
We should treat alcohol like sex: don't force teenagers to abstain, but teach them to use it in a safe way. CMV. +
+ I'm Dutch, and here you can drink alcohol when you're sixteen. Next week/year, this age will be raised to eighteen. It's 21 in the US, right?
I don't think this is a good idea. Teenagers who *want* to drink will find a way to acquire alcohol. If they can't do it legally, they will go to an unofficial place and drink the beer an older friend bought in the supermarket.
Most of us understand that sex education is important, and that it works better than forcing teenagers to abstain. I believe the same applies to alcohol. Sex seems to be even more dangerous than alcohol: you need to drink an excessive amount of alcohol before it causes real immediate problems, but it's easy to get an STD or get pregnant from sex.
My parents regularly asked me whether I wanted to taste their wine or beer since I was 12 or 13. I started drinking with friends when I was 15 - never more than two glasses in one day. I'm in my 20s now. I've never been drunk, alcohol is not a real temptation or problem to me and I don't drink often.
When you actively prohibit teenagers from drinking alcohol, it becomes a temptation. They want to do what is forbidden. If you treat it like it's very special and not a normal part of life, it becomes special to them as well. This doesn't help anybody.
So the best approach seems to be to teach teenagers how to drink responsibly. It's just like driving and sex: it can be very dangerous, but it's fun and harmless when you do it 'the right way'.
**How to change my view**
There are probably many ways to change my view that I'm not aware of, but here are some things I thought of:
* A link to a source that explains that alcohol is harmful to 16 year olds, even if you only drink small amounts
* Comparisons between nations/states with high and low age restrictions on alcohols and alcohol-related problems. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV - Corporal Punishment should be reintroduced into school +
+ I believe corporal punishment should be reintroduced into schools.
The behaviour of students in class nowadays is appalling. They believe they can get away with anything such as not completing school tasks and disrespecting the teacher by talking back or being disruptive in class.
Leaving a physical mark on the student such as the hand or arm including the pain that it comes should be enough to remind them of what they did wrong and if they are punished in front of their peers, the social embarrassment of being beaten in front of them will be enough to effectively change the behaviour of the student. They make be strong will in their attitude but in the end everyone breaks before their hand will.
In today's society, they believe that corporal punishment is abusive and just wrong. I believe that to be stupid. Yes, I know teachers will abuse this kind of power, but it can be set up so that they are blacklisted and jailed. But listen, the student isn't going to die. They'll feel the pain, they'll realise the error of their way, and if they continue they'll continue to receive the ultimate punishment and leave school with nothing in their hands. And what's life without pain. Teenagers and children should be awaken to the light that life isn't all fun and games and do whatever you want. Its survival of the fittest and if you aren't strong enough to fit into today's society, how else will you contribute towards it. In the end, I'll be paying for your dole money, or you'll be cleaning up after me. But with the reintroduction of corporal punishment, this can be decreased and the country's future will be improved as the younger generation will learn the error of their ways and live life to their full potential or to something that won't amount to nothing.
Granted this form of punishment won't work on all students and some may be diagnosed with ADHD so the impulsivty in the students is quite astounding and it can be dealt with but the most effective form would be ritalin.
Now reddit
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: Gay people should be allowed to give blood. +
+ Today I was asked by a friend if I gave blood, I said no but I'd like to. I returned the question and he replied no, that he wanted to but he's not allowed, because of his sexuality.
This is absolutely appalling. How can they discriminate and be homophobic? Apparently gay males are at high risk of STIs, oh sure because all gay men sleep around and are infectious, but no heterosexuals are all perfect. There are such things as sluts and man-whores, why are they allowed?
Blood is screened anyway so they'd see if the blood had anything in it, so what's the issue? This law will have turned down so many good, willing blood donors, but they can't help because they're gay.
I just do not understand. The only difference between a gay man and a straight man is who they are attracted to, not their bodies, not their brain, not their species and certainly not their blood. Gays and straights are exactly the same biologically and have equal health potential. Everyone is at equal risk of getting an STI and if you aren't careful it's YOUR fault, not because you're gay, not because you're straight, because you weren't cautious.
What if your child was dying, they have a rare blood type and there is no blood to give. A person comes along, wants to donate their blood and has the correct type for your child, great your child will live! But no. They die because blood was not allowed to be given, that donor was a gay.
Discriminating because someone homosexual is absolutely disgusting.
Change my view, gays should be allowed to give blood.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Paper checks are a pain in the ass for everybody, and should be discontinued +
+ Once upon a time, paper checks were a practical, easy way to transfer money from a checking account to another account. However, with today's technology (debit cards), the need for them has disappeared.
Direct deposit is paperless removes the need for paper checks for employers to pay their employees.
Outside of the workplace, the only people who seem to pay with paper checks are older people, who seem to not have a problem with paper checks and have no reason to adapt, even though it causes an inconvenience to people waiting in line behind them.
CMV | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: There is no such thing as "evil" +
+ I believe the word "evil" is a lazy description of any persons actions and that the concept of evil, especially in the metaphysical sense, is completely non-existent. Furthermore, I believe the use of the word "evil" when referring to one or one's actions is toxic to public perception of psychology and morals.
The most heinous, terrible, selfish, disgusting acts that a person can commit can always (in my experience) be considered critically and be shown to have more practical roots than the over-arching, massive title of calling them or their actions "evil".
If we are to have a conversation on the matter devoid of religious belief (which I would strongly prefer), I see, as of now, no practical reason to see "evil" as a realistic, viable description of anything ever.
CMV?
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe that being overweight should not be someone's right, and the government should be able to tax someone for being obese. CMV +
+ Obesity is a rapidly growing epidemic in my country (America) and I am fully convinced the government should be able to imply additional taxes against the severely overweight.
I firmly believe that Americans are generally more greedy than glutinous and would be strongly encouraged to strive for better health as to not loose more money. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV that non violent inmates should go on parole halfway through their sentence and be paid 50% of the cost it would take to jail them if they avoid violating parole. +
+ I think this could save tax payers a lot of money. I also think that it would give a real motivation to reform. If I were an offender and I knew that by simply not breaking the law I would have money for food and shelter I might be able to resist the urge to do bad things. This is similar to having a universal income which might go a long way in preventing crime, but I don't think the world is ready for that. Convince me that there is value in spending additional tax payer dollars in avoiding the above described program.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I really don't care for endangered species of animals (Tigers, Condors, etc) CMV +
+ I get strange looks from peers and family when I say that I really don't care about endangered animals. I understand that many of the reasons why these animals are endangered and even extinct due to humanity's greed and other factors but other than that I really don't care.
Its a shame that many animals are overhunted but does this really affect me? Other than people giving me dirty looks I just can't muster any other sympathy for animals. I don't know if this is how most feel but in essence I just could not care less. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The world is going in a downward spiral so I should just avoid all attachments until the end comes. +
+ I fully believe that society as we know it will not last beyond the middle point of this century. The economy keeps getting worse and any and all alternatives to capitalism are impractical. People will never become more longsighted and cooperative than they are right now, which is not very. The environment is irreversibly damaged and the rich and powerful will keep on destroying it and since most of them are elderly, they will laugh themselves to the grave as everyone else is raped, eaten and starved.
I have struggled with loneliness all my life and always had trouble connecting to people (a near decade of bullying severed my connection to the human race). I had very few friends and never had a relationship at the age of 33. However, that might be a blessing in disguise. If I were to pursue a relationship, that would mean I would have a family to defend. I want the freedom to be able to kill myself when the chaos erupts. If I had a family, I would be bound to a hellish world (the only alternative would be murder suicide, which I could never do).
I have never mentioned this to anyone and I hope someone can convince me otherwise. Please 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: A Mexican Border Fence Would Be an Ineffective Deterrent, and a Colossal Waste of Taxpayer Money and Resources +
+ I simply cringe whenever right wing xenophobes in America suggest building a 2,000 mile Great Wall of Mexico to keep out "illegal wetbacks". We're talking a 20-foot metal and concrete barrier erected for multiple billions of taxpayer dollars, that could be easily bypassed by cunning traffickers with ladders, shovels, blowtorches, and sledgehammers. Where there's a will, there's a way. People who risk their lives clinging to the top of a speeding freight train obviously are not going to be deterred by the next Berlin Wall. Why don't we just declare open borders and put an end to all this paranoid protectionism?
| 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 the whole self-driving car technology is overhyped and that there are a number of much more important aspects of automobile innovation that we should be focusing on first. CMV +
+ This kind of started off as an argument with my roommates and I, however I recently noticed on thread here on Reddit (the one on what people 100 years from now will find barbaric that we find acceptable now) that my opinion seems to be the unpopular one on the matter.
I live in Toronto, which for all intents and purposes is a fairly large, densely populated city (~3 million in the city proper), and so yes I deal with congestion, gridlock, and generally stupid drivers on a regular basis. Nevertheless I still love driving. Part of the reason is because of how inefficient our public transit system is one could still get around the city in the same amount of time as it would to drive, even in rush-hour traffic. Sure parking might be an expensive inconvenience from time to time, but I like many people drive not just as a mode of transportation, but because its actually an enjoyable activity for me.
I understand that self-driving cars *could* eliminate gridlock and save "countless" lives by removing the human error that comes with driving (I emphasize the could because from what I know there aren't any actual statistics or studies that I am aware of that can support this). That said, I think people forget that even extremely simple technology does fail from time to time. If anything were to go wrong in a self-driving car, how would someone be able to intervene? I mean if we were introduced to self-driving cars tomorrow, I wouldn't be as concerned because most people would know how to control the vehicle. But if years from now, when people have become accustomed to self-driving cars, would they know how to control the car if the self-driving mechanism fail, or would it be just a matter of placing complete faith in a computer technology created by the same humans who's error we're trying to avoid?
I personally think it would also take what enjoyment there is in driving away from the experience. As mentioned, if I wanted a mode of transportation where I didn't have to do anything (at all) I would just take public transit. I enjoy driving because I can control both my speed and my route (if I want to go out of my way to take a more scenic route home, I have the option), all in the comfort of a private vehicle with my own music playing and my own company. Although a self-driving car wouldn't affect the latter, the former (which is the reason why I drive rather than ask others for rides) would be compromised.
There's an entire culture and community around driving that revolves around making improvements to what you drive and I can't help but feel that'd completely disappear with self-driving cars. I wouldn't be opposed to people buying self-driving cars if that's truly what they want (no different that people who chose to buy cars with automatic transmissions) or even if there were the option to turn on a self-driving mode (which I'll admit would be nice in bumper-to-bumper traffic where you're really not even driving anyways), but my view is exactly that to have the **option**. So Reddit, I apologize for my long-winded post but I look forward to you changing my view so that I might be more open to the idea of this technology that so many people are sure might become the new norm !
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
The Role of Judas in the Bible Dismantles the Belief in a Loving Christian God. CMV. +
+ It's been noticed by many readers of the bible that the acts of Judas are difficult to judge. If Judas had never betrayed Jesus, there would have been no path to the crucifixion. There would have been no resurrection. No redemption. He did betray god, but that was part of the plan. Someone had to do it.
What does this mean for Judas? He was guilty of the greatest sin. He denied the living god. The bible is clear that this is one of the most unforgivable sins, but maybe Jesus would have a more compassionate tone for this man given his necessary role in god's plan and the redemption of all mankind...
No, it appears Judas is not spared. Judas will suffer eternal separation from god. Or "hell" as they've named it. This is from the mouth of Jesus that Judas is condemned. God's plan demanded that someone betray his son. And it appears that Jesus was always aware of who it would be. This wasn't a random individual who would carry this burden. God condemned one man.
One person was going to be sacrificed to save mankind. But it wasn't Jesus. The bible makes this clear. Jesus would be resurrected after his death and returned to his father to live forever again in paradise. It was really Judas that would be sacrificed. Judas is the one who has actually lost something in this story. He was the one given to the gates of hell so that all others could have a chance at eternal life. An infinitely cruel act. At least Lucifer was given a choice. Judas never had a chance.
Given this reading of the bible, I don't see how it is possible to consider the Christian god to be a loving or compassionate god. He seems to have designed all of creation to hinge on the eternal torture of one unfortunate soul who is explicitly condemned for his predestined role in it all. 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 polyamory is stupid. +
+ Polyamory just seems like a rather immature way to have a relationship with. There's no real commitment going on and that's what bugs me. It's like a way of cheating without it being called cheating. A relationship should be between two people. Not 3, 4, 5, or however many you choose to have. The responses I usually get are as follows:
**1. We're just sharing the love.**
No, you're not. Love is not something you can throw around nilly willy. It's like a 14 year old girl who has a crush on every hot boy in the school. Even if that's not the case it's impossible to love everyone equally. You're always gonna love someone more than another. And it's only a matter of time before you pick someone in your love circle to be monogamous with.
**2. Romantic love between two people is a social construct.**
True, but maybe that's because love itself is a social construct? Women and men fucked back in the primal ages because that's what we're wired to do. Fuck and populate. As we started to grow wiser and form social constructs the idea of love came into play. When this argument is thrown around you're basically telling me you're a caveman and we should go back to our primal instincts. (Which we should not.)
**3. Polyamory relationships work out just fine.**
Yeah, maybe for a few months to a year or two. If you're lucky. They never work. Don't give me that shit.
**4. We're all consenting adults why does it matter?**
Because it's stupid. To me, this all feels like a way to avoid commitment and remain indecisive while still having people to screw on the side. I believe it to be selfish because one person isn't enough for you when it very well should be.
So, 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: Products that are natural are always safer and better for you than synthetic or manufactured products. +
+ Change my view.
Natural foods, medicines, cosmetic products that come from natural sources are better for you than synthetic products.
My reasoning goes as follows, these substances have been on earth for thousands of years utilized by man for very long, we know what is dangerous and what are not, substances made in labs tend to be relatively new and whose potential side effects are not well known.
This goes for everything in my opinoin, a shampoo made from natural ingredients will be better than all the crap they put in Axe shampoo, makeup made from natural products will be safer.
Morphine is natural and how it affects an individual is well known and recorded, be it in opium or concentrated hospital doses, versus some sort of synthetic opiate.
Change my view.
I'm aware cyanide and rat poison may be natural, but are those marketed as edible?
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: It's futile to tackle extremism without fixing or replacing capitalism. +
+ I'll speak from experience here. I have a postgraduate education from two top 100 global universities and yet still am stuck in an entry-level job where I am expected to work a full week and be on call 24/7. I have even looked to get out of my industry and even the US but unfortunately am losing hope that the economy is any better anywhere less. Plus, my culture deeply frowns on people who don't have materialistic goals and who don't want to work for a capitalist slave driver. As such, I am increasingly radical and am being attracted to Russia, ISIS, radical Marxists, and European nationalists. The evidence shows that I'm not alone; I have been unable to date as every woman my age is working her butt off just to pay the bills. Statistics show that this is a global trend; most people are worse off absolutely than they were in 2010 as global capitalism runs rampant and even the nations that did things right like Sweden are under pressure. Injustice, not poverty, is the breeding ground of terror
| 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 the music of pop stars like Justin Bieber and Miley Cyrus is that bad and people need to lighten up +
+ I'm not a big fan of "superstar" pop, but I've never thought the music was that bad. Yes, the tunes are kinda unoriginal, and the lyrical themes are samey, but they're still somewhat enjoyable to listen to. They're not "cultural trash" by any means.
A lot of these stars do stupid things, but that doesn't mean their music is bad. A lot of people make the fallacy that shitty public behavior means the person is bad musician, which is obviously wrong (did being an alcoholic make Ernest Hemingway a bad writer? did John Lennon cheating make him a bad songwriter?).
In any case, I think people are way too judgmental about what other people listen to. You can listen to your music, I can to my music, and Joe Bloggs can listen to Katy Perry and Justin Bieber, and we can all be happy. The genres of music you like to listen to will always be around no matter how popular the Mileys of the world will be.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:Denying children vaccination is a form a child abuse and should be illegal. +
+ Vaccination saves lives. Parents who deny their children the right to vaccinations because of their superstitions or religious beliefs are harming their children and should be held legally responsible. Failing to vaccinate either your child and even yourself is irresponsible behavior and not only are you putting your child at risk, but you are also putting others around you at risk as well. Children who can't receive vaccinations and develop immunity to the diseases rely on the community to get vaccinated. Therefore, refusing to vaccinate your child is not only a form of child abuse, but it is also putting others at risk. It's not a personal choice issue. It's civic responsibility. Everyone should be vaccinated and everyone should be required to vaccinate their children. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think straight people do not belong in gay bars. CMV +
+ From my understanding after reading stories from numerous stories (I haven't actually frequented a gay bar myself due to lack of willing peers) that straight people are actually harmful at gay bars. The straight women go to avoid being hit on my straight men and to view the spectacle of gay men and women interacting. The straight men go to prey on unsuspecting straight women. And both the straight men and women will usually get insecure and/or insulted if a gay man or woman tries to hit on them. It seems unfair for gay men and women to have to deal with this in a place that is made for them.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think A Feast for Crows was a sub-par novel, CMV +
+ Out of all the Song of Fire and Ice novels, it was easily the least interesting, but I felt like it fell short of Martin's normally fantastic writing abilities.
Cersei - In the first three novels, Cersei was portrayed as a conniving, scheming, evil mastermind. She came out on top again and again, but in AFFC she mysteriously becomes a crazy, paranoid lunatic who is totally incapable of making any good decisions when it comes to ruling. It was such a stark (har) departure from her earlier characterization it threw me for a loop.
The cast of characters in AFFC didn't really do anything interesting. Everything having to do with the Iron Islands is just uninteresting. Their actions are totally removed from what the rest of the world is doing; they have no effect on anyone and no seemingly interesting plotlines that could spring from them until Euron shows off that horn at the end of the book (In the last chapter) after a long and boring build up.
I love Brienne of Tarth, but she doesn't do anything of note other than wander around aimlessly, stumbling upon some random ex-mercenaries, and (Once again in her last chapter) stumbles into something that might actually be interesting.
Sansa continues to be a disappointment in all aspects, which is nothing new, so I suppose I cannot fault Martin here.
Overall, the book just seems like filler. It's just setup for A Dance With Dragons, but without any truly interesting suspense.
And no, I'm not just bitter that Danny didn't get any chapters, but it doesn't help Martin either.
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 that young people have the authority to consent to sexual activities with each other or consenting adults CMV +
+ I do not believe in an arbitrary age of consent but rather believe that no person (or agency) has the power to override a person's personal consent to something, but I am open to other logic because I do believe unwanted child sexual contact is a serious problem that can have painful lasting consequences and should be prevented. | 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 see anything wrong with a consenting adult having as many sex partners as they want. CMV. +
+ I should clarify by saying that the title is a little misleading: What I meant is that how many sex partners a consenting adult has is no one's business but their own. Obviously it's optimal if they are safe and honest with their partners, but getting pregnant or an STI is the risk they are undertaking when they decide to have unsafe sex. I'm a big advocate of sexual education so that people know that these are very real risks, but it's their responsibility and prerogative to do what they wish with their bodies.
Basically, what I'm saying is that it's no ones business how many people I, or anyone else, has slept with, not even a potential partner, and no one has the right to look down on anyone of either sex if they chose to be "promiscuous". I honestly can't think of any arguments from the other side that have swayed my opinion thus far, and that's why I'm asking you guys to try to CMV so I can get an understanding of what other people think. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe, political and economic factors aside, Islam is fundamentally a religion that teaches violence. CMV. +
+ I dont have extensive knowledge of Islam and I hope this is not true (hence posting in CMV). However, from what I understand, the prophet Muhammad was a violent war lord who had numerous child brides, the Qur'an preaches Jihad, and Sharia law promotes violence and intolerance. I believe most Muslims are peaceful good people but are so out of goodness of their hearts and not because they are following Islamic principles. Like many religious people it's easier to pick and choose the sections that preach things that they want to be true instead of the entirety of the text which is largely violent and amoral.
1. I dont care if politics is the driving force of the violence the fact is it's not hard to go directly to the source(Qur'an, Muhammad) to justify it. Not saying the vast majority do but tell me how the religion is not inherently violent.
2. No. Just because it was acceptable at the time doesnt make it acceptable for the messenger of your God. Representatives of God are held up to different standards than George Washington.
3. Saying that "well all religions can be interpreted as violent" or "you can interpret it anyway you want" doesnt work either because I'm not debating how it **can** be interpreted, I'm debating how it is most easily and rationally interpreted. You dont get to decide what you want to believe and then try to apply it to your religion. It's suppose to work the other way around. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: No CEO should make more than 500x their lowest paid worker. +
+ It seems to me that we always look at improving the quality of life for the poorest citizens, but nobody dares mention reducing the lavishness of the ultra wealthy.
By implementing a system that requires CEO to pay his workers more money in order to make more money himself, wealth is better distributed without removing the incentive to work hard and earn more. A 500x increase is still a huge disparity.
In 2010 the CEO of Walmart made $35,000,000, the average sales associate made just over $15,000. The CEO made 2333x more than he was paying the average associate.
If this limit was implemented the CEO would make a maximum of 7,500,000 if he wanted to continue paying his workers so poorly.
Or he could increase their wages and at the same time increase his. It's not communism, it's moderated capitalism.
I am not someone who has studied economics or business, I am coming to CMW with an open mind to learn why a system like this supposedly doesn't work.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think catholic priests shouldn't be able to get married- CMV +
+ The Bible is always right. God says they Shouldn't. Priests should stay celebate. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: A world in which meat from animals is not consumed would feel cold and lifeless to me. +
+ Food is a joy of life. There is a carnal pleasure in biting into flesh. That is why animals will be killed and eaten even after we are perfectly capable of growing meat in a lab. What you are arguing against, to be sure, is a fundamental desire of humans on par with procreation. I only say this so that you know what you're trying to change. I'm not sure I want to live in a society that is so separated from our origins. I'm not saying that I disagree with the idea that killing animals is wrong but there is a definite conflict there between this ideal that vegetarians strive for and my own idea of a world filled with strong emotion and indulgence in our built-in desires.
When I think of the future utopian, vegetarian society it feels cold and lifeless. It feels too politically correct and I would be afraid to offend on a constant basis. I actively despise tiptoeing-through-the-tulips with people who are easy to anger and judgement. To me, it's not just about the fact that some people don't want us to eat animals, it's about the whole political platform behind that culture. It feels like a culture that supports bigotry as a way to shame others in the same way that they protest against.
I guess, fundamentally, it seems hypocritical and lacks the 'progress' in thought that I want from a movement. I want to see new ways of changing people's minds, not the same old tactic that has been used by the likes racists, homophobes, and misogynists for thousands of years.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe that facilities like Guantanamo Bay should continue to exist and the state should be able to deny terrorists any human rights. CMV +
+ I believe that with rights come responsibilities. Children are not afforded the right to drive, and when they grow old enough to do so, they gain both a right and a responsibility. The same goes with voting, gun ownership, and alcohol consumption.
I believe that terrorists, by depriving innocents of their rights, should also lose their rights. They have ignored their responsibilities to be decent human beings. Now, many may argue that "Well, Scumbag Steve is also not being a decent human being!" For the purposes of this argument, we'll define "decent" as not deliberately depriving civilians or innocents of rights.
Let's define a terrorist. Merriam-Webster defines terrorism as: The use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal.
Well, that's a bit vague. You could call any country's military terrorists. How about: "The use of violent acts deliberately targeting civilians as the primary target to frighten..."
That is what terrorists do. They bomb subways and buses. Crowded locations are their prime targets a majority of the time. Not military bases.
The accusation that Bush, the US military, etc. are terrorists is unfounded, because there is a difference between collateral damage as a result of war and terrorist attacks. Relatively speaking, the modern US military does a great job of avoiding civilian casualties. Look at how civilian centers were deliberately targeted during WWII by both sides compared to today (one could argue that the Israeli practices towards Palestinian civilians can be equatable to terrorism because they make no distinction between civilians and terrorists).
People complain about waterboarding. I agree that pointless torture for the fun of it is wrong. Abu Gharib was wrong. But if that CIA operative has just cause to torture, because that information can help catch other terrorists or stop an attack, he or she should be able to do whatever he or she wants.
An individual should not be allowed to violate a prisoner for enjoyment. That might ruin his future usefullness as a source of information.
An individual acting on the orders of a government should be able to violate a prisoner for information.
Should the prisoners get trials? Absolutely. I disagree with the current practice of holding them without trial. Innocent until proven guilty. But once we know that they are terrorists, we should not give them any mercy.
And it's not just terrorists. Serial killers, human traffickers, they all deprive innocent people of their rights. And they deserve none in return.
This probably happens already. But I am arguing that it is **morally** correct to do so.
TL:DR;
There are civilian and military targets. If you do not discriminate between the two or target primarily civilians in your attacks in the modern world, you do not deserve human rights. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: sixteen year olds should be allowed to vote. +
+ I think that on the whole teenagers are Responsible, even if slightly immature at times. Sure, there are a few (well, more than a few) bad eggs in the bunch, but the majority can make a decision if given guidance and lessons from their mums and dads. However, my friends say the complete opposite. So reddit, CMV. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I see nothing wrong with the word "retarded". +
+ I don't mean when talking about someone with any disabilities, I mean strictly when you are talking to a friend and they did something dumb, and you yell out "Are you retard?!" Many people will have problems with this, yet I don't get why.
Person A and Person B are driving in a car. Person B is telling person A to turn on X road. Person A misses the turn and Person B says "What are you, blind?!" No one is going to be offended by this. Not a single eye will be batted.
Or, If Person B is yelling for Person A and after a minute or so, finally get's his attention, Person B may say "What are you, deaf?!" Again, no one will even flinch at this .
However, if Person A does something dumb and Person B says "what are you, retarded?!" the PC Police will be all over his ass and saying how insensitive he is being.
I believe that the use of retard in this case is perfectly fine and shouldn't offend anyone, just like calling someone deaf or blind doesn't. | 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 a "world police" is basically a good thing, and that if America has the resources to take that role, it should. +
+ I think many of us would agree that the idea of a capable, positive moral force that exists to preserve the freedoms of civilians all over the world is a good thing. I believe that if America happens to be capable of physically enforcing a "moral majority" on a global scale, then it should.
Please change my view.
Note: I do not mean to say that America *is* the most effective moral judge, nor that they are practicing the "world police" role effectively, currently. I am speaking more hypothetically: " If a force capable of extending protection and advocacy to oppressed peoples is a good thing, then the force capable of extending that protection ought to do so."
I do no think that examples of past world-policing actions by America will change my view, as I am more interested in this question prompting solutions to how an effective, moral world police could or could not be achieved. I do not think America is currently the most moral, just that they are the most capable, given infrastructure, equipment, technology and manpower.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think Social Security should by definition be tied to the average age of death. CMV +
+ Social Security in the United States is unsustainable. When it was created, life expectancy was much shorter and people did not generally live on it for very long. Now, people can be dependent on their Social Security paycheck for thirty years or more. With the average life expectancy going up so much, this model is mathematically guaranteed to fail in this generation at this rate.
Yeah, it will hurt, but it needs to gradually be pushed back to, say, the average lifespan minus five years (so roughly 72). Perhaps in the eight or so years between the current age and the new one there would be a dormant period where those still working would neither pay into the program nor receive from 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 there should be no distinction between chemical and conventional warfare. CMV +
+ Basically, both of them have similar objectives, similar implementation, and similar results.
Both Chemical and conventional weapons are intended to be used to kill people. Both of them can be used to achieve similar total death tolls. Why is it worse for people to have been gassed to death than for them to die slowly with shrapnel stuck in their gut?
This also relates to international intervention. If we don't distinguish between the two types of warfare then there won't be international outcry over *chemical* warfare anymore, but rather on warfare as a whole, which could work to eliminate a negative stigma associated with this issue and could then lead to countries intervening more often in cases of domestic violence.
On an effect-level basis, both the types of warfare are similar once again. The usage of either types of weaponry will end in the death of people. Realizing this to be a necessary side-effect of warfare, how can we judge that the usage of chemical weapons will cause more pain/agony than conventional warfare when even bullets and shrapnel can lead to horrible situations like perforated lungs? Since we can't, it doesn't make much sense to draw a line between them.
Drawing this line also seems to make conventional warfare look better than it is. One important realization which this makes us overlook is that all warfare is inherently harmful. By setting these levels of prioritization we're essentially making chemical weapons a bigger deal, and to some degree we're justifying the usage of "accepted", or conventional warfare, which I believe to be morally flawed considering the basis for that argument.
Well guys, 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 a person can only be straight, bi, or gay (three sexual orientaions) and that any person who is otherwise wants to be considered "special" CMV +
+ I believe that you are either straight, bisexual, or gay and that being "poly"/"pan"/mono sexual is a recent invention that came because people wanted to be special.
Basically there are 3 sexual orientations
For those who do not knowHeterosexual, or Straight: An attraction to the opposite sex.
Bisexual - Attraction to both sexes.
Homosexual or Gay - Attraction to the same sex.
Pansexual, or Omnisexual - Liking someone no-matter what their gender is.
Asexual - Having no attraction to either sex.
Polysexual - Liking more than one sex but not identified as bisexual because that implies there are only two genders or sexes.
Please try to refrain from posting your own life stories.
My View has been changed | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Any belief system that includes the fundamental belief that theft is morally wrong is incompatible with a belief that taxes are right. CMV +
+ To preface, I myself subscribe to a belief system that theft is morally wrong ("Thou shalt not steal."), and I do believe taxes are, at best, a necessary evil. I do not mean for this to be attacking the belief that theft and stealing is wrong.
Anyways, I see and hear many people who claim these and similar beliefs arguing that taxes are morally right. For example, the ten commandments includes "Don't steal", and the rest of the bible has no exception for taxes ("give to Caesar" is for the taxee, not the taxer. It is not condoning taxes, but is more of an extension of "turn the other cheek".)
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: We should prohibit some people from possessing or consuming alcohol like we do with firearms +
+ Note: This is related to United States law, but in theory it could apply to other places. I am specifically arguing this from a perspective of US law.
There are various things that disqualify people from being allowed to purchase or possess firearms or ammunition. These generally include (sometimes depending on state) being involuntarily committed to a mental institution, being the target of a restraining order, being adjudicated by a court to be mentally unfit to stand trial, being convicted of a violent misdemeanor or a domestic violence crime, and being convicted of a felony.
Most people seem to be perfectly happy with prohibiting some people from possessing firearms based on their history, convictions, mental illness, etc. I believe we should be very careful with who we remove constitutionally protected rights from, but I am ok with removing firearm rights through due process of law in most of the cases where we do under current law.
My question is why do we not remove the privilege of people to possess and consume alcohol under certain circumstances? This isn't a constitutionally protected right, and removal of that freedom would be done with due process anyway, so there is no particular reason why we cannot do it.
We should create a list of offenses that disqualify a person from being allowed to possess or consume alcohol. That list should include people with a DUI conviction that resulted in injury or death to an innocent person, with a felony DUI conviction (multiple DUIs in a short period, DUI while on a suspended license, etc), people with a domestic violence or child endangerment conviction that was alcohol related, and perhaps even people who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution with suicidal tendencies.
Alcohol consumption seems to increase risk of suicide in people who are already very depressed or suicidal, it seems to increase the likelihood of domestic violence and child abuse, and it definitely increases the risk of DUI in people with prior DUI convictions.
In fact, I have a friend with 4 DUIs over a period of less than 10 years, 1 while driving on a suspended license, and yet they still eventually gave him his license back, and he still drinks regularly and sometimes drives while under the influence. I think that is appalling, just because he hasn't hurt anyone yet doesn't mean he should be allowed to keep drinking and driving until someone gets killed. His ability to legally possess and consume alcohol is a danger to society, and simply suspending his license again isn't good enough, he will still drive illegally even without a license.
Here is how I would implement it. I think it is too much of a burden to require all bars and liquor stores to call up a system and run a background check on every patron like the current NICS system for firearms. Instead, I propose that people who are deemed to be prohibited persons should have a special mark placed on their driver's license or ID which would indicate that they are prohibited. Bar tenders and liquor store employees would need to check everyone's ID, not just people who appear to be under age, and would be required to refuse to sell alcohol to anyone with that mark on their license.
Obviously that won't stop them from paying a homeless person to buy them alcohol, like teenagers do, so we also need strict penalties for prohibited persons who are caught with any alcohol in their blood or in their possession, and even stricter penalties if they are caught committing any sort of crime while under the influence such as DUI, domestic violence, etc.
This post was prompted by this thread, but has also been something I've been thinking about for a long time:http://np.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/2dnxcy/should_the_government_be_allowed_to_ban_people/
TL;DR: Just like some people are deemed by society to be too irresponsible to be allowed to possess firearms due to criminal activity or mental illness, some people (potentially for different reasons) should be deemed by society to be too irresponsible to be allowed to possess or consume alcohol, and it should be a criminal offense for a prohibited person to possess or consume alcohol.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Western governments should not pressure African nations to change their anti-gay laws if they are unwilling to accept polygamy +
+ I'm from Nigeria, I'm currently studying in the United States, and I am gay. Nigeria passed an incredibly homophobic law this January, and Uganda and Kenya have followed suit. The long and short of it is that if I tried to live openly back home, I would be put in prison for any period of time ranging from between 10 and 14 years.
I realize that this law and others like it are possibly in violation of several human rights declarations which these countries have ostensibly ratified. I also want this law to be repealed and for this discrimination against sexual minorities to end.
However, as people who follow this issue are aware, the African nations that have these laws on their books have resisted calls to repeal these laws. They view calls for repeal as the West trying to impose its moral standards on Africa, which has expressed its morality through the passage of these laws. I am aware of the logical inconsistency of this position (i.e., that the homophobia is a result of the adoption of religion, which itself is a Western import), and do not want to discuss that here. What I do wonder is that the leaders of these nations have asked that they be respected as sovereign nations, and for the West to respect their laws. They say that just as they do not impose their cultural norms on the West, the West should not impose their cultural norms on Africa, and the most common example they cite is that of polygamy. It is very common in several African nations, but (I was surprised to learn) is actually criminalized in the US and Canada. So if the West criminalizes the African cultural practice of polygamy and is unwilling to repeal the laws that do so, then surely African nations can criminalize homosexuality and the West should leave them alone.
I'm not sure how to mount an argument to this. The right to marry a consenting spouse is in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, so if a woman/man decides to marry another man/woman with an existing spouse, it should not be criminal as long as the three of them consent to it. And if choice of spouse (if one party is already married) is already criminal in the West, why can't it be criminal in Africa on the basis of gender? Please, CMV.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe nihilism is a fundamentally flawed philosophy. CMV +
+ I believe that the idea that life has no meaning is entirely ridiculous. Nihilists, to continue accepting their philosophy, must willfully ignore every possible source of happiness that anyone has ever enjoyed, and this seems ignorant and short-sighted. Honestly, they come across similar to angsty teenagers. 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: Education is the only way to end intolerance +
+ This CMV is born out of a discussion I had with a friend wherein we compared the modern Feminist movement to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. I took the stance that during the Civil Rights era, Martin Luther King Jr. was more successful than Malcolm X because he took a more tempered approach, presenting arguments that simply could not be denied, and using tactics like sit-ins to prove the brutality of the oppression by the racists of the era rather than using offensive tactics to get the oppressors to back down in submission. If I recall correctly, my friend argued that he was successful because he did not in fact take a tempered approach, but instead that his tactics were very in-your-face, citing his quote that freedom cannot be attained by simply asking. (NB: I pretty much just talking about civil rights, here. Political and economic inequality are somewhat different issues)
Here's a basic outline of my position and the opposing one:
My belief:
- Equality for any oppressed group can only logically happen if the enough of the oppressors realize their fault and change
- Ignorance breeds intolerance, and therefore education breeds tolerance
- In the case of the Feminist movement, activists should work to make society aware of problems and favor hard data to rhetoric (not that rhetoric isn't useful)
- You're better served by telling someone why they're wrong than by berating them
- Criticize the action rather than the person. For example: tell someone that what they did was racist, not that they're racist and they should feel ashamed (even if they are)
- Equality not only means being able to achieve the same result as another person, but being able to achieve it with the same ease/difficulty
Opposing belief:
- Equality for any oppressed group can only be achieved by empowerment of the oppressed group, enabling them to go their own way
- Gains need to be won without any connection with the oppressor, because they're not going to help. If they were, they wouldn't be oppressors
- Feminist activists should take what's rightfully theirs instead of waiting for it to be handed over to them
- You're better off berating someone who practices intolerance to express the seriousness of what they've done
- Criticizing an intolerant person's character might make them reconsider their positions
- Activists have been trying to educate for a long time, and the hate is still flowing
*TL;DR - What serves modern movements like the fights for women's and minority rights better: the approach of MLK or that of Malcolm X?*
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: All theistic religion is cancer. +
+ I see all theistic religion as cancerous. In my opinion, it is the root of everything wrong in the world and will be the death of the human race. I will admit that some religious people are genuinely good people, but on the whole, not so much. No matter how altruistic or accepting a religious person may be, they always seem to infect their children with this abusive lie that they will burn in hell for eternity because they act on some of the most natural human urges. Thus begins a vicious cycle of generations being fucked up in the same way over and over again.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I don't believe in "true love" between couples or anything, how the media portrays love and how the majority of the people (possibly) believe love to be. CMV +
+ This whole argument started with my best friend.
She believes in a soul and she believes true love is when 2 souls are the perfect match for each other and those 2 souls, when they find each other, spend eternity together or whatever. Basically everyone has that one person in the world that they are perfect for and are best suited for. I'm not sure if the majority of the people share her view or not
I believe love is simply a chemical brain function, nothing more, nothing less and although its deeply enjoyable, there is nothing magical about it in the sense that people almost never end up with their "soulmate". Even if they are married for 60-70 years there might have been another person in the world, who if they met before they got together or what have you, would be better suited for each other because their personalities are tuned together better. Some people may have a personality that matches really well with a lot of people, other might have a personality that really doesn't match with that many people, or even zero, who knows. My belief stems simply from my idea that there is no reason why the universe should have a monopoly on human lives anyway. Why would the universe care if we end up with anyone or not? Also, every human being is unique but that doesn't mean each person is liked romantically, sexually or even platonically by an equal number of people and its nearly impossible to find someone who could possibly like you the most out of 7 billion people.
So let's say in the whole world I have 50 people who could possibly ever be romantically interested in me, after I apply my looks or charms or whatever. out of the top 5 that would be best suited for me, lets say i only met number 3 and end up marrying her and lived with her for the rest of my life. It doesn't mean my wife is my soulmate, it just means shes the best one i happened to find.
So in the end what I'm saying is that, life is really random and there may or may not be a soulmate, the perfect one, for everyone in the world and it is impossible to meet them out of 7 billion people and it's impossible to know if you did.
Anyway, I'm just an 18 year old dude and have a lot to learn about life. CMV | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think American cities are the most visually attractive and photogenic cities in the world. [CMV] +
+ I really enjoy /r/cityporn and I think American cities are the most attractive. They are young, and tend to be less contested than cities in other parts of the world. We also have many smaller cities, so our downtown and CBD's in a city like Philadelphia wold be way less sprawling than say, London or Hong Kong.
We also have super small, super young cities like Oklahoma City or Austin, where all the architecture is new, and there is soo much room for green grass and trees.
The only cities that I think can compete would be like, Scandinavian cities.
I'm not saying we don't have ugly cities, like Vegas (yes, I think Vegas is super ugly, it's just a giant sprawl with a row of big gaudy casino's in the middle, like some sort of giant shopping mall with gambling) But I also think our cities are general, the most beautiful. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: If a corporation, after doing a cost/benefit analysis, determines that breaking a law/regulation will provide a net gain in shareholder value, it follows they must do so. +
+ Just as the title says: XYZ Corp, beholden to the [fiduciary duty](http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fiduciary_duty) to maximize shareholder value, will / can, as a feature of Capitalism, knowingly break a law/regulation, if doing so will provide net and overall enhancement to shareholder value.
If XYZ Corp can "get away with it", then it's all upside for shareholder value.
If they get "caught", then fines or sanctions (as long as they do not negate net enhancement to revenues, and consequently shareholder value) are of no consequence. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I look down upon couples who think their partner's hobby/hobbies are dumb. +
+ A couple where one person is an avid gamer and the other thinks that "games are for children", "it's juvenile", "it looks boring", "it's a waste of time". A couple where one person has a strong budding interest in the study of literature and the other person makes fun of literature and poetry all the time. A couple where one person is starting to show a strong interest in culinary arts for fun and the other person complains all the time, "Why don't we just order a pizza?", "Why can't we just stick something in the microwave?"
I think any couple where one person really enjoys something and the other person acts as if they're basically disgusted by it... should break up. Especially if one partner constantly tries to convince the other partner out of their hobby/interest, or where the one partner with the hobby derides their partner for not being interested in it and says, "Look at that girl/guy, THEY like x, why can't YOU like x and be cool like THEM?"
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: "Classic" actors in older movies were absolutely terrible at their art. +
+ Old movies aren't typically my taste, but I've recently watched *Gone with the Wind* and *What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?* and I think the acting in these movies (by supposedly "great" actors) is awful. There is zero subtlety and everything is over-acted. It's like watching a bunch of five-year-olds playing pretend. I've noticed it particularly with *Gone with the Wind* because the book is one of my all-time favorites and I was so disappointed with the movie. There are so many subtle layers of emotion in the book that could have at least partially been conveyed on-screen with facial expressions and body language, but they skipped all of that and painted things with the broadest brush possible. Even Clark Gable's famous line, "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn" came across only as angry, instead of how it should have been - soft, pain-filled, and resigned. So, change my view. Tell me why you think these "classic" actors were great.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I think Hillary Clinton's use of personal email for official business is a greater scandal than it is currently is +
+ Based on the reports of the scandal:
"I can recall no instance in my time at the National Archives when a high-ranking official at an executive branch agency solely used a personal email account for the transaction of government business,” said Mr. Baron, who worked at the agency from 2000 to 2013.
"Mrs. Clinton is not the first government official — or first secretary of state — to use a personal email account on which to conduct official business. But her exclusive use of her private email, for all of her work, appears unusual"
It was reported that not only did Hillary Clinton use her personal email but she used her email on her own server not protected by a larger server or data farm. So potentially, someone who has access to the server could just walk away and take it. I don't know what are in the emails but there were 55,000 pages of emails were given to the state department.
To me, for the secretary of state to use her personal email and I assume that she discussed the nature of our state business which may have had many classified documents, this is a major breach of security.
And I don't have a personal issue with Hillary, I would say the same thing about the President or any other high ranking official past or present. Also, why didn't anyone notice the use of personal email? Even at my business, I would notice if someone was using a personal email for business and call them out on it. And it would be noticed after several instances this happened. Why wasn't it noticed for the full tenure of Clinton's time as Sec of State.
I think she or someone else should be brought up on charges or reprimanded or given some form of punishment.
Also, does Hillary have a certain level of security clearance? Once this violation be a breach of that clearance and illegal.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I think Benn Wyatt is right that calzones are superior to Pizza in almost every way. +
+ Benn Wyatt made several good points about the virtues of calzones. For those that, god forbid, don't already know:
Calzones have several virtues over pizza.
1) Calzones are easy to transport cleanly. By virtue of being surrounded by dough, no sauce or toppings are going to spill during transportation, making carrying a calzone a largely risk free proposition.
2) Calzones maintain their temperature better over distances because their encompassing crust acts as insulation for the pipping hot toppings in the center.
3) As any New Yorker will tell you, the proper way to eat pizza is to fold it in half with each end of the crust pointing upwards, and the crust itself enveloping the toppings. Sound familiar? It should, because it's a calzone!
4) Calzones can be filled with more ingredients than a typical pizza by virtue of their design. Since they are a stuffed bread, there is little risk of excess toppings threatening the structural integrity of the calzone. With a pizza, the more you put on, the greater the risk to the integrity of the pizza, particularly when you take an individual slice. Ever had ingredients slide off the top of a pizza slice just as you were about to take a bite? Sounds like a bit of a food engineering problem. Allow me to introduce the solution: calzones.
5) Calzones reduce wast. Calzones can be baked more readily to sizes fitting an individual portion. Personal pizzas are possible, but are rarely seen in the pizza world. Pizza is a group food, and most restaurants provide that option. To help meet individual needs, slices are offered. However, this introduces the problem of waste. If slices remain unsold, what remains of a pizza will inevitably be thrown out. This is wasteful! Calzones don't have that problem. Calzone's are generally made to order for the individual in a size an individual can eat. One calzone for one person. No waste!
To me, the answer is clear. We should become a calzone nation. Thank you Benn Wyatt for revealing the truth.
1) Presentation. Pizza can be presented visually in ways a calzone cannot.
2) Preparation. Pizza can be cooked in ways that produce an ideal outcome in terms of flavor a way that calzones cannot because the toppings are directly exposed to heat.
3) Pizza is a superior social food as it is more easily shared.
4) Pizza can at least *approximate* some of the advantages of a calzone by folding a slice in half.
5) Calzones have to have more bread relative to the number of toppings (this is disputed, but if true it is certainly a point in pizza's favor)
6) Moisture buildup is a problem if you add too many moist toppings into a calzone. This prevents certain combinations in a calzone that can be put on a pizza, and is why many times sauces are delivered as a separate item in a ramekin.
7) Calzones cool slower and less evenly, making it difficult to eat on the spot, and meaning that you will get an uneven flavor experience.
These are all very good points. I will have to think this over more. If I change my mind, I will start deep dishing out deltas. | 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 like a woman is wrong for forgiving a man who abused her even once, can you CMV? +
+ So I heard an interesting opinion about the Ray Rice situation, so he assaulted his fiance, and when the video of that got leaked, public outrage caused him to be suspended from the NFL permanently.
The opinion I heard was: If Ray Rice attacked a man instead, would he get the same reaction and public outrage? Of course not, but that makes sense, and I discarded that opinion quickly, but than the person continued on to say that if he assaulted a man, and the man forgave him, would he still get the same reaction? Would the man get called out on being wrong and weak for forgiving him?
I'm not so sure about the other point, do you think it's OK for women to still consider a relationship with a man who showed violence to them even once?
For those who don't know, Ray Rice's fiance forgave him and they're getting married.
___
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: BYOD should not be implemented in high schools +
+ As most people are aware, many businesses, organizations, and schools have been implementing BYOD – short for *bring your own device* – which partially or fully replaces organization-owned technology with individuals' own devices. Although I somewhat agree with BYOD in the workplace, it has no place in secondary education.
My biggest concern with BYOD in schools is increased social division. Although this is somewhat prevalent already, increased use of students' own phones and computers will boost the notion of high-end technology as status symbols. Poorer students will have to use either less advanced technology or use school-owned technology (which is likely to be less advanced as well). Both options would clearly emphasize the gap between the poor, with second-rate technology, and the rich, with the latest and greatest gadgets.
Secondly, lack of consistency with students' devices would cause confusion. Between operating systems, ages of devices, applications, and so on, there exist differences in what can be done and how it is done. This would inevitably cause chaos in the teaching environment as teachers have to explain multiple ways of doing something, or simply saying that certain students *can't* do something. This is in stark contrast to the traditional way of consistency across all devices, where things typically function the same everywhere. A possible solution is to simply get all the students to get the same devices, but of course that has many problems on its own. That leads me to my next point:
BYOD may cause students to have to buy even more to prepare for school. Although the school would likely provide most or all technology, social pressure may cause students to want to buy high-end technology. Also, the schools may tempt kids to want more technology, to the parents' expense. Many people simply can't afford all of this stuff.
There are many other problems that BYOD could cause, such as cheating, distractions, resistance from those who hate change, spying, and overall forcing students to integrate technology even deeper into their lives.
While I understand that there are many advantages to BYOD, primarily reducing costs for schools, obstacles like these cannot be avoided and outweigh the benefits. I am not anti-change, I just don't want people making careless changes just to save money and to be more "innovative" or "21st-century".
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Chimerix, Inc's decision to deny Brincidofovir to the dying boy, while heartbreaking, is the right decision CMV +
+ UPDATE: I'm happy & pleasantly surprised to see that my below post is now moot, as it appears the FDA has demonstrated a rarely seen capacity for flexibility, allowing them & Chimerix to reach an agreement that will allow the boy to receive the drug. While mainstream sources seem to be a bit stingy with some of the details so far, the key seems to have been that the FDA ultimately agreed to allow an approach that will greatly mitigate the problems Chimerix would of faced if they had simply chosen to make the unilateral decision to give the boy the drug. It's likely the case that Chimerix was directly engaged with the FDA to figure something out for most of the day yesterday, but couldn't even communicate that something was in the works until they actually had a viable agreement with the FDA in place.
As outlined in my title, while I sympathize deeply with the horrible situation the parents are in, I believe media & public depictions of Chimerix's as a greedy & heartless pharmaceutical company are off base and ignore the realities of the situation
1) The issue is not the widely reported $50,000 cost of the drug.
Granting an exception for this case would put the company in a position where they either have to grant all subsequent requests from parents whose children are just as sick, or face court battles to defend the decision to deny any subsequent requests after granting this one.
Regardless of which approach they go with, the cost of addressing additional requests would be significant AND would not advance their efforts to gain FDA approval of the drug. Some outlets mention that prior compassionate usage has been granted in the past by the company. This is true, but those past cases were in instances where the compassionate use would generate data they could use when seeking FDA approval.
2) Chimerix is not a big company and does NOT have the resources to absorbe the costs of the above without significantly delaying FDA approval, if not halting it completely.
Per their own financial statement available here: http://ir.chimerix.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=1144204-14-14110&CIK=1117480 , this is a company that has posted combined net losses of $91M+ from 2010-2013.
That is not unusual for a pharma company, as average cost to bring a drug to market is $1B+, but it does illustrate that they can’t really absorb significant additional costs as easily as everyone assumes. A significant disruption to getting the product to market could leave them without sufficient funds to complete future clinical trials, meaning the drug never becomes available to the many others it could possibly help.
3) If we accept that this drug has the ability to save this boy's life, we must also accept that the drug has the ability to save other lives. Therefore, a decision that delays the drug's availability carries the risk of costing the lives of others that could have been saved if the drug were readily available sooner.
4) It is NOT a guarantee that the drug will save the boy's life. The boy's doctor's believe the drug might be able to help the boy, but they’re going off of test study results that DO NOT YET ADEQUATELY QUALIFY THE DRUG FOR FDA APPROVAL. It's a hunch, a stab in the dark to try everything they can to save the kid. And, that's fine. I'm not bothered by doctors pulling out all the stops to try and help.
However, it does mean that it can't even be said with much certainty that the drug will save this boy's life. I.E. The company would be risking A LOT [including the lives of those the drug might save in the future] on what might only be the medical equivalent of a lottery ticket.
So that's how I see it. Change my view
NOTE: I hold nothing against the parents for their efforts to get their child this drug. They're doing what any parent would do in the same situation. My criticism is of the media coverage and prevailing public opinion on this story. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think sexual exclusivity in the age of birth control is asinine. CMV. +
+ If my partner wants to spend his or her free time (time that wouldn't be devoted to our partnership anyway) having safe sex (no pregnancy or STIs) with someone else, why should I interfere? And if my partner discovers that being with that someone else more of the time makes them happier, I should be glad that they are happier. Otherwise I'm just being selfish and possessive.
In older times, when sex could easily mean babies or disease, having it with someone else could really damage your ability to fulfill your responsibilities to your partner. Today, sex can be safe and recreational. If a man finds out that his girlfriend had a great time and got laid after going out with the girls last night, he should be happy for her. If he doesn't value her happiness, why is he in a relationship with her? If he does value her happiness, why would he limit her pursuit of it as long as that pursuit doesn't limit his own? | 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 party-goers are unintelligent. CMV. +
+ I hold that the types of people that go to parties every weekend, the types of people that get wasted and the types of people that get high are stupid, to be blunt. I find most of them unintelligent, and for that reason, I don't associate with them. You know, the people of the hip-hop #YOLO #SWAG variety
Why do I find them stupid? They engage in highly reckless behaviour with their farthest foresight limited to high school (high school in my case, at least), with no regard for their future. Their only worry seems to be how much fun they can have at these questionable social events.
I want my view to change because I know that my view is not entirely true because I know quite a few intelligent people who, it appears to me, that they only act "stupid". It would help to know that I am introverted, and they clearly are extroverted. However, I would like to socialize more (considering that a very large portion of my school is like that), and perhaps even attend some of the less-questionable parties, just to have more of a social life and have fun once in a while, but it is difficult with such a view in place.
I hope I'm making sense here. CMV.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Humanity will never have a universal, galactic, or even interstellar empire if the speed of light is the universal speed limit. +
+ It simply seems preposterous to me- the nearest star is four light years away. Assuming that we could somehow fly straight into lightspeed without smooshing all the humans in the vessel, and then stop instantaneously, too, then it would take four years for us to get there. Another four years between communications. It is simply impossible to maintain any sort of colony with four year breaks between supplies and four year breaks between communication. The colony would fail- and if it did not, it would very quickly lose any sense of loyalty to Earth, or the Solar System- it would break off immediately or rather close to, and make its own empire. This problem further shows itself the further you get from earth- the gap goes from four years to ten, to a hundred, to a thousand. It is simply realistically impossible to have a universal, galactic, or interstellar Empire.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I don't think mass media presents an unrealistic/harmful example of body image for people to strive for. +
+ I'm sure many of us have heard from one source or another that today's media (magazines, tv, etc.) is presenting a harmful and unrealistic body image for people to strive for, especially younger people. These kinds of statements are also often directed mainly towards girls/women. Proponents of this will say that when a young girl sees a supermodel, actress, etc., then she thinks she has to look like that, while a boy will see it and expects that all girls should look that way.
I find this logic to be on a slippery slope and unrealistic. I don't think the media presents a bad example at all, they just present the pinnacle of beauty if you will. For example, when I am walking by a Victoria's Secret store and see a huge picure of Candice Swanepoel, I don't imagine or expect all women to look like that. Instead, I take on a more realistic approach and form the opinion that she is one of the most attractive people on the planet. On the flip side, I don't go watch Ocean's 11 and feel bad at the end because I don't look like George Clooney or Brad Pitt.
Think of how ridiculous this kind of logic is when you extend it to other things. Would I expect every painter to be on par with Michelangelo, every singer to have a voice like Adele, every pianist to be play like Mozart? Of course not. Just because you aren't as great as they are shouldn't affect your self esteem since they are literally at the pinnacle of their respective field, and in some cases in contention for greatest of all time.
To sum up, I think it is ridiculous to think that the media's constant portrayal of beauty in magazines, movies, TV, etc., is in any way affecting how people view their bodies.
Just for clarification I am a guy so that may be influencing my opinion. I would love to hear your take on this.
| 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 culture surrounding Marijuana is shallow and juvenile, and should not be allowed to spread - CMV. +
+ otherwise known as 'Stoner culture'
Think about it - it requires absolutely minimal effort to become a part of, it promotes an apathetic view of the world and takes sloth and idleness to new extremes. You might say it is a peaceful and creative movement, but I argue that in this case it is hard to tell them apart from being simply under the influence and non confrontational. I believe marijuana, like most low class drugs, in moderation does little harm. However the culture itself promotes the idea that it's completely harmless. So many times I've heard stoners argue you can't get addicted to it, that it's a just a plant man, you can't overdose. Except you can get addicted to it, datura is also just a plant man, and while you can't overdose, you can have still have a very adverse reaction comparable to a bad trip on a high dose of psychedelics.
The worst thing is it seems that those most involved in the scene are teens, people who need to be building the base for a healthy and successful life. Instead, they quickly find themselves doping their developing brain ([smoking during teenage years actually stems brain development](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19372456)), building an addiction that has tough withdrawal symptoms, and instilling a sense of indifference towards discipline and hard work.
For this reason, I believe marijuana should be decriminalized or legalized, so some of the edgy, risky appeal is lost. If legalized, it should be regulated very toughly. Adults/parents should be well educated on the physical and psychological effects of the drug. This would slow the spread of the movement, and with a little more social work it could become an occasional indulgence for adults rather than a way of life for young people. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I think Universal Human Rights and right-wing ideology are incompatible. +
+ I'm not sure how to explain why I believe this. I study law at a University in India, and a lot of what I study regarding jurisprudence, law & poverty, etc, is Western scholarship. And all the scholarship I have come across denounce the capitalistic world order in one way or another. From Pogge to Duflo to Dworkin to Stiglitz, they all seem to agree that human rights is incompatible with free trade. So it seems to be that anyone who focuses on uplifting poverty and increasing equality cannot possibly be economically right-wing. CMV. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Heterosexuality and homosexuality are both essentially kinks/fetishes +
+ I don't understand how sexual orientation is separate from other sexual interests. How is a man being interested in men distinctly different than a man being interested in short women or old people. It seems like gender is just one identifier for attraction but it is magnified to define someone's entire orientation. Why isn't there an orientation for someone who is only interested in girls who wear glasses?
Everytime I make a comment with this sentiment it gets rigorously downvoted and I am curious as to why. It seems very reasonable to me.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: "Conventional wisdom" states that you shouldn't talk about religion, politics, or other controversial topics on a first date. I think this makes no sense, and these are great topics for determining compatibility. +
+ Supposedly, you should avoid discussing religion and politics (or other controversial topics) on a first date, because if your date holds a differing opinion, this could cause conflict and prevent a relationship from developing.
I think that's stupid. If your beliefs are incompatible with your date's, doesn't it make sense to know as soon as possible? If it's going to be a deal-breaker, it's going to be a deal breaker. Why waste time, money, and emotional investment on a relationship that's destined to be a dead-end due to irreconcilable differences?
I think it makes all the sense in the world to discuss controversial topics that are important to you, to "weed out" incompatible "candidates." 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 all future Olympics should be held at the same venue. CMV +
+ Obviously the Summer Olympics can be held at one venue, and the Winter Olympics can be held at another, but here are my reasons:
Every four years, the country that is selected to host the Olympics spends billions building new venues and stadiums and the like. Essentially, billions worth of new venues are built to only be used for a few weeks at a time, and then once the Olympics are over, never to be used again. Or, they may be used every once in a while for competition, but not very much.
Every once in a while I find a new article on the Internet detailing the fact that some previous Olympic venue has been sitting unused or abandoned for long periods of time. This seems to me to be a monstrous waste of resources, land, and money. It would be so much more efficient to have a designated location for the Olympics to be held. In one location, every four years, indefinitely.
Now, I do understand that countries that get to host the Olympics benefit hugely from tourism and all of the television coverage. That is part of the reason why the Olympics are always held in a different place. However, to prevent further waste of resources, land, and money, I think that all future Olympics should be held in the same place every four years.
| 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 see what's particularly wrong with bestiality. CMV. +
+ To clarify, I am not in the least bit attracted to animals. I am probably just as turned off by the idea of people engaging in sexual activity with animals as the next guy. However, I can not logically justify society's disdain for those who are attracted and have sex with animals, when humans slaughter millions of animals for the consumption on a daily basis. Surely fucking a goat is better than killing a goat. Most of us clearly don't care that animals don't consent to being slaughtered in droves, so why do any of us care that an animal might not be able to consent to sex with a human? Change my view if you can!
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:It's time to stop hyphenating words because they don't fit in one single line. +
+ Whenever I read something in perfect columns I always hate coming across a word broken up by a hyphen just for the sake of having the column of words look nice and be all even. Sometimes you can read the word easily because it's made of components like be-cause or al-ways which isn't so bad. But sometimes the words are made of phonemes that your brain only comprehends when it sees all the letters together like tro-ugh or anac-hronistic or morp-hology. It gives me needless pause when reading a text and I just encountered a problem that put the nail in the coffin for me.
I was reading a journal article on PDF and I was trying to Ctrl-F a word I distinctly remember reading but it wouldn't work. Was I mistaken about the word being in the text? No! I eventually found the sentence I was looking for and to my frustration I realized that I couldn't search it because there was a Fuc-king Hyphen it he word!!! who cares of the right side of columns look a little choppy from time to time. breaking up words doesn't make sense anymore if it ever did.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Cycling on any road not exclusively set aside for cyclists is wrong, dangerous, and should be made illegal. +
+ First, I'd just like to provide a little backdrop for this discussion. I'm am speaking from a specifically American point of view where cyclists are in the minority.
I live in a suburb on the outskirts of a large city. I sit squarely between suburbia and rural areas, and cycling has become very popular over the past several years. Legally, (at least in my city) cyclists have every right to use the same roads as motorized vehicles.
Many of the roads I travel in my city are winding and through forested areas. The speed limit usually ranges from 35-55 miles per hour in these areas, and cars obviously outpace cyclists by a large margin. Visibility, even in broad daylight, is very limited for long stretches of these areas. In one county in particular, the roads are incredibly unsafe for cyclists and accidents/deaths occur on what feels like a monthly basis.
Just as an example: there is one particular road that has an aggressive downhill slope. You can round the corners of this road safely and legally doing 30 MPH, but cyclists have trouble reaching over 8 MPH going uphill. There is no bike lane. The road is very narrow. Accidents are regular.
I have come close to hitting a cyclist probably 2-3 times a year for the past several years. In a few of these cases, I've nearly run myself off the road.
The avid cyclists I've come into contact with are vehement about their "rights" on the roads and how drivers need to adapt to this new cycling culture. The problem is, accidents are occurring when neither the driver or cyclist is being reckless. With such low visibility and differences in speed between cyclists and drivers, injuries and deaths will continue to no one's fault.
Everyone's lives are unreasonably at risk in these situations. Drivers and cyclists alike. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Rape culture in European Universities is a myth CMV +
+ Hello everyone,
So this is in the front page of /r/worldnews right now:
http://www.theguardian.com/education/mortarboard/2014/jan/27/rape-culture-campus
First of all, I'm only talking about the European universities because I've never visited a country outside Europe, and I honestly can't attest to their culture.
I'm a senior in a European University, and before discovering reddit last year, I've never really heard of what the feminist/mensright movements stood for.
So then I discovered reddit, I read up on many debates and posts over here. I found the redpill subreddit and wasn't impressed. I actually think that the whole "patriarchy" that feminists portray is a real thing, and I'm all for promoting equality between genders in all aspects of personal and profesional life.
With that said:
The concept of a "rape culture" in universities sounds ridiculous to me. This article sounds ridiculous to me. I'm a student right now, and I know that there are certain events and certain times/places that people go wild. It's a part of university life.
I'm not really an outvert but heck, I know where to go each week If I ever want to get that kind of fun.
And I know where not to go, If I don't. That's my point. Life is large, cities are large, campuses are large. There are stuff to do for everybody.
That article lists an account:
How can that person not expect the evening to get a flirty/sexual aspect?
Nobody forces people that don't want to, to participate in parties like that, there are plenty of activities to do.
Also "my friend was raped, or maybe was raped" is just a weak emotional argument.
It is my honest belief that this article is just a huge exaggeration of reality, and doesn't make any sense. I will argue with you my logic on this.
But I'm open to be convinced because I do believe that rape culture in society is a real thing, up to a point. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I think the recent USA World Cup fandom had (barely) anything to do with soccer, and everything to do with Nationalism/Patriotism. And I find that worrisome. +
+ Watching sports, IMHO, should be more about a love of the game than it should be about broader nationalistic views. I truly feel that other countries, while similarly patriotic, *also* enjoy watching soccer.
But in the US, no one gives a shit about soccer the other four years between World Cups. It's derided as "not a good sport," youth programs receive way less attention than football, basketball, or baseball, and the MLB is pretty much the most poorly attended national sport their is. I don't even know if they show it on TV.
Sure, this may have to do more with advertisers and TV networks, but that makes it *worse*. That means that American's may be watching games that they might not even like, save for the fact that it helps big media companies get rich. You can sell way more ad space during a 3 hour football game (with about 30 minutes of game play) versus a game of soccer which is 90 minutes with only 3 ad breaks. Baseball has 168 games per year which again suits advertisers very well.
As a soccer player, I went out to a few bars to watch the games, and I was absolutely stunned at the turnout. The place was packed! But for what? The US's team never had a chance; they suck. If the fans had been supporting soccer for the past few decades by watching MLS, going to games, and spending money there, maybe the MLS would've attracted better talent, better youth players who would rise up, give us an actually competitive team, etc. The fact that any American can think you can just have a great team once every 4 years is pathetic.
So what do you think?
Thanks CMV'ers!
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Parents shouldn't force their children to join their religion without asking them. +
+ I always little babies whose parents force them to join a random religion, without asking them if they would ever want. And I think that this is wrong. I mean that everyone is allowed to join any religion they want, but they force people to do, especially in a really young age in which they cannot think. Then they grow up with a view of things which isn't proved to be right and they continue to do the same thing to their children. For Example: little babies are forced to become christians and then they learn that if they will leave this religion (which they never have been asked if they want to join anyway) they are going to burn in hell. I hold this view because it sounds like the most fair to me.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I'm not against it morally, but I don't acknowledge transgenderism as legitimate as being gay or lesbian because it involves a denial of ones own physical body CMV. +
+ Being gay or lesbian is a matter of sexual orientation and an inner psychological and perhaps a physiological difference. Transgender people more often than not bring technology into play(sex change operations, boob jobs etc) to create an unnatural body that they're comfortable with. As insensitive and perhaps inflammatory as it sounds, I feel that transgenderism is more a mental illness characterized by a denial of physical reality. Maybe I just don't understand it. Anyone transgender or otehrwise care to 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 10,000 people making $10,000 a year are far more important to the economy and society than one person with $10,000,000. CMV. +
+ Like the title says, I believe that low wage earners are far more important to the economy and society than people with a lot of money, especially since they will be spending all of that money whereas the rich person has the option to do absolutely nothing with a sizable percentage of it (including not investing it and sticking it in a safe somewhere).
This is not a statement about the individuals in either regard, nor their "value" in general...just their part of economy and society and how important they should be considered in those specific regards. I'm not suggesting the poor get more money, nor the rich have less. I *would*, however, suggest that government policy decisions should be based on this concept rather than whether the rich person can help support a political campaign. However, we're all humans and I doubt that is likely to happen. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Anarchism, while attractive, is inherently unsustainable. It must either allow the formation of a state antithetical to it's ideology, or form a state to prevent such an event. +
+
I've been getting into the idea of Anarchism lately (recently read LeGuin's 'The Dispossessed', and, really, I want to like it. I like, very much, the idea that we wouldn't need a government and that we could make communal decisions in a way that wouldn't involve coercion of anyone or from anyone. But one thing continues to nag me:
Upon the dissolution of the state, how does one prevent the reformation of it, or something like it?
If, in our stateless nation, a coalition of citizens (Coalition A) were to gather together and decide that they were entitled to a percentage of all goods produced in a certain area. Maybe they're jerks, maybe they did something really great (set up irrigation, maintained a road) and feel that they've earned this percentage. Either way, that sounds like taxation, which is a function of government. This group would be taking from the populace against their will, but they'd have enough people to do so by force. How do you prevent this from happening, as I think it's reasonable that it might?
The only solution I can think of would be to form another, larger coalition comprised those being stolen from (Coalition B); and present a greater show of force to prevent the theft. But, isn't that just the recreation of a government? It might be a minimal one, or one that we agree is fair, but a state, nonetheless? It's activity was definitely coercive, and their prevention of theft was against Coalition A's will for sure (which is a kind of cardinal sin for an Anarchist, as I understand it). How to you reconcile this situation? Regardless of how you define Coalition A (a small government or just thieves) they present a problem to the rest of the anarchists. There's no reason to think that any individual anarchist would be able to put a stop to Coalition A. And the formation of Coalition B looks a lot like a government Anarchism seems to seek to prevent or eliminate. This little example is overly simplified, but I feel like any permutation would be subject to the same issue (ie Coalition A maintains a road for a pre-agreed amount of compensation; and the populace then refuses to pay).
So, I realize I may only be displaying my ignorance. Perhaps I'm bringing preconceptions about what Anarchism is or making assumptions about people's behavior that aren't necessarily true. But, to me, this looks like an enormous logical hole that makes the entire movement impossible. Is Coalition A or Coalition B actually the goal? What am I missing here. CMV!
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think modern art is terrible CMV +
+ When ever I go into a gallery and see a blank canvas selling for millions, or a piece of hessian nailed to a block of wood winning an art competition over a piece that likely took days to complete, if not weeks, It actually angers me. seeing the little effort they put in and then a paragraph explaining why it's good, all I can think is that without the paragraph the "art" would be nothing more than a canvas, a pile of mud, a stick, or an unmade bed. I enjoy reading the paragraph because it is often insightful, but I do not class the subject as actually being art. CMV | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The existence of state-sanctioned royalty and royal families has no place in the modern world, and all monarchies--even symbolic ones--should be abolished. +
+ My argument is mainly based on the arguments used for maintaining the status of the British royal family, but I think it applies to any country. I've heard many arguments for continuing the practice, from tourism money to engaging in charitable causes and diplomacy to preservation of cultural memory, but I just don't see any of those things as compelling arguments.
Tourism will likely not be very affected since the things people come to see (palaces, crown jewels, etc) will still be around even if the royals have been stripped of their status. Their 'celebrity' influence can still remain without acknowledging that they are born with some kind of intrinsic merit that is greater than ordinary citizens.
To me, royals traditionally taking on the role of a diplomat or cultural ambassador is not as worthwhile as someone attaining that role through merit and effort and ability.
As far as keeping this tradition because it is part of a cultural legacy: that point makes the least sense to me. There are many cultural practices that are considered oppressive or at least unsavory to modern sensibilities. Why preserve relics of a time in history when people were at the whim of powerful, autocratic rulers who believed they had a mandate from God? This has no place in the modern world. The status and state-sanctioned privilege of any royal family sends a message to the non-royals about how the government perceives its own people, namely that they are not all equal in the eyes of the state. I think that stripping royalty of their status, not their possessions, would be a very powerful, symbolic statement that affirms the belief that all citizens are all born equal in both status and potential. I don't think that would be a waste of the time or money it would cost to implement.
However, I'd like to try and see the merit of having a state-sanctioned royal family since a ton of people seem to think it is beneficial, 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? |
I believe the attorney-client privilege should be abolished CMV +
+ If the purpose of the criminal justice system is to catch criminals, then the justice system should prioritize that. Sacrificing the right to confidentiality in favor of catching a criminal is a worthwhile trade off.
Allowing criminals to get away with crime will just allow them to commit another crime. The right to confidentiality isn't significant enough to warrant protecting it over catching criminals, and I'm not even sure that it should exist for suspected criminals.
If abolishing the attorney-client privilege catches more guilty people, then the trade off is completely worth 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 nothing can surpass an original under any circumstances, CMV +
+ I was just reading the popular opinion (on Reddit nonetheless) that Cash's version of Hurt is better than the original NIN version. I've also heard many people say that De Palma's Scarface is better than the original too.
The thing is, I really don't believe that an original can be surpassed regardless of the outcome. An original idea in of itself is everything, as to me that's the most essential component. I'm sure there are arguments that can be made on 'what is originality', but I'm still not sold. | 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 technocracy is the best form of government. CMV. +
+ Technocracy is the form of government in which every segment of a country (health, defence, education, etc.) is ruled by people who are experts in that field (academics, etc.). In my opinion it is the only form of government that is reasonable, since only people with specific skills can solve problems in a specific field. In Germany, for example, Ursula von der Leyen is the minister of defence. Believe it or not, she was the minister of of family affairs, senior citizens, women and youth a few years ago. I don't want to focus on her, but how can a single person be trained in so many fields to successfully govern them? Therefore I believe that technocracy is the best form of government, feel free to 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? |
Determinism requires faith. CMV. +
+ Historically, determinism was a religious precept: there is an omniscient deity that understands everyone's fate, and people are powerless to change their destiny. This I at least understand.
There is a more modern atheist version, which I cannot understand. It goes something like this: humans are nothing but a collection of cells that move around and consume energy, and those cells are nothing but a collection of molecules whose motions can be predicted by chemistry, and those molecules are nothing but a collection of particles whose motion can be predicted by physicists. If we just had a little better information and science, we could get rid of the chemists (let alone the biologists or the psychologists) and predict everyone's behavior purely based on the position of every particle in the world. Given this, free will is merely an illusion - as is the idea of a self capable of having free will.
The reason I do not understand this version is that it destroys all its premises. How do we know that one particle colliding with a second causes a change in the second's velocity? By observation and logic - two things which require free will. After all, when I write down a thing I've observed, I must make a choice to do so - if we instead suppose that I do so automatically, there is really very little reason to think that my recording matched the event it purports to record. Similarly, the logic we claim I use is not the natural thought process of human cells. Instead it is a set of complex constructs that I choose to use because they give me better success at achieving my goals. If we take away the premise that I can choose how to think, there is little reason to suppose my thoughts are logical.
Now, the religious version is not subject to these issues. A benevolent deity can be understood by logic and therefore grant to humans the ability to use it to understand his ways. The same can go for science. But without the deity, we are simply assuming that logic and science exist and are accessible/useful to us somehow.
Can someone CMV by explaining (without recourse to a deity) how precisely a being without the ability to control its own thoughts can expect to use logic or science to understand the world? Or are atheist determinists simply retaining faith in logic and science after discarding the premises (free will and/or a deity) that support those? | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: there don't need to be hundreds of gender and sexuality names +
+ I can understand gay, lesbian, queer, bisexual, asexual, pansexual, and aromantic. I can understand cis-, trans-, and a-genders. Why does there need to be demisexual and demiromantic and all that? Why do we need so many classifications of gender and sexuality? If you're attracted to the same sex, why can't you just be homosexual? If you're attracted to the opposite why can't you just be heterosexual? If you're attracted to both, why can't you be bisexual? Attracted to all? You're pansexual.
Keep it simple.
Also, I understand people getting offended and angry when they're misgendered, but getting angry doesn't really accomplish anything unless you can be calm in your education on the subject. Hating people for not calling you by your preferred pronouns the first time when they've never met you before is not going to accomplish anything. Hating cisgendered, heterosexual people will not accomplish anything.
Please change my view.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I believe that the current treatment of animals on our society is morally wrong, these animals will never truly have moral rights when they are considered merely property, and future societies will be horrified by many of our current practices. +
+ I think humans are pretty hypocritical with regards to how we currently view the moral status of animals. Most people agree that animals are sentient, conscious beings with the capacity to suffer, and causing them to suffer in unnecessary ways is wrong. I think others would agree that be choosing to torture a dog with a blowtorch is wrong because of its effects on the dog, not the fact that I might be hurting someone else's property of that this might cause me to start treating humans in harmful ways as well. There isn't anything about the dog (how intelligent it is, whether it has a sense of self, whether it has a capacity to suffer) that matters other than its sentience that makes this situation clearly wrong.
While we acknowledge that unnecessary suffering is wrong, we use billions of animals for food, entertainment, and fashion -- *clearly* none of this is even close to necessary. Its convenient and conventional, but I think it isn't coherent to rationalize eating meat because it 'tastes good.' To me, this is tantamount to rationalizing slavery because its convenient.
Animal welfare laws are nowhere near sufficient. They often make exceptions for traditional practices, even if its at the cost of that animal's suffering. It the fact that these laws can be overridden so easily means that the economical interest's that property owners have in using their property will always outweigh the animal's interest in not suffering. This is similar to laws protecting slaves in North America - it was equally illegal to kill a slave as a free person, *unless* the slave was being willfull, the owner didn't mean to kill him, and several other general, easy to satisfy exceptions. This is similar with animal welfare where, on one hand, we acknowledge their ability to suffer, and yet on the other hand, we make it easy to validate doing this simply for the sake of convenience to the property owner.
I think that arguments that animals are less intelligent are not as relevant as one might think - we don't actually know what their mental lives are like. For those who would like more exposure to this type of ideas, I recommend reading "What is it like to be a bat." http://organizations.utep.edu/portals/1475/nagel_bat.pdf Furthermore, their intelligence/self-awareness/rationality shouldn't change the fact that they clearly have an interest in not suffering. We would condemn the practices that we use on animals if we were to do this with human infants, but I would say that many animals are much more rational/intelligent/self-aware than a one-week-old infant.
Most of these arguments have been taken from Gary Francione in his paper here: http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021&context=rutgersnewarklwps
I honestly read this originally to write an essay arguing against such an extreme position, and I don't think that animals should live alongside people and drive cars and such. I even think it might be possible to have farming where animals are treated fairly, but I think that our society is nowhere near this point and theoretically possible ethical farming practices will always degrade to the types of practices we have now when the interests of a being in not suffering are weighed against the economic interests of its owner.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: it should be way harder to get, and keep, your driver's licence +
+ When we get our drivers licences we are put in charge of a gigantic chunk of metal capable of moving at speeds way, way faster than the human body is designed to go; a car is a weapon. It's a huge responsibility that too many people are either not equipped to handle or do not take seriously. The road toll in Australia alone last year was 1155, and that was the lowest level since 1945.
It seems way too easy to get your licence (speaking from my experiences in Australia, I assume it varies across the world). A ~45 minute supervised test and 20-odd hours of parent/guardian-supervised practice (that your folks probably just filled out whether you did it or not) is not enough to make you a safe driver.
Additionally, laws do not punish irresponsible driving enough. How incompetent do you have to be before you are simply told you are not allowed the privilege of having a licence.
I understand the huge impracticalities that may arise from it being harder to get and retain your licence, but isn't it worth it if it saves a few thousand lives a year? Or even just 10?
Reddit, CMV.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Telling women that they should view all men as potential rapists is unfair to men. +
+ I just read this article, https://medium.com/human-parts/a-gentlemens-guide-to-rape-culture-7fc86c50dc4c , "A Gentlemen's Guide to Rape Culture." There's a lot that I agree with, so let me say specifically what I disagree with:
"Because when it comes to assessing a man, whatever one man is capable of, a woman must presume you are capable of. Unfortunately, that means all men must be judged by our worst example. If you think that sort of stereotyping is bullshit, how do you treat a snake you come across in the wild?
…You treat it like a snake, right? Well, that’s not stereotyping, that’s acknowledging an animal for what it’s capable of doing and the harm it can inflict. Simple rules of the jungle, man. Since you are a man, women must treat you as such.
The completely reasonable and understandable fear of men is your responsibility."
Essentially I disagree with the idea that because the vast majority of rapists are male, that all men are potential rapists and should be treated as such.
Now why I disagree with it:
Is this this not at least kind of comparable with saying, "Well, it's a fact that black men are statistically more likely to commit a violent crime, so everyone else should treat all of them as a potential threat, and it is their responsibility to show us that they are non-threatening." BTW I totally disagree with this idea, which is why I have a hard time wrapping my head around the idea that all men should be treated as potential rapists.
Ok, break it down for me. To change my view you'll need to prove one of two things:
1) That it is fair to treat racial groups that are statistically more likely to commit violent crimes as a universal threat, and expect them to go out of their way to prove they are non-threatening.
OR
2) That the comparison I gave is invalid. I think this is the much more reasonable option. You'll have to consider the differences in the situations and formulate them into an effective argument.
Thanks in advance for your opinions!
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe a woman cannot rape a man. CMV! +
+
Sure, a woman can perhaps "rape" a man with a broom stick or something. I'm not saying that can't happen. And I certainly think a man can rape a man. I'm talking about penetrative vaginal intercourse. I don't believe a woman can rape a man in that way.
| 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 not be allowed to bring babies in a movie theater except if it's a special "everybody can bring their babies" showing/theater. CMV +
+ People pay a lot of money ($30+ for two tickets and a pop to share for me and the wife) to have a bit of an escape from day-to-day life for a few hours. The experience is is enjoyable when someone so much as texts or talks during the movie...it is a downright miserable experience if someone brings their baby and it either starts making cooing noises or starts crying and the parent either does nothing or tries to get the baby to stop crying while still in the theater instead of taking it outside or thinking "hey I'm probably ruining everybody's experience, I'll just cut my losses and go home".
I think theater chains should refuse patrons with babies unless it's a rated G movie. Empire Theatres in Canada has a "Reel Babies" showing for certain movies so parents can take their babies and not worry about disturbing others.
I don't care if you really, really want to see the new Hobbit movie or whatever. I don't care if you can't find a baby sitter...those are the sacrifices you have to make when you have kids. Your wanting to see a movie does not entitle you to ruin everyone else's experience that they paid money for. Wait till the DVD/Blu-Ray comes out or see movies at special "everyone can bring their babies" showings. | 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 while Marijuana has some good effects, it also has many ill effects. Particularly, I believe that anyone who constantly smokes weed is essentially wasting their life. CMV +
+ I feel that Marijuana is a perfect relaxant after a stressful day. It shouldn't be illegal. But I think that people who are constantly high are very similar to people who are always drunk. They are escaping reality with their drugs. Marijuana may not be (long term) as harmful to the body as alcohol, but it is definitely as harmful to your development as a human being. Note, I do not have a problem with occasionally using marijuana as an enjoyable escape. I have a problem with people using it all the time to put off dealing with reality. I am especially interested to hear what self described stoners have to say about why their lifestyle is valid. Thank you. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe murder-by-hospice is widespread in the US. We kill off many our sick and elderly, and nobody cares. CMV. +
+ I've watched a number of people die in hospice care, and I've made several observations.
1. They push you into hospice. I believe people are rushed into hospice care, especially those with poorer insurance coverage. Once one primary physician or oncologist says treatment options are limited, the hospice people get involved and start pushing to have you placed in hospice care. Once you are in hospice care your insurance will NOT cover treatments or physical/occupational therapy. You get "palliative" care (i.e. morphine) and that's about it. In other words, once you go into hospice you are not going to be getting better (I don't mean cured, I just mean more functional), unless by some miracle you teach yourself to eat and walk and talk again.
2. Morphine kills people faster. [Medical studies](http://annonc.oxfordjournals.org/content/20/7/1163.abstract) purport to show that terminal patients receiving palliative narcotics survive just as long as those who don't. But my own lying eyes have shown me otherwise: I've seen how fast people go downhill once they're given morphine for pain. They rapidly become less responsive, more detached, disinterested in others, confused, they usually stop eating completely, and organ & respiratory failure seem to follow shortly after. Many of these are normal symptoms of encroaching death, but I have witnessed half a dozen times just how much faster these symptoms appear once narcotics are administered. Since morphine is a CNS depressant known to inhibit respiration, it makes sense that giving a sick person heavy doses might cause their health to deteriorate more rapidly.
3. In many cases, hospice is involuntary or, worse, semi-voluntary. People with a critically or terminally ill family member are often in a state of shock and not thinking clearly. I believe some hospice organizations make money by quietly pressuring these people into committing their loved ones to hospice early, forgoing treatments AND rehabilitative therapies that could extend their lives and enjoyment of their last days. The sick person may be in a state of confusion and fear and unable to make good decisions about their own care.
It seems to be a popular opinion on Reddit that euthanasia should be more widely accepted. From what I've seen of the end-of-life industry, *it already is*, and I think they should be stopped, or at least we need to take a hard, critical look at how end-of-life decisions are actually being made and whether they are in the best interest of terminal patients and/or their families.
We might not all live to be old, but nearly all of us will one day be dying in a hospital bed somewhere. How would it feel as you are lying there in pain and fear to know your death is being hastened in order to save insurers and/or your younger family members a bit of expense?
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Preventing citizens from leaving a country justifies violent revolution +
+ Countries such as North Korea prevent their citizens from leaving the country under the threat of violence.
To me, if there is such a thing as rights, the right to leave is the most fundamental of all.
That said, in some extreme circumstances such as plague level disease containment it is OK to prevent people from moving about, just as its to prevent some speech in extreme circumstances.
However, if you are prevented from leaving a country, by that countries government, merely because they don't want to allow it - such a s the case in North Korea - this is akin to kidnapping.
Why kidnapping? Because it is unjustified and you are being held against your will under threat of violent coercion.
Is it OK for someone to use violence to escape a kidnapper? Yes it is.
Therefore, it is also OK to use violence to escape a country that prohibits you from leaving.
So, it is OK for any North Korean citizen to kill any North Korean border agent in order to help them leave the country. This goes for any country that may do the same thing. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |