input
stringlengths 114
23.1k
| output
stringclasses 2
values | instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|
CMV: College should be free for at least 2, maybe 4, years, like high school. +
+ I've made a few generalizations below, of course there are some people who dropped out of high school and are millionaires, and some people that graduated from medical school and have no job. However all of you know just as well as I do, that these generalizations are mostly true. (just don't even bother arguing this part, don't post if you're going to say they're not)
Sure, you can possibly make a living with just a high school degree. But it'll be absolute crap and the best most of them can hope for is to live in a small, run-down apartment in the highest crime rate neighborhood in the entire city. You might even be lucky to live in the projects.
Even if you get a basic 2 year degree, if you get an almost/full time job, you could probably buy a small house in a suburb or rural area. It might not be nice, but you could probably own it and not live in fear of the crime outside your door.
It's a significant step up, and even in the US it should be considered a basic right in the same way public high school education is.
Note that this isn't coming from someone who's butthurt that they don't have money to pay for college, I've been put through it with absolutely no debt thanks to my very generous parents. I just think it would improve just about every aspect of society in every way.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe that most group projects in schools (mainly middle and highschool) fail to convey their intention and are not fair regarding the grading CMV. +
+ From my experience group projects in which pupils are forced to form a group with other pupils which are not their friends creates an extremely awkward situation for some. It happens quite frequently that only one or two of a bigger group do all the work while the others get credit for it. Regarding the objectives of the projects many pupils appear to be really unreliable therefor the students who do all the work have a handicap.
Regarding the atmosphere, either the group consists of friends who are very close with each other in general and they don't need the exercise to learn how to work together. While others who happened to get into a mixed team will have a disadvantage and also an uncomfortable situation because younger individuals in middle or highschool are in their "awkward phase" anyway.
Authorities/ Teachers often don't see the issue with that because pupils can't speak about it. If one did all the work and dislikes the fact that the teammates get a free good grade for no work he can't tell it the teacher or otherwise the whole group including said person will suffer a bad grade (also for failing the exercise = no teamwork). | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
US Politics: I believe that all the politics that you and I observe is simply kabuki theater. CMV. +
+ Update:
A lot of commenters have taken this to mean that I believe our government is a vast conspiracy. That's not where I'm going with this. I'm simply saying for things like floor speeches in congress, presidential speeches, TV interviews, etc., the objective isn't to convince fellow legislators of the merits of their perspective, they are there to play to their audience (typically their constituents, both financial and democratic). I see this as why if you watch clips from people giving floor speeches in congress, there's nobody in the chamber but the person speaking and maybe a handful of others. Nobody in power cares about what is actually said in that specific forum. Everything real happens behind closed doors.
I see more House of Cards and less Illuminati.
----
I believe that everything that happens on the floor of congress, in a press conference, a public committee meeting, or a speech has been discussed at length prior with all involved parties (including adversaries). That there are few, if any, genuine surprises that aren't the result of outside events.
I believe that everything that actually matters happens in closed door meetings that are determined by what each participant can get away with or do for their respective constituencies (and not all the residents necessarily, just those that represent their political base).
I once heard a lawyerly phrase: never ask a question you don't know the answer to.
Give me some hope in our system. CMV. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Political leaders should be chosen by lottery, instead of elected. CMV +
+ The type of people who excel at popularity contests are sly, good at evading questions, and driven to power....not exactly the best people to deal with the world's complex problems.
And the bigger the country, the more pressure there is on candidates, and more incentive to use underhanded tactics. This basically screens out candidates who scrupulously avoid doing negative things, ensuring all we have to choose from are people whose smiles make us feel uneasy.
I'd like to see our leaders chosen at random either from a pool of applicants (perhaps screened for education and relevant qualifications), or just from the population at large. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: feminists have been deliberately lying about the wage gap for decades +
+ I've noticed that most discussions of the wage gap tend to skirt past what I consider to be the most important aspect, which is that feminists seem to have been deliberately falsifying the stats for decades. I don't mean they are just wrong, I mean they deliberately knowingly are putting out false information and have been doing so for at least 40 years.
Feminists start conversations about the wage gap by saying something like, "women are paid only 77 cents for every dollar a man makes for doing the exact same work". Because these days it's pretty well known that this statement is false they usually move the conversation rapidly on to some other bogus statistic or other, but I want to say, wait, didn't you just directly lie to me? Isn't that significant? Why should I trust anything you say now?
For those few who don't already know, when feminists say something like "77 cents on the dollar" they usually can quote a legitimate sounding source like census data. However the source they use is a comparison of all the full time working men and all the full time working women in the country. So it's comparing for example truck drivers with secretaries, or surgeons with nurses. It's not comparing men and women in the same profession, let alone doing the same exact work. So when feminists claim they want "equal pay for equal work" and quote this sort of statistic that is a false statistic.
That's pretty well known these days and that's the problem. Feminists (eg Obama the other day) still say this even though they obviously know it's not true. They've been saying it for decades. I think back in the day they used the comparison of the mean wages and these days it's a comparison of the median, but it's the same problem either way. And people have been pointing out to feminists for decades their "mistake", especially around "Equal Pay Day" which the feminists calculate each year based on the figure for comparing all work, but pass it off each year as a comparison of equal work.
Sometimes they avoid a direct lie by being very careful how they word things. They will juxtapose the 77 cents thing and then in the next sentence they will say "equal work". So they carefully avoid saying "the 77 cents thing is for equal work" but they trick people into thinking that is what they said. I count this as a lie because it's obviously deceptive language.
Answers should not bother to try and do what feminists usually do when challenged about this -- which is change the topic to talk about employment discrimination or else to talk about how you can get "real" (truthful) figures if you factor out this and that thing and blah blah blah. Not interested. I want people to change my view specifically about whether feminists have deliberately lied about their opening factoid for decades.
ETA: looks like I can reply OK to folks.
| resistant | 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 better off without Freddie Gray +
+ First, I just want to say that I'm not saying he deserved it, and this statement in no way represents an endorsement, implicit or explicit, of any party's actions. Not Gray's, not the Baltimore PD's, and not the rioters.
However, it seems to me that Gray was, for lack of a better description, a scummy piece of criminal shit. The guy was a known drug dealer with almost two dozen criminal charges at the time of his death. The man was not a positive influence in his own life or in the lives of those in his community and contributed nothing to society. It is unfortunate that his family has to deal with the pain and sorrow of losing him, and it is equally unfortunate that the situation in Baltimore has grown to the point that it's at now. But I don't see why it's so bad that he's gone.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Women who drink/smoke/use drugs during pregnancy and carry the child to term should be put in prison. +
+ Abortion is fine.
If you carry the child to term, everything changes. All of your past behavior has now actualized qua physical/mental harm onto another. What was potential harm is now actual harm. In this way, "my body my choice" is an irrelavent argument. Sure, as long as the baby is in your body, the adage applies. But the harm manifests after birth as well, and the past behavior is morally analogous to child abuse (at least in a Utilitarian sense of moral).
Judith Jarvis Thompson's "In Defense of Abortion" is my favorite essay of all time, across all essay categories. I believe strongly that early/mid term abortions are 100-ish % morally ok. But carrying the child to term means that your past behavior moves from potentially wrong to actually wrong; and the being that was not a moral agent before birth, is now a moral agent after birth.
Actions have consequences, and sometimes those consequences occur much later than the actions themselves. The morally ok actions of the substance abusing pre-mother become not morally ok once she has the child. If she aborts, her hands are clean. If she gives birth, now she has committed a crime.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Trying to help society/humanity is a fool's errand, it's better to try and help yourself or those who are close to you. +
+ To be completely frank, I do not care about the, "Greater good" I care about myself and my own needs and desires. The, "Greater good" is such a nebulous and frankly malleable concept it's not even worth talking about seriously.
I do not care about religion, or being moral, I care about making myself happy. It may sound immoral, but in the end I achieve what I want. I don't care about helping the world just my own life.
Even if you spend your entire life trying to help others, most of those people will not even notice seriously or even really care. Even if you try to make a difference, it will not be this inspiring force that makes everything better.
Even Che Guevara who wanted to help the poor ended up becoming the force he wanted to stop, he worked in military courts giving people very harsh sentences. Not to mention people actually ended up fleeing from Cuba on makeshift rafts. It's kind of ironic in the most cruel way possible. He wanted to help these people, and they were willing to die of drowning just to escape the state he helped create.
You can not help people like a god, not realistically. You can only help yourself succeed. That is a more pragmatic and in the end, satisfying goal.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: A lot of economists are just glorified fortune tellers +
+ I think that a lot of economists are like glorified fortune tellers. They know a lot of complex formulas and terminology, but how good are these formulas and terminology at predicting future prices/events? Are these complex formulas really useful, or is it that they are confusing enough for average people not to question them, and to view them as "scientific."
Are they actually making accurate predictions, or is it just comforting for companies/governments/investors to think that they can predict the future of the economy. Some economists (like fortune tellers) make accurate predictions, but when you have so many people trying to predict what will happen in the future, your bound to have at least one of them predict it correctly.
I'm not saying that economists can't predict anything, just that they don't have their predictions down to a science like they claim to.
CMV.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I want to leave America and move to another country, because I hate the direction I think we're moving in, and I want to get out now. +
+ I'm from the south in the United States, and I'm so sick of all the apathy that I see in my country. Our government has been handed to us on a silver platter of voting, yet year after year we elect the same fucking two parties that seem bent on destroying our national credit and stuffing the pockets of the elite in our society.
The people that would benefit from electing an independent party member for a change FAR outnumber the people sending their millions to superPACs, but because people can't be bothered to read a few articles about what's going on in our country, the same shit is happening year after year.
And that's not even the worst part. Most people seem to have this idea that America is number one in literally every category ever, so there's zero need to change any policies at all. The economy? phhbbbbtttt. It'll fix itself, we're on top, motherfuckers. Oh, drones are raining down missiles on school children in Afghanistan? They were probably at a suicide bombing camp anyway. Huge, multinational corporations are getting tax breaks while the middle and poorer classes have their incomes stolen to pay for it? Whatever, one day I'll be rich and won't have to worry about it.
It's at the point for me where I have zero national pride and just want to leave. This can get very expensive though, and I would genuinely appreciate anyone who can re-inspire some hope. Looking forward to it!
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The human-caused extinction of an endangered species is no less natural than the biological/evolutionary processes that generated that species in the first place. +
+ "CMV: The human-caused extinction of an endangered species is no less natural than the biological/evolutionary processes that generated that species in the first place."
Assuming an evolutionary explanation of origins, humans can only be considered as natural as any other animal, therefore making any actions of humankind - including that of wiping out other species - an entirely natural process.
To expand further (for word count's sake) How can it even be considered possible for humans, being a part of the natural world, to partake in any activity described as "unnatural?" By definition everything we do, whether it's planting a tree, killing an endangered dolphin or dumping toxic waste in a lake, is natural - how can it be considered anything but the natural course? Are we somehow outside of nature? How? Why? That’s a contradiction of everything we know about evolutionary origins.
Surely the only qualifier for an action to be considered truly "natural" is that it was carried out by a natural being in the first place. Why then, do *"green"* types constantly speak as though humans occupy some sort of *extra-natural* category, above the "natural" and below the "super-natural" category, in which we are somehow obliged to act as a kind of shepherd of the natural - to make sure that the more “natural” events, such as rainforests growing and endangered animals thriving, are aided, and that those who would contribute to their destruction are somehow destroying some perfect course of nature that has been tainted by us extra-natural human beings.
I think you get my point. Interested to hear some discussion.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: As we change from 2014 to 2015 — I think the acronyms B.C.E. and C.E. which are used to supersede B.C. and A.D. are antihistorical, pretentious euphemisms with no place in the scientific and academic communities or anywhere else +
+ I thought it appropriate timing to post this CMV as we change from the year 2014 AD (or is that "CE"?) to 2015 in the near-universal Gregorian calendar across each timezone of the world.
As you may or may not know, the current year counts upward from a medieval Christian monk's (Dionysius Exiguus) estimation of the birth year of Jesus Christ (c. December 25, 1 BC), popularized in Western Europe as the dominant era system throughout the latter half of the first millennium and cemented as the de facto year system by the mid-20th century, even in non-Western nations. The acronym most familiarly used to denote the current year and distinguish it from years going back over 2,014 years ago is "AD", standing for *Anno Domini*, a Latin phrase translating to "In the Year of the Lord". The term most often used to denote years prior to 2,014 years ago is "BC", standing for Before Christ, a direct English-language reference.
But in academia, the scientific community and elsewhere there is an increased tendency to favor the usage of "BCE" (Before Common Era) to replace BC, and "CE" (Common Era) to replace AD. This is claimed to be used for several reasons, all of which I disagree with (from arguments I've seen so far). Please CMV regarding any or all of these points, or any other points you may think of.
Here's my responses to the common arguments:
-----
Jesus Christ was not really born at the epoch of this calendrical era,
and using CE/BCE is more historically and scientifically appropriate.
-----
While it is true that a historical Jesus was more likely to have been born closer to 5 BC than to 1 BC or 1 AD, this is irrelevant to the argument at hand. Does Wednesday actually “belong” to the deity Woden? No, but that’s what the name Wednesday suggests. If Jesus never existed, which is a real possibility, then he was never really born, and the epoch is based on an entirely mythical religious reference akin to an English-language day of the week. Plus the word Christ means "Messiah", so BC means before the Christian Messiah, not before a historical person. AD has the same implication in "Lord".
BCE and CE are no more “historically appropriate” than BC and AD are. Both sets of acronyms are used to reference years within the scheme of a 6th-century attempt to date years from the birth of a Christian deity, thus having cultural significance, not scientific or historical significance. One set of acronyms directly references this origin and are the naturally-occurring terms, while the other throws all connotations out in a move that can hardly be seen as less than revisionist. “Christian Era” would have been acceptable, but “Common” makes no sense. Common to whom? Why?
As for BC and AD giving implicit expression to Christian-derived cultural terms, it is again no different than giving such expression to pagan terms seen in the weekdays and months, which are referenced ***far more often*** (try every single day) than BC and AD. When someone suggests changing Thor's Day ("Thursday") to "Common Era Weekday #4", get back to me.
-----
Not everyone is Christian, so for non-christians it is silly to expect
them to refer to a year as being 2015 AD or "In the Year of the Lord"
when Jesus Christ is not their Lord.
-----
As mentioned, our Western calendar has days, months and years named for various historical and persisting Western religions, ranging from Christianity to Norse and Roman paganism. If a non-pagan sees nothing wrong with referring to all of the days of the week using names honoring pagan gods and god-like objects, then why is Christianity any different? The fact that Christianity is still a major religious sect should have no effect whatsoever on someone who doesn't give Christianity any more credence than paganism anyhow.
*/ENDQUESTIONS*
Any other arguments are welcome, I'll be sure to respond. My main reason for posting this is that on Reddit/the Internet in general, I often get patronizingly told to use BCE/CE instead of BC/AD when I use the latter, so I'm certainly interested in hearing why I'm wrong here, and perhaps my mind can be swayed. I know this topic is ultimately trivial, but it speaks to the heart of so many debates and arguments within our society: RELIGION and POLITICS!
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The FDNY's new policy of passing firefighters who fail the physical test is wrong and harmful. +
+ [Background info](http://nypost.com/2015/05/03/woman-to-become-ny-firefighter-despite-failing-crucial-fitness-test/).
Up until now, the FDNY has had a mandatory physical test (as well as written tests, etc.). One could not become a firefighter without passing the physical test.
The current test, called the FST, has been in place for the last several years. However, before the FST, there was still a physical test that one had to pass. Note: I am not talking about the [CPAT](https://uwaterloo.ca/uw-fitness/fire-fighter-candidate-testing/candidate-physical-ability-test-cpat-overview). The CPAT is and was merely the introductory test to enter the firefighter academy. It was not the final physical test needed to become a firefighter.
Under the FDNY's new policy, someone can become a firefighter even while failing the physical test (currently, the FST) - as long as your other tests (academic) are high enough to form a sufficient average.
And for the first time, someone has became a firefighter while being unable - by a large margin - to pass the physical test. This seems absurd, almost ridiculous - and will directly lead to firefighters who are incapable of performing the job.
I'll address common objections:
*People only take the physical test once - there may be lots of veterans who can no longer pass*.
An actual firefighter's [answer](http://www.reddit.com/r/nyc/comments/34pwm2/woman_to_become_ny_firefighter_despite_failing/cqxh6qu?context=30:
*The FST is not a suitable test - being unable to pass it does not mean that a person is not physically capable of the job*.
I would need some compelling evidence for this claim. But, even if it was true - the new policy is still wrong and harmful. If the FST is not suitable - why is it still being used? There must be a new, suitable test, that should be mandatory to pass. If the FST truly is unsuitable, then it still makes no sense to say "well, we're going to use it, but if you can't pass, you could still be a firefighter if your written tests are great".
*Firefighters don't all need to be strong - they can do desk work etc.*
The main duty of firefighters is to fight fires and rescue people from fires. If you are not capable of doing that - then you are not a firefighter. It is directly harmful to citizens to have firefighters taking up space that are physically unable to perform required tasks.
There may be some factors I've been unable to think of, that could justify this. Please CMV if possible. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I don't think the media should show names or faces of criminals on television/papers/other news sources. CMV +
+ Even though a person does something horrible as molest a child or murder another person he/she is still a human being, maybe a person with psychotic problems but it doesn't do them any good displaying what they did on the media for everyone to see.
Example: If my father were to get arrested for molesting a child I wouldn't really want anyone to know about it
1) He is still my father.
2) There would be a bunch of oppurtunities to bully me about it.
3) People might think differently of me and my family.
CMV | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: OKCupid's way of displaying others to you based on a 'hotness' rating has a negative effect on its users +
+ Quick disclaimer before I start, I have not yet used OKCupid, nor have I used any dating service. I'm not overweight(130 lbs 5"9 male), nor do I have any serious imperfections. I'm by no means attractive(I wear glasses and I don't lift much), but I'm not horribly ugly either. Only saying this because I don't want to sound like some SJW that's upset that they're ugly and oppressed or some shit. Probably shouldn't have to say this though since the /r/changemyview community is *usually* pretty mature with their responses.
Wikipedia states that "Users who receive high ratings may be notified by email that they are in the 'top half of OkCupid's most attractive users' and 'will now see more attractive people in [their] match results'. The email also reads 'And, no, we didn't just send this email to everyone on OkCupid. Go ask an ugly friend and see'.
First off, I personally believe attractiveness is subjective-different people prefer different things. Some might think curly hair is ugly, some may think its pretty. Some may think tatoos are sexy, some may think they look stupid. Some may prefer blonde hair, some may prefer black hair. These things, while people may share different opinions, should still not make too big of a difference due to things averaging out.
However, other things may not average out so well. For example, females with a flat chest/smaller body(for lack of a better term) are considered unattractive by most men. However, there are some men who find this physical feature quite attractive. But because this is likely a minority opinion, women with this physical characteristic may receive low ratings, and as a result, not show up in results to attractive men with this particular preference. There are plenty of factors in which a minority of people may find attractive, whereas most would find unattractive. Point being, I feel like beauty is, to a degree, subjective, and simply matching the people that are voted most attractive isn't the best way to ensure lasting relationships.
Secondly, setting the threshold to 50% means that it will result in poor self esteem for for those that don't receive it. If you don't receive the message, it implies you're in the bottom 50%, thus 'below average', and therefore ugly. The message also seems to take a rather ill-mannered tone. The lack of receiving this message can result in greater depression. I'm not saying that people shouldn't own up to accept the bad things about them, and deal with their problems, but I don't think OKCupid needs to run their system in a way that reminds everyone of it. Changing the threshhold to something like 80% or 90% would result in positive reinforcement for those who receive it, without it being too negative if you don't receive it.
Lastly, it creates a narrow way of searching for a "compatible" SO. Ensuring both partners are attracted to each other physically is a good thing, but it isn't the only factor that is needed for a relationship.
I probably just sound like an angry sjw nerd or something, but meh, CMV. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Companies that create a culture of doing just enough to hire/keep their employes should not expect their employees to feel any differently about their jobs. +
+ My view is that publicly owned companies run their business model by focusing on their shareholders first, their customers second, and their employees and assets last. The assets and people are invested in only enough so that they don't break down and create the highest short term value for the shareholders. Everyone accepts this as a necessary evil. However if you apply that same philosphy to a worker, they would only do the bare minimum not to get fired. Businesses want people that are motivated and passionate about what they do, and will actively try to fire people meeting the above description. I think that is hypocritical and ultimately self defeating.
I think that comppanies should upgrade the well being of their employees to a level above assets, and potentially to level equal to their customers in priorities. I believe this is supported through experiments done at costco and whole foods as two examples.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-06-06/costco-ceo-craig-jelinek-leads-the-cheapest-happiest-company-in-the-world
I'm torn about this view because left unchecked this leads to bidding wars over personnel and the grass is always greener somewhere else. However, companies could also increase the total financial investment in activiites, training, bonuses, (and yes also salary) So CMV that employees are just as important as customers, and that increased investment in employees will lead to higher productivity and retention?
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: My mindset of "time is money" has made me miserable. +
+ Setting:
I am currently a college student finishing up my last year. Age 22.
Background:
I am a typical Asian-American and I grew up in a traditional Asian family. My parents immigrated from Asia to give their children (me) a better future in America. Because of my parent's pressure wanting me to succeed and obtain a successful job with high income so that they can retire early, i have instilled a mindset that "time is money". Unused time means lost of potential money.
Problem:
I started having this mindset near the middle of high-school. During that time I realize why am I wasting my time playing games? Why I am wasting my time hanging out with friends? I could be spending all of this time to further develop my skills and gain new experiences. In college, that mindset has hit me even harder. I see all of these college kids socializing, having fun, "wasting away their time" that could have been used to study or work or to do something productive.
As I grew older and learned more about what's available in the world, I decided that my interests and work ethics match me well for a Chief Technology Officer career. I like the science and technology side of how things work and I have done much R&D research in college. I also like the business side, leadership skills, and challenges involved. Since I am already working as hard as a CTO, i thought this dream position would also fit me as well. I am considering a PhD as well since many CTOs do have it. But PhD students also work 70+ hrs a week so they can graduate on time.
Because I have been so heavily invested in this mindset, reality just hit me. I am incredibly tired, internally as well. I have not had any vacations in the past two years. During Christmas break, I stayed at school and worked on my projects. I worked as well during spring break. As soon as summer started, I started my internship. And as soon as my internship ended, I came back to school to continue working on my project.
This negative "time is money" mindset of mine also repelled a lot of friends. They want me to go out and have some fun, but I pessimistically reminded them that they are wasting their time having fun and could be doing something much more productive. So now I also feel quite lonely with not many friends to reach out to.
Not only that, but my social skills are lacking and I still have not had my first girlfriend or my first kiss yet at the age of 22. (I have tried to pursue girls actually, but my mindset was, I need to get a girlfriend so I can get this over with and continue focusing on my career which let to numerous downfalls.)
Now that I am reflecting, I have focused on my career so much that I gave up everything else in my life. It is really hard for me to swing out of this mindset that I have had for the past 7 years.
I am starting to think CTO is not something I want to do if it means sacrificing another 10 years down the road. I want to convert my mindset to live a working 9-5 life and come back home worry free to enjoy other aspects of life that I am currently missing out on.
I hope someone can help me. I feel so miserable right now although I'm not worried about my career options after I graduate.
Thanks so much!
**Update**
Thank you everyone for helping me to clarify the problem with my current views. This is not something I can turn 180 on with a flick of a switch, but hopefully I can transition to a more balanced person because rewards and happiness can come in all types of form.
| 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 Generation Z women are becoming men and the social ramifications of this will be widespread. +
+ Generation Z is an extremely socially conscious generation. Controversial topics like same-sex marriage, abortion, climate change and feminism are all fought for tooth and nail. I think particularly with regards to women and feminism, this is posing a problem.
Being the children of second wave feminists, Generation Z women have adopted male values as the cornerstone of the respect they desire. As such, generation Z women are becoming "men". They're working longer and harder rather than acting as mothers. They're more concerned with results than communication. They're having lots of casual relationships and getting married later. Of course these are generalizations but if the trend continues I can see western society facing the troubles of being primarily composed of "men" in coming decades.
Wouldn't it have been smarter to have fought for men to respect traditional female gender roles rather than trying to garner respect by becoming "men" themselves?
| 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 in a Groundhog Day scenario, murder is still morally wrong. CMV. +
+ We all know the scenario, right? You wake up to the same day, over and over again in seeming perpetuity, but you are the only one experiencing the repeating effect. Everybody else on the planet is living the day as though it is the first time, every time. “Restore to factory settings” at 6am. There are no external consequences lasting longer than 24 hours.
The reasons I think murder is still morally wrong, despite the person being reincarnated the next day as though the act had never occurred, are the following:
* **The big R.** Let’s cut right to it. If murder is okay, then rape is okay, and now you are really in a dark place.
* **The mouse in the glue trap.** There are no consequences for leaving a mouse in a glue trap to die slowly of dehydration or self-inflicted wounds, but many would agree that it is moral to end the mouse’s suffering quickly. The mouse dies either way, but the moral choice is to minimize pain and suffering. In a Groundhog Day murder there are also no consequences, but you are increasing pain and suffering. Even a swift murder causes some pain and suffering in others, and if it’s not swift you’ve left someone to suffer for potentially hours.
* **Consequences to one’s self.** The emotional trauma you inflict on yourself is immoral. You have created unnecessary pain and suffering for yourself, and this does carry over to the next day, and the day after that.
I have met many people who have casually agreed that murder is okay in a Groundhog Day scenario, and I often assume this is a nod to their own immorality. But, admittedly, I’ve never lived the same day over and over again, so maybe I’m overlooking some variables that would change the rules of the game.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: It should be illegal for an institution (i.e. an employer or school) to require a doctor's note for short-term absence. +
+ Requiring a doctor's note has the adverse effect of putting unnecessary strain on the healthcare industry. When you make people go to the clinic or emergency room when they don't need to be there; the following things happen:
1. They spread common ailments that do not require treatment.
2. They increase waiting times for patients that actually need the help and take up space that hospitals do not have.
3. They hinder recovery by placing the sick individual in a suboptimal environment.
There is a real chance that lives have been lost as a direct result of these factors, such as passing on an otherwise benign sickness to an immunocompromised patient or taking the space of someone needing treatment until it is too late.
I believe that there is not enough to be gained from requiring a doctor to verify that an absence is legitimate. Other controls designed to curb abuse from absenteeism exist (such as having a set number of sick or vacation days). Even if these controls are objectively worse from a productivity standpoint; they more than make up for the human cost of placing an unnecessary burden on the healthcare system.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: There are no downsides to purchasing a station wagon. +
+ I really want a station wagon. I think they're fantastic cars. I'm interested specifically in either a Volvo V70 or a Subaru Outback. I have a long list of reasons I like them, but I'm too biased to really see the downsides. I'm less interested in a critique of those specific models, and more interested in a critique of station wagons in general. Argue from every angle. I understand things are subjective, but I want you to tell me why I'm wrong. Don't hold back. I'm way too biased to see the downsides on my own. A car purchase is a big step, and I want to be able to make an objective decision on whether to get a station wagon or not.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The requirement for a president to be 35 years old is ridiculous and singles out a large part of the population +
+ The age requirement for presidents is at the very least antiquated and at worst it undermines democracy. People should be able to elect leaders that represent them, but this age limit creates a giant gap from 18-35 where you have to elect someone from an older generation whose views don't align with yours as well as somebody younger.
It makes no sense to place something like an age restriction on a republic because the entire point of a republic is to be able to elect who you want. While people below 35 may not have the life experience of somebody older, that is obviously going to be known to the public and the public can still make an informed decision.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: caffeinated soft drinks are more harmful than e-cigarettes +
+ I feel that caffeinated soft drinks are more harmful than e-cigarettes, and yet they continue to be sold to and marketed to minors. Caffeine is an addictive substance, and the high fructose corn syrup that is so common in soft drinks can contribute to many long-term health problems including tooth decay, obesity, heart disease, liver failure, and diabetes. There is evidence to show that high fructose corn syrup is also an addictive substance. And the artificial sweeteners that can be used in its stead also come with their host of problems. Along with all the alarmist news stories about e-cigarette use increasing among high school students, I feel that the public should be every bit as outraged by products like Mountain Dew and Coca Cola being marketed to children and teenagers.
The only active substances in the liquid used in an e-cigarette are nicotine, propylene glycol, vegetable glycerine and flavour extracts. Propylene glycol and vegetable glycerine are all approved for public consumption by the FDA and are commonly used as food additives. Propylene glycol is commonly used in ice cream to keep it from going hard. The temperatures used in vaporizing the e-liquid are only enough to cause a phase change and far too low to cause combustion, which is where most of the harmful chemicals are formed when smoking tobacco.
The only reason why e-cigarettes are banned from sale to minors is due to the continuing stigma from the risks of smoking tobacco. Change my view: If we allow the sale of caffeinated soft drinks to minors, we should also allow the sale of e-cigarettes. And if we restrict one, we should then restrict the other.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Seat-belt laws are logically indefensible and exist only to impose risk adverse morality CMV +
+ * Seat belt laws exist to protect occupants from a person's body being turned into a projectile.
* Drivers have the ability to refuse to transport people who don't wear a seat belt, and passengers have the ability to refuse to ride in a car with an unbuckled occupant
* This leaves only the cost of "cleanup" and otherwise avoidable death as reasoning.
* We can easily deduce that some people choose to take the risk of premature death over the inconvenience of wearing a seat belt.
* If we use the argument that non seat belt wearers reduce possible care for people who wear seat belts we must follow it's logical conclusion.
* Such a thing is only consistent if all risky behavior is legislated out of existence. Alcohol (DUI, liver failure), fatty food (heart attacks), smoking (lung cancer), risky sports (accidental deaths) etc etc
* It is much more logical and consistent to accept that death occurs often at random by accident or circumstance, and people choose their own level of risk assessment.
* The driver of the unbuckled passenger decided the risk was acceptable, as did other passengers. Everyone in this scenario self assessed their risk.
The only remaining reasoning is to impose the view that risky behavior is deviate and should be punished. I conclude these laws actually exist to enforce morality, and not to protect others. And that rationing to "save costs" is dubious at best. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Entertainment with widespread appeal necessarily forces consumers to compromise their enjoyment. +
+ People all have different likes and interests. If you were to find a piece of media - whether it be a movie, game, piece of art, song - that perfectly appeals to you, it would necessarily not appeal as much to others. Hence the concept of cult phenomena. I'm sure there's plenty of evidence that fans of a cult hit are significantly more die-hard than fans of something widely popular.
If a piece of media appeals to everyone, then it must make compromises to each person's individual preferences in order to broaden the appeal. For example:
- A movie being trimmed down to fit a PG-13 rating in order to include a younger audience usually means cutting back mature content which may have helped to enhance immersion and storytelling.
- A piece of music that sits nicely into standard musical conventions will never appeal as much to you as a piece of music that violates those standards in a way that you personally find interesting.
- A video game developer may focus their efforts on graphical power at the expense of gameplay in order to appeal to those who care more about graphics. This partially alienates their gameplay-focused audience.
I feel like in general if something is ideal for you, it necessarily won't be ideal to everyone else. Each individual person can find large amounts of media that specifically caters to their needs, but it is impossible to universalize without compromising on these points.
I genuinely feel as though people who listen to mainstream radio enjoy it, but not nearly as much as they would enjoy some artist that perfectly fits into their interests.
Obviously there are some people who's ideal media overlaps exactly with the mainstream, but these are few and far between. Everyone enjoying mainstream media would do better to search out lesser known content that appeals more specifically to their interests.
I've had this debate with several people throughout the years but many people tend to disagree with me, however they have never brought up points that directly address my argument. I usually hear stuff like "Well if everyone likes it, it must be the best" etc.
I have a very strange taste in media. I listen to really odd music, I enjoy strange films, basically things that are different and not traditionally popular. I don't like them *because* of this, but in spite of it. But this brings up this discussion time and time again and I felt like it was time to get reddit's input.
I get accused of being a hipster due to this, but it's not as though I go out of my way to like things that are not widely known. However, I've learned over time that if something has been a smash hit the world over, it probably caters to too many different interests, and as a result is less interesting to me than it could have been. My main point here is that I feel this argument applies to everyone.
**TL;DR:** If something appeals to everyone, it fails to completely satisfy each person's interests when lesser known, more esoteric content could. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: No is obligated to be attracted to anyone, and people should not be chastised for their preferences. +
+ You see a of this attitude on Tumblr, Facebook, and other social media. Slowly it went from almost exclusively online, to now being more prominent and accepted in the real world.
With this new brand of activism and "acceptance" it seems as though if you're not attracted to every single variance of the opposite/same sex, you're labeled an asshole, shallow, transphobic, racist, or any other less than favorable terms. I feel it is wrong to berate, reprimand, or otherwise harass people who take preference in their sexual/romantic partners.
An example of this is the "fat acceptance" movement. I'm attracted to petite women. I don't know why, I just am. I have thus far, never been attracted to an obese woman, as I don't find that body type attractive. My attraction/preference isn't anyone else's business other than my own, and no one should be entitled to me. The same goes for attraction based on any other variable. 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 bullying is a good thing. CMV. +
+ For the most part, I think bullying helps kids develop a thicker skin and prepares them for a world that can be harsh at times. By choosing how we respond to bullying we are able to grow. I don't mean the fucked up kind of tormenting that leads kids to commit suicide, that's obviously not OK. But everyone gets picked on at some point in their life. I feel like the anti-bullying zero tolerance policies of many schools means we are raising a generation of over-sensitive pussies who are ill-equipped to handle the realities of adulthood. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe Fat Shaming is terrible thing to do, and it doesnt help the person being shamed lose weight. CMV +
+ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54uSD67M-Zo
The Above link has most of my points and opinions.
I used to be an obese Teenager, and i am currently overweight (5'10, 210lb and 17) and I believe people who made fun of me and Shamed me had absolutely nothing to do with my weight lost. If anything they had slowed it down, nearly make me kill myself, and made my self-esteem go much lower.
Here are some points i going to make
-Fat shaming doesnt help motivated the person to lose weight, if anything he/she will eat more like i did.
-any points he makes in the video also are mine
So CMV
Fat Shaming is not
- Doctor recommendation
- Friendly discussion and help. (Not joking about it)
Fat shaming is when
- You make fun of someone for being fat
- Saying they are less human because of it
Its is mostly bullying but with your weight as the topic.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
The current world state is hopeless enough to make me go to therapy. CMV +
+ I've recently enrolled in therapy because I've been having anxiety attacks when I think about how awful the world is.
Being exposed to a college environment you learn about theories, ideas, and explanations to understand tragedy and misery(among other things). We talked about how Hitler did worse than genocide, he dehumanized them. We talk about how upper education is reserved for the upper class because it's the only way to finish it without crippling debt. Besides that I'm gay and witness social injustice every day. Seeing heads of government in foreign countries call for the death of the lgbt community. The fact that religion(in the masses) is somewhat brainwashing, teaching you what to think rather than how to think. I feel sad for my roommate that is living with me rent free, because his mother and father made him homeless after he told them he was gay because of their religious background. I feel hopeless that some states ban atheists from positions in government, and that is just America. I cringe when I think of how the Judicial system has become more of a financial institution rather than something that fixes what is right or wrong(such as the entire electronics industry at the moment). I feel sorry for class struggle between the rich and poor. I feel bad that people can patent life saving medicine only to charge thousands of dollars to it.
I volunteer in my meantime, and donate to some scholarships for minorities. My dream is to work as a Systems Administrator for a company that helps solve social and economic problems like these. I just really need to feel like it will be worth something in the end.
tldr; I am a walking hopeless pity party. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe people take unnecessary risks and then prefer to be unaccountable for it. CMV +
+ I recently had a discussion on facebook with people who love to abuse buzzwords for their purpose, in this case "rape culture". The video in question was of a woman saying how she was harassed by some guys at night who said some very disturbing things. This culminated in a verbiage more or less of "I have no blame in this situation.", and "it is never the victims fault."
While I don't believe anyone forces someone to commit a crime, and it is completely the criminal who does it, when I posted that people should take steps to avoid unnecessary risks, people blew up and accused me of supporting rapists or changing the subject. This is kind of hard to explain succinctly, so I guess i'll try my best to sum up my position.
Individuals cannot control the actions of others, but CAN control the actions of themselves. If a person put themselves in a dangerous situation, they are partially responsible for circumstances which occur afterwards. As an example, if I walk home at night alone through a bad part of town, I am at a higher risk of being a victim of a crime than if I take a taxi home, or a bus. Therefore, if I am robbed or assaulted walking home alone at night, I am partially at fault for taking a preventable risk.
CMV. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:Fearing death doesn't make any sense. +
+ First of all, the "you" you identify with is probably the summation of biological activity in a complex and ordered fashion in such a way that produces consciousness.
Secondly, when speaking of self-centered or "selfish" fears, you can only rationally fear that which you may possibly experience. Further, It is only rational to fear possible experiences as they would be experienced by you *at the time they can or will occur*.
Thirdly, experience terminates before or when the biological integrity of your being terminates. This is death.
Conclusion: Since death requires an end to experience, you cannot rationally fear experiencing the absense of experience. Fear of an end to experience is therefore irrational.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe if it doesn't affect anyone negatively, adults should be allowed to do whatever they choose to. CMV +
+ People are constantly arguing about whether things should be legal or not, but if it isn't going to affect anyone badly, why make it illegal? examples I'll use are:
Gay marriage, in which people say two strangers shouldn't be allowed to marry each other, even though I can't see anyway it affects the person against gay marriage, and I can't see how it could affect the gay couple in any negative way either. Even if people claim that it will ruin "the sanctity of marriage", surely there should at least be something else with a different name, which gives them the same legal rights as a married couple (and not after living together for a set number of years).
Prostitution, If a woman (or man) wants to sell their body for some money, how is it any different from porn? person A has a product person B wants, I can't see how it can harm either of them, so why is it illegal? (obviously there should be regulations to prevent STD's and pregnancy etc., but we can do it, this isn't the 1800's)
there is probably reasons against my views I can’t think of any, but I guess thats why I'm posting it here, since this subreddit is "For people who have an opinion on something but accept that they may be wrong"
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
If I put my needs/wants over my parents' needs/wants, I am a selfish, insensitive, and ungrateful daughter. Please CMV. +
+ I'm Asian American. My parents immigrated to the United States when they were teenagers. They've had to sacrifice so much and work so hard to build a life in a completely different culture, and when they married and had me and my sister, we never wanted for everything. They provided for us in every way, and we've had a lot of fun times together as a family. I'm very lucky in this regard--not many people can say the same.
As their child, there's nothing I could ever do to repay the years of emotional and financial support they have given to me. Absolutely nothing. At the very least, I could make sure I'm a good daughter to them. So if there's something that they feel very strongly about, even if I disagree, I should do what would make them happy. Especially if whatever it is we disagree about isn't a major issue (for example, who to marry/date). Going against their wishes would mean that I only care about myself, and that their feelings don't matter at all.
I know this might sound pathetic to the average American, as someone whose grown up in both cultures, I've been struggling to reconcile this for 23 years. I *want* to believe with 100% confidence that doing what makes me happy isn't bad, and if they take it as a personal slight, then that's on them. But every time my parents and I get into an argument about this, I feel so much anxiety and guilt thinking about what is the "right" way, and I usually end up apologizing and giving in to what they want, which makes me feel so sick and resentful. Please CMV, as therapy hasn't done so. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I'm a good looking guy who believes that long term relationships is selling myself short +
+ The longest relationship I've been in is about 6 months and at the end, it was just heart ache and pain of having someone break up with me. On the other hand, having hookups/FWB is so simple. We have sexual intimacy, we can hang out and we can talk. It's pretty much all the best parts of a LTR without the hassle of being committed/having to care. Why should I settle down when I can use my youth to my full advantage? Are there any benefits for me to actually try to get to know a person and possibly have a relationship with 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 humankind is essentially cancer, and the world would be better off without people. CMV. +
+ I basically see humanity as a large-scale version of cancer. I have a very basic understanding of cancer from high school biology class, so I could be wrong about some of this. Please correct me if so.
Here are the basic similarities:
Cancer happens when a cell develops with a mutation that causes it to reproduce a lot.
Humans happened when random mutations resulted in a species that reproduces a lot.
Cancer spreads through the body when a cancerous cell or tumor ends up in the bloodstream. A cancer cell can start in the foot and end up in the brain.
Look at how humans moved from the tumor we call "Britain" to the tumor we call "America".
Cancer kills when the mass of cells impedes necessary bodily functions.
I don't even need to get into the subject of how humans have affected Earth. Just look at Global Warming, Nuclear power station disasters, and [this](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Bison_skull_pile_edit.jpg).
Essentially, I see Earth as this happy little ecosystem, teeming with life, that was healthy and self-sufficient until humans came along. Now Earth is dying.
I can't help but believe that Earth can only survive if humans do not. When someone gets cancer, you kill the cancer before it kills them. Someone explain to me why the logic is different for a planet. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I don't think we should really care what the original writers of a constitution thought. CMV +
+ I do not believe that the "original intent" of the writers of any constitution should matter in our modern interpretation of it. I live in Canada, so it is a little different, since some parts of our constitution are from 1867 and some are from 1982, but I think the same would apply to, for example, the US constitution. I believe a constitution is a guideline and a fundamental outline for a system of governance, establishing the basic rules under which it should function, but I believe that that definition should evolve with time and that the original intent, while having been important to the original writing, should not be important to the modern interpretation. For example, in Canada we have the "living tree" doctrine, in which the spirit of the Constitution rather than the literal text is considering to be more important. Although the Constitution does not mention sexual orientation, it has been considered to be a part of it by most of the legal system in recent years, because of that doctrine. The whole debate in the US about what the Founding Fathers would think of the world now just seems silly and stupid to me. Change My View. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Voter ID laws are entirely unnecessary. +
+ One of the strongest arguments in favor of voter ID laws is that it helps protect our electoral system from fraud by voters impersonating other people and voting to swing elections.
For this argument I want to set aside the "disenfranchisement" aspect for another time.
There is no evidence, that I am aware of, that corroborates the idea that voter fraud is a widespread issue or [even a problem at all](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/08/06/a-comprehensive-investigation-of-voter-impersonation-finds-31-credible-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/).
Requiring photo ID adds unnecessary steps and complication to a process that is, our courts have determined, a right for every citizen as well as unnecessarily adding more laws into a legal system that already contains [25,000](http://blogs.loc.gov/law/2013/03/frequent-reference-question-how-many-federal-laws-are-there/) pages of laws at the Federal level alone.
NOTE: Before you respond, be aware that "voter registration" and "voting" are different. ~~Registering "Alan Smithee" to vote is not a crime. Showing up at a poll and claiming to be Alan Smithee and asking for a ballot is a crime.~~ Both registration and voting under a name that isn't yours is a crime however registration does not immediately translate to a vote.
False voter registration forms (of which there is also a lack of evidence for this being a problem) do not effect the votes in an election.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Breasts are legally protected as genitalia and as long as they are, it should be illegal to expose them in public. +
+ I write legal charges all day long and female breasts are legally protected as genitalia. Let me show you what I mean: if I grab a woman by the arm, the crime is Assault, but if I grab a woman's breast, it's Sexual Assault by Contact. The difference is the arm is not legally recognized as a sexual organ, but breasts are.
Here's the problem: as a man, if I expose my genitalia in public then I've committed a crime. However, there's a growing movement that women can exhibit their breasts (again, legally recognized as genitalia) in public without it being a crime. There could not be a more perfect example of a 14th Amendment violation.
Either breasts are genitalia and are protected as sexual organs and punished by harsher penalties, or alternatively they aren't genitalia and groping incidents become regular, plain assault. Alternatively, alternatively - make exhibition of all genitalia legal.
I hope you'll read this as you would A Modest Proposal by Jonathan Swift, that following this logic (breasts are simultaneously genitalia and not genitalia) to it's natural conclusion will produce nonsensical results.
**UPDATE** In my state:
" (c) In this section, "sexual contact" means the following acts, if committed with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person: (1) any touching by a person, including touching through clothing, of the anus, breast, or any part of the genitals" | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think "Palestinian" is a made-up ethnicity. CMV! +
+ Noone spoke of a "Palestinian" as an ethnicity before the 70's, when the Arab League used this nomenclature as a political tool.
"Palestinian" is a word used by the Jews for hundreds of years. When Israel became a state, they abandoned the word. Arabs, mad at their tactical defeat, stole the word to try to claim what wasn't theirs.
There are no Palestinians. The Arab League created the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) to steal the land that the West (and only the West) called Palestine.
I wish that the Arabs will find unity, and realize that they need to share the land with Christians, Jews, Kurds, Zingi, and others. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
China's rapid and continuing economic growth demonstrate the clear superiority of the technocratic model. CMV. +
+ This post is motivated by news of the Chinese 3rd plenum, which took place yesterday.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-24770802
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-24922269
China has been growing at a breakneck pace since around 1980. If you haven't seen the graphs, take a look:
[Chinese GDP growth over time](http://angieliang49.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/screen-shot-2013-01-25-at-12-26-01-pm1.jpg)
[Chinese vs US manufacturing](http://i.imgur.com/VN0dIIk.jpg)
China has experienced a rare thing in economics: sustained growth over a long period of time. While this growth slows some signs of showing, some slowing seems fairly normal as the country's economy matures. Despite facing plenty of challenges, I think a key point continues to be the willingness of China's leadership and the capability of its government system to continually implement reforms as the situation develops.
While initially successful, Mao Zedong's policies had become increasingly insane and inefficient by his death in 1976. His successor, Deng Xioping began to open up the Chinese economy, and by the 1990's the "rise of China" was really starting to get underway. In response to slowing economic growth, in 1993 many state owned enterprises were reformed, and moves were made to shift the party ideology away from socialism and towards "growth at all costs."
In China, officials at all levels have GDP growth targets, which they are required to meet in order to keep their offices. Vested interests are pushed aside to make way for important projects, and while this is controversial, the government simply ignores the angry conservative voices and continues forward. Instead of elections, the party uses the world's most extensive system of opinion polls in order to interface with the public without the inefficiencies and incompetent leadership that comes out of a democratic process. Target industries are given state support, allowing them to totally outcompete western competitors and break into new markets in Africa and Latin America.
Today, Chin has a wide range of still-antiquated policies, many of which are supported by vested interests. Local governments can't issue municipal bonds, citizens can only receive public education in their home towns (Hukou system), and land is owned "collectively," allowing it to be seized and sold by local governments, and preventing peasants from selling their land and using the money to move to the city.
Despite this, the government continues to take advice from government think tanks, whose membership is drawn from the ranks of the country's best and most intelligent economists. The new five-year plan is rapid urbanization, and this means land reform and abolition of the Hukou. China is even implementing environmental policies, with subsidies for electric cars. Unlike many western governments, the Chinese communist party is actually willing to *change* inefficient policies.
In conclusion, compared to the idiotic punditry and political deadlock that we see in many western countries, China's government continues to make big reforms based on advice from the nation's academia. In America, poorly conceived agricultural subsidies, needlessly oppressive penal laws, and failures to check regulatory capture are pretty much carved in stone. Thanks to some released prisoners and ex-mafia enforcers living a swing state, we still have an irrational and destructive embargo on Cuba. In the long run, a country that can't make intelligent decisions will never be able to compete with a country that does. | 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 "Pre-order" system of gaming sales is a farse.... CMV +
+ Gamestop (and others) will all but laugh you out of the store on a games launch day. I have seen it over and over again, store managers smiling and saying something quippy like "This is why you need to pre-order!"
Bullshit.
It is your job as a retailer to do sufficient market analysis to determine the demand of a game, so you can have sufficient supply. If a company doesn't stock enough of a product, they suffer a loss in profits. If a company stocks *too much* of a product, equally they suffer a loss.
The gaming company is trying to push that loss onto their customers, and the only reason it is acceptable is because of the false culture they have built around this idea of pre-orders. Why should we pay a premium for the opportunity to play a game when it is released? They want us to assume the risk, taking a financial burden when we aren't even clear if the game will be good or not. They want us to commit to something we haven't gauged the quality of.
"You should have pre-ordered." and "Guess you've learned your lesson" aren't good arguments. It is my opinion that companies who hold that as their policy are wrong, and should not be patronized.
I still take umbrage with Gamestops policy of acting entitled to pre-orders. I think that smart customers should shop where the product is sold without having to jump through hoops.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think that blaming religion for the majority of wars in human history is a case built on extreme ignorance, CMV. +
+ Throughout history, wars have been fought primarily over three things: Resources, Land, and Ideology. Out of the three, the third is, by far, the rarest. You'll find that every powerful group, throughout history, has primarily had the first two in mind.
It is true that the conflict between Catholicism and Protestantism caused issues in Europe, but these few hundred years between the reformation and the enlightenment era are one of the few times in world history in which religion itself has directly contributed to conflict between nations. In addition, the real life crusades were a joke. They had nothing to do with religion, and were instead motivated by the goal of taking over the lucrative silk trade.
What you have to understand is that the Catholic Church before the counter-reformation was never a religious organization, it was a political one that used "religion" to command devotion from dupes. However, religion isn't even necessary to command that devotion. Look at the 1800s imperialism: you can get people to worship their nation pretty effectively without resorting to any kind of supernatural power. The entirety of Asian history is free of religious conflicts. The entirety of the ancient world as well (fun fact: polytheistic societies would add the gods of other cultures to their pantheons). When we look at religion even *causing* war at all, we are looking at a very contained, very western concept.
Furthermore, no actual purely religious organization would have enough power to wage a war. Look at Al-Qaeda. *That* is a religious war. An underequipped, untrained group of terrorists who got off one good attack and then ran and hid for ten years.
Meanwhile, both the World Wars, the genocide of the Native Americans, the brutal conquests of just about every ancient empire, every Barbarian invasion, every single Political Revolution, nearly every single war in East Asia from antiquity until now, were all carried out for reasons that had nothing to do with religion, were often *opposed* by religious organizations, and led to more substantial loss of life than almost all of the holy wars that internet atheists are obsessed with.
I'm not defending or opposing religion. I'm opposing what I perceive as historical ignorance. CMV. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: It isn't completely irrational to claim that god (i.e. creator) exists. +
+ 1. World either exists since ever or was brought to existance.
2. If the world was brought to existance, it either was created by itself or something different.
3. You can't create something, if you don't exist.
~~4. If world was brought to existance it had been created~~ makes no sense
5. If creator was impersonal, creation was stricly deterministic, i.e. every neccesary condition had to be fulfilled.
6. If we go back and back we find prime cause for world to be created which couldn't be affected by any others, this means it took some actions basing on his (it?) will. this cause we can call god.
I find this quite rational. Either you think that world has existed since ever or you think that god is prime cause. CMV, please.
PS ESL, forgive mistakes.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Social Darwinism can be ethical and should be implemented. CMV +
+ Genetically, humans are not equal.
* Naturally, evolution favors the well adapted over the ill adapted, and there will ultimately and objectively be a human being that is genetically more well adapted than another.
* Albeit, not a lot of people like to accept it, it is almost universal that everybody does not see everyone as equal. Case in point, it is almost universal that a male would rather have a maxim model than honey boo boo's mother as a sexual partner.
Artificial selection and breeding is much more efficient than Natural Selection
* In determining which genes are good and should be passed on, the selection process is much faster.
* What genes are good? Well, for starters ones without genetic diabetes tend to be better that those with it. As our knowledge increases, so too will our understanding of objectively good genes.
Social Darwinism can be ethically implemented
* Some freedoms will need to be sacrificed in order to bolster and protect the longevity of the human race. Case in point, in areas such as India or China, the freedom of having as many children as you want may cause an overpopulation issue, Therefore it is more wise to limit the number of children one may legally have. In parallel, those with "bad" genes should not procreate.
* However, if it is the case that one with "bad" genes do wishes to parent, they can adopt from one with "good" genes. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I'm wasting four years of my life and thousands of dollars for an education that is subpar to what I could acquire myself and for a piece of paper that is taken for more than it is actually worth. +
+ FLUFF
For some background, I'm a computer science major. Before that I was a music major. I think college is a useful resource for many people who want to go into specialized occupations-- for instance, law, psychology, medicine, anthropology, teaching, etc. There are specialized fields in which the only place with the resources to teach them is a university. I also think that liberal arts education is a good program for these sorts of students, because it exposes them to knowledge outside of the academic tedium to which they will likely be bound to in their career--teaches people who are very interested in one subject to poke their heads up every once in a while.
BUT, college is becoming "second high school." Anyone who is smart is supposed to go to college, or else they're considered subpar citizens of some sort. There's a major for everything now--even though many subjects are not well suited to academia.
For instance, the best way to become a musician is to find a teacher [AKA better musician,] practice and work enough to eat and pay said teacher, and then practice until you can convince a better teacher to let you pay them to teach you, and then repeat until you're good enough that somebody will pay you to do music. Musical knowledge is not behind a paywall. Yet, so many people think that the only way to become a real musician is to go to college for it.
You don't need to go to college to be a great writer. You don't need to go to a four-year-college to be a great business administrator, in most cases. You don't need to go to college to be a great journalist. A great detective. Graphic designer. Chef. Electrician. Botanist. *Programmer.*
CRUNCH
So essentially I shouldn't be here. But I'm here because:
A) I'm smart and apparently that's what smart people do.
B) My parents saved up and I'd feel bad if I didn't spend it on college.
C) It's really not cool to live in your parent's basement. Especially when you're engaged.
D) No matter how good at programming I am, employers will pick someone with a college degree over me because they have no fucking idea how college or programming works.
E) Everyone says that they regret not going to college and that I will regret it too.
F) I feel guilty for hating college because I like the people here and because I'm supposed to like college if I'm intelligent.
G) I've never had a real job.
H) *** I'm a woman. I don't plan to have kids. As a woman, not going to college hurts my jobs chances a lot more than if I were a man. Also, since I don't plan to have kids, not going to college is seen as being a lazy ass.
Reasons I shouldn't be here:
A) The languages I'm learning will likely be outdated or irrelevent by the time I graduate.
B) "Liberal Arts Education" is slowing down my learning of programming and squashing my natural love of learning by forcing me to try to attain a certain GPA. ("I can't learn chemistry for all the academics that's getting thrown at me" is something I've lamented about at least twice every week since the beginning of this semester. This semester I learned to hate chemistry, when I used to love it, and that's about it.)
C) The education I'm receiving here is subpar to what I can easily achieve on the internet for free--in fact, it inhibits my learning abilities because it forces me to learn inside a box, or be punished.
D) The academia assume that the students are mindless plebeians that must be coerced into learning. (We're given grades because it is assumed that we must be explicitly motivated since we apparently lack implicit motivation.)
E) The students here are taught to be arrogant and to feel entitled without having earned any actual skills.
F) For all the pain and money, the rise in my chances of getting a job after graduating is not nearly high enough.
G) I want to take charge of my own fucking education and make the world a better place and move and shake some shit up. Not shackle myself to a four year education plan and then shackle myself to endless debt and to a job that I hate because I'm afraid I won't have the money to pay the debt if I pursue something I enjoy.
And also I hate this place.
Fight. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe Canada's health care system is better than the United States. CMV +
+ Having to worry about medical bills should not be a problem for anyone. People in the States are so worried about big government, but I strongly believe we need a restructuring of our health care program. 2 years ago I had about $15,000 in student loan debt, with no other debts to my name. Last year I was involved in an accident and I now have more Medical bills than student loan debt. I do not believe I received any better care in this country than I would of elsewhere, I just know than I've been over charged. CMV | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I think the board game "Monopoly" is poorly designed +
+ Like many American kids, I was often forced throughout my childhood to participate in "Monopoly" games with my family. From what I can tell, there is very little skill involved in playing the game, it just seems to be a giant crapshoot the whole way through.
"Monopoly" was made with the intent to explain why localised monopolies are bad for the economy and to explain the Single Tax theory of Henry George.^1 Though it does this job well, I believe it is this intent that causes it to be thoroughly not fun. Once ~50% of the board has been claimed, even if the landholdings of all the players are about equal, it is immediately obvious which player will lose based on who falls in another's territory first and has to pay the incredulous tax. After that, it is just a long fall into bankruptcy as eventually the player has to sell their property to others, decreasing the chance that they can earn revenue while simultaneously increasing the chance that the others can profit from them.
While this system would work in a **quick** game between 2 to 3 people, monopoly is usually drawn out and played with 4+ players. One after another, a player pays out the net-worth to the other players until there is a long, long drawn-out stand-off between the remaining few. At this point, it comes to down to complete and utter chance. Whomever gets the worst successive dice rolls loses. When that happens, barring any statistically unlikely dice rolls, it is evident who will lose. But the game keeps going and going, because it would be "unfair" to keep going despite the likely outcome.
If Monopoly was redesigned to rely less on chance (perhaps a redesign of the board, more mechanics to tip the scales of chance perhaps with better "Chance" cards, or even removal of the pieces entirely) and to be quicker (Add penalties for each additional player over 3 so that the success and failures of each decision weigh more heavily, for example) then the game will be much more fun and enjoyable to everyone. As of right now, after the first few passes around the board, it is easier to calculate the theoretical outcome with the help of a computer then to finish the game to its completion.
Please change my view, for the sake of family game night.
  | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think churches should remain tax-exempt. CMV +
+ I think that, whether or not churches exist as for-profit ventures, they are one of the few things in this world that aren't taxed.
Think about it: 30 percent of every dollar you make goes to various organizations that may or may not benefit you. Simply for trying to earn a living, you are punished. For that, you then get a government that will throw you in jail for silly and victimless crimes such as smoking dope or failing to report all your earnings. Think about that last one: Simply because you forgot to mention all the money they are trying to take, they can throw you in a cage at gunpoint. Also, you're directly funding the bombing of children in other nations. If you're poor or black, you're more likely to be thrown in jail for something trivial. The justice system is a complete joke and serves to punish those who don't provide the government with as much revenue for pointless wars and the degradation of our civil liberties.
But... there are churches.
That's right, you can avoid all of this nonsense, all of this stupidity, and all of this evil by making money through voluntary contributions made to a church. In the mean-time, you can talk to people who like the stuff you are sayin' about their problems, you can discuss your personal faith, whatever that may be, and people who enjoy what you're saying will give you money. Hell, you may use this money to provide aid to those stricken by disease and war. You could use it to improve the lifes of those in your congregation who have experienced a hardship. You could use it just to make sure that the church is kept in good condition and to maximize the communal enjoyment of such a building. Also, obviously, you can use it to feed and clothe yourself and your family.
But, some people want to end this; they want to force churches to contribute to the war, the violence, the bloodshed, and the evil that is perpetuated by the state. They may say, "I can't choose not to contribute, you should be forced to contribute too", or "I don't believe in what you believe in, therefore I think you should be forced to hand over money to fund our state's evil enterprises"
I think that's crazy. People should be fighting for getting rid of taxes, not making more money for our government overlords. Our government is a greedy little piglet, and it seems too many people are eager to give them more (as though an increase in taxation has somehow led to a higher quality of life or something).
TL;DR: Taxes are evil, but at least there is one respite. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Some people in life, such as myself, are born to be losers with no motivation to do anything except the basics. +
+ I feel strongly that there are the emotionally strong and the emotionally weak. I also believe some of us are born weak and will always be weak. I am a firm believer that those of us weak and pathetic ones can never change because we were born too weak to overcome our adversities and too emotionally and mentally weak to do the things we actually want to do. I also believe that there are people who are born emotionally and mentally strong and can overcome anything and do anything they put their mind to. I am saying that this is an intrinsic thing and that my view is that this pre-determined personality trait is out of all of our controls. CMV. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Expecting an average citizen to be knowledgeable about ANY ONE topic is unreasonable. +
+ So I just watched this Last Week Tonight segment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEVlyP4_11M
It was entertaining, and while I agreed with a lot of it, what really pissed me off was the whole "interviewing people on the street" thing and the whole rabble about how "the average person doesn't know or care."
Fact of the matter is, most of us "average people" are specialists. We know an awful lot about a small segment of the world. I know about issues like net neutrality and government surveillance and dumb stuff like Sakawa because I hang around in those circles.
But if you asked me about just about anything else, I'd give some vague or hilariously misinformed response. Conflict in the Middle East? "Yeah, that's been going on forever and'll never get resolved. People fighting over the Gaza Strip or something, idk." Gay rights? "Social progress is being made. I'm sure we'll all have equality soon enough. Uganda has some horrific laws."
I'm exaggerating, but you get the idea.
Or stuff like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4MwTvtyrUQ Of course, to me it seems crazy to not know what a web browser is, but really, expecting the average person on the street to tell you what a web browser is an unreasonable expectation, the same way I dunno anything about my car engine or about plumbing aside from how to use a plunger.
Instead, what we expect is that everyone specializes in some stuff and those specialists take care of that stuff for us. The computer engineer writes the software for the plumber, and the plumber fixes the computer engineer's pipes.
The most obvious counterargument that comes to mind is "policy is about what government can do to everyone, as citizens. As citizens, we all have an obligation to know about how policy affects us." But I don't think that's valid because there's just FAR, FAR too much policy for any person to know about. People just have to pick and choose the few issues they care most about. And statistically, the chances of two people who care about the same issues meeting at random are just really small.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Semantic drift has become a propaganda tool for social engineering shills with a regressive agenda CMV +
+ This topic of descriptive linguistics seems to only pop up in specific circumstances to make a point like "if enough people misapply a word, they're actually correct," in more fragrant, sophisticated, academic wording, even if the last thing to have come out of the speaker was "OP is a faggot lol."
However, the linguistic expertise is nowhere to be found when someone calls out that any insult is not automatically an ad hominem, is silent in the face of the ubiquitous "you're*" correction, and holds back against dissonant prescriptions of literalism for the word atheism. The selectivity for which fights to pick is quite convenient.
I understand semantic drift is a real thing, but something about the popular evocation of the topic strikes me as something like lying by omission. It seems that novel meanings keep some kind of connection to the word's etymology. An example would be the difference of meaning of "authority" as dictator or expert is how the root (auctōritās: warrant) is interpreted. The word "nice" shows something more like a gradient, like a game of "telephone" over time. "Mouse" to mean a particular computer interface device is arrived by metaphor, the wire and arched shape are analogs to a tail and hunched back of a stereotypical rodent. These circumstances do not imply that a new meaning for a word can be born from mass incompetence, regardless it be a result from disseminated misinformation, popular myth, etc.
There is no relevant ambiguity, neighboring nuance, or analog for "scorn" anywhere in the etymology for the word "gay." The metaphor is made from a projected subjective version of the word as contained in the mind of petulant bigots. But this is the thing so important that supposed linguists suddenly crawl out of a hole and rally to validate, as if shift by metaphor obsoletes the vehicle word's meaning from the time the metaphor was made (like if "mouse" were exclusively used for the electronic device) and/or destroys the presence of a metaphor (like saying since mice is an accepted label for electronics, it has somehow shed the metaphor that earned it that label.)
I've had acquaintances in life say in full seriousness, in response to a resentment of social engineering for systemic (and perhaps subconscious) prejudice written into parlance, that I'm thin skinned since *intentions* while communicating matter more than the *selection* of word and the circumstances surrounding that *symbol used in a system of communication*. Basically a pleasant way to excuse oneself from second guessing their "education" and extending any empathy. I guess I can't blame them, since egotist philosophy, faulty heuristics and articulate sophistry are the new meaning of "logic."
I don't believe sweeping ignorance and bigotry under a rug should be a function of language. Explain to me why it should. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe that the world is gynocentric, CMV. +
+ By gynocentric, I of course mean that the world revolves (socially, not literally) around the needs and wants of women. I believe that men are seen as disposable tools, like working animals that you feed and shelter as in investment in exchange for their service, their work. that women are valued far beyond that of men, and not only for their reproductive capabilities that were essential to a family and community, but that they were entitled to everything they wanted, for example circa the 1920s, women wanted to vote, of course they had no need for it, they stayed at home raising the children on average (not that they were forced to do that either), what would it matter to them who was elected to represent their husbands? and I say husbands not out of a sexist attitude, but out of the fact that men worked and the president that was elected had more say over their livelihood, their ability to bring home money than anything an elected official could ever imagine having over women, it wasn't until the 1960's that all men regardless ownership or business status, got the vote, and they had to sell the state their body in the form of the draft for the very same right women got 40 years prior, completely for free. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
If someone is asked a simple question to solve a murder, and they plead the fifth, they are guilty and the following legal hubbub is a waste of time. CMV. +
+ If you can assist in any way, and AREN'T guilty, why not just answer?
The ONLY reason I could really see is if you were either guilty, or, say, had a secret (married man at whore house doesn't want wife to find out). However, in my opinion, HE made the mistake, and is now actively impeding a murder investigation.
Anytime I hear someone plead the fifth, ESPECIALLY over easy questions, I think they sound guilty.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Congress should have to take classes when not in session +
+ This will probably be a non controversial opinion here but here we go.
Its becoming increasingly apparent members of Congress are not keeping up with the times. This is especially obvious when they start speaking about technology. The famous "system of tubes" guy, senator whoseit and the science of "legitimate rape", everything is an "assault rifle". I don't want this to be a policy discussion. Everyone has those topics about which they are passionate and think Congress is Fucking Up.
My view is that Congress should have to take a class on some socially and/or technologically relevant topic between sessions. If they sit on a subcommittee they should be required to take an accredited class in that subject. I am sure Georgetown University (or some other well regarded "neutral" institution) would love to help facilitate this requirement. They should also be required to sign legally binding affidavits that they did their own work and didn't have a staffer or intern write their papers. This system should also apply to any appointments (throwing FCC chairman and board under the bus here).
They spend most of their time fund raising which is not directly beneficial to their job, merely securing means of staying in power. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Facebook is the perfect social network +
+ The Perfect Social Network Definition: A social network that does exactly what it's users want it to do, nothing more, nothing less.
Contention 1: Facebook is an open space that allows users to communicate however they wish. One can post text, photos, links, etc, any kind of social content desired.
Contention 2: In a sea of competition, Facebook has maintained it's overwhelming dominance, 900 million strong user base, and shows no signs of shrinking. The fact that users continue to use Facebook over other social network platforms, proves that it is the optimum space.
Contention 3: Facebook doesn't judge the communication of it's users, it allows users to judge each other, themselves. Users want a space to communicate, not a lesson on how to communicate.
I see all this Facebook hate, everywhere. But if Facebook is so awful, something would have replaced it by now or users would just stop using social networking as much. I don't think the Facebook hat is fair when it provides services that no other site provides. I want to be challenged, though. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe a lot of contemporary art is bullshit. CMV +
+ Like the title says, I don't think there is a lot of value in most modern art, and I don't think a painting like [this](http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/pollock/pollock.number-8.jpg) is any better than a painting like [this](http://farmersmarketonline.ca/site_uploads/crafts/1329001252_Finger-Painting-Recipe.jpg).
Whenever I look at a piece of art like that, I just think it's ugly and it shows that the artist is lazy. Stuff like that makes me think an artist is just bullshitting about their art having a special meaning.
Thanks all. To be honest, I felt like a real dick answering to some of your explanations, because from the outside it seems like I don't want to understand, but I really do, it just takes a lot to convince me. To be honest, most of your answers were some of the reasons why I've thought so lowly of art. Things like "art is art because it evokes some kind of thought about it." However, some of your answers were really good, and it has opened my mind a little. Thanks to /u/Swordbow for making explaining why the process is sometimes so more important than the end result. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I can't understand why I would vote to raise the salaries of legislators +
+ I was looking at propositions of my state today (arizona) and I just can't imagine why myself or anyone else would vote to raise legislator pay. I can't see it making them more honest or trying harder. And certainly it can't be the way to stop corruption? Also most legislators were usually rich and wealthy to begin with? Maybe a few underdogs here and there, but most have money to fund campaigns and whatnot. Current salary is $24,000, the proposition wants to raise it to $35,000. Aren't they making money from other sources?
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Unmarried men shouldn't have to pay money in order to be considered for 50/50 custody of their children. +
+ I went through the whole shabang here in California and can say definitively that men have to pay for their own lawyer and court fees just to sue the biological mother for half custody (if she refuses to give you your god given right in the first place).
This to me represents institutional sexism. I believe men should be allowed the option to be there at least half of the time for the child.
In my case, i was 19 years old with no ability to pay for anything. It was up to my parents to contact a lawyer and pay for everything so that i could maintain the relationship that i have with my own son. She opposed so it went to court, so $15,000 and 3 years later i had 50% say in my own son's life. I (my parents) had to pay 15k just so that i could have the rights that should have been given to me in the first place.
I don't understand why this is even in question after having gone through it but seriously i challenge someone to change my mind.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Playing Deux Ex: Human Revolution is boring +
+ Maybe I'm just playing this game wrong, but I found it really boring. I hate games that encourage you to "rummage through files". "Rummaging" in Deux Ex is accomplished by solving an annoying little "hacking" minigame. Even worse, constant rummaging gives you in-game rewards that force me to play the horrible minigame again and again.
I don't like to play the minigame. I want to shoot people and stab them in the back. The minigame distracts from the shooting/stabbing game, and then I have to read all these people's inane emails! I feel like a similar game had the same problem - No One Lives Forever. You spend 3/4th of the game rummaging through goddamn file cabinets, rather than actually sneaking around and having fun.
Also the boss fights are horrible. I also hate all the trans-human dilemma crap that is featured so much in the story-line. They really try to shove this issue into your face a little to much. Do the people in the future have nothing else to talk about????
I only played to the 2nd boss of the game, which was super annoying to kill because I didn't level up anything but stealth, and haven't picked up Deux Ex in a year. Are there redeeming qualities to this game? Should I give this game another try? Is it possible or even preferable to play this game without playing that stupid hacking mini-game? CMV!
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I should not join Scientology +
+ All things considered, becoming involved in Scientology seems detrimental to one's self, or, at least, likely so.
1. I'm pretty sure that it's either a cult or a scam. Religions have growing pains but the corruption, intimidation, harassment, prison labor, mysterious deaths, etc. are all inconsistent with Western standards of decency and signs that the church is a predatory organization.
2. I can't afford it.
3. I'm a skeptic and Scientology doesn't offer much, if any, evidence that their teachings are correct.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Vim is a bad text editor. CMV. +
+ I tried Vim for about 2 weeks, hated it, and switched back to Sublime Text. I can't see why anyone would ever want to use it. Here are some of my problems with Vim.
1) Too much configuration. If the editor is only good once I have tweaked it immeasurably, then I think that it is objectively worse than one that is good out of the box.
2) Shortcuts are inconsistent with OS shortcuts. On Macs and Windows, there is a system wide shortcut for moving the cursor left or right by one word, but Vim makes its own shortcut for doing that. Similar for deleting words, selecting words or paragraphs, and etc. I know that there are historical reasons that Vim does it that way, but I don't think that is a good excuse.
3) It is rarely more efficient. A very common thing I do while editing is type a line, then start the next line, then notice a typo in the first line and go back to fix it. In vim, this is "esc->(move cursor to typo)->i->(correct typo)->esc->(move cursor to where it was before)->i" which is way less efficient than "(move cursor to typo)->(correct typo)->(move cursor to where it was before)". Yes I know that you can navigate with the arrow keys but most people seem to think that is a bad idea for some reason, or somehow makes you less efficient, even though it saves keystrokes. Another example is saving a document, which takes 3-5 keystrokes in vim depending on if you are currently in insert mode or not (esc->:->w->enter->i) vs 2 in other editors (ctrl+s) and those 2 can basically be hit in parallel so its even better. In fact the only time that I've noticed that vim is more efficient when editing text is when I want to delete everything until the next closing square bracket, or move the cursor to the next occurrence of a character.
4) Using the keyboard instead of the mouse is not necessarily faster. Obviously the keyboard is great for many things, but for moving the cursor to an arbitrary position on the screen, a mouse is better. People talk about the overhead of moving your hand to the mouse, but its really not that far, and its more automatic than pressing a key sequence that depends heavily on the where you want to put the cursor relative to where it is now.
5) The interface is undiscoverable. In other editors, if I want to do something that I suspect the editor is capable of, but I don't know how to make it do that thing, I can look through the menus until I find it. Then, once I do find it, the shortcut is listed right there, so I don't have to do it with the menus next time. Also, many people don't know this but menus can be navigated without touching the mouse using a combination of the alt keys, windows key, and etc. Compare to vim, where if you think vim can do something but don't know how, you have to read the manual, or search google, both of which take longer than looking through a few menus.
6) Other minor nitpicks that are mostly about personal preference. I don't like the undo model, I think its too complex and the added complexity doesn't justify the added power. And I don't like how almost everything you do changes the clipboard/buffer, and when I paste, the text that appears is almost never what I expect. (I often copy something with the intent of pasting it in 20-30 seconds, then do a bunch of other edits before pasting)
I really want to like vim, anything that can make me more efficient is great, I just don't think vim is an efficient editor. Please, change my view. A couple requests though: please don't tell me "you need to use it for x amount of time before it becomes good." With the potential exception of #5, all of my complaints listed above apply to vim experts. Also, please don't compare vim to notepad. Compare vim to other full featured text editors. Almost every feature people brag about in vim exists in Sublime Text, Notepad++, and the editors built into all the IDEs I've used. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe crime dramas have been used to normalise mass surveillance, privacy breaches and police acting outside the law. CMV +
+ Often on crime dramas you see the characters hacking CCTV networks, pulling phone and credit card records and so forth all without going through proper legal channels (such as obtaining a warrant.) They use phones to pinpoint the location of suspects, detain people without conclusive evidence, use said CCTV networks to locate persons of interest and so on. Recently, some (NCIS is one that comes to mind) even play up the national security card and glorify the NSA on a regular basis. I believe all of this is done to normalise the idea of police and federal use of mass surveillance, and desensitise the public to the thought of it. I see this in the same vein as the concerns about similar shows desensitising the public to death and violence, and seeing it constantly allows people to adjust to the claim that "if you're innocent you have nothing to worry about".
In addition to this, most cop shows have an episode where a main character is suspended or fired for whatever reason in the middle of working a case. Said character continues to work this case outside the law and is applauded when they close the case. This is again in a similar vein to the violence, and normalises the concept of the police, the very upholders of the law, circumventing it in order to achieve their goal. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Making leaps of faith is morally wrong. CMV +
+ When I talk about leaps of faith, I'm **not talking about practical assumptions** where you believe something without definitive evidence, but that **you have at least some inductive evidence to believe in it**. I'm talking about leaps of faith, where **a belief is accepted merely because it is preferred or comfortable.**
I like to use the example of a Sudoku puzzle. If you take a leap of faith on just one answer and get it wrong, you're eventually going to end up with contradictory results. Even if every solution after your leap of faith is thought out meticulously, your original error is going to produce a train wreck of solutions that seem like they make sense, but eventually run into inevitable and indisputable contradictions.
What I see in society is that many people make leaps of faith, and then have apologetics to defend them when they have contradictions down the road. What's worse is that they pass legislation to get other people to live by their puzzle solution. Unlike a Sudoku puzzle, in the real world, our wrong answers can actually hurt people.
It can be compared to driving drunk. Driving while drunk is seen as immoral because it is the reckless endangerment of other people's lives and well-being. The comparison to making leaps of faith is that it is the reckless endangerment of other people's psychological and physical well-being. It can lead to prejudices which cause people to hate demographics of people when there is no real reason to -- but the original leap of faith has lead to a sequence of seemingly logical events that leads to contradictions or irrational prejudices. Both leaps of faith and drunk driving is reckless behavior -- they are the opposite of prudence.
I would also like to point out that drinking and driving is also endangering yourself, and I believe the same thing about making leaps of faith. You are putting yourself at risk of developing a belief or practice that is harmful to yourself, because it is not based on a rational foundation.
In the same way that drinking and driving is the reckless endangerment of human lives, leaps of faith are the reckless endangerment of people's happiness, well-being, rights, and sometimes even people's lives. CMV | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Sexual jealousy is manmade. +
+ Why is sex with someone else a cheating standard?
The answer I get from people is "because you're breaking the trust". And I understand that, but why is sexual exclusivity part of the general trust agreeement?
Other people tell me "because its better when you love the person". But that doesn't make it wrong, does it?
Other people say "because it is the only thing that separates a friend from a lover". Well if your difference between a friend and a lover is the sex, you either have the most awesome friendships ever or very crappy relationships.
I looked up if there was any psychological research to back sexual jealousy as innate and could not find anything. If any, I found [this TED talk](http://www.ted.com/talks/christopher_ryan_are_we_designed_to_be_sexual_omnivores) from a guy who claims, to sum it up quickly, that humans used sex as a bonding tool and there was no sexual jealousy before, and that only with the invention of agriculture we started to treat women as property and forced monogamy to ensure that our kids would be in fact our kids.
So it seems to me that men invented sexual jealousy to be sure who your kids are, and since then we've hung on to this manmade "principle". CMV!
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: You should not stop people carving into stone +
+ This reddit post is what my view is on.
https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/34r7l1/fuck_you_if_you_do_thislet_your_kids_do_this_to/
I saw this post and was surprised by the support for stopping people carving their name into a stone, and I personally think who has the right to say what they can and cannot do when it comes to this, like if I saw someone carve their name into tree, good for them, we are only here for a blink in the life of our planet, all of us deserve to leave our mark, if that’s as epic a novel or giving life to your children, and spreading your knowledge. Or as simple as writing “dave woz ere 2002” into a stone, I think that there’s an odd beauty to it, I admit sometimes it’s an eye sore but I don’t believe that to be a good enough reason to stop people from doing it, I believe it’s a right given to us for being alive to leave a mark to show that we have been here.
I sort of think of cave painting and how we now look at it for a view to the past, art does that for a lot of history, however what will last longer a stone formed over millions of years or a canvas that can easily corrode in a unfitting climate, I may be biased since I’ve done an like graffiti, but since there seemed to be a lot of backing toward not doing it I would like to see you change my view.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I believe calling a full grown man "cute" is at least mildly insulting. +
+
Cute is a great word for cats, dogs, or a bow on a baby. It belongs to the small, smile inducing things in life. I believe it's become a "catch-all" word used by people who can't describe what they see effectively and would rather beat around the bush. That's not my point though.
Many of us guys spend our entire natural born lives to be anything but cute. We put razors around our neck each morning, take the hard way, and strive to be more rational and less provoked by emotions.
Most guys don't look good. That's OK. I will say though, that every time I've been called "cute," I've always felt it as a back-handed compliment. Why not call me "rugged," "stoic," "quirky," "crazy," "delicious," or "strong"?
I understand that The Manliest Man doing something "cute" for a girl is cute, but then the action of the man is cute, not the man. Maybe I'm overblowing this, and it's been a while since I've been called cute. But I will say that each time, it seriously feels like a small slap in the face to everything that I've been driving for. I want to be a better man, and I feel like calling me cute calls into question everything that I've done up to this point. I'm sure there are words like this for women as well.
I haven't talked to many people about this but one girl who kept calling me cute. Needless to say we don't speak much anymore. I'd like to be OK with it, but I haven't been able to rationalize it.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Games criticism is a joke compared to the criticism of more mature art forms. +
+ Note: I am not endorsing GG beliefs.
I mean that current games journalism is not in any way near the level of analysis typical of film, fine arts, literature or music criticism. It is just an exercise in corporate fellatio in exchange for advance review copies.
No film critic worth taking seriously would shy away from blasting a film they regarded as bad, or otherwise objectionable. But it is extremely rare for any game journalist to print a highly critical review of any AAA release (even if that release is universally regarded by players as being incredibly flawed, Assassin's creed unity being an example).
Contrary to the GG claims, it is not the case that "SJW" reviewers are too favourable to indie titles based on personal relationships, it is rather the case that huge developers and publishers of well-funded, multimillion franchises have outsourced their PR to a fawning, excessively uncritical media. It is a case of games journalists being too unwilling to harshly criticise the mind-numbing, jingoistic dreck like battlefield or call of duty titles, or the never-ending succession of football manager games. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: If I want to wear nothing but a red cape, underwear and cowboy boots to work, I should be able to do so without stigma or harm to my career. +
+ As western societies have modernized and industrialized, they have slowly begun shedding old-fashioned social taboos that never really made much sense in the first place. For example, sexism, or the notion that women have no place in the public sectors of business and government, and racism or the idea that different people are automatically born to menial positions in society because of the color of their skin. Just in very recent years, people have finally begun getting past homophobia, or the notion that gay, lesbian and transgender people should be denied rights and considerations which heterosexual people take for granted.
But one area where old-fashioned social taboos are still relatively untouched is the area of dress codes. We judge one another based on how we dress, and we do so for the stupidest reasons. As the wiki explains:
That doesn't tell you the half of it. Judgments about clothing are inflexible and automatic, with no appeal. For instance, if I were to go into work next week and announce that I have decided that I am a woman (I am a man), my colleagues would be supportive, enthusiastic and curious. However if I came to work wearing a [dashiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dashiki) and a [kufi](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dashiki), they would assume I had lost my mind. If I came to work wearing a cape, underwear and cowboy boots I might face termination.
The consequences of stepping outside accepted dress codes can be severe, and nobody thinks twice about the prejudices and odd assumptions that underlie our attitudes about clothing. In certain fields, for example business and law, failure of men to wear the standard western business suit or women to wear the Condoleeza-style western pantsuit can have dire if unofficial consequences. However talented or hardworking or good at your job you might be, you can quickly find yourself essentially ostracized, disrespected by your employers, clients and colleagues, mocked, and driven out of the profession. Almost exactly like a termite with foreign pheromones, your colleagues will turn on you and eat you alive.
For fun, here's the famous scene in [*American Psycho*](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cISYzA36-ZY) that brilliantly satirizes our obsession with dress and dress codes.
**TL;DR - for all of western culture's progress in terms of getting rid of old prejudices, [western dress codes](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dress_code_\(Western\)) are almost absurdly driven by social prejudice and fear of what is strange, unusual or different. There's no actual benefit to having such inflexible dress codes, and therefore this needs to change. CMV.**
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Feminism demands equality, which applies to domestic violence as well. It is acceptable for a man to hit a woman who attacks him. +
+ I already know this will get turned into a downvoted thread that will cause people to accuse me of being misogynistic and all the usual nonsense but for the sake of argument, let's pretend people are rational.
Obviously, the Ray Rice incident has sparked a pretty big story and whether he's right or wrong is none of my business. The thing that really annoys me about the feminist movement is that it seems women would love to be able to pick and choose their spots. This is NOT 'equality'. If I decide that I want to get overly confident (as a man) and walk up to another man who is physically superior to me, spouting off reckless and offensive slurs or worse, punch/smack/spit in that man's face...I EXPECT consequences.
If you are a woman and you claim to want equal rights, you need to treat men equally as well. You can't claim ignorance or stir up a manhunt for someone just because they are stronger than you after you chose to enter into a physical altercation with them. You can only control YOUR actions to ensure that you don't do something worthy of that person using that force on you.
I don't want to hear the boilerplate response of "well, I'm a feminist and I don't believe violence is acceptable against anyone." That's great and when society reaches your unrealistic utopia where physical violence is a thing of the past, we'l make sure to get you a medal for your little opinion. Until then, we live in the real world, with real consequences for our actions and whether male or female, you need to realize that there's only so much someone will take before you should expect retaliation.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: There is no such thing as "The Patriarchy" +
+ Patriarchy is a simple term describing a society in which fathers are the heads of families, men are the heads of tribes and governments, etc; descent is traced through the male line; and so forth. Clearly Western society is a traditionally patriarchal one. That's not the "The Patriarchy" I mean.
There is a tendency among some groups (tumblr-style "Social Justice Warriors", for instance) to use the phrase "*the* patriarchy" as though there were an all-male cabal of world controllers working tirelessly to prevent females from ever becoming enfranchised. People seem to really believe that this is the case and that vigilance, often militancy, is the only way that The Patriarchy will ever be forced to give up so much as a shred of the power they so craftily hoard. They also almost unitarily seem to believe that this The Patriarchy is all-white and that they harbour similar hatred toward non-white peoples regardless of gender, that they are all-straight and harbour similar hatred toward LGBT folks, etc.
I think this is nonsense.
Let's imagine that there really is such a thing as The Patriarchy, and that it really is a group of white men bent on preventing the enfranchisement of women and of people of colour. Here's a simple question that *ought* to unravel this whole worldview:
*Why are women, people of colour and homosexuals in the West allowed to vote, intermarry and divorce, own property and run for and hold public office?*
Apart from straight, white men voluntarily choosing to grant political enfranchisement and (in the case of P.o.C., actual physical bodily freedom) to these groups, how could they possibly have gotten such liberties?
Possible answer number one: there truly is a thing similar to The Patriarchy, but it's comprised of straight white men who are in no way adamant about the idea of maintaining their grip on power, which is wholly contrary to the generally accepted intensional definition of the term.
Possible answer number two: there just isn't any such thing as The Patriarchy.
CMV.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: It is logical to commit a crime if the expected outcome is positive. +
+ **Definitions**
Logical: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/logical
Expected: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_value
Outcome: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outcome_%28game_theory%29
Positive: greater than zero / an outcome that is beneficial to the person
**Reasoning**
Calculate the monetary cost (Mcost) of being found guilty and being punished for a crime.
Calculate the monetary benefit (Mben) of successfully committing the crime.
Calculate the probability (Psuc) of successfully commingling the crime.
Calculate the probability (Pcrime) of being successfully prosecuted for the crime.
If Psuc * Mben - Pcrime * Mcost > 0 then you should commit the crime.
(This is also why I think that Islamic Justice is reasonable - but that's for another CMV)
Monetary value is a reasonable estimate of benefit/cost, as everything has a monetary value. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: As a foreigner, I believe UKIP has some good points and it would not be the end of the world should they win. +
+ Sorry for the incoming wall of text guys!
As a foreigner (Australian) who has always been very left-wing politically, I've been seeing campaign videos for different parties in the UK election coming up (unless it happened in the last few days). Mostly from Labour, the Tories, the Greens, and of this new party I'd only heard bits and pieces about, UKIP.
Hear me out here - I'm not some bible-bashing, gay hating lunatic, I fully support the rights of LGBT people and I am an agnostic atheist but I think others have the right to believe what they like. Also keep in mind I am a foreigner, so I am just trying to gain some perspective as to why people are so worried about the potential victory of UKIP, I tend to agree that a country should have the right to make and retain its own laws (the UKIP campaign video stated that the EU has a lot of regulations and laws that have a hold on the UK), when I think of the UK, the first thing that comes to mind is a very dirty London, with trash everywhere and people who've come from other countries not bothering to learn English with 'sharia police' wandering around (I completely support immigration and refugees provided they learn the local language and attempt to fit in a little, I don't care if you keep your culture, just don't impose it on me).
The campaign video went on to say that they want to cut foreign aid spending from 10 billion pounds to 2 billion pounds, which again, I think is reasonable, that is a lot of money to be sending overseas when you have problems at home, you should try and fix those first.
I was also attracted to the lack of a tax on minimum wage, the sustaining of universal healthcare, and the abolishment of hospital car park fees (I went to the hospital a few months ago, parking was $14 an hour, come on man!).
The last thing that I agreed with was the 12 year employment guarantee for veterans, I have a friend in the military stuck in a contract doing a job he hates and with little help provided afterward, and with the number of suicides among veterans in the United States, it's not something to joke around with.
In summary, I'm not some right-wing nutjob but I think they have some good points and I invite others to help me realize whether I'm right or wrong or just misinformed (read: foreigner).
Thanks in advance reddit! :)
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think "Is it a person?" is the only valid question in the abortion debate. CMV. +
+ Since I'm not brave enough to post my actual views on the abortion debate, I thought I would start with this.
As everyone knows, abortion is a massive issue in American politics, and the two opposing factions are both immensely powerful and extremely influential. The arguments for and against abortion cross into economics, feminism, history, religion, health, medicine, law, and social justice. The Pro-Lifers have a long list of reasons why abortion is bad/stupid/harmful/dangerous/corrupt etc etc. The Pro-Choicers have a similarly long list on how abortion is fantastic/liberating/healthy/smart/important etc etc.
But all of that is a smokescreen to try and cover up the fact that we have no way of proving that a fetus is or is not a person. And that's really the only thing that matters.
If a fetus is not a person, then the pro-life objections lose most of their impact. Sure, the industry may have lax health standards and poor regulation, but the solution to that is stricter health inspections, not making it illegal. Yeah, abortion clinics can be real shady when it comes to minors, but that is only one small part of it. Even if you think abortion is distasteful, disgusting, or desperate, nobody is actually getting hurt.
If, however, the fetus is a person, then all of the pro-choice arguments become pathetic, and weaponized against them. After all, if a women has the right to bodily autonomy, then that includes the female babies, and their right to not get killed. If people should have the right to live their lives how they want it, then surely that includes a fetuses right to live? Pregnancies can pose a health risk to the mother, but abortions pose a hell of a bigger risk to the child, and so on.
I think that the "personhood" question is the only thing that matters in the abortion debate, and anything else is just a waste of time. 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: Race-based Affirmative Action is outdated and no longer necessary. It also worsens racial tensions. +
+ While I will accept that perhaps the country needed a certain "jolt" to the system while we first became integrated, such policies are no longer required. They have proved to help very very small numbers of people while leaving "communities" greatly behind.
I believe that any race-based Affirmative Action program (for both higher learning and employment) is inherently racist. It promotes decisions which are weighted differently based on the color of their skin. Treating people differently because of how they look is something that I was taught being a bad thing even at a young age. Because people still see that the world will treat them differently based on skin color, be it better or worse, this will only serve to make them feel less integrated with society as a whole and instead be part of a group in a country with many groups.
With race becoming more and more blended over time due to the increasing popularity of interracial procreation, the idea of race becomes less and less meaningful. By clinging to race-based programs and even to the terms "black" and "white" we only entrench ourselves further in racial divide.
To preemptively counter the most common argument: saying that "some people were not born with the same opportunities and therefore need a leg up" is not without merit. However claiming that all people of a certain race need a leg up treats race as sort of a handicap and again is inherently racist.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I don't believe in reincarnation but want to. CMV. +
+ I haven't seen any good evidence for reincarnation. Every single argument brought up by reincarnation supporters seems to be entirely purely anecdotal. All of them seem to be something similar to: "I have memories from my past life.", "This kid is doing something like someone who's died.", or "This person looks like someone who's died before they were born." All of these examples are usually contradictory as well. Some people reportedly remember past lives without looking physically like their past life, and some people are supposedly reincarnations just because they look like someone from who has since died.
Since the overall number of organisms on earth keeps increasing reincarnation couldn't be real as more "souls" would exist now than in the past. I know a lot of you hate the guy, but TheAmazingAtheist has [a great video](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiAWDV2jI1g) on this.
I would like to believe in reincarnation, it's definitely preferable to the idea that I'll one day be nothing, but there doesn't seem to be any factual base behind it. I would love to believe that one day I'd be able to experience more of life than I'm capable of experiencing now, but it just doesn't seem plausible.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think we will soon reach the limit of what technology can accomplish and cannot invent our way out of our problems anymore. CMV +
+ I'm probably suggesting that has been suggested my many people at every point in modern history but is it different now? I infer this perspective from a perceived lack of human innovation in terms of radical new concepts. What I do observe is the diminishing returns from optimizing existing ideas and technologies. I feel that the only way to somewhat resolve the world's current problems(energy, overpopulation, resources, mass economic disparity, etc) involve sacrifices that people( including myself) aren't willing to make until there is no other choice.
The one thing i don't understand is why there is such certainty that of innovative new technologies. The probably possibilities of future social unrest, totalitarian restriction on knowledge or another large scale war due to scarcity of key resources may come faster than the assumed solutions will. We could have come out of the dark ages, or we could have not, I can't really say that even today's technology was bound to exist.
I almost feel that assuming technological breakthroughs will solve everything is a comfortable way of thinking but not practical. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: High school students should be required to take a law class that teaches laws, rights, and punishments. +
+ I believe all high schools should have a mandatory program that teaches kids about the law, their rights, and punishments. Just as health class is necessary to teach students about their bodies and sexual health, this class is necessary for many reasons:
1. The law aspect will inform students of the laws they are expected to adhere to. Too often people break the law without knowing it and are then held accountable.
2. The rights aspect will make students aware of their rights and essentially reduce the ease at which police abuse power.
3. The punishment aspect will aspect will serve as a deterrence method so that kids will be less likely to get involved in crime. This is similar to the information about teenage pregnancies and STDs in health class so that students practice safe sex.
I believe that budget cuts should be made nation wide so that all schools can enforce this program as a series of classes.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I don't believe having sex with drunk people is to be considered rape. +
+ I've read somewhere that if Alice is drunk and subsequently engages in a sexual act with Bob, Bob can be accused of raping Alice. I don't believe this is correct. People should be responsible of their own decisions. If I voluntarily change my brain chemistry, I must be held responsible of the consequences. Besides, it is not Bob responsibility to check if a person is drunk before engaging in a sexual intercourse.
Due to the qualitative and individual aspect, we cannot draw a line or measure a point where a person is no longer able to stop him/herself from going against the law.
I see a sexy person: my brains releases chemicals that alters my consciousness, mostly like a beer would do to a drunk person. Off course, I'm still able to control myself but I'm less prone to. The person I saw decides to engage in a sexual intercourse with me: his/her presence though has altered my brain chemistry. Off course, I will never accuse of rape that person. Or would I? And if I would, how is this different from the case where a person drinks a beer and subsequently decides to engage in sex (only later deciding that was a bad idea and press charges for rape)?
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I believe the Nazi army during WW2 was not any worse than most armies during history +
+ I'm not from Western Europe but I've seen on reddit and also while living in France that people seem to still be quite obsessed with WW2 and keep the same mentality as if the war had ended 2 years and not 70 years ago. The nazis were evil, those fighting against them were heroes. You must believe that nazism was the worse thing that ever happend in history, otherwise you're a nazi apologist so you're evil.
I believe nazism isn't inherently evil, it's an ideology that had its place in that moment of history, nationalism, antisemitism and the belief that the white race is superior were very common beliefs during the 19th and beginning of 20th century. Also, the atrocities that the German army commited are similar to those commited by other armies in other wars.
The only reason why nazism is seen as the symbol of evil nowadays is because the US fought against them in WW2 and the US wants an image of "saviors of the world". So basically, the whole western world is still under influence of war propaganda from 70 years ago and can't consider nazism with objectivity.
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 affirmative action should be based on wealth not race +
+ I do not believe race to be a dominating factor if someone needs additional help and support that affirmative action brings. In fact I believe it promotes racism and damages race relations.
However I do believe that coming from a poor family gives you a distinct disadvantage in life compared to being from a rich family. If you come from a well off family you have more resources at your disposal then someone from poverty.
Growing up in poverty also puts people in close contact with criminal activity and other poor influences.
So I believe that the "helping hand" should exist to give these people a leg up.
I know there is a correlation between minorities and being from a poor income family. So even having the system based on families income levels will still result in primarily monitories receiving the benefits.
I don't see an issue with this because it still directing the help towards the people who actually need it. People who grew up in poverty.
I honestly feel that a Caucasian male who grew up in poverty is at a disadvantage compared to an African american women who grew up middle class.
| 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 books should not be banned from public libraries on the basis of content. +
+ I believe that public libraries should provide as wide a range of material as possible and should not discriminate between works on the basis that certain content is offensive.
This discrimination became exceptionally visible to me when my public library refused to distribute copies of Neil Gaiman’s Sandman on account of nudity and violence whilst owning and distributing multiple copies of The Game of Thrones. Is this a product of literary prejudice or is there basis to my librarians’ argument?
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Cartoons for adults like The Simpsons, Beavis and Butthead, Family Guy, etc. make me feel uncomfortable. I feel the same way about Futurama, Adventure Time, and The Regular Show. CMV +
+ There's something about it using childish imagery, yet exploring adult things that I can't relate to. I've heard great things about these shows, but it just weirds me out before I can give it a chance. I feel the same way about anime. It's animated so it feels strange that it would not be for kids. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Arguments for homosexuality can be used to support incest, so for pro-gay advocates to be internally consistent with their own reasoning, they should support incest CMV +
+ This is not a generalization, though I realize it may come across as one. This post is based on my own personal experience in regards to pro-homosexuality advocates. Liberals are used synonymously with pro-gay advocates in the framework of this discussion. Conservatives I define here as those who oppose gay marriage and gay relations in general and think that it is a sexual deviancy that should be discouraged.
One of the things that frustrates me about liberal thinking is its inability to apply arguments and principles in an intellectually honest and a logically consistent manner. If argument A can be used to support behavior B and behavior C, then consistency requires that it would be applied to both
B and C. By only applying it to B would be dishonest and discriminatory.
That’s how I see the relationship between homosexual relationships and incestuous relationships. Homosexuality is defended with various arguments which could also be used to defend incest. However, supporting incest does not tickle the ideological and moral preconceptions of pro-homosexuality advocates and therefore the application of these arguments is artificially restricted.
Not only that, even if it is granted that arguments for homosexuality can be applied to incest, it is argued that there are other reasons to keep in banned. These arguments are generally flawed, not thought through and come across as cheap rationalizations to keep a type on union unfairly banned. There is also no real effort to justify or defend incestuous couplings in liberal circles and generally that’s because incestous coupling are considered to be immoral, disgusting and something to be ashamed of and something to be discouraged – both by liberals and by conservatives. It is therefore a situation, where liberals cannot see that their behavior actively mirrors that of the conservatives when it comes to gays and there exists this raw kind of cognitive dissonace between how liberals apply their own principles and arguments which they take completely for granted.
The following will be some arguments that are generally used for homosexuality, but IMO could also be used for incest:
1. What two consenting adults do in their bedroom is their own business. – This is generally an appeal to privacy. I don’t see why incestuous couplings do not fit under this justifications. If the subjects are adults and they consent to it, the point applies.
2. It doesn’t hurt anyone. – Again, what adult relatives do doesn’t hurt any third parties. It doesn’t even hurt the parties involved as it’s just sex.
2.1. Counter argument – it’s disgusting. – If some redneck told you that homosexuality and gay marriage should be banned and immoral because he finds it disgusting and gross – would you be convinced? If our moral sensibilites are hurt, it’s our problem, not theirs.
2.2. Counter argument – Most people disagree with it, it must therefore be bad. – most people used to say that homosexual relationships were bad. Truth value is not decided by popularity.
2.3. Counter argument – incestous relations may bring rise to children that are deformed or handicapped in one way or another. Therefore there is a possibility for harm. – This is not an argument against incest per say, but a wider argument against any sort of sexual relation that may bring about deformed, diseased or crippled children. With this argument people with hereditary diseases shouldn’t have sex, people who are more likely to develop certain diseases or have certain hereditary dysfunctions shouldn’t procreate, women above the age of 35 shouldn’t procreate because of an ever increasing risk of down syndrome etc.
Besides, there is a possibility for deformities and retardation anyway, regardless of whether the parties are related or not. The danger is always there, no matter how small it is. Any sort of percentual cut-off point is completely arbitary, because how people perceive the level or risk varies from people to people. Some say 10% chance of deformities is too much, some say 50% is too much, optimists say that even a 90% chance of deformities is no large a risk enough.
Given how there are ways to avoid pregnancy and how the western culture in general has completely adopted abortion as an institution – then these kinds of measures are also open.
2.4. Counter argument - Power structures in families guarantee that the relationship is not balanced and there is one party that is being taken advantage of by another party. – This argument is to show that harm exists in the manner that children, for example, could be groomed to be sexual servants for the parents. I find this argument to be unconvincing. It first takes a very absolute view of incest and unjustifiably dismisses the reality that incest can very well be a consent based relationship like any other sexual union. It requires one to pretend that a sexual relationship between adults is for some reason completely unconcievable.
This argument is also in no way constrained only to incest and can be applied to any sort of relationship between an adult and a child or a power based relationship in general – for example that of a teacher and a student.
Thirdly, molestation, abuse and rape are considered immoral anyway regardless of whether in takes place in incestous or non-incestuous relationships.
Fourthly, it is arguable that all relationships are ultimately based on power structures one way or another. There is always a party that generally dominates and the party that generally submits.
2.5. Counter argument - Incestous relationships may confuse children, drive apart families and as such, cause this kind of collateral harm. – This is, again, something that may or may not happen and is completely dependent on individual cases. There are many things that can drive families apart (such as cheating on your partner, watching porn, arguments in general), but none get such draconic treatment such as incest. So taking a blanket approach is unjustified, because incest may not have any negative effects on families whatsoever.
Divorce also drives families apart, turns family relations antagonistic, yet hardly anyone is willing to denounce divorce in the name of some ’’greater good’’.
3. Love conquers all – two people who are in love is something that trancends social taboos. – clearly it conquers all, except when dealing with incest. Then love is irrelevant and impotent. Seriously, there is no reason why incestous coupling do not fit here.
4. Equality before the law – Gays and non-incetous couplings are more equal than incestous couplings I suppose.
This is off the top of my head general justifications and rationalizations why gay relationships should not only be tolerated but condoned. I also took some time to address few anti-incest arguments and why I felt they were flawed.
I know this is TLDR and I’ll try to answer as many of you as I can when I have the time. I won’t be answering posts that use arguments that I have already addressed unless they’ve added some kind of new nuance that I have missed.
So, CMV | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I don't believe in gay marriage or straight marriage. I do not believe it is any of the governments business, marriage is about love and that's not something the government should be involved in.CMV +
+ People ask me if am against gay marriage and I tell them the same thing: yes I am, but am also against straight marriage, the government should play no part in love, or choosing who you want to spend your life with. The fact that we must seek the government's approval seems insane to me. I understand the different tax reasons and others like it, but marriage should not be guiding that, love is not the governments business. I believe this is just the government trying to legislate morality. The government should be involved in other business than telling people whom they can and can not marry(love). If there really is a slippery slope as to people are going to start being polygamous, so what? Who are we, and who is the government to tell anyone of us whats good or bad for us, are we not capable of making our own decisions. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I don't believe depression is a real illness. +
+ I think that if a person wants to change enough, they can be less depressed. While it may be true some people have lower seratonin levels which causes a proclivity to depression, to some extent being sad becomes a cycle that could be broken. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Students like the ones in this video are not serving their cause positively. +
+ The students in [this video] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_ln8_SaNmc&feature=youtu.be) are attempting to raise awareness for police brutality against black youths. My View consists of the following ideas.
1.) The goals of this sort of protest are to inconvenience people so that they will be compelled to act in a way that results in change. This is most effective when the people inconvenienced are ones who have to answer to someone else. I.E. A salaried worker at a company having to tell his supervisor that the freeway was closed due to protesters, and the boss with lots of money being able to support a politician who will enact policy to fix the problem. Students are the individuals with the least resources and relevant experience in this scenario. They are probably the worst people to try and reach out to, because inconveniencing a student only costs them resources they don't have.
2.) The form of protest is not peaceful. It's non-violent but it is not peaceful. Personally, if I had been one of the students inconvenienced by this I would take more heed in my inconvenience than the message being sent. From that point, I would at best actively abstain from doing anything that has to do with the cause, and at worst attempt to make it more difficult for these individuals to congregate in such a way.
3.) This is more of a tangent of my other two points. But to me, this form of protest only seems to encourage behavior opposite to the intended message. To me, all this does is demonstrate that people who care about the issue are all just immature whining kids who don't know how to actively try and change what their dissatisfied with and as a result are too incompetent to actually articulate a meaningful, positive message. What this amounts to is that, they are actively hurting their cause, because I (and many more people I'm sure) was willing to listen to their point of view before they decided to act like a bunch of jackasses and now I don't want to help them for just that reason.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I am completely unswayed by TV advertisements, and I think that advertisers must only be able to convince children and the unintelligent through ads to buy their products +
+ I am completely unswayed and unmoved by TV ads (we can include internet video ads and radio ads in this also). I think that the constant barrage of advertisements is ridiculous since a company could never annoy me into buying their products. I believe that only children and unintelligent people could ever be swayed by these ads.
**An important point** is that I find this last sentence I wrote to be mean, and probably incorrect, which is why I'm here.
My decisions on what to buy and where to shop are based on local convenience, word of mouth, and experience. I may buy a Coke, for example, but it is not because I have seen a lot of Coke ads. I have never watched or listened to an advert, then gone and bought something as a result. In fact, the advertisements often reinforce themselves negatively on me, meaning that I am so annoyed by the constant yammering from a particular company that I choose not to buy from them on principle.
**There is one caveat**, which is that seeing an ad *once* might be valuable so that I can be aware of a company's existence. Oftentimes this happens through word of mouth or seeing an actual storefront, but sometimes a commercial does the trick. A commercial on the radio for a specific fast-approaching event, for example, would also fall into this category. In other words, I have already heard of Coke and Pepsi, and no amount of advertisements from these two companies is going to make me want to buy their products more than I would if I had only seen their ads once; in fact, I may buy them less.
Many advertisements we see are for insurance, beer and soft drinks, and medication. I've chosen an example from each that I have noticed.
1. I have seen so, so, *so* many commercials for different car insurance companies. However, nothing any of these companies say about their rates being lower or their service being better has ever convinced me to switch, or even consider changing my insurance. When it was time to get car insurance, I searched for all the car insurance companies I could find on Google, then compared quotes. I considered every company evenly, regardless of how many adverts of theirs I had seen.
2. I will never, ever drink Budweiser, Coors, or Miller simply because I find their constant TV war over which of the three is the best so ridiculous that I have permanently crossed them off my list. I think it is ridiculous that we are all made to sit and watch these companies fight it out. I believe, again probably rudely, that anybody who sees a Bud Light commercial and then wants to go drink Bud Light is sort of dumb.
3. Many prescription medication commercials start off with an attempt to relate to the viewer's suffering. I find this disingenuous, especially with regards to the elderly. Further, I am not a medical doctor, and I would never try to tell my doctor what medicine he should be prescribing me. Instead, I would tell her my symptoms, and let her do her job.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: There's no point to buying video games on release +
+ With Steam and game bundles, games are often discounted to a fraction of their ordinary price. For example, 2 years after its release, Batman: Arkham City was in a Humble Bundle, lowering its price from $50 to less than $6. For games not in bundles, Steam Sales often offer recent games for ~50% off.
Games don't need to be bought on release. Waiting a year or two to play a game would not lessen enjoyment in any significant way, and most likely would save a lot of money.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Publicly stating you aren't interested in hearing from minority groups in online dating profiles is racist. +
+ Many times on online sites you will read a profile describing a person and included in it might be a message ranging from the subtle
"Looking for [racial/ethnic group here] men/women."
the less tactful
"Not interested in hearing from [racial/ethnic group here].
and the obvious
"Not attracted to [insert racial/ethnic group here].
People who do this hide behind having "preferences" that are harmless. I believe this is racist since outright telling people of certain groups not to contact you means cultural differences are no longer a factor and skin color is the only measure the man/woman is using.
I would also like to add that I think not posting this publicly and still rejecting men/woman on the basis of being [insert racial/ethnic group here] is also racist.
Why do I think this is racist?
An individual in this scenario is outright say he/she does not wish to speak to someone on the basis of race and we're to assume he/she will ignore comments from individuals belonging to whatever group he/she is excluding. I find this exclusion to be racist and the **public** shamelessness involved in saying that you don't want to talk to or be contacted by [insert [racial/ethnic group here] is racist. I'd be appalled if I heard someone say this to me in any other circumstance. Why do we make an exception for dating?
| 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 believe men and women have been equal historically, are equal today, or should be equal going forward. +
+ I don't believe men and women have been equal historically, are equal today, or should be equal going forward.
Preface: I don't believe anyone, male, female, black, white, gay, straight, should be discriminated against or treated unjustly. Although there are obvious differences between the genders, I do not believe either is inherently superior to the other in any general sense. Let's have a rational, civilised discussion about this.
Also, not everything I say may be true in your country, but it is the case in mine.
There are several historical differences between men and women that continue into culture today.
For starters, men would do "hard work" such as hunting while women would do things such as picking berries, making clothing, rearing children, etc. There is nothing wrong with this, neither is better or worse than the other. It is equally important to hunt food as it is to produce and nurture children and make clothing to help us survive the environment. But there is a big difference in terms of risk in both these equally important responsibilities: You're far less likely to be injured or killed sewing clothing and looking after children than you are running after or away from wild animals.
Then there's the threat of other villages invading, and, in probably close to all cases, the responsibility of defending the village rests on the shoulders of the men. When there is a war, men fight to defend their country. If there's conscription, men are drafted into the army and forced to fight, even if they don't want to. If there is any sort of emergency, it's always women and children get out first, then men, assuming there is still opportunity to escape.
With a reasoning similar to these first two paragraphs, I once heard someone say something like "Men have paid for their superior status in society with ten thousand generations with of deaths. They worked and fought and lived in danger for thousands of years while women lived in relative safety and comfort. To suddenly stand up and demand that women should now be equal with no historical reason is an insult to the hundreds of thousands of men who gave their lives in service of their society". I am undecided on how I feel about this. On one hand I can see their point, but on the other hand we shouldn't be bringing up the past as a justification for moral standards today. If we did, we'd still be stoning people for adultery. But it's definitely an interesting viewpoint not often talked about.
In society today, there is a continued and obvious polarisation towards men and women.
Women want to have the same pay as men, but there are two very important differences. First of all, there is an undeniable physical difference between men and women. Part of this physical difference is in relation to their strength. A post office worker, for example, may need to lift heavy boxes off shelves as part of their job. A man may be able to do it easily, whereas a woman may need to stop working, interrupt someone stronger, and get them to help. That's 2 people's productivity that has essentially been compromised. Now, I'm not saying all men are stronger than all women. I know lots of men who work in comfortable office jobs who have let themselves go, and I know lots of women who play sports and are physically fit and strong. But then consider me and my wife. We started going to the gym together about 3 years ago. Today, after 3 years of training, she lifts pretty close to exactly half what I can lift. Not only that, but she is lifting today about what I could lift when I started, before having any strength training prior to that. In other words, after 3 years of tough, regular exercise, my wife is now about as strong as I was when I started.
The other physical difference is to do with their hormones and their cycle. I know not all women suffer in the same way. My wife is fortunate (and, I guess, so am I). When she is menstruating, I don't notice any behavioural differences whatsoever. Her mother, on the other hand, is a complete mess. She once started crying, ran into her bedroom, and slammed the door because the pancake batter she made wasn't the right consistency. Women are more likely to be emotionally and physically affected in their job than men are.
Then there's the elephant in the room about pregnancy. An employer may assume that a male worker can continue working indefinitely. Employers can invest money in training and promoting men, and there is no chance the man will suddenly leave because he is pregnant. On the other hand, the company I used to work at had choice between promoting a man or promoting a woman. The promotion required extensive training and time commitments from the company, and after interviewing both candidates, they decided on the woman. A few months after she finished her costly training following her promotion, she announced that she was pregnant and will need to take maternity leave for a year. The company was down a worker, down a manager, had invested all this time, money, and effort promoting this woman, and was required to give her position back when she returned from maternity leave. They held her position for her, something that was very bad for the company because no decisions could get made while she was away, and 3 weeks before her maternity leave was supposed to end, she sent in a letter saying she wants to resign to look after her child full time. My wife is coming up to a similar situation. We were married not all that long ago, and she was just recently given a promotion. We're going to have our first child soon, and she has another 3 or 4 years worth of training to go before she is fully accredited in her field.
Then there are a few social issues of today that are concerning.
Women are treated differently from men. At any time, any woman can go to the police and say a man has raped her and they will take her word over his in the absence of all evidence. I know a guy who spend 2 years in jail, now has a criminal record, and is on the sex offender register, all because his ex, who was bitter about the break-up, went to the police and made up stories about how he regularly raped and beat her while they were together. I understand there is a huge strength imbalance as I've mentioned this earlier, but women beating men is not unheard of. A man cannot go to the police about being raped or physically abused by a woman and be taken seriously. At the very least, the court will not automatically take his word over hers in the absence of evidence. While there is a strength difference in the man's favour, there is a massive power difference in the woman's favour to essentially hold a man hostage for 2 decades. All she needs to do is stop taking her birth control, or prick a hole in his condom, and if she gets pregnant, he either has to stay with her or he has to pay child support until the kid turns 18. Hopefully they won't be twins, or disabled otherwise the man can probably completely kiss his financial future goodbye.
Similar to the way the woman's word about men raping/abusing them is automatically accepted, men continue to be vilified in society today. Men cannot be seated next to an unattended child on a plane; unattended children must sit next to a woman. A very good friend of ours works as a cleaner at a high school. When he started, he said he wasn't going to clean the girl's toilets and that one of the female cleaners should do it, because he didn't want to be accused of being a paedophile. He lost his job last week because some boys went to the principal and said the cleaner was in the boy's bathroom and was staring at the kids. Now, he can't work in schools any more, he probably won't be granted a citizenship, hopefully he won't be deported, and all this without evidence. Not only is there no evidence, he even has an alibi, since he was chatting with two other cleaners at the time he was supposedly in the bathroom. I doubt had he been a woman and not a man, that they would have taken the work of the kids without any evidence.
One social issue that's been in the news a lot in the past couple of decades is the unrealistic expectations placed on women, and also their objectification. This gets a huge amount of media attention and there are all sorts of programmes and support groups for women who need it. But what about for men? Don't tell me there aren't unrealistic expectations on men. Men are expected to be tall, fit, strong, and handsome. Pretty much all those fitness models you see in the magazines are taking steroids and other drugs, and the industry stays quiet about it all. Very few people are talking about the fact that the physiques you see in magazines and on TV are 100% unattainable without hardcore chemical intervention. The common risks associated with breast implants, face lifts, and liposuction are relatively tame when compared with those of taking anabolic steroids and other hormones: heart attacks are quite common. Another social difference is that women are expected to be beautiful, but they can wear make-up, do their hair and nails, etc., to enhance their appearance. Men are also expected to be beautiful (or handsome), yet they cannot wear make-up or do fancy things with their hair without being ridiculed. Why is there an expectation for men and women to both be beautiful, but it's only acceptable for women to wear make-up?
I think that both genders have strong advantages and disadvantages in society today, however I think the majority of the disadvantages women face are the result of the physical differences between men and women, whereas the disadvantages men face are the result of social differences and vilification, perhaps in part as a result of the recent feminist movement.
I would love to hear your thoughts.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think that campaigning for social change is inherently un-democratic. CMV +
+ I'm of the opinion that when political movements, organizations, or groups campaign for social change, they are going against the democratic spirit that is central to the American political ideology (just talking about the USA here because it's my home country and I'd have a hard time speaking accurately for other Western nations). This "democratic spirit," as it has been described by modern thinkers (I think David Foster Wallace explained it excellently in some of his writings), basically states (1) that every individual has certain human rights, one of which is the right to free thought and expression and (2) that no individual may infringe on another's rights. In this way, I think that a movement that is specifically targeted at forcing people to believe (or at least express) certain things contravenes these principles.
For example, when modern feminist organizations argue for a change in the portrayal of women in television, I believe that they do so in direct opposition to the ideals of democracy. Whether or not they succeed in limiting others' ideas or expression is beside the point--I just think that the whole idea of a targeted assault on a certain *viewpoint* (not an actual legal or political issue, just a controversial way of thinking) is anti-democratic. In my mind, any attempt to control the behavior or thoughts of other individuals, provided they (the behaviors/thoughts) do not infringe on the rights of others, is abhorrent to all democratic ideals. It boils down to the idea that political groups have no philosophical basis for arguing for anything other than total legal and political equality for all citizens. Of course, individuals who believe in social change can and should hold and express their own views, but they must not impose them on others. And this isn't limited to one political faction or another. Americans should not be pressured to view homosexuality as acceptable, just as they should not be pressured to view owning an assault rifle as acceptable.
Of course, social campaigns are a direct result of having the public's views and values determine the composition of its government. They are, of course, useful for small factions that have political goals to achieve. They are an integral part of achieving legal and political equality for all citizens. But the basic intent of forcing others to change their views by making it shameful, unprofitable or worse, illegal (see hate speech legislation) to hold/express those views should have no place in a democratic society. CMV
inb4 OP's using a throwaway--I "quit" reddit a while back and deleted my old account, but it turns out I just can't leave you guys for good | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV Isreal is commiting genocide +
+ I think the killing of the palestinians in Isreal is taking the shapes of genocide.
By simply looking at the numbers of casualties on both sides, the casualties on the side of the palistinians massively outnumber the ones on the Isrealian side.
They don't seem to care if the people they kill are Hamas, it starts to look like they kill purely based on one criterium and that is if the person is from palistina.
If Hamas is using their own people as human shield like they say, it doesn't justify just wrecklessly kill 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: I don't need to sort my laundry the "usual" way (whites, lights, darks) since cold wash detergents get the job done. +
+ I sort my laundry into two piles: hot and cold.
Hot: socks, underwear, dishclothes, towels.
Cold: everything else.
Bedding gets its own wash. The few fancy clothes I own (white button ups, suits) get dry cleaned.
To me, the hot and cold sort takes zero work and is more efficient. I ignore the tags on all shirts and pants because if it requires special treatment I shouldn't be owning it anyway. There is way less after-laundry sorting too, since similar types of clothes are washed together (hang all of the shirts at once, fewer lost socks since they all go into a single cycle). I hang dry everything when possible, but some stuff gets a dryer blast sometimes.
I've been doing it this way for years and have never had the colours run, and still get compliments on shirts that are 5 years old (not a lot of fading). Everything seems clean to me.
Is there some wisdom of the old sorting process of whites, lights and darks that I am missing? What would make it worth the sorting time investment?
| 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 those with mental illnesses should not be allowed to own firearms CMV +
+ I think that people will mental illness are much more dangerous to themselves and others if they own a firearm. With a gun, it is very easy to hurt someone on a whim with little regard for the consequences and not easily stopped. I do not think that the benefits of owning a gun outweigh the dangers in this case.
I am unsure what categories of mental illness would qualify for this restriction, I am no expert, but I would say any kind of mood disorder or any type of illness that would make you lose touch with reality. Examples being: bipolar disorder, PTSD, multiple personality disorder and anti-social personality disorder. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Most people who are prescribed antidepressant drugs as a treatment for depression do not need them as their depression isn't caused by a chemical imbalance, but by real-world stressors. +
+ No, I don't think that all people diagnosed with depression should "just deal with it". I understand that depression can be a terrible thing that negatively affects your life in a number of untold ways. I also acknowledge that antidepressants can be an effective treatment.
However, I think that there are too few standards from separating depression caused by imbalances in brain-chemistry, and depression stemming from real-world stressors such as personal finance, relationships, career futures, politics, and much more.
Here are the top three arguments I hear against my position and why I don't agree:
Imagine that you are $150k in student/credit debt. Despite having a bachelor's degree you make $30k annually, see nearly a third of that money eaten up with taxes, and nearly half of what's left get's spent on rent, which is increasing annually. In the end, you barely have enough to make your minimum payments. The cherry on top is that your boss brings home $500k annually and treats you like a peasant at work, albeit when he isn't "working from home".
Every day you have to think about the future and how your current situation affects you. You have to think about future-you. Your prospects are bleak - some might say *depressing*. You can't just sleep it off or "get over it", because it's not changing. The only thing you can do is try to earn more money, pay your debts, find a job that makes you happy, etc.
But instead you focus on how it makes you feel: You determine you cannot eliminate the depression on your own so you get antidepressants.
All you are doing is numbing the pain of the real world. You don't have a condition, but you *are* depressed. The difference is that you are depressed for a reason, and that depression might be what you need to motivate yourself to fix your problems. The pills just make you accept your fate rather than work for a brighter future. In this context they are complacency pills...
No, they don't. It's illegal to pay a doctor in exchange for prescribing people medications. Instead pharmaceutical companies do what lobbyist do: They send doctors to "seminars", which is just an excuse to send them somewhere exciting for a week at an all-inclusive resort all while bombarding them with marketing for the medicines they manufacture. They don't have take the company's advice, buy your crazy if you think they aren't influenced by the bribery.
Not that it matters, Doctors already find it easier to prescribe "miracle pills" rather than look for less risky treatment options. Though often, pills are all the only thing a patient can afford as therapy is too expensive.
The feelings of the patients are irrelevant, as they are not doctors and they are biased. Some people truly need antidepressants, and they shouldn't be denied it.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't question the usefulness of these drugs when they are being prescribed more and more often, many times as a first choice of treatment.
These drugs have severe side-effects, including depression! Why risk screwing someone up worse when they actually can get over it themselves.
**Tl;Dr:** The standards for prescribing antidepressants don't take into account whether the depression is chemical or circumstantial. Many of the arguments against stricter regulation are appeals to emotion, not science. Now we have a lot of people on pills that just numb the pain of the real world (which isn't much different than illicit drug abuse - minus the high). However, clinical depression does exist and some people *do* need antidepressants to function normally. These people likely make up a minority of those prescribed antidepressants to treat depression.
NOTE: Yes, SSRI's marketed as antidepressants can be prescribed for a variety of other problems, including medical problems that have nothing to do with the brain. I am not taking these situations into account; only drugs prescribed to treat depression.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:Why exactly do we have downvotes, if we don't want people to use them? +
+ [Reposted from ELI5] (http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2zqyth/eli5why_exactly_do_we_have_downvotes_if_we_dont/)
An upvote means you like the content and you think it's funny or whatnot. Shouldn't a downvote mean the exact opposite?
We should have the free right to disagree with a post on reddit. Negativity is part of what makes us human. We all will like and dislike different subjects in the real world. Why not on the Internet?
Yes, I read the "In regard to voting" section of the reddiquette, and frankly, I have to disagree with the first point of "Downvoting an otherwise acceptable post because you don't personally like it." It just doesn't make sense to me.
Sure, I feel bad when someone downvotes my post, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't let people do it. If Reddit is truly a democracy, I think we should all be able to express our opinions as freely as possible.
I understand that there are different people on reddit that have a tendency to downvote basically every post they see, but if it's really that big of a deal, we should have some sort of timer, so we can only downvote once every 30 minutes or so.
Well, I'm expecting this to get a downvote anyway, so to the person/ people that do downvote this post, thanks for expressing your opinion. I appreciate it.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Success in Formula 1 doesn't depend on drivers. It depends on the cars. +
+ Recent years have seen total domination by one team in any given season. It seems that if a team manages to find an engineering edge for their cars, they will win the drivers' and the constructors' championships regardless of how good the opposition drivers are. Ferrari, Brawn, Red Bull, now Mercedes - same story. Vettel was destroying everyone the last few years and Red Bull in general seemed unstoppable. This year Red Bull is terrible. It's not like Vettel suddenly forgot how to drive well, so that tells me that the car is much more important than the driver. Almost seems that it's 95% car and 5% driver.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I don't think there's anything wrong with gender or relationship roles. CMV +
+ To me, gender roles is the manifestation of specialization in a couple.
I'm going to start off my argument with two prerequisites that are personal to me and has obviously influenced my belief in this manner.
1) I want to have kids. i know not all couples do but having kids is essential to me
2) I dont want my kid(s) to be completely raised by people other than me or my spouse.
For my relationship, i can see myself having kids between the ages of around 28-35 or so. I am currently around 20 years old. I understand to build a career in my industry i'm going to have to work long hours(12+ hours daily) This obviously limits my ability to be able to spend time with my kids.
When a couple has kids, the women gets pregnant and is basically "out of commission" for a good 6 months during pregnancy and a couple more months post pregnancy.
This obviously hinders the woman's career. As much as i would want to help out it is biologically impossible for me to shoulder some of the burden that is pregnancy.
I also stated previously that I don't want to leave my kids with a nanny during their entire childhood. If i can't be there i want to be sure that someone i trust(like my spouse) is with the kid during his development because i really value that.
Given these preferences and the women-specific phenomenon of pregnancy, i think it's more pragmatic to have the woman in the relationship put her career on the backburner to prioritize taking care of the kids.
All this being said I want to point out that these roles are not necessarily defined by gender. If at the point of pregnancy, my wife makes more money than me or has a more successful career than me I will gladly concede and put my career behind taking care of my kids. I just personally do not think this is very likely as I go to a very top end college and it is more much difficult for women to make a career for themselves in our slightly sexist society. So to put it simply, why try to swim upstream? If it's easier for me to make more money because of my gender/education I should do it.
Specialization is key. I understand it's unfair but the biological inequality of pregnancy combined with society's chauvinistic roots just makes it seem like it's a much better and therefore efficient life if there are gender roles | 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 "democracy would work much better if everyone voted" is not a valid argument at all. CMV. +
+ You always hear people saying that democracy *is* an ideal system, and that if the 'wrong' people are getting into government, it's because the 'right' people aren't voting. But I don't think that's really true; consider, for example, Australia. Mandatory voting, and from what I've heard (I recently read [this](http://sallymcmanus.net/abbotts-wreckage/)), Tony Abbott's government seems like a gigantic fuck-up.
So I believe that democracy is inherently flawed, and that 'the majority' don't know what's good for them, or don't care enough; large voter turnouts don't change much. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I don't believe that selflessness is morally good, and I believe there is a conflict of interest in moral systems that say otherwise +
+ I believe there is a major conflict of interest in most moral teachings. It is not in your interest to be a "good" person, and the concept of selflessness appears to be designed to take advantage of you.
First, I assume that people are inherently selfish, and neither good nor evil.
Because people are selfish, I believe that the world tends toward trying to draw as much energy out of each individual as possible. In other words, people will take your time, labor, money, etc, whenever you let them. Our idea of a good person is someone who lets other people take from him or her (often without reward).
Moral selflessness is designed to take from you. If I tell you to follow the Golden Rule, for example, what I'm saying is: "I would like you if you did things that benefited me." In this example, I'm the one evangelizing, and with good reason: It's in my interest to convince as many *other people* as possible to follow that rule. However, it is not in my interest to follow that rule myself.
It's not in your interest to follow the Golden Rule all the time, but it *is* in your interest to spread the rule around. Think of it like a pyramid scheme - the more people you recruit, the better off you are. Of course it's widespread - it's a self-replicating meme. And it's little wonder why there are more moral evangelists than moral exemplars: The person doing the evangelizing is the one who benefits.
I find it difficult to buy into a moral rule when I suspect that the system was designed to take advantage of me.
I don't have a problem with helping others. Consider these three scenarios:
1. If helping others also helps me, we both win. Our interests are aligned. I have no problem with this - that's good old self-interest.
2. If helping others costs me nothing, there's nothing wrong with that. This is unlikely anyway.
3. If helping others hurts me (e.g. I give you $10,000), then I have a problem with it.
I think most of us act accordingly with the above, selfish as we are. Yet most of our society would agree that #3 would be an unequivocally Good Thing To Do.
If I proclaim here that I will never act outside of my own self-interest, you will probably view me as a less good person than you did before.
Why is #3 a good thing to do if it harms me? Why do we consider it "good" to help others at our own expense? There's more than one plausible answer. But the simplest answer - and the one I currently believe - is that the idea is very attractive for people who want themselves to take and others to give. (Wouldn't Tom Sawyer be proud?) And because selfless morality always benefits the one who shares it, the idea is bound to be shared.
tl;dr:
* I believe it's not wrong to always act in my own self-interest.
* Why is it morally good to sacrifice my interests for others?
* There is a major conflict of interest when someone else tells you to be selfless.
*(I have not read any ethicists who have addressed this subject. Is this a topic widely written about? If so, please tell me!)*
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |