input
stringlengths 114
23.1k
| output
stringclasses 2
values | instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|
Saying "Bless you" after someone sneezes is a terribly backwards application of manners. CMV +
+ I can't stand when people say "bless you" after someone sneezes. The sneezing party is the one who caused an involuntary interruption and should be the one to say "Excuse me" or something to that effect.
The problem we see (especially in classroom settings) is every class member all saying BLESS YOU at the same time, like they won't get heaven-points or something. Some professors I had in college even went so far as to ban saying it in class.
This is something I've been fighting against most of my life. If anyone has a reason why we should be continuing this seemingly archaic practice, I am all ears. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Intelectual property piracy of any kind is morally wrong and harmful to the economy +
+ Although, I am an avid pirate (textbooks, music, television and movies, software, etc) I have recently started to have a crisis of conscience. Particularly, I have come to believe that piracy is ethically indefensible.
Emmanuel Kant, the great 19th century Continental philosopher, posits we must act in a way "that the maxim of our actions could be a universal truth". To me, the maxim of intellectual property piracy is receiving something for nothing. Of course it is ludicrous that this could be universal truth because it negates the most fundamental assumption of economics: goods and services are limited and there must be an incentive to produce them. The fact is that when I pirate a book for example I am externalizing the cost to all the readers who are accessing it legitimately. In a sense I am saying "you compensate the author and publisher for the time and effort they put into the book and I will enjoy it at your expense".
This last point segways nicely into my second point: piracy is economically harmful. I am a middle class consumer. I could purchase the content if I wanted to but because I am rational I will minimize my costs if I can. Strong anti piracy laws are essential because the incentive to cheat is too high. I need to be protected from my own rationality. I understand in an abstract way that a book represents thousands of hours of individual labor in a variety of economic sectors and that labor is not free however the immediate gratification of receiving something for nothing outweighs this.
Finally, I understand that there are economically disadvantaged people who couldn't otherwise access the intellectual property. They theoretically don't harm the economy because they don't represent a "loss" to the producer- the purchase would never have originally occurred. Moreover they benefit from the consumption so this represents a net gain in general welfare. To this, I would respond that that the moral argument outlined above still stands and their behavior is still detrimental. Paying for intellectual property is a philosophical perspective that must be cultivated. It doesn't happen suddenly when you transition from economically disadvantaged to well off. Additionally, there are a wealth of high quality intellectual property resources that can be accessed for no cost (YouTube, pandora, wikipedia) so economically disadvantaged people have options available. If they opt for premium resources they should have to pay like everybody else. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think death penalty should be reserved for serial killers, mass murderers, extrimists and rapists. +
+ I dont think giving a life term sentence for such criminals is just in today's level of human rights protection. Prisons in Norway or anywhere in Western Europe can be compared to 3-star hotels with full boarding basis involving gyms and recreation of which most of the people outside cannot afford. It is not a justice when criminal while commiting serious crime dont give any sh*t about humanity, but we while judging this kind of people should be pussies. If the allegations could be proven 100% with irrefutable facts and evidences, nothing should stop us to execute them. Or let them suffer as they've done onto others. It should be done in a civilised way with a court makig just verdict. CMV. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe that schools giving suspensions to students has the opposite effect on behavior. CMV +
+ Growing up I went through a typical "American Public School System" and graduated High School last year. Having experienced suspensions thought my 12 years in the system, I feel that giving these to students is having the opposite intended effect on their behavior.
* To give you an example...
When I was a Freshman in High School, two girls was caught fighting each other in the bathroom. They both received a 2 week (out of school) suspension for this. After the two weeks had ended they both came back to classes. THE FIRST PERIOD BACK they broke out in an even bigger and move violent fight (throwing things, flipping desks, etc) in math class. They again received 2 weeks suspensions each.
... And here is where I see a problem. I found out after the fact, that during the 2 weeks they each were suspend for the first fight, they trashed talked and made threats to each other over multiple social network sites. This being the case the first thing they both wanted to do on their return to classes was beat on each other again.
I see this as a perfect example of how these suspensions don't effectively deal with the student V Student conflict problems. Giving these students time away from school causes them to do poorly academically (thanks to missed class time). They don't use that time to cool off or think on their mistakes that caused them to get suspended in the first place. The time is used to make them more angry and then the problem starts all over again very often soon after they return to normal school.
CMV??? | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I would baptise my children to avoid the stigma of being raised completely atheist in a Catholic society; CMV. +
+ I live in Ireland where a large proportion of the education system is built around the Catholic religion. Holy Communion at age 8 and Confirmation at age 12 are big social occasions with a huge amount of school involvement. Both are made with classmates and become very memorable life events.
When I made my communion, there was a jewish kid in our class. Whenever we were going through practice ceremonies he would sit down the back of the church, completely ignored. We were too young to know what anti-semitism was, but there was definite bullying taking place because he was different.
I would save my children that and have them baptised, follow the social institution that has been made of growing up in Catholic education while doing my best to teach them critical thinking.
I am aware of the existence of non-denominational schools, but to be frank, some of the best in the area are Catholic based, and I would rather my children receive a better education.
This is entirely hypothetical, I have no kids but it would be what I would plan to do. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The majority of Americans have no business buying and should be prevented from financing to buy a home. +
+ As the title suggests, home ownership is not only irresponsible for a majority of Americans, but it should be made far more difficult to purchase a home. The second part happened in some respects in the last few years when banks tightened up their lending practices, but I am more concerned with the belief held by many that home ownership is some kind of basic right, and something everyone should strive toward and be encouraged into.
When a person/couple is deciding whether to rent or buy, it is often a simple analysis of: how much will my payment be renting vs buying. If the price to buy is near or only slightly higher, the decision is often BUY, with not even the slightest amount of thought to maintaining the property. It appears they may be able to afford the payment on paper, but the reality is they are not even close.
These families have no way of paying for things like new roofs, new windows, new furnaces, new driveways, water heaters, or any of the other hundreds of things that require significant amounts of money to repair. So what do they do in the winter when their furnace dies? charge a new one. Roof leaks? credit, you get the idea. And invariably the outside of the home takes second seat to these urgent issues, and you end up with a dilapidated eyesore in your neighborhood pulling down home values of its neighbors, and a homeowner who had no business buying the home anyway, drowning in credit card debt with foreclosure looming on the horizon.
So unless your mortgage and tax payment are less than say (just making up numbers here) 25% or 33% of your disposable monthly income, you should not be given a home loan/prevented from financing, etc.
For those who may argue that home ownership is an investment, this may be true, but only in the best of circumstances, where home values are rising, and you properly maintain the property over a period of 10+ years, when you are no longer just paying interest on your loan.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Colonel Quaritch from "Avatar" was right. +
+ Recently, I stumbled upon [this](http://i.imgur.com/MEgVf.jpg) after a discussion of Avatar with a friend. [ (Not from the movie, but from here) ](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=sa7rmohv1hmgymf4xdu8cait&page=27#660) It summed up my feelings about the movie quite well. Throughout human history, conquerors with superior technology have succeeded over less capable and less innovative cultures. It's ruthless, yes, but the reality is conquered cultures were less capable than the victors. Therefor it is in the best interest of cultures to strive for innovation, invention, progress, technology, and science. Not only does this secure survivability, but also increases standard of living.
Colonel Quaritch, as well as the other miners, were there to extract resources which benefited this endeavor. They were striving to better their abilities through use of the metal under the tree the Na'vi inhabited.
Arguably, Colonel Quaritch **COULD** have massacred the residents of Hometree. It was well within his ability and means. Instead, a chance to evacuate is given, and Quaritches forces **target Hometree itself, not the Na'vi** The fleet do not gun down the fleeing residents, nor do they pursue. Their goal was the resources under the tree, and not the extermination of the people.
Next, Quaritch ceases hostilities against the Na'vi until Jake assembles a massive force around the headquarters. Quaritch **COULD** have met them in battle, but instead what does he do? Tries to avoid direct bloodshed by taking out a cultural symbol, thus potentially avoiding loss of life among both Na'vi and Human.
The culture of the Na'vi could have ended up like the Native Americans. Conquered, but preserved through merciful reservations granted by the victors. Instead they opted for resistance, and I'm interested to see what the sequel holds for them. In the mean time, I feel Colonel Quaritch's actions were rational, reasonable, justifiable, and the correct course of action. My friend disagreed, and I'm more than open for discussion to better understand the opposing view.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think, to curb human population growth on planet earth, we need a big "Plague". CMV +
+ In accordance with natural laws, when a population grows unchecked, natural mechanisms come in to play to control this growth, in form of diseases or natural disasters. But, we - humans - are working relentlessly to overcome these control mechanisms. This is making, our only home (currently), - earth - fall short to sustain this and other species.
I think, we need to some sort of "Plague" - a highly contagious, lethal, but curable disease (something, out of the movie 'contagion') - to make earth more sustainable again.
The population growth can be allowed to grow when we have located and colonized a some other planet a new home.
| 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 Animals Have Intrinsic Value CMV +
+ I don't believe animals have intrinsic value. Humans seem to be the only creatures capable of placing meaning on their own or others lives. Animals may matter a great deal to us, but I have yet to be faced with evidence that animals are capable of valuing their own lives to the extent we do.
I believe humans have intrinsic value only in so far as they care about what happens to them or are at least theoretically capable of caring (ie a baby may not understand its own life but someday will grow too, a suicidal person may not care what happens to them but may change their mind at another time).
Again, I believe animals have great value to many humans, but I don't think harm to an animal is wrong in and of itself. If there is evidence of animals being aware to this extent or some other argument that applies, I would greatly appreciate hearing it. Thanks!
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Walmart is an evil corporation, which is bad for the USA and the world +
+ Many believe Walmart is a corrupt, or cruel/evil company. Crime runs rampant in their parking lots with little care from them. They ruthlessly crush and destroy smaller companies that work with them and they don't pay their employees a living wage, which results in their employees using government subsidies like food stamps, which in turn are used within Walmart thus benefiting them at the cost of taxpayers. Overall, the they a net negative for the world - their deals are deceiving as they use loss leaders to lure in shoppers who then purchase items that are actually more expensive than competitors, etc.
So, is Walmart actually not so bad? I've been hearing things about them lately (increased pay, tuition, etc.) and wondering if you can CMV, or if these changes don't undo the wrongs they commit? | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: In order to be convicted of statutory rape, the state should have to prove the defendant had a reason to suspect the victim was over the age of consent. +
+ **Disclaimer:** Rape is wrong, statutory or otherwise. I don't dispute that a 36 year old teacher having sexual contact with an 8th grade student is rape. I am not trivializing rape.
However, given the serious effect of a sex crime conviction on someone's life, I think the defendant should not be penalized for not inspecting the birth certificate of every person the have sexual contact with.
For example, let's say you are at a bar. In most jurisdictions that I know of, you have to be 21 to be in the bar after a certain time. If you are there, you should be over 21, and certainly over the age of consent. If there is a minor there with a fake, and you go home with them, you just committed rape, and your life is over. I think that's not justice.
Another example: you can be anything you want online. There are a lot of 16 year olds out there who want to experiment with sex. One of them goes on to a site and tries to meet someone for a hookup. The kid says they are 18 or over. You have no way of knowing they are not, and you try to make plans. Congrats, you just solicited sex with a minor. Mommy and daddy find out, boom, you're going to jail.
I'm not defending the behavior of the "rapist." I would argue that both the random hookup in the bar and the online solicitation are very irresponsible and stupid... but I also believe that they shouldn't be *illegal* and ruin your life. In both of those cases, especially the first one where the victim actually committed a crime (fake id), there would be strong evidence for the defendant to believe that the victim was over the age of consent. 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 think there is such thing as conspiracy, PTB, NWO. THERE IS NOT EVIL "OTHER" OR "THEY" OUT TO GET US! +
+ I don't think there is any evil shadowy group out to get us. Instead what I think is that by virtue of living in a competitive socio-economic system the interests of others are very often necessarily going to be at odds with ours. We may think the rich guy who laid off a whole plant is bad but from a competitive financial perspective it makes good sense. When Bechtel tried to buy up the Bolivian water supply they were simply doing the kind of business the system demands, not being "evil." We feel its "immoral" when Wall Street investors engage in insider trading but none of us would hesitate to hook our friend up with a job which is the same kind of corruption. We might think its deranged when Corrections Corporation of America lobbies for harsher sentencing for felons so that their prison populations stay high and keep the stock price high, but that is simply the behaviour the system reinforces. If there is a secret cabal of bankers and aristocrats running the world, are they evil or just trying to ensure their own continued survival as we all are. If General Motors buys up patents for electric cars and them shelves them they are simply trying to maintain their own financial viability and support their shareholders and workers while the eco impacts don't even occur to them.
In a nutshell, prove to me that evil exists. Prove to me that conspiracy rather than simple "competitive deselection" exists. Prove to me that there is an evil "they" or "them" out there who is pulling the strings and is responsible for all of the ills in the world. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Americans would never rise up in protest to defend their freedoms +
+ In the past five years, there have been countless revolutions and protests around the world. The Arab Spring, Euromaiden, and the Brazilian protests, to name a few. Whether the general consensus viewed these protests as right or wrong, the fact that these people stood up for what they believed in and fought the government head on, putting both themselves and their families in danger, is truly courageous and inspiring.
When Edward Snowden's revelations came to the spotlight, there was anger among many Americans. The media portrayed the NSA as a corrupt organization, for due reason. But all of this anger and frustration turned into nothing. Time went by, and American voices criticizing the NSA faded into the backdrop.
To this day, our own government is spying on us, and yet we sit back and let it happen. I have lost faith that the American people will ever fight against the government to defend our freedoms, like those who took part in the aforementioned protests did.
I'm not saying that there needs to be a violent revolt in America. All I'm saying is that the American people would never rise up in a mass protest and defend their rights and freedoms. People seem to take freedom for granted, and let the government get away with suppressing basic rights because they believe the government would never do anything to hurt the American people.
I know this post is all over the place, but I found my view hard to put into words.
tl;dr: The American people take freedom for granted, and would never rise up in protest against the American government, even when their rights are infringed upon.
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 it's absolutely ridiculous to be "selectively religious" e.g. be Christian but choose to ignore the "outdated" parts of the Bible. CMV. +
+ I don't understand how people can justify this kind of "faith" in their mind. How can you truly believe in an omnipotent God, yet essentially admit, "He was wrong here and here and this is meant to be interpreted as a metaphor" etc? When the bible was written, people lived in exact accordance of its rules and laws. Why, over the last thousand years, has God been getting it wrong and we now need to interpret what he meant? How can you justify not stoning gays to death? That is in the Bible. That is the word of your omnipotent God. If you are Christian and don't stone gays to death, let me ask you: Do you speak for God? | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Smoking and/or drinking alcohol while pregnant should be illegal. CMV +
+ I know the biggest argument against this is infringing on the woman's rights, but these are activities which have no benefit to the mother and so being now responsbile for another life within her, she should not particpate in these activities since they are proven detrimental to the health of the fetus. Now it may be asked where we draw the line, should we restrict certain fatty foods, etc. I'm not advocating for those, only specifically for smoking and drinking. Obviously jailtime is not a suitable punishment so I think a fine would be perfectly acceptable. Can you CMV?
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: There isn't a good argument for our current consumption of meat. +
+ I am neither a vegetarian nor a vegan myself, and am not attempting to win an argument with one, but have just been thinking about this recently.
My argument is not that I think that we should stop consuming all meat, but rather that consuming the meat that we do (e.g. that of pigs and cows) is unjustifiable, and furthermore that there is no good argument against discontinuing all meat consumption.
Health often comes up in this debate so I'll address this first. I believe that vegetarianism has never been conclusively shown to be detrimental to ones own health. Every necessary nutrient can be consumed in these diets. Pure veganism would be bad without B12 supplementation (and possibly creatine/iron/protein although not as much), but vegan B12 supplements exist. I don't think that vegetarianism/veganism is healthier than an omnivore diet, but rather that both are sustainable by humans.
This point is related to the evolution argument. I don't think that humans require a omnivorous diet. Humans probably evolved from a mostly frugivorous creature, but perhaps evolved to eat meat with a major deforestation event that caused their territory to become more savannah-like. I think they evolved to eat meat because of a lack of plant resources, and probably only ate meat on occasion. Canines are often brought up in relation to this point, but it is important to note that our canines are significantly reduced compared to our fruigvorous relatives (e.g. the orangutan) and that canine size in apes was probably a result of some process of sexual selection (evidenced in part by the vast sexual dimorphism).
Moving on to the ethics, I think that killing many animals is wrong. I do draw a line, however, between different kinds of animals - a subtlety that I think is important albeit somewhat neglected. I think killing anything that can have emotion or conception of self is wrong. It is hard to say what animals can have these things, but it is reasonable to believe that many mammals can. I reject the idea that emotions or consciousness is only (or even most) realized in humankind.
I do not think that killing anything without a brain is wrong. Therefore, I cannot care for jellyfish, sea urchins, or most mollusks, which all lack a CNS, and think that eating them is fine (even while they are still alive, as is sometimes done in parts of Japan with sea urchins-or uni). I generally think that eating insects is also fine, as their nervous system never completely centralized and I don't believe their supraesophageal ganglion is capable of understanding itself. The insect is clearly not capable of emotion or pain as we conceive of it, as it still attempts complex behavior (e.g. mating) even if its legs are chopped off.
I start to have problems with chordates. I'm not sure what to think of fish, birds, and reptiles. Their brain is very similar to ours, and although their telencephala are very small, they have beginnings of a limbic system, and respond to pain in a broad sense, shutting down complex behavior and learning from it. I'm not sure whether their response is complex enough to be called pain (this is debatable for some of these creatures). Mammal brains are too complex for me to justify eating, especially those that we typically consume, such as cows and pigs (cows, for example, experience depression and commit suicide).
To summarize, my major argument is that consumption of many of the animals (esp. mammals) we typically consume is wrong. My secondary argument is that it would not be a bad idea to discontinue all meat consumption. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I should spray pepper spray into my attic to get rid of (what I'm pretty sure are) squirrels. +
+ My reasoning is that it's non-lethal, it would irritate them enough to drive them out, and they're pests not pets, so the whole animal cruelty thing is pretty moot anyway.
I'm making the decision because I can hear them digging against the drywall in my ceiling and I'm afraid they might chew wires or something and start a fire.
My plan is to locate the hole outside where they got in, spray some pepper spray into the hole, not on them- in the hole, wait until I'm sure they're all gone, and then screw some 1/16" tin or aluminum sheeting against the hole so they can't get back in.
Seems like a solid plan and solid reasoning. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Calling an Iranian "Arab" should be categorized as hate crime +
+ I've never been to a Western country. But on the internet, I've witnessed Westerners calling us Iranians "Arab" or "Arabic" and I've been called Arab a few times myself.
I would not care if anyone calls me by another ethnicity. I'm not proud of my race, as no one should be. But Arabs, well, they aren't famed for positive things not only in the Westerner globe, but across the entire world.
I could write and write about how being called an Arab is insulting, but just keep in mind that for the past twenty years or so, Arabs haven't actually been a model ethnicity.
Some people even go far as saying "Iranians don't *consider* themselves Arab". What the hell does that mean? Iranians aren't Arab. They're Persian, Kurd, Gilaki, Lor, etc. How can they not "consider" themselves Arab.
That's why I believe this should be a hate crime. We Iranians are proud people, and we never liked Arabs. We speak an Indo-European language and hell, even our religion is vastly different from theirs.
Can you come up with an argument against me?
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I believe that the Gay Marriage discussion isn't as important as the media portrays it to be +
+ The real problem is the concept of marriage itself. In my view, LGBT couples are already married, regardless of the legislation that is imposed on them. Marriage isn't a set of civil rights that confirms your connection to your partner, it's the choice you make to be in private, daily, lifelong commitment to another being.
Tradition dictates that in order to be 'properly' married you have to exchange vows, get a ring, and have a massive celebration (the set of traditions change based upon the culture.) But marriage isn't that, it is simple commitment to another person. The main issue that gay marriage has is that not all couples are given the same civil liberties, but this does not mean that their marriages are void. Marriage isn't decided by bystanders, it's decided by the people who live inside the union. It is for this very reason that a gay couple getting married doesn't affect your own marriage.
I've held this opinion for a while but have never had the opportunity to see if it stood up to criticism. CMV.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I believe discriminating people based on tattoos and piercings is wrong. +
+ First off, I'd like to say that I do not have any tattoos or piercings on my body. However, many people I know do, as I don't exactly reside in a "nice" town. The place I work is located in the middle of a slightly sketchy area of town. Everyone around here has tattoos or piercings. But where I work, corporate has decided that no one at any of their locations can have tattoos or piercings showing even the slightest bit. The owner of our store disagrees with this and lwts us show whatever we want, but on our monthly audits they continue to mark us down.
That's just my example. Point is, I believe that people should not discriminate based on tattoos and piercings. Please CMV, or at least allow me to see the other side of the argument.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
"Could of" is proper english grammar. CMV +
+ In linguistics there are two views about what is "proper" grammar. There are the prescriptivist and descriptivist views.
Prescriptivism says that there is such a thing as proper grammar and that there are certain rules pertaining to spelling, pronunciation and sentence structure, ect. that one must follow in order to speak properly. These rules are set by some kind of authority which varies according to different languages/regions. This authority always claims that the grammar of the social elite is the one true way.
Descriptivism rejects the idea of proper grammar. Whatever grammar people use is what they use and that's that.
As with any philosophical issue, one can have a position that is somewhere in between. My position is that you are using proper grammar for a language if a native speaker of that language can easily understand your intentions. The idea that some self-appointed authority can tell me what is and isn't proper is laughable. It's also insulting that these authorities only say that the grammatical style of the elites is the "right" grammar. This is nothing more than status dominating behavior.
SOURCE from wikipedia: "The spoken and written language usages of the authorities (state, military, church) are preserved as the standard language to emulate for social success (see social class)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescription
It is a fact that languages morph over time. This is a point of contention for prescriptivist theories.
Since many native speakers of english write or say "could of" and any native speaker of english knows immediately what this means it has become a normal part of the english language and is therefore "proper." That the language authorities say otherwise has no merit because their authority is illegitimate.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I have zero sympathy for (most) students in hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt and no jobs. +
+ I don't understand students who insist on attending $50,000/yr private schools or $30,000+/yr out-of-state public schools rather than going to an in-state public school, community college, getting a scholarship, etc. As with many problems, I also understand this is not such a black-and-white problem for many individual students, but, on the whole, it seems to me as though the call to forgive student debt is a middle class whining and entitlement thing. I went to a $50,000/yr private school on a full ride scholarship and knew far too many students there who were paying the full tuition rate but messing around, getting D's and feeling entitled to "good" jobs after they graduate. Again, I know the economy is tough, but I also know far too many of these students never worked over the summer, never looked at internships, skipped class all the time and would get wrecked the night before midterms. Perhaps fifteen or maybe even ten years ago you could be forgiven for assuming that an undergraduate degree meant you would get a job no matter how you did on your degree, but I think it's been clear for a while now that that isn't quite the case. Majoring in a humanities subject isn't bad in itself, nor is doing poorly in your classes. Maybe, under some circumstance, even going to an expensive university could be forgivable if you really made the most of it. But doing all three and then feeling as though you're owed debt forgiveness because you can't find a job seems pretty dumb to me.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I don't think everyone should be able to vote and think that a test should be required, CMV. +
+ Policy is incredibly complex, and we've proved over and over again that we would much prefer to elect people who understand its creation and execution as poorly as we do. I don't think the reasons why are complicated either.
In order to understand all of the issues around which politics currently revolve, you need to have a firm grasp on most areas of human endeavor----history, law, science, engineering, and economics to name a few, and really, most people are too ignorant to have opinions on almost any issue involving any of these things.
As you're reading this (if you're a U.S. citizen), ask yourself "Do I know who my congressman or congresswoman is? Do I know who my state representatives are? Do I know who the governor of my state is? Do I know who my state's senatorial representatives are? Do I know what their stances on various issues are? Do I know why they hold those opinions and do I reasonably agree or disagree? Can you really answer all of those questions?
Most people will shake their heads and say 'but I don't need to know *everything* that's why we live in a republic instead of a direct democracy!' But really, that's the minimum. If you vote for someone who isn't the person you thought they were, you've hurt hundreds of millions of people by supporting them. Voting isn't a game. It isn't about self expression. It isn't about people feeling good about themselves or that they're in control of their own lives, it's about responsibly exercising the political power you have. The vast majority of voters are far too ignorant to have any real idea about how their vote will affect them and the people they know, much less the rest of the country or the rest of the world. A large fraction, if not a weak majority barely know anything at all. How can they possibly be changing the country for the better? Are we just hoping they get lucky?
I think a test should be required. I think you should be able to demonstrate substantial knowledge about everything from nuclear power generation to historical Japanese-Chinese relations to the pros and cons of the JSF program. All three of these things are potentially crucial to the future of the world, and if you had to guess, what percentage of the U.S. voter base could say even a single rational sentence about any of them?
I am absolutely aware of the way in which tests like these have been used in the past, but I think continuing to cite that as a reason to allow the totally ignorant to cast their vote along with Neil Degrasse Tyson is an insult to the idea of responsible government.
You have to be able to name your congressman/woman, your senators, your governor, and the president. You also have to be able to answer a few multiple choice questions about their stances on policy. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I have no faith in humanity and believe it is doomed to destroy itself or bring destruction to the universe. CMV. +
+ We have 2000+ years of recorded history to learn from as a species. Every variant of evil is recorded to be learned from: totalitarianism, terrorism, communism, imperialism, witch hunts, library burnings, genocides etc. Records of wars for every different reason (ideological, monetary, expansion.)
We have seen what happens when the environment is not taken care of (Easter Island) or a species is overhunted (Almost all megafauna, the dodo, bison etc.)
And yet humanity does not change. We continue to build weapons, enforce military service in countries across the globe, use child labor/soldiers, encourage violence, find reasons to separate "us" from "them." Even space is on the verge of being militarized, the one last hope for humanity to not bring it's carnage out into the universe.
Every religion is intolerant of every other religion. Even Buddhists and Atheists are not exempt from this. All they bring is hatred and intolerance.
And despite overwhelming evidence for anthropogenic climate change, shrinking resources, a limited amount of fresh water etc. There is no change. Nothing is really being fixed. Every day I hear more news that makes me think "what hope is there for humanity?"
Please change my view. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: a universe allowing for events having supernatural causes isn't too different from a solipsistic universe +
+ For this CMV I'd describe a supernatural cause as a cause, that violates some natural law.
In a universe where we allow for both natural and supernatural causes to influence events, we have no means to distinguish between the two. Natural and supernatural (or even two supernatural) causes can contradict themselves, so even testing for them can not reliably support the validity of natural laws. Therefore any assumptions about ~~our~~that universe can't rely on natural laws being true.
Such a universe is no different in effect to a solipsistic universe, in which we can't rely on anything that we perceive existing outside of our mind. Just like our senses can deceive us in ways that we can never recognize, so can supernatural causes. Therefore both concepts for our universe suffer from the same flaw, that anything in that relies on observation of the universe is fundamentally arbitrary and untrustworthy. We therefore must subscribe to or reject both propositions using the same reasoning. Change my view!
Also I need to add, that my definition of supernatural isn't yet fool-proof. As my [exchange](/r/changemyview/comments/2y0bdz/cmv_a_universe_allowing_for_events_having/cp5f45z?context=8) with /u/JoshuaZ1 hints at, I can't fully account for time travel being fully natural or supernatural. | 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 view most of the top 50 song performers as 'musicians' CMV. +
+ As a person who plays, listens and occasionally likes to write music, I find it a bit strange to call people (mostly those of the top 50 billboard chart) 'musicians' as they don't play or create their own music. Granted, there are exceptions I am sure, but as a generalization, I do not see most of these people as musicians.
Part of this has to do with the fact that I was always told there are three types of musicians, those who play, those who write, and those who listen to music. And while I can't say these people don't listen to music, I can say that they are not the source of their own music, nor are they anywhere near a majority of the credit for the actual sounds in the music. The most they do is provide a performance for people watching them at live performances.
While this isn't everyone on the top charts (Lady GaGa is quite the exception, she has showed quite the musical talent in the past). But in the case of the big hip-hop and pop 'stars' (once again top 50) aren't responsible for 80% of their music, so I really don't see it fit to call them musicians.
I'd love to be able to see them as musicians, but I don't currently 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 believe inmates should be eligible for organ transplants. +
+ Though it has been decided by the U.S. Supreme Court that withholding medical treatment for individuals incarcerated by the justice system is in violation of the 8th amendment. I do not believe this should extend to organ transplants. With organ waiting lists as long as they are, I don't believe law abiding citizens should die so a convicted offender can prolong his or her life. Organ transplants can cost taxpayers up to a million dollars in medical costs along with post-op medication and treatment. The prison may allow for medication to ease the pain of organ failures so as to not inflict pain by withholding such drugs. However i see no reason for an inmate, most of which are former drug and alcohol abusers to perhaps receive a new liver, free of charge.
This does not mean I am against the possibility of inmates donating their organs. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Humans are too selfish to prevent catastrophic climate change +
+ If society is unable to prevent global temperatures from rising 4 degrees Celsius by 2100, then global climate change will cause droughts, flooding, and extreme weather. This could be catastrophic.
Avoiding this severe climate change requires reducing greenhouse gas emission, including oil, natural gas, and coal. Since these natural resources form a foundation of the global economy, using less oil, natural gas, and coal would be disruptive to the global economy.
An example of this selfishness is the fact that China and other developing countries demand that rich countries pay for the new technologies that would replace fossil fules ([Source](http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/14/us-climate-talks-china-idUSBRE9AD0WZ20131114)). Based on this article, it seems that some countries want to blame the problem on other countries because they realize that they can't afford to replace fossil fuels. Developing countries have also asked rich countries to compensate them for the damages caused by climate change. I believe that humans (in both developed and developing countries) are too selfish to adopt the changes that would be necessary to avert catastrophic climate change. Change my view.
Sources:
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2014/11/03/345780.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/11/08/climate-change-mitigation/18244249/
http://www.npr.org/2013/11/20/246409446/poor-countries-push-rich-nations-to-do-more-on-climate-change
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/rich-vs-poor-divide-deepens-over-who-should-pay-climate-f2D11624117 | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:If you believe Israel has a right to exist, it necessarily follows that the Palestinians have an equal right to destroy Israel and take their land back. +
+ Just to be clear, I am not arguing whether Israel does or does not have a right to exist here. And I am not arguing whether it is likely or unlikely the Palestinians will take their land back.
My argument is that it is basically uncontroversial and accepted history to say that Israel came to exist by displacing the Palestinians (read Benny Morris if you need). The Palestinians were the historic majority, and for the most part they were historically the residents and owners of the land of historic Palestine (you'd have to be nuts to disagree with that basic point.). But over time, and then culminating in the Jewish military and diplomatic victories in the 1947 war, the State of Israel was formed without considering the rights of the indigenous Palestinian population.
Therefore, if you accept that Israel has a right to exist today, it necessarily follows that you are accepting the principle that taking land by force at the expense of the native population is justified. And if you accept this principle, you must also accept that the Palestinians have the right to do the same and will be justified if they are able to gain the upper hand and destroy their oppressors and take the land back.
And further, id argue that the method used to destroy the State of Israel and replace it with a new Palestinian state on the entire land is largely irrelevant. Because, similarly as previously argued, since the pre-Israeli Jews were not concerned with the plight of the Palestinians (and the Jews who lead the military campaigns to form Israel were singularly focused on their own desires to have a state) when they killed and expelled them, it naturally flows that Palestinian have the right to employ harsh military means to regain the land.
I assume that the majority of arguments against my proposition will be centered on arguments that the Jews deserved the land because they were (1) oppressed by the europeans, or (2) they have a religiously ordained right to the land. In response Id say (1) I don't think the level of oppression is relevant to the original argument, (2) I'm not religious, and don't think that any religious argument has merit. i.e. you can't just say the jews deserve it more because god said so...
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Hard work doesn't matter +
+ A person who is born to rich parents will succeed better than those better educated.
connections and socio-economic status mean so much more than hard work that it only baring is on people who are competing at the same tier, in other words it only matter when it is a tiebreaker between you and another person at your level.
No matter how hard you work you will never be richer than bill gates. The average person has almost no chance of seeing the wealth of the top 1% no matter how many years of effort they put in.
Luck, money at birth, connections, those are the only factors that actually determine success in the western world.
I really want numerical evidence showing that hardworks matters
The example I provided is below.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think Atheism is a narrow-minded and arrogant ideology. CMV +
+ I just think that it's arrogant of us to say that we KNOW something doesn't exist because of proof that we've come up with on out own. I am not a devout believer in a God, and i do believe that science has many great explanations, however, i think it's narrow minded to think that things cant exist outside of the established rules of science, and arrogant to tink we, as a race have it all figured out.
Bear in mind that i've come across two "types" of athiest:
* those who dont believe in a god.
* those who believe there are/is no god(s)
The latter is what i'm talking about in this CMV as i don't agree the former is even considered atheism.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
The fact that religions rely heavily on indoctrinating children proves they are lies. CMV +
+ I've struggled with this line of thought for a while now and I can't help but feel that something is terribly wrong whenever I witness children being indoctrinated into religion. I've started to feel that the very act of trying to push beliefs onto children, regardless of what they are, proves that those beliefs aren't worth having because if they were worth having then they would be accepted by adults and there would be no urgent drive to "get em while they are young".
I cannot fathom how a parent could not feel that something is "off" when they purposefully push lies onto their children, and I assure you that it is a lie to present beliefs to a child disguised as facts. "Jesus loves me this I know", . . well, that right there is a lie because there isn't a single person alive who "knows" that.
In summary, I feel that any belief (particularly Christianity, because that is what I'm experiencing) that requires you to indoctrinate your children by lying to them while they are still young enough to trust blindly, is proven unworthy of any respect by those actions. | 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 officers responsible for the Hawthorne dog killing were justified in doing so (up to a point), and that the reaction so far has been overblown. CMV +
+ Full disclosure: I've had a bit of a fear of large dogs for most of my life, so that may color my viewpoint a bit. At least large dogs that I haven't gotten to know.
I saw the video, and at [3:22 \(the moment right before the first shot is fired, so TRIGGER WARNING. Seriously, it does get pretty fucked up afterwards\)](http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=WDBZr4ie2AE#t=202s), you can definitely see the dog jump very close to the cop, easily within a foot, and it looks like its paws made contact with the officer's body. And that dog looks like a Doberman or a rottweiler or something, and a cursory Google search tells me that [they're ranked 7th and 2nd among dog breeds for bite fatalities.](http://www.curiosityaroused.com/nature/top-10-most-dangerous-dog-breeds-based-on-bite-fatalities/) I'm not saying that they're necessarily inherently dangerous, just that the numbers show that they're a serious threat to human life. More cursory research suggests the reason behind the numbers is because of the popularity of these breeds for dog fighting If Hawthorne is an area known for dog fights, then *not* shooting the dog had a very real potential for human fatalities. If any of those cops weren't wearing a protective layer (and I see no reason why they would have, if they're the low-level neighborhood patrol types), they could have easily gotten a huge gaping bite hole in their torsos.
Things the officers did right IMO:
1. Shooting the dog, because it established itself as a threat once it tried to jump the cop. Plus, if it's a breed that's well known for being lethally violent, what should they have done otherwise? I can't think of a way they could have safely neutralized the threat at that juncture, barring a tranq gun or other equipment that the cops probably didn't have. Batons and tasers would be less lethal but (educated guess), there would be a lot more suffering involved.
Things that they did wrong IMO:
1. Letting it suffer like that. Clean shot to the head to put him out of his misery would have made the whole thing not so bad. I'm fine with human euthanasia, too, but only under certain conditions. Seeing the dog suffer was horrible.
2. Taking that guy into custody for no apparent reason, other than filming shit on his phone. WTF? Of course the dog is going to try and defend the guy, and the cops should have isolated the threat before making the arrest. Bad police work, and bad legislation too, but that's a different matter.
So I believe the cops should get in some legal trouble for letting it suffer, and that their incompetence at police work should result in a lengthy unpaid suspension, but the decision to kill the dog became the right one as soon as it tried to jump on that one cop. Judging by the uproar, you'd think the dog was tied to a tree and barking at them harmlessly when they pulled the trigger. Hell no, that motherfucker's behavior was unmistakably threatening.
The biggest plot hole here is ***what other options were available once the dog started attacking?*** This is the big question, I think, the one most likely to result in a ∆. If someone can present a reasonable alternative to shooting a dog that's right at the cusp of actively trying to kill you, I'm all ears.
Tasers and batons were a possibility, but were the cops carrying those things? Do they require special training to be used against dogs? Plus, tasers and batons might be *worse* options than a clean shot to the head, because lots of suffering would be involved, survival or not. I'd imagine mace would just piss the dog off even more. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think Game of Thrones is boring and the mythology is patchy and poorly constructed. +
+ The names in particular bother me. One family, Baratheon (Greek-sounding, maybe?) has three brothers named Stannis (Saxon-sounding), Robert (an actual Norman name) and Renly (which sounds like the name of an English aristocrat's lazy son). What the fuck?
Also, Peter Dinklage's attempted British accent (in the show) is appalling.
CMV | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I see no way to justify using public policy to combat climate change regardless of the science. +
+ In the past century, the American government has tried to fight poverty, racism, terrorism, drugs, and education problems. During the Reagan administration, the government even sought to combat government itself. Has it been successful in any of these ventures? As I see it, very little evidence suggests that it has. My point is that given our track record, isn't the belief that our government will be able to save the planet a bit too... optimistic?**
To clarify, I wouldn't consider myself a 'skeptic' of global warming *science* in any way, just a skeptic of global warming *policy*. I think this is a pretty important distinction to make-- the former involves rejecting a scientific consensus, while the latter (at least IMO) is a fairly reasonable political position (full disclosure: I consider myself a [Minarchist](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism)). A lot of the climate change articles/posts I see on reddit ([For example](http://blog.nj.com/njv_editorial_page/2010/09/face_facts_climate_change_is_u.html)) don't make that distinction, lumping anyone opposed to environmental legislation into one giant category of 'BIGOTS.'
I am quite certain the climate is changing. I also believe humans are very likely a substantial factor in causing/accelerating these changes. I DO NOT, however, think that this automatically implies the need for government action.
**This is the essence of my argument-- government has sucked at pretty much everything it has tried to accomplish in the past 100 years, so how can we expect it to solve perhaps one of the most confounding problems we face as human beings? I introduced my skepticism of 'government solutions,' and then applied that point in the context of climate change policy. I now return to that first, more general point. [This](http://polisci.duke.edu/uploads/media_items/ppe-working-paper-13-0216.original.pdf) essay by Duke professors William Keech and Michael Munger, entitled "The Anatomy of Government Failure," elaborates on skepticism towards government policy. As Keech & Munger explain, much of the justification of government action comes from identifying and then attempting to solve perceived market failures. And indeed, markets are imperfect-- economic volatility would very much still exist in a truly free market, and the 'innovations' used by entrepreneurs in response "turn out to be at least as volatile and subject to bubbles as their earlier predecessors." And yet, "the same logic applies to government action, and for the same reason. People who dismiss claims about institutional innovation in market are remarkably credulous about the possibilities of reform..." (18).
So go ahead, CMV. As my (current) view is based on a cynicism towards the effectiveness of public policy 'solutions,' I guess I would say I'm particularly interested in hearing what people might propose regarding climate change policy that they believe would be (or already is, in the case of existing policies) effective, efficient, and/or reasonable.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: It's more humane to raise animals in (properly designed) artificial habitats than in the wild. +
+ Organisms achieve better health when living in a controlled environment with stable source of food, well-adjusted temperature and humidity, without danger of predator and parasites, and provided with medical treatment when ill. Because animals, especially large mammals, has high cognitive function, it not only better for them but also morally preferable to put them in these artificial environments when we have the ability to do so.
Just think of yourself backpacking in nature, and compare that to living in a house with AC. Letting an animal starving outside in the rain is definitely worse than bring them indoor and feed them.
I also believe that when activists protest about raising animals in captivity, they don't have a case unless they can provide evidence that that particular artificial environment they are complaining about is indeed worse than natural habitats currently available in terms of how they affect the animal's physical and mental health.
Yes, I know you can't keep dolphins in a small pool. That's why I say properly designed.
I also understand it is not economically and ecologically feasible to implement this on all animals. Non the less I believe it is desirable, and we should do it whenever we have the power to do so.
| 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 in the existence of Natural Rights and I can't stand moral relativism +
+ I define natural rights as objective moral laws. They are universal, and they are inalienable. They supersede and exist outside of governments and legality.
I know all the arguments against Kant's Deontology. People will say "oh, so you wouldn't tell a lie, even to save your family or a million people!"
I realize the issues that come with Deontology, but that doesn't stop me from believing in the existence of natural rights based on moral law.
Specifically, the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Where do they come from? They are manifestations of the intrinsic worth of human life. Why is human life not worthless? Because of our ability to reason, to think, to legislate our own character, etc. Within all of this, I believe there is some worth, and if there is some value to human life, natural rights would exist in respect to said worth.
If human life, by its very nature, has some intrinsic value, then we can easily state that as a human having a right to his/her life. We probably ought to not enslave that person either, because to do so would be to deny the very thing giving them worth (reason).
Where does pursuit of happiness fit in? I think of this in a more abstract sense. Pursuit of happiness is actually just you using your power of reason to make decisions based on your will. To deny someone the pursuit of their happiness (in so far as it does not conflict with the other two natural rights) would be to deny their intrinsic worth.
The consequences of an action, no matter how much "good" they bring do not make an action moral or immoral. Morality is objective and unchanging.
| 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 you should be responsible for the actions of other people who are on your property without your approval. +
+ The title says it.
If a homeless man comes onto my property without my approval and falls into my pool and drowns, I don't believe that should be responsible for that.
If an adult is running through my yard and cuts himself open on my clothesline and bleeds out, why am I responsible? They should be responsible for their actions.
If a child runs onto my property,
climbs one of my trees, falls out, and breaks his back, why am I responsible?Their parents should be responsible for their actions.
I did not want them on my property. If they had not trespassed on my property, they would not have been injured.
tl;dr: I think "premises liability" is ridiculous of the person is not invited. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The personal ownership of self-driving cars will never be allowed due to terrorism concerns. +
+ What prevents someone from buying, borrowing, and/or stealing 10 or 20 self-driving cars, packing them full of explosives, and sending them off across the area to hit targets?
I have been concerned about this scenario for a while. The only way to prevent it, that I can see, is to ban personal ownership of self-driving cars.
Point/Counterpoint:
* POINT: Car makers can add sensors to detect for a human being in a vehicle and prevent the vehicle from traveling without a human inside. COUNTERPOINT: Unless we are going to increase the price of a car dramatically, sensors can be tricked. Also, cars can be hacked just like iPhones (jailbreak) and other electronic devices.
* POINT: Owning multiple self-driving car would be a red flag and put someone one a watch list. COUNTERPOINT: What prevents someone from borrowing cars from friends and family? Also, there will no doubt be car sharing services where you can rent out your car to strangers (similar to Uber). Also, car theft will never end. People will always find a way to steal cars.
Personal ownership of self driving cars will never be allowed. CMV.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I seriously think that people in the Western world really have no right to complain about "corruption" and the like in their countries, and doing so is extremly inconsiderate of real problems in the world. CMV +
+ I want to start with a bit of a backstory. My mother's birth family (she was adopted at birth) live in the Dominican Republic as what many people here would consider gypsies. They have a single caravan (which four people share) and live in absolute poverty (hence why they put my mom up for adoption). The travel across the countryside with very few possession to their name. Every now and then my family and I would visit and despite having almost nothing aside from the absolute basics (no electricity, no access to clean water, only access to a few local growing plants and animals) they're are incredibly happy with their lives. They're extremely humble and refuse help from my mother whenever she offers to give them money. In fact, they're a lot more happy than the majority of people I know both here in Canada and on this website.
The point of that story is I'm absolutely sick and tired of people complaining about "how bad it is over here" when they don't even have the slightest idea of what bad is. A popular sarcastic saying here on Reddit is "Oh well since things are worse in other parts of the world I guess we shouldn't protest or complain about our conditions here". However, unless we one day find ourselves in some "utopia" where everyone lives the exact same standard of life with no disparity whatsoever there's always going to be someone worse off than you. Personally I'd rather live as the poorest person in a place like Norway, Canada, or even the US as an average person in a place like East Timor, Bangladesh, or Angola. I'm extremely grateful of everything I had, and stories like my grandmother's humble me because I realize how grateful I should be that I can eat and drink clean water.
All this demonizing of the 1% is, in my opinion, just a subconscious jealousy of middle class Westerners who want to absolve their guilt for having an easier life than others. This opinion doesn't just go for income disparity either. I'm infuriated when people complain about "how corrupt the US government is" because of the NSA and the Manning prosecution, or of how "corrupt the Canadian government is" because the conservative Prime Minister paid off a senator around $90,000 (while the country conveniently ignores a $500 million wasted by the liberal provincial government in Ontario.. but that's for another rant).
In short, I don't think the majority of Westerners realize how GREAT they have it here, and it's insulting to me (both to myself and those living in third world countries) when these people don't realize this. I was raised to be grateful for what I have, and to not "bitch and moan" (my parent's words not mine) if I didn't get what I wanted, but instead to work for it. So Reddit, please CMV. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I think that the recent Supreme Court decision (McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission) is going to have a myriad of unintended consequences, and will make the US much worse off (than it already is) +
+ Here's an article about it: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/us/politics/supreme-court-ruling-on-campaign-contributions.html
Basically, I think all this is going to do is allow rich people to have even *more* influence in Washington, which is going to mean worse candidates that only have the interest of their corporate 'sponsors' in mind when they write and pass legislation. The government will become even more cronyist than it is now.
Instead, I think:
* This should go back to the way it was, a limit on individual donations. I honestly think $1,000/person per election cycle would be better.
* Citizen United should be overturned, thus disallowing corporations from donating money. It should come from the individuals *within* said corporation, if at all.
I can't really see how this helps out individuals who don't have a lot of money (or any money) to donate. It just seems like it will allow the 0.01% to donate as much as they want, thus ensuring that they get even *more* [regulatory capture](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture) from the government.
Thanks CMV!
| 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 agree with transgender people and that you can be "born in the wrong body" +
+ The body you are given is the body you are given. You can't just change that cause you want to. I personally think transgender people are weird and make me super uncomfortable. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Neckbeard is just another way to say "Nerd" without losing "nerd cred." CMV +
+ The nerd, when I was growing up, was the [socially awkward outcast that everyone made fun of](http://i1.cdnds.net/13/12/618x959/bill-gates-mugshot.jpg). It seems like that guy created a whole bunch of stuff everyone uses [so now the nerd is cool](http://cdn.cnwimg.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/bill-gates-the-rock.jpg).
But there's still all those socially inept guys hanging around all the cool stuff and no way to make them leave, so a new derogatory word is needed. The word is neckbeard, which carries all the same stereotypes as *nerd* of old, but people can use it while pretending they're not basically going to a rap concert and wishing all the blacks weren't there. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Aborting a fetus that has a severe disability shouldn't be looked down apon +
+ I think it is completely reasonable for a pregnant woman to terminate their pregnancy if an ultrasound has concluded that it will have a life-threatening or severe disability. Like if the fetus has a disability that would make them unable to be independent when they get older and must rely on a lot of other people in order to just TRY and live an ordinary life. I would hate to live as a vegetative state, and be a burden on other people. What is the point of being alive at that point. I wouldn't be able to contribute to society in any way.
I know this seems like a "hateful" or "horrible" thing to say, but it is actually a reasonable viewpoint in my eyes.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Religious people don't need to let gay people get married in their church. However, they shouldn't be allowed to influence their rights for any form of legal marriage outside of that religion. +
+ Religion should not influence politics. Gay people should be allowed to marry if they so choose.
But that doesn't mean that every church or belief has to agree to perform marriages between homosexual people. If a specific belief says they're against gay marriage and don't want to perform it, that's fine. The gay people can just go next door to the church of a different faith, or to a courthouse.
The religion shouldn't have to change it's view because something is made legal. If their's is an unpopular opinion, they'll just get less believers anyway. | 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 kids who are bullied are partially to blame for the bullying and all this new attention placed on "anti-bullying" is a little too much. CMV +
+ So since you're reading this, you probably haven't come to the direct conclusion that I'm a monster thank you.
Seeing all the new attention that has been placed on "anti-bullying" campaigns in school where educators tell students terrible stories about a student who committed suicide, I feel like too much padding is being placed around this generation.
Don't get me wrong, kids should still be taught that it is wrong to make fun of others simply for one of their characteristics, this is an important life lesson. I just feel like kids nowadays are becoming softer and softer so soft in fact, that they feel like because they are being called fat in school, the only way out is to kill themselves. Ok that was a shallow statement, bullying goes WAAYYY farther than that, but my point still stands, kids should, as well as being taught not to make fun of each other, be taught that suicide is never the only answer.
Also, bullying always has two sides. As sinister and evil as it may sound, the kid being made fun may also be partially wrong in a "bullying case". Take this recent huge Amanda Todd deal. It was ALL OVER the news about how bullying caused this girl to take her life. But come on, she undressed for multiple other guys, if she thought there wasn't going to be any backlash, then she was ignorant. | 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 agree with the social shield around fat people. They got that way via choices and I don't feel cruel for being disgusted by them. CMV. +
+ I'll start by saying I am paralyzed from the nipples down. I am not overweight in the slightest. If I had kept eating like I did before I broke my neck, I certainly would be. But I adapted; and I have no sympathy for those who cannot.
Being short guarantees jokes. Balding guarantees jokes. Big noses, ears, chins, heads, hands, feet...all will bring in the jokes. But don't even think about mentioning someone's weight...that's *mean.* This is where the social shield fails. Maybe if the stigma was gone and it was common to talk about weight management people would feel less comfortable being overweight for chronic periods of time.
I'll exclude fat children from this since they are at the mercy of poor parenting. Otherwise, as adults, we are all responsible for our choices. Being fat is a consequence of choice and habit. A person who is morbidly overweight immediately disgusts me, and I have been told that this is cruel but can't see why. I wouldn't taunt them or even bring it up unless it happened to be the topic of conversation, in which case i'd be honest and say "get your shit together for your own health, our tax burden, and my aesthetic appreciation of the world."
We live in a society which supports the financial burden of people who, by means of their own choices and habits, have treated their bodies like dumpsters and as a result are plagued with diabetes and heart issues.
Why is our attitude currently as it is: "Oh you're fat as fuck? That's okay honey there's nothing wrong with you. Embrace your folds and love yourself." | 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 Yoga pants are unattractive because of the lack of effort they exemplify as well as their impracticality. CMV. +
+
I am of the opinion that yoga pants are unattractive due to two main reasons:
1, they exemplify a lack of effort on the other person's part to wear appropriate clothing for the day. They are mainly seen in a school setting, and in the winters, and yet the common gripe amongst girls who are wearing them is that they are cold or chilly. A common argument against this is that they are comfortable, which I don't think holds much sway since comfort is highly subjective, but doesn't change the acceptability of clothing. No guy shows up to school wearing pajamas or a onesie and says it's OK simply because it's comfortable, nor would most people consider that acceptable. And yet, instead of wearing clothing that would be better suited, such as ski pants if it's really cold, or layering, many people choose to wear yoga pants, which seems counter intuitive to me.
2, they are undeniably impractical, far more than I think is really acceptable for whatever situation you're in. When in a yoga class, the practicality is still questionable over, say, shorts or other athletic wear, but I have noticed that many companies sell thicker yoga pants that actually fulfill their purpose of being tight fitting, moisture wicking clothing that is designed to stretch along with the person. However, the setting is not a yoga class, it is day to day life, where the goal is not to have people stare at your ass, but to perform your duties to the best of your ability. I read through [a couple other CMVs](http://redd.it/1jvcjt), where comments like [this one](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1jvcjt/i_believe_women_should_not_wear_revealing/cbinstk) and [this one](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1jvcjt /i_believe_women_should_not_wear_revealing/cbio1ma) where interesting points are raised, particularly about sexual attention and sexual attention. Since neither are the goal of an academic setting, yoga pants are not practical options to be worn in said setting. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I don't think men should have paid paternity leave. +
+ Recently the fellas over at MensRights have been talking about getting paternity leave for men. This is in response to Obama's recent comments about maternity leave for women. I believe that any guaranteed paid leave of absence raises the cost of employing someone. By doing this, employers are less likely to hire those people.
With this raised cost, you get rigidity in the labor market. Women are so integral to the child they give birth to that they need to be with it in it's first months. This is a societally accepted value and I see it as fine. In Germany, paid leave is really big with the CDU/CSU, while greater social benefits for children and new parents are touted by the SPD.
If men were to also have paid leave it would equal a massive cost in the hiring of men. I think this would create unemployment and would hurt the demand for goods in the U.S. Rather than have the market have to take the cost of new fathers, we should have a transfer of funds to early childhood development and new parenting aid. (In Finland, new parents get to choose between a cash sum or a parenting kit. 95% choose the kit.)
Paternity leave = increase in the cost of labor = market rigidity = unemployment.
CMV!
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I think at their core, people are pretty evil. +
+ The more postmodern or liberal philosophy on people is that we seem to be genuinely good or pure beings that eventually become corrupted by society. I disagree. I think people at their core are pretty bad and things like love, compassion, and generosity are things that society has to instill in us.
People always talk about how pure children are. What are the things you constantly have to hammer into children? Share. Don't hit people. Play nice. These are things that children need to be taught because when left to their own, they don't share, play nice, and they often hit each other.
I'm not a religious person, but if there is something that Christianity got right it is that people are naturally sinful. We are prideful, selfish beings, just like animals. The thing that separates us from the animals is our ability to try and curb our violent, selfish nature. It is not the lack of the violent, selfish nature that we share with animals.
I guess the way I would need you to change my view would be to convince me that what we consider to be evil is taught or comes about because of upbringing, and that what we consider to be good behavior is inherent in humans, not instilled by society.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe Terrorists have a right to a fair trial CMV +
+ Slobodan Milošević was accused of being responsible for the forced deportation of 800,000 ethnic Albanians from Kosovo, and the murder of hundreds of Kosovo Albanians and hundreds of non-Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia and was given a fair trial at the Hague.
But terrorists are held indefinitely without trial on a regular basis.
Not to put a value on death but a war criminal like Slobodan Milošević was responsible for far more deaths than any terrorist and yet they are afforded the right of a fair trial but a terrorist isn't. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: We should not make school children say the pledge in the United States +
+
I think your stance would be stronger if you were saying, "there should be no recital of the pledge of allegiance in school at all." It shouldn't even be occurring as something that kids can opt-out of. It just shouldn't be happening. It's not really appropriate in general. Keep it out of school altogether.
**This was the point I was getting at **
___
I think it's wrong for us to force young children to say the Pledge of Allegiance and devote themselves to a country that they don't understand. If voting turnouts are proof enough, even a lot of the adult population doesn't know a lot about or care a lot about the current government and all the policies and controversies, let alone a child who has likely not yet been taught about all the ins and outs. To me, this is what I hear when children say the pledge:
Now, I'm not trying to be "mean" to children and say they cannot possibly be told about these things, and perhaps have some basic grasp of the troubles. I'm saying that they aren't taught, and can't be asked to understand the depth or breadth of the issues at hand. I'm not saying they are incapable of a basic concept of grief or strife. They could surely understand sorrow. But to grasp the complex legal and social ramifications of pledging themselves to a nation as large as America... is ridiculous. I don't think a child is capable of comprehending the NSA stealing our information, the implications of wars we've started on the lies of our leaders... I'm sure they don't know about the government being convicted of the murder of MLK, or how we've kept people in internment camps... I'm sure they're unaware of the murders, bombings, and lynchings that have gone unpunished because of our legal system. How right after this pledge, their fathers still can't be married because it's an abomination to a select group's ideals.... There's a level of indoctrination involved with altogether disturbing consequences. Such as the Bellamy Salute, which you don't see us doing any more, we put our hands over our hearts now because we know that doing it like it used to be would imply similarity to totalitarian fascist regimes like Nazi Germany.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe scientific reasoning is the best way to collectively know reality, understand the natural world, and gain empirical knowledge. +
+ For clarification, I'm speaking of contemporary scientific reasoning. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The term 'rape survivor' attempts to upgrade an albeit horrible act to a life-threatening one, and should therefore not be used. +
+ We used to use the term 'rape victim'. The new term 'rape survivor' purports to place rape in the same category as life-threatening diseases and attackers. Here are a few examples where it make sense to use the word 'survivor': His grandfather is a Holocaust survivor. My dad is a cancer survivor. The Prime Minister survived the assassination attempt. There are plane-crash survivors and because of seat-belts and airbags, most people survive car accidents.
But you don't survive assault, because the implication is that assault is likely to result in bodily injury, but not likely to threaten your life. You don't survive verbal abuse, because the damage can cause emotional scars and mental anguish, but is impossible for verbal abuse to result in a loss of life. We don't even survive *depression*, something that for those who suffer from it, can make every waking minute an absolute hell. No, we say we *battle* depression (but if you should try to kill yourself and live, you would have certainly *survived* the suicide attempt).
I think using 'survive' with rape is an attempt to communicate just how horrible and life-changing the experience can be. Also, being a survivor implies strength and perseverance. But in using the word where it isn't appropriate, you undignify victims of rape.
Change my view. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe that, despite being centrist, Communism will crush Islam. CMV. +
+ Islam may be growing with more people being Muslims every year. but so are Communist kids. Communism, despite being dead for over 20 years, may be coming back in the near future. Islam may fight against the Communists, but since the Communists may fight back with nukes, and so will the Muslims. However, unlike the Muslims, the Communists may target sacred places, such as the Kaaba, for example. Islam, despite looking strong today, is fragile, like a house of cards. One blow can easily destroy all of it, and since Communism ruled the world successfully, Communism may rise again. Especially since capitalism is in crisis. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Laws banning sagging pants are an unnecessary restriction of freedom that has little or no positive benefit. +
+ This post was inspired by [this article](http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2014/09/11/347143588/sagging-pants-and-the-long-history-of-dangerous-street-fashion?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20140911)
First of all I think sagging is a terrible fashion choice. I have never done it in my life. But the title pretty much says it all. I think these laws are really silly at best, and downright racist at worst. Youth has always used fashion to rebel, to mark itself as different from the older generation. When everyone who sags now grows up and becomes the establishment the next trend will come along, and people will be whining about society is degrading and trying to pass laws against it.
I will reply to several common arguments used to support these laws:
- This style of dress is associated with gangs and crime.
This argument is extremely illogical. Wearing red or blue is also associated with gangs, should that be banned? Is there any kind of evidence whatsoever that indicates that crime will be reduced by legally restricting clothing? Murder, gangs, and drug smuggling were far worse in the 20s and 30s when everyone wore suits. And, sorry to tell you, crime will still be happening in the year 3000 when everyone wears one piece cybernetic body suits.
- It is immodest.
It must be really hard for one to deal with daily life if the mere sight of a man's boxers is enough to disturb one's morals. But regardless it is not illegal to go in public wearing a swimsuit. Nor it is illegal to wear shorts commando (with no underwear) both if which are the same thing as sagging pants. It is illogical to create legal restrictions against one thing, but not against something else which essentially the same.
- Sagging pants are disgusting / I don't want to see it.
So? It's America, if you don't like it then don't look. I don't want to see cargo pants, fedoras, or dudes wearing purple skinny jeans but I'm not trying to pass a law against it.
- The law protects young black men from police harrasment
How exactly? By providing the police with an additional legal tools to harass them? If the problem is police misconduct then the solution is reforming the police department, not turning them into the fashion police.
I'm excited to see if you can CMV
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe that going to college right after high school is a bad investment. CMV. +
+ A little background on me to explain how I came to this opinion. I am young, 22, college dropout. I was in college for one year and then lost my instate tuition. I can explain how that happened if anyone's interested because I think it's interesting, but that's not relevant right now.
Since that time I was unemployed for a while (my own fault), then started working a variety of jobs. I waited tables, then was a line cook, I worked in a hardware store, I did tree removal, and other odds and ends jobs. A little over a year ago, I decided to teach myself how to program websites. I caught on pretty fast, and got a job making a website for a nonprofit my friend worked at, and did it for really cheap. I spent a lot of time on the site, improving my skills, and was happy with the finished product. So was the nonprofit. I used that as leverage to get a job that had just opened up at the nonprofit. They hired me, even though the position description typically requires a college degree, *but I was able to prove to them that I would be a strong employee so they hired me anyway.*
Soon after, I reached out to a nonprofit that works with kids that my sister was participating in, and started getting involved in helping build up the failing organization. I jumped at any opportunity to do something that needed to be done, and was hired as the Vice President of the nonprofit. Again, I was able to do this because I proved to them that I would be able to perform the job, even without a college degree.
While I plan to get a college degree, and I think that some degrees can be very valuable as a person's career starts to take off, I am very glad that I did not get a degree first, before having experience in the working world.
So on to my point.
With this background, I can break down my opinion into two points.
1) The need for a college degree to get a job is overblown. People get hired because they can prove to their employer that they can do a good job. School's claim that a degree is going to be that proof for the young people that pay them tens of thousands of dollars for it, but it's not. Very few degrees stand out to employers any more. Hiring decisions are not made based on if someone has a degree or not. They are decided by if the candidate can prove that he or she can do a good job. Degree not required.
2) Teenagers are naive. The world is a very different place than any teenager understands. It is a bad decision to decide to invest in higher education until you have a better idea of what the adult world is. This doesn't just mean deciding what to study, although that may be a part of it. I mean even the motivations that compel people to do things. The idea that you can do something for yourself, and that short term inconveniences can pay off in the long term, and then acting on that, I think that's a concept that no adolescent can fully understand. I wouldn't want to have to go through school without understanding that idea.
Hopefully I didn't go on too long with my bio. Change my view.
I do not have the view that college degrees are worthless, but rather that young people should be pushed to get out there and work for a few years before getting a degree, rather than the huge emphasis that everyone needs to get into college straight out of high school. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Prison is over-sentenced in the U.S. and should almost never be advised for Nonviolent Offenders. +
+ Greetings CMV!
I had a thought due to some recent events I subscribe to. I've come to the conclusion that prisons as a system of harboring all criminals are petty and worthless and that our society would be better served by forcing non-violent criminals to lose whatever associated privileges they had with their crimes and pay back their communities through fines or community service.
Essentially, I'm advocating for anyone who doesn't murder, rape, assault, or intentionally cause such things to come to bear on others - that they should never be jailed.
**As an example**: A man recently drove 75 in a 45 and passed a truck that cut him off on the right, striking a bicyclist on the shoulder and killing him. He promptly stopped and called 911.
What the man did was awful, but I'm quite sure that nobody would consider what he did to be intentional or malicious. He's not a danger to society so long as the privilege he abused (driving) is kept in check. As such, I would think long-term to indefinite suspension of his license and hefty fines/community service are preferable to locking him up.
Can you CMV? *I recognize that I'm no expert on prisons* and I would like to think our penal system has evolved out of something more than just petty vengeance... but considering you can be locked up for *years* for carrying dried up leaves of the wrong kind of plant in your pocket in 48 of the 50 states, or be locked up for sleeping in public - it really makes me reconsider the nature of what we've adopted.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: STEM studies are inherently superior to humanities +
+ DISCLAIMER: I am currently studying economics and mandarin, so it's safe to say I'm not a "DAE le STEM xD" guy.
1) **Subjects such as gender/specific culture studies, economics and sociology etc. are completely ideological.**
Your academic worth is decided by how closely your opinions reflect the approved view. This manifests itself differently in each country. For example, in France, leftist economists such as Piketty will be far more successful in academia. In all regions, the subject matter is often dangerously unscientific. Even semi-scientific disciplines such as linguistics are marred by ideologic cancer.
2) **Some subjects are intellectually worthless and/or bullshit factories.**
The [Sokal hoax](en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair) is a good example of this. Basically, nothing of cultural or practical value is produced. Sadly, philosophy often falls victim to sterile debates of this sort (are humans animals? What is art?)
The intellectual purity of mathematics and physics cannot be surpassed.
3) **Many problems outlined by philosophy can only be solved by modern science.**
Neurologists, empiricists, inventors can give actual solutions instead of spending their time making assumptions or formulating unverifiable hypotheses. There is no potential limit to what science can accomplish. It's entirely possible that conundrums such as free will can and will be solved soon. There is nothing a philosopher can do that a scientist can't. In fact, the best philosophers tend to be scientists. Science is the only thing that has reliably brought solutions thus far. Even things such as large-scale democracy are only the result of increased wealth caused by tech. The only long term changes brought upon humanity were the result of tech.
4) **The best students gravitate towards STEM**
The humanities tend to attract bad students because the subjects are much easier and more open to interpretation, whereas in science rigor and hard work cannot be escaped. I remember back in high school that the best science students were also the best at humanities. They had the most vocabulary and the most extensive cultural knowledge, the best analytical skills and the best taste.
There are way too many mediocre students in the humanities who end up never creating anything of value. That's why humanities in college are a joke.
5) **People good at the humanities don't need to study them.**
Without art, culture etc. life wouldn't be worth living. A world with only engineers would be a nightmare. However you'd have to be naive to think that studiying humanities in college makes you talented. Great writers don't emerge because of shitty creative writing classes in college or english lit. Great painters don't need art history. Great thinkers manage on their own. Their talent is far beyond what can be taught in school. The production of culture is rarely the result of punctilious study.
So far these are the conlusions I've come to. Obviously being in STEM does not make you a genius, but the basic point is that a humanities degree is much more likely to be worthless, both practically and intellectually. It's more likely that a given student gravitated towards humanities out of laziness instead of interest. Culture is amazing but is almost never the result of traditional humanities teaching.
TL;DR I'm bitter about my educational choices
Thanks for reading.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I think Attention Deficit Disorder isn't real and just a ploy to boost sells in Pharmaceuticals. +
+ Yeah, I know it sounds like a conspiracy theory, but I have a very difficult time believing that ADD actually exists or that it is so severe compared to the common person that it needs to be addressed. But I do think ADHD is prevalent. I've seen people and kids growing up with ADHD, but everyone that told me they had ADD didn't seem any different than anyone else. They were able to keep interested in stuff like video games or movies. So basically, I need to be convinced that ADD is prevalent enough that a person who has it has a hard time focusing or retaining attention on everything they do. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
People react with outrage to being called gay. I believe this is perpetuating homophobia. CMV +
+ This was triggered by [an article on news.com.au](http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/jetstar-apologises-to-queensland-passenger-after-8220i-am-gay8221-is-written-on-his-luggage-with-baggage-stickers/story-e6frfq80-1226739529421) about an airline traveller who found his luggage on the carousel with "I AM GAY" written on it in stickers.
The traveller [tweeted the incident with a photo](https://twitter.com/aaronpp/status/389191057746841600/photo/1), calling it disgusting, and lots of people chimed in, using terms like "disgusting", "unforgivable", "disgraceful", "abhorrent behaviour" and so on.
I expect that if the baggage handler in question had written "I'm an aborigine" or "I am a black person" on the luggage, the owner would have probably just shrugged, gone "no, I'm not actually" and nobody would have made much of a fuss about it.
The fact that everyone is getting their knickers in a twist about it tells me that the commenters in question are latently homophobic. It's only an "unforgivable slur" if you think being gay is a detestable thing.
I expect that there may be a different explanation for all the outrage, but I can't think what it is. To me it all seems like closet homophobia in all those oh-so-enlightened and tolerant commenters. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Corporal punishment is a lazy and ineffective method of discipline, and parents who use it as their primary method are abusive. CMV +
+ Corporal punishment, at it's core, relies on forming a link between certain undesirable behaviors and physical pain in a child's mind, i.e. "If I do X or fail to do Y, I will get hurt." In my opinion, this is a poor strategy for several reasons. Firstly, it doesn't actually teach the child why certain behaviors are wrong, only that they risk physical discipline for doing them. Furthermore, because it relies on the child's fear of punishment, it must continually be ratcheted up in order to remain effective. A simple swat on the butt may work on a toddler, it would be shrugged off by an older child. I believe that any parents who rely heavily on corporal punishment are at best lazy and at worst abusive. Change my view. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: People we consider "evil" do not believe that their actions are evil +
+ Currently, I am just curious and possibly wondering about the perceptions of evil or bad people. When I think of people that the USA (Yes, I am American) consider bad, my mind trends toward Putin, Osama bin Laden, and other people that oppose capitalism and western ideas. In the media and in schools, we are taught that these people are evil, but I don't think that the people that we consider evil wake up every morning and say,"Hey, I really think it is time for me to be evil, because I love being evil." I feel like these people may have ulterior motives or just a different opinion on the perception and actions of situations.
Thanks
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe the NSA should be abolished. CMV. +
+ Recent and ongoing events have demonstrated a complete lack of discipline (understatement) within the NSA. Additionally, NSA surveillance activities have strained relations with multiple nations, including allies. Also, allegations have increased public dissatisfaction with and toward the NSA. The need for continued espionage activity has been seriously called into question. Furthermore, any necessary responsibilities performed by the NSA could easily be transferred to a more disciplined agency such as the FBI or CIA. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think that the fake realities within video games, books, and TV shows are more interesting than actual reality CMV +
+ I find that I am sometimes more interested in what happens in something that is made up rather than what I am actually doing in real life. For example I will be sitting in class with all my friends and they will be talking about how something just happened (doesn't matter what) and I will be sitting there thinking about what will happen next in my favorite tv show or what strategy I will use the next time I play a video game.
I have experienced a lot of the world. I live in the United States and have been a lot of different places here. I have also travelled to The UK, France, Germany, and the Netherlands. (Stated to take out a counter argument)
So there you have it…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? |
Anarcho-capitalism or any form of state-less society is a terrible idea. CMV +
+ I've seen comments advocating anarchy as being preferable to having a state government regulate things. I can understand the frustration with the bureaucracy of the state, but the alternative, I feel, would be much, much worse. Lawlessness would run rampant. Infrastructure, especially interstate highways, would be neglected and fall into disrepair. **Can anybody tell me what practical benefits this political ideology has besides the rejection of a social contract?** I'd say I have a libertarian slant personally, I'm a US citizen, and I strongly disagree with my government on its spending and foreign policies. However anarchy would breed chaos, apathy, and selfishness in my opinion. | 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 private, market based healthcare system is superior to a tax payer funded one. CMV. +
+ Hey chaps,
Im from the UK and think the NHS is great, but I cant put my finger on why we cant have it even better with a private system, where there is a market incentive to control costs. I cant think of any downsides which cant be controlled via regulation.
Please do NOT quote how the US system is bad without explaining why, and why that problem cant be fixed under a private system with appropriate regulation! Im not proposing here in the UK we should have the US system- Im proposing a system superior to both. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The Penalty Shootout in Football(soccer) is an anti-climactic cop out, and a horrible way to settle ties. +
+ I'll preface this by saying I don't know a ton about soccer. I like watching FIFA games with friends but I'm very oblivious to the nuances and finer points of the game. As an American, there is a whole laundry list of problems and criticisms we have with football. Personally, tie resolution is what really bothers me. And to top it off, this method of tie breaking is used in tournaments, where the soul purpose is to decide the best *team* in the league/world.
I understand that football is a low scoring game and that goals can be rare. Putting that aside, it almost seems disgraceful that the game can be decided by basically playing a mini-game. I believe you should win the game, by winning *the actual game*, not a side game that only involves one player from each opposing team. I don't understand how anyone could be satisfied with a victory or loss through the shootout.
I don't understand why there can't be an NHL playoffs style overtime, where the first goal in the overtime wins the whole thing. If player fatigue is an issue, create separate play periods with rest time inbetween. At worst, just schedule a rematch the next day, anything to actually give me a definitive conclusion. I need to feel like the team that won played better football in the match, not a better shootout.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Over-qualification is not a legitimate reason to deny a job applicant a certain position. CMV. +
+ Denying someone who is over-educated and over-qualified for a position is like denying someone with a perfect SAT score and a great GPA entrance into a Community College.
Sometimes people fall on hard times and need a job just to sustain them while they search elsewhere. If a master's degree holder needs a secretary position for a while, why should they be denied consideration for that job in favor of someone with less experience?
This is only true in situations where the applicant knows that they are over-qualified. | 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 woman should stay in the kitchen and take care of the children while the men work.CMV +
+ I believe that all women (if they start a family and have a husband) should become house wives. My reasoning for this is I have personal experience on the matter that gave me this bias when I was growing up. My family was very much a close knit group and we would all support each other financially. And for the most part we used to live in one house. What I witness while I was growing up was that My grandfather would work and had the highest income in the household and he kept the family together. While the other hand, My mother and aunts' would also work, but they couldn't support themselves without the help of my grandfather. I also saw it with my uncle and brother in their relationships. I see no problem in believing that the man should bare all the financial burden of his family while the women are to care for the children. If you have a clear argument, then I'm all ears
---------THANK YOU ALL FOR PARTICIPATING ON TRYING TO CHANGE MY VIEW BUT THEIR CAN ONLY BE ONE WINNER AND THE WINNER WHO CMV FIRST IS "BuckminsterJones" WITH HIS FINAL QUOTE-
I was a stay at home dad who cooked and cleaned and raised the kids while my wife worked. There is definitely something to be said for one parent making child-rearing a full time job, if you can afford to, particularly when the kids are pre-school. But why it matters which parent? I can't imagine.
You think I'm less of a man for that?
What is un-masculine about being a good father? You say in more mature? Are you saying being masculine is being immature? I'm confused. You say you want to change your mind, and that you're waiting for a good reason? But you've just said it's more mature to not think like you do. So there's your reason. Be a grown-up. Do what's best for your family, and to hell with what people think. That's being a man.
I couldn't be more proud of myself, my son, and the job we did raising him. No swallowing needed.
THAT LAST PART WAS A TEAR JERKER FOR ME JK, WELL THANK YOU SIR FOR CHANGING MY VIEW
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Drawing images of Mohammed and posting them on Reddit (or proliferating them anywhere) is unethical. +
+ In opposing injustice, we must strive not to perpetuate it. We must scrutinize our own actions and make sure that we are not doing the exact thing we are trying to stop others from doing. This is the idea behind nonviolent resistance as taught by Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr.
What Islamic extremists who kill people over images are doing might be called "hurting people needlessly."
We know that followers of Islam sometimes take the image of Mohammed very seriously and become upset when images of him are made. Meanwhile, the rest of us don't need images of Mohammed in order to survive and thrive. Therefore, the only reason we would make images of Mohammed is to upset people who take them seriously -- i.e., *to hurt people needlessly.*
It would not be "needless" if our protest action was something we need to have the right to do, like make salt from the beaches of our own country (Gandhi) or sit in a diner in our own town (MLK). But non-Islamic people don't care about images of Mohammed, so why can't we just respect their desires and not make them? It doesn't cost us anything.
When extremists kill people, it is sad and terrible, and we should mourn. But responding by proliferating images of Mohammed only affirms the terrorists' conception of us as infidels who deserve to be killed. If we instead showed our humanity, and showed them that they are attacking us for no reason, perhaps we could argue against that image they have been taught.
Let us not help them dehumanize us.
Let us find other ways of protest.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Muslims are the most discriminated against in general (on Reddit and in the UK) +
+ Hi CMV!
I'm brown (british born as are my parents) and whilst I was raised in a muslim environment, I'm agnostic (due to the existence of suffering) but still like the tenants of fasting/giving to charity which I still follow. (copied from my r/ukpolitics post)
I have been using reddit for a long time now and the more I use it, the more I become jaded as a person. Whenever I visit most parts of reddit which holds any political views, any topic on muslims or topics about those who are generally identify as muslims are filled with a huge amount of bigotry and racist remarks in general. Often, this is upvoted into the thousands and leave me feel exhausted and shunned by the community.
The most upvoted posts are those which portray islam and muslims in a negative light whilst posts which show them in a positive light are often downvoted and so is not seen by the majority of people. Terrorism is ofcourse bad, but the comments on articles about muslims/islam differ massively from those on other posts. i.e. The posts about rotherham vs. the parliment child abuse scandal, torture/murder by people of muslim origin vs. those who are non-muslim (or the ones I normally see: White/American i.e. iraq torture and murder cases, Guantanamo other clear cases of torture). There is often a lot of patriotic/nationlistic comments which are positively upvoted and defended in subreddits like r/worldnews or r/news. Further, the comments become a giant circle jerk (for lack of a better word) of what is wrong with Muslims and how they aren't British and should be deported etc. At what point do you think this is inappropriate? As non-white people are in the minority on Reddit, and brown people are minority of that minority again, I feel as if we are largely ignored or attacked by the people who hold the prevailing opinion judging by the previous comments on posts and my own experience. For example:
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/humza-yousaf-demands-action-ukip-5346355
where a politician was likening him to a known terrorist. Articles such as these includes comments deflecting away from the issue or saying it was a 'joke' and instead attacking the person in question. Comments like these happen on a regular basis (judging from the topics I have read regarding Muslims in general on this r/ukpolitics, r/unitedkingdom, r/news, r/worldnews etc).
http://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/2zdks5/humza_yousaf_demands_action_against_coburn_ukip/
It is depressing for me to read articles such as the one below and reading the comments that follow. Following from Farage's comments about "removing anti-discrimination" laws, do you think this problem will become worse?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-muslims-face-worst-job-discrimination-of-any-minority-group-9893211.html
What can be done, if anything, to increases engagement from non-white people on this subreddit to share their views and opinions? I feel as having people from different cultures on here would help greatly in discussions. However, I feel that the tone of the comments and just the number differential in terms or race/religion is a huge turn off (in my experience anyway
Regarding terrorism and the reason for it: I feel as more and more Muslims are feeling shunned and are victims of racism. Just today I was on the train to Glasgow and heard someone (right next to me) say that "All paki's should fuck off back to pakistan and take their mosques with them. They can't make them in this country". Comments like these aren't rare and the racism we experience is very real. I dont like the fact that it is underplayed by (almost) Reddit as a whole. The racism against white people however, is generally given more attention to. Whilst both cases are obviously horrible, I feel as if racism against people who are from the middle east is becoming more accepted (I'm british born and so are my parents, but the racism still affects me)... What can we do to reduce this? Further, I feel as if most terrorists aren't in it for the "rape and beheadings" but largely want to fight back against what was done to them and the people they consider their families: See the war crimes committed in iraq or palestine for example. Do you think this is a bigger problem than the religion they follow? Do you feel as if they use religion as their excuse or do you think that they do it for the self defence/revenge aspect? What are your thoughts on this?
Further, I feel as if propaganda is rife in various subreddits. For example, it is not unusual for me to click on a link which says something negative about pakistani's in the UK or pakistan/muslims in general and the commenters usually post stuff in r/india or pro-israel or just hate muslims in general. I have visited these subreddit and in general (I just lurk and this is my 2nd reddit post ever besides my main account which only posts about dragon age or final fantasy) like most subreddits, they hold a "pro-themselves" attitude. However, there is a clear difference when discussing violence against hindus/christians/jews (which is regularly upvoted) vs. violence vs. muslims (which there is a clear difference in the % of upvotes and of how many reach the front page. I feel as if we are outnumbered and as a result, our voices aren't heard and the propaganda is in free-flow.
In general, I feel like my identity is shunned by the community on reddit as a whole to the point that I do not feel like engaging. I think it is incredibly tiring to argue when you are clearly outnumbered and as such, I do not think many people who are brown would considering joining the community. As a result, I feel that Reddit as a whole becomes an echo chamber where some of the worst comments have at-least some support and there is almost no participation from people who aren't white and so generally, what you guys see and think make up the majority (if not all) of what is discussed and what the prevailing opinions of the subreddit are. What are your thoughts about this? I feel that his needs to change but won't happen soon...
From this long text, it may not be clear which view I want you to change. To be clearer, I would like you to change/challenge me on the following:
- Most of Reddit's bigotry is aimed at Muslims which is incredibly unfair.
- Reddit is an echo chamber of its demography's most prevalent opinions which by large is from the eyes of white people. As a result, it is difficult to have my voice heard specifically in race/religion/political issues. I'm talking r/worldnews and similar subreddits.
For the second point, I don't mean to imply anything bad about it except that most upvoted topics are about what people can relate to and I feel as if posts (mainly political posts) about minorities are filled with more bigotry/racism than any other.
Can you change these views I hold!
I apologize for any errors in this post. I don't really know how to use Reddit.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I cannot stand anime or manga despite trying +
+ I don't enjoy anime or the anime cosplay culture.
I prefer watching movies like French post wave, Woody Allen, Billy Wilder, Blade Runner, tv shows like Hannibal, American Horror Story, Avatar the last air bender, 30 Rock, flight of the conchords, Archer. I also enjoy books of all sorts.
For some reason everyone thinks that Studio Ghibli is beginner anime but I prefer it over more hardcore anime. I've seen almost all of Studio Ghibhi movies. I've seen videos on YouTube of Fullmetal Alchemist, Attack on Titan, Death Note. I find the tropes of anime very inane, everyone looks the same, people are too serious or too wacky, the animation is clunky (same expressions), the subject matter is very bizarre and I can't stand most of the characters. Either the girls are girlish and adorable, or kick ass and masculine but whatever they are they are very cliche. This is also why I can't stand korean drama.
For context I'm a 20 y/o Chinese female (but I grew up in Australia). I consider myself quite a banana (I speak fluent mandarin and enjoy Chinese customs, but I think like a white person). Several of my good friends love anime but have never managed to sway me! I try to be an open minded and liberal person so it does hurt me a little that I cannot get into this much at all...but maybe at a certain point I should just accept that it's not for me?
It would be good if you could give a specific example of say, character development or something, or link to a good video. This isn't me being lazy, but rather, in a sense, asking for citations. | 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 an algorithm which assigns downvotes to posts misrepresents the Reddit community and takes away from the quality of the site. CMV +
+ I always find myself wondering how many votes a post has *actually* received. I'm often annoyed by the fact that I can not see an accurate representation of the community's opinion on a topic. Also, seeing thousands upon thousands of downvotes on some of the most innocent posts (i.e. - photos of a child with cancer that reach the front page).
Would spammers really be so much of an issue? I figure that the general disapproval by redditors and relatively swift action of mods would keep front-page spam at a minimum.
**I'd personally be in favor of seeing the raw votes on a post, but perhaps I'm ignorant on the issue. CMV**
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: having a lot of money hardly translates into increased freedom, and often translates into increased liability +
+ Hi,
I believe that, mostly for middle class families, increased income rarely means more opportunities, more freedom and more happiness.
In fact, I believe middle class families which have a relatively high income have a huge tendency to be in large amounts of debt and to be stuck in a vicious cycle of overconsumption to maintain a certain standard of living which they feel they are entitled to.
On the other hand, poorer families tend to be more frugal in their way of living and therefore have to be satisfied with what little they have. The social pressure to maintain appearances through material possessions is much lesser, thereby making a frugal life much more feasible.
CMV.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe that the UN/Nato should militarily remove the North Korean regime and integrate it with South Korea. CMV +
+ When we think of an Orwellian police state, we often complain about the governments in the West overstepping their bounds (particularly the US/UK), but when we want to see Orwell's nightmare most fully realized, North Korea is the most perfectly realized example of the Orwellian nightmare.
Just look at [this account of a defector](http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/08/25/north_korean_defector_offers_glimpse_of_life_in_his_homeland.html) who escaped a few years ago. He describes police executions for...selling DVDs.
And I know what you're thinking: China will object. Well, yes they will. But they are far too economically co-dependent with the West to really object strongly; as long as western countries left a means by which the Chinese state could save face and not appear weak, then I don't believe they would interfere either.
While many places in the world suck, and the things human beings do to each other are often downright appalling, the idea that North Korea can continue to exist, pretending to be a legitimate state, enacting its atrocities upon it's people and its almost farcical propaganda both internally and externally...I don't see how we can ethically or morally not intervene. 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 have no sympathy for African-American's who complain about institutional racism, but don't vote. +
+ My general point of view is rooted in the belief that as Americans we have the ability to change our policies and that is through voting.
In light of the recent events in Ferguson and Baltimore, I repeatedly here complaints about local corruption and institutional racism found in local officials against African Americans.
My problem with this is that African Americans have a reasonable and non-violent way of changing this and that is through voting.
Take Ferguson as an example. Ferguson's population is 67% black, but only 6% of African-Americans voted in the 2013 municipal elections. Right there they had their chance to change the institution but through their apathy they choose not to. I don't think people who don't actively try to change their situation should have the right to complain about these problems. | 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 marriage should be redefined to include same-sex relationships. +
+ So I recently saw a string of videos of Ryan T Anderson making his case against gay marriage, and I've found myself unable to disagree with him no matter how hard I try.
Some points I would need to be convinced of:
1) On what principle would we act to include same-sex marriage that wouldn't be unfair towards other types of relationships like same-sex throuples or polygamists, etc?
2) The state cares about this issue because fathers and mothers produce children, and we want them to commit to the family and child and maximize the chances that the child grows up well. When we last redefined marriage with no-fault divorce, divorce rates skyrocketed and a number of problems worsened. Redefining marriage again further weakens marriage and sends a dangerous message.
The only valid statistical studies we have have shown that a biological mother and father to be the best, on average, for children.
So please, CMVers, CMV! There are some parts of my view that differ, but I feel as if a discussion for a more comprehensive examination would be better than posting an essay on the body.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Felons and children should get to vote. CMV. +
+ Government of the people, by the people, and for the people is the core concept that underpins our democracy. The basic unit of a democratic system is the individual, and power and authority gets bestowed from the bottom up. That ideal, despite being enshrined in our founding documents as 'all men are created equal', has yet to be fully met. The expansion of voting rights to groups that had not been originally included in 'all men' does show, however, that the principle stands, and that women and black people do count as parts of 'all men', and that denying them the vote is to deny them their most important role as a citizen of a democracy. To deny someone the vote is to deny their right to be governed legitimately.
We still disenfranchise citizens. Convicted felons, in some states, lose their right to vote. Convicts serving their time are not allowed to vote. Young people under 18 are not allowed to vote. And every day here on CMV someone or another is making a call to restrict voting to those who 'deserve' the right.
Voting in a democracy is not a right that gets bestowed by authority on the individual. Individuals voting is what grants that authority in the first place. If the right to vote gets denied to anyone? Then authority is no longer legitimate for that person. If we deny voting rights to some peope, but grant them to others? Then we have effectively turned upside-down the concept of authority coming from the bottom up, and grant those who retain their voting rights authority over those who haven't. Equal protection under the law is erased. The individual is rendered subservient to authority, and a two-level citizenry is created. Voting is what grants us ownership of our government, and establishes its legitimacy.
Singling out any individual or group as 'undeserving' of participating in democracy entirely misses the point. Convicted felons should get to vote, not because they deserve anything, but because the power to lock them away for their crimes is wielded by an institution that derives it's authority from the bottom up democratically. Denying felons the vote gives power to people who would undermine democracy. It sets a dangerous precedent, and establishes the notion that ownership of democratic authority can be turned on its head, and the institution can claim ownership over individuals.
Seventeen year-olds are also denied ownership of their government. That strikes me as unnecessarily conservative. Why have any voting age? If you accept that voting isn't a right that gets bestowed from above, but that instead that allowing ALL citizens to vote is what grants government authority to govern all citizens? Then disenfranchising ANYONE is wrong, and goes against the core principle that our nation was founded on.
Care to try to change my view? | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I think that if a prisoner is refusing food they should be given a feeding tube. That is what happens to mental patients who refuse to eat. +
+ I know this is an extremely controversial thing to discuss. When I was in the hospital for an eating disorder many of the girls had a court ordered feeding tube because they refused to eat. They also had a court order that said they had to stay in the treatment center until their doctors said they were safe to leave. Once we are released we have a type of parole. If we start to revisit ED behaviors we are court ordered back to the hospital. How is this different than having a court ordered feeding tube for a prisoner who is refusing food?
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe I have an obligation to give substantially to others, including donating organs and most of my income. CMV +
+ The risk of death from donating a kidney is minimal, [about 1/1,700](http://www.kidney.org/transplantation/livingdonors/infoQA.cfm?id=6). This is in exchange for a nearly 100% chance of saving a life. I have been unable to find statistics for other varieties of live organ donation, but if I were to donate part of a lung, a kidney, and part of my liver the risk of death would be a whole heck of a lot less than 100% in exchange for almost certainly saving three lives.
How do I not have an obligation to do that? If I think a 1/1,700 risk of death frees me from helping others, that means my own life is 1,700 times more valuable to me than someone else's is. By what right can I value my life 1,700 times more than someone elses and not donate a kidney?
The same goes for giving money. [About $2,500 can save a life through a charity like the Against Malaria Foundation](http://www.givewell.org/international/top-charities/AMF). That's the cost of a nice vacation, or roughly a fifth the cost of my last car. How can I value my car more than the lives of five other people? How can I value my computer as much as someone's life? By what right can I go out to eat when that same money could feed dozens?
Unless I am intrinsically more valuable than everyone else by a factor of thousands, I do not think it is possible to justify spending any more than is absolutely necessary on my own happiness.
I'm not writing this out of some desire for an argument. I legitimately want you to change my view, because I do not want to live the life I feel I am obligated to. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Vaccines should not be supported in all cases. CMV +
+ Hello /r/changemyview! I'm excited for my first submission. I also know that reddit as a whole is probably the most staunchly pro-vaccine community I've ever encountered and, if I'm being honest, this post is somewhat inspired by the [AskReddit thread](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/1pb7e3/what_is_one_fact_that_despite_being_100_true_is/) that cropped up recently. I've been meaning to post this for a long time, though.
Okay, so let me start by saying that I understand the urge to vaccinate everyone and that vaccines are only truly effective if everyone takes part. I will also acknowledge that I am by no means a medical professional and am probably less educated on the subject than many of you. So, those things are granted, no need to point them out. Now, as for my argument: I simply don't believe that vaccines are safe for everyone to use. Let me share a story with you:
In the summer before my junior year of high school, I was sitting in my basement playing video games one day when I felt a stroke of dizziness. I immediately turned the game off and went to get some water, only to find that I couldn't make it up the stairs. I fell over, head spinning, and called to my parents for help. They got me upstairs, at which point I threw up until there was nothing left in my stomach. I couldn't open my eyes without the world whirling by at an uncontrollable speed, so I kept my eyes closed while they took me to the emergency room.
What I'm describing is something many of you may have experienced: vertigo. If I'm being honest, writing that made me a little anxious. For some time afterward, I would be anxious any time I got dizzy for any reason out of fear that I was lapsing back into vertigo. Anyway, I got to see a doctor and underwent numerous tests including an MRI (note: I think the test had a different name, but I can't remember exactly what it was and I know that it bore heavy resemblance to an MRI. Just think of it as a head scan). They couldn't tell what the cause was, but they suspected that (you know where I'm going with this) the vertigo was caused by the vaccine I had received before getting vertigo. The vaccine was for HPV, which I guess is a fairly recent development for males.
Whatever protection was offered by that vaccine was simply not worth it. I lived with vertigo for a month, unable to stand up for long periods of time, or really do much besides lay in bed and try to comfort my stomach to the point where I could hydrate myself. I do not wish that upon anyone. That's why I'm against mandatory vaccinations for all, and why I disagree with people who tout the efficacy of vaccines as 100% fact. For that to be the top comment on an AskReddit thread is plainly ridiculous.
Just a couple more things to consider: (1) every time I went in to see the doctor for subsequent check-ups, a nurse or a doctor would tell me that I still needed to take the second installment of the Gardasil HPV vaccine. I would tell them what happened, and they would instantly agree that I should stay away from the vaccine - a far more rational approach than many redditors seem to take, no? Just throwing it out there - I have been told by legitimate medical professionals not to take that vaccine.
(2) I am *not* against vaccination. A couple years after the vertigo, I willingly received the vaccine for meningitis. But I did research the crap out of it beforehand. I will consider future vaccines in the same way - with open-mindedness and a healthy dose of skepticism.
(3) I am *not* the only one who has suffered serious issues at the hands of this vaccine. I wrote a comment about this earlier, so I'm just going to reuse a link: [Here's](http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/stress-and-health-dr-lind/2013/apr/10/us-court-pays-6-million-gardasil-victims/) an article about it. Even some simple Googling will probably clue you in to the damage this vaccine has caused. Hopefully, when reading about lives that have been lost, you can see why it angers me when reddit gives thousands of upvotes and awards reddit gold to people who spew this sort of condescending, 'scientific' nonsense.
Thanks for taking the time to read. Alrighty then, CMV!
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe all drugs should be legalized (revised). CMV +
+ This time, I'm going to provide more arguments and explain the proposition more thoroughly.
1. How it would work:
So the distribution of drugs would go like this: There would be government stores, which would distribute and control the drugs. You'd have to be over 18 (or 21) to buy drugs, and you'd have to take a simple test on the effects of drugs to the human body, and if you pass that test, you're free to buy as much drugs as you want.
2.The arguments to support this:
-In a free society, you must have the right to put to your own body whatever you want, otherwise it's not a free society at all.
-The quality of the drugs would be more pure due to the regulations and the government labs in which the drugs would be made so possible poisoning from fake/dirty/contaminated drugs would drop.
-The drugs would be heavily taxed, so the government would be able to make som money to pay of the HUGE FUCKING DEPT. And it would still be cheaper than the street market, because no high risk gang dealing is involved.
-Alcohol is legal, and many drugs like marihuana or LSD are far more harmless to the human body than alcohol. So why would alcohol be legal but LSD illegal?
-This way the gang drug wars would stop, drug related deaths and prison sentences would go down, it would be cheaper for the society.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Minority Groups Are Justified in Believing That African Americans Should Just Work Harder +
+ So I feel pretty bad for posting this, because I know I'll be called out as a bigot. That's why I'm hoping some of you can CMV.
However, every time I look at an argument for why African Americans don't do as well as their white counterparts, it comes down to disadvantage. They tend to live in poorer areas and go to poorer schools, and may also face workplace discrimination.
If that's the case, then why is it that Asian and Indian Americans, many of whom are first or second generation immigrants who come in with nothing more than the clothes off their backs (arguably even MORE at a disadvantage than their African American counterparts, who at least are already established in the USA), can grow up to be just as successful as their white counterparts? It's practically a stereotype that Asian and Indian children are going to grow up too be doctors or engineers! So how exactly is it that *they*, who face many of the same challenges as blacks, can grow up to be comfortably successful and well-respected in just one or two generations? The only answer I can think of is their hard work ethic...which, let's be honest, is just another way of saying "blacks are lazy".
I'll sum up how I feel with a quote from a user on another thread. Please don't go witch-hunting, he is in no way related to this post.
There is a problem though, the black middle class blurs very quickly with the black lower class. The black lower classes are the most fucked up unpredictable dangerous people I've ever had the misfortune of being around. I've lived around this, I know the score. I've personally seen people beaten and stabbed. My literal next door neighbor was running a dog fighting / gun-market operation. It was a comical level of stereotypical criminality. It was also fucking terrifying.
Indians, Chinese, Russians, Polish, Vietnamese, Nigerians, Taiwanese, any other immigrant group can improve their lot within a few generations, while living in those same horrible neighborhoods. Why can't blacks?
Why do we have to do it for them? Nobody did it for us. They need to fix their own situation and get to a point where people don't mind living around them.
Please CMV, I feel uncomfortable holding such a view (and in case it wasn't obvious enough already, yes I am an Asian-American).
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The United States is a police state +
+ As a United States resident the past few days I've come to decide that the United States is literally a police state. Here's why:
* We incarcerate more people than any other nation
* Our percentage of incarcerated individuals to our overall population is 1%, also more than any other nation
* Verizon and indeed all US telecoms are bullied by secret government doctrines that force them to hand over metadata
* Project PRISM involves the constant penetration of servers such as Microsoft, Google, Yahoo
So, yeah. Essentially Obama or other senior officials have the power* to declare a citizen a terrorist, pull their file, and access their life's communications for the past six years.
*Which they have not fully disclosed, or made up as they were going along | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think that for a parent, any reason for owning a handgun is outweighed by the inherent risks of having one in the home. CMV +
+
Safe gun practices (using a gun safe, storing ammo separately) prevent a gun from being useful in most instances where a gun might be useful for protection. Having a gun and ammunition in a home increases the risk that someone might get injured or killed. This increased risk is not outweighed by any potential increase in protection from outside threats. I realize that my assessment of risk is flawed and not based on any hard evidence, but this awareness in itself does not change my perspective. Please cite peer reviewed studies if possible. CMV. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Female students shouldn't be allowed to play on male sports teams +
+ I'm currently a student in school, and this is a recent debate. First of all, the physicality of men and women are different, and on the sports field, this would perhaps affect the game. On average, men are stronger than women, so I don’t think that it’s fair to have people with different abilities to play together.
Also, since this is within the context of school, it’s not like female students don’t have opportunities to join girls’ sports teams. In addition to that, for many sports, girls have their own teams, so if we allow female students to play on male students’ sport teams, should the opposite be allowed to happen?
I just believe that it would help female and male students have more confidence and develop better as athletes, if they are playing with people of similar or equal ability.
I’d like to know how you guys feel about this issue.
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 find John Green's books mildly pretentious, repetitive, and not necessarily worth the amount of recognition they get. +
+ Before you tell me I'm an uncultured swine and to stop judging books I haven't read (sorry, John - I know how you hate split infinitives), I have read nearly all of his works: The Fault in Our Stars, Looking for Alaska, An Abundance of Katherines, Paper Towns, Will Grayson, Will Grayson, Let it Snow (his collection of short stories with Maureen Johnson)...
I am a teenage girl who is a huge fan of Young Adult literature. I have been an enthusiast of vlogbrothers and many of John and Hank's other channels long before having read any of John's books. It seemed to be a no brainer that I would love them.
However, they fell extremely flat for me. I thought Paper Towns and Looking for Alaska used a lot of YA tropes and were trying too hard to be 'edgy'. Also, if you were to simplify the plot for each they would be very similar.
[A nerdy boy is chasing a wild teenage girl whom he puts on a pedestal, but who is actually fairly unstable. The boy chases the girl - *looking for her spirit* even after her death, or traveling to a *paper town* just to find her until he realizes that the girl never has and never will love him. *Gasp* - no happy ending!](/spoiler)
I liked TFiOS least of all of Green's books - it came off as pretentious and condescending and fake. Who carries around props all the time so that he can make metaphors? Not someone I would like to know. How many teenagers have you met that go around casually saying "some infinities are bigger than other infinities"?
Reddit seems to have a huge pro-anything by John Green circlejerk. Am I just missing something?
Please Change My View.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I believe that the U.S should regulate the profits of drug and medical device manufacturers. +
+ The cost of healthcare in the U.S. has been [increasing at a rate much faster than inflation and is showing no signs of slowing down.](https://www.google.com/search?q=us+healthcare+vs+inflation&client=firefox-a&hs=xAJ&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=fflb&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=9D-PVIyrEsScyASKooLACw&ved=0CEMQsAQ&biw=1600&bih=799) Unlike other OECD countries, the U.S. does not regulate the profits that drug and medical device manufacturers can make. As a result the average American spends way more on healthcare than any other individual in another OECD country and we aren't even on top when it comes to longevity or child mortality rates. Medicare and Medicaid are two of the most expensive parts of the U.S budget and as a result contribute a large portion to our national deficit. As an American tax payer I don't see why it is fair that I pay an obscenely large amount of money in both taxes and healthcare care premiums so that these companies can make billions of dollars in profit. CMV | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Had planes never been invented, the world would be a better and safer place in terms of transportation +
+ My view is that the common statistic regarding planes being safer than cars, although correct, is eschewed since it compares a means of public transportation with a means of private transportation. In regards to that, I've always considered trains to be a superior means of public transportation in every regard apart from speed, be it energy efficiency, safety and comfort.
Let's break it down:
1. Trains travel on land, removing a layer of "not gonna survive this shit" in case something goes terribly wrong (the 10k meter fall in the case of planes). Besides, there's no steering involved from the conductor's part, the job of the conductor is mostly that of speed control and communication with the other trains on the line/line operators. Therefore, they are also easier to control in general and pose smaller immediate risks and don't require as much skill from the conductor as planes do from the pilot. - Safety argument
2. Planes consume kerosene, a very expensive, highly flammable and low efficiency fuel, and they do it REALLY quickly (considering the fact that they need to propel a several ton metal bird at speeds of up to 900 km/h), burning hundreds of tons of fuel in a relatively short distance. Many modern trains, on the other hand, are electric, and depending on the country's infrastructure, that electricity may or may not be obtained from mostly renewable sources (although often it isn't, granted). - Efficiency argument
3. Planes are, in my opinion, the most uncomfortable means of transportation. Some of it is to be expected: the fact that seating is as cramped as humanly possible is most likely due to the aforementioned fact that kerosene is extremely costly and planes gobble it up at ludicrous rates, pushing airlines to cramp as many people as possible in a single flight to reduce costs. I understand that much. But additionally, at least to me, flying poses additional discomfort in the form of ear pain from the pressure and balance variations felt throughout the flight. In general, it's not pleasant. Trains usually offer a very comfortable and calm trip, where you can relax, enjoy the view, work on your laptop (without requiring up to 300€ extra for business class seating) or otherwise do whatever you please to spend the time. Apart from luxury flights such as the ones offered by Emirates' A380s, you can clearly notice the difference in comfort between the two.
Now here is my preposition: suppose all the money invested in aeronautical engineering, kerosene production and the numerous carriers in the world since the invention of the aircraft by the Wright Brothers had instead been shifted towards railway development. With future promises of vacuum powered tube trains reaching speeds up to Mach 5, had this money been applied in this sector, would it be farfetched to assume we'd have these in operation by today, which would be better than modern planes in every aspect mentioned above (even speed)? Please CMV.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Under Almost No Circumstances Is It Acceptable to Shoot an Unarmed Person CMV +
+
**Under almost no circumstances is it morally permissible to shoot and kill an unarmed individual.** The caveat being situations in which someone has threatened harm and/or is in the act of trying to harm you, the use of force is permissible. That said, killing someone when you have the capacity to disarm/render them a non-threat is still wrong.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the past year a number of cases made the news wherein someone armed with a gun has shot and killed an unarmed person due to negligence, misunderstanding, or the escalation of a trite conflict. While I don't want to want to delve too deep into identity politics, I think it's noteworthy that a large percentage of these victims are young minority men; a population that is not often protected/given empathy by the general public. I'm hesitant to say that this type of crime is increasing in frequency, but our awareness of it has skyrocketed due to the way in which media has become interconnected.
What prompted this CMV was [this case in particular.](http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/03/14/charges-unlikely-for-houston-dad-accused-shooting-daughters-boyfriend/) Long story short: a father found a 17 year old boy in his 16 year old daughter's bed at 2:30am, the daughter said she didn't know him and the dad ends up shooting him in the head, killing him. Turns out the guy was her boyfriend and completely unarmed. Talking to some acquaintances that grew up in Detroit during the 70s/80s, the attitude that it's okay to use deadly force on unarmed individuals is acceptable is relatively new, even in the case of home intruders. To some extent I get the desire to protect oneself/one's family/one's community, but it seems like too often this results in "shoot first, ask questions later" situations in which an innocent person is killed.
In the context of this article, the father had a 17 year old, and I would guess at least partially undressed boy at gunpoint and *kills* him because he moved his hands in a way that the father interpreted as reaching for a weapon. The argument that the father did this in self-defense completely ignores the inherent power dynamic of that situation by casting the person with the gun as the "victim," and thereby justifying harsh actions they choose to take. I'm all for Second Amendment rights, but with the caveat that gun owners use their guns responsibly. Over and over we hear people talk about how they own a gun for protection, but rarely do we hear about that resulting in the saving of a life. *Particularly in the case that the person is visibly unarmed and authorities are on their way*, I believe it's irresponsible and unacceptable to shoot an individual. CMV
Note: I'll likely edit the OP to add new points and clarify existing ones as I receive comments. Sorry if anything is initially confusing! | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: You should be allowed to use a device that records everything you see or hear, at all times. +
+ After all, people with eidetic memory are allowed to roam the streets. Consequently, the records Alice would take with this would be treated like her memories: Intrusion by Bob like him using a not-yet-invented mind-reading device without her consent; deletion like him giving her a concussion.
In court, Alice could speak of the contents of the recordings, but not be forced to show them; she could even lie about them, though that would be illegal. (She might even be forbidden from showing them, depending on whether it is hard to fake such recordings (we do not want courts to be able to use failure to produce recordings as evidence against Alice); alternatively, failure to produce recordings would be forbidden to be used as evidence (though we know how well that works in practice))
"But how would you store all that data?" This is a problem that would solve itself given time, if technology continues to advance as it currently does. But nevertheless, you might transmit recordings to a central storage where terabytes are cheap; you might make the recordings largely poor quality through lossy recording; you might tag the past hour as noninteresting enough to only store the bare minimum of data.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I see belief in God as a major intellectual weakness. CMV +
+ I would love to be the understanding, accepting, arms-wide-open type who could honestly say "I respect all beliefs." But it wouldn't be true. I just don't. Belief in any of the Gods defined by major religions is a major intellectual copout, and I have trouble respecting a person who holds such a belief.
Philosophy is, in my opinion, the most important aspect of any person's being. It is literally a collection of the guiding principles by which a person chooses to live. How can I respect the intelligence of someone who chooses to just *not think about it for themselves*? Who chooses to let an ancient text with uncertain authorship or a hierarchy of clergy dictate their philosophy to them? This isn't even about whether or not God exists. It's just about how mentally weak I believe a person has to be to let their philosophy be dictated to them.
Please, help me see why I should be more accepting.
I've also amended my argument like so: this belief being an intellectual weakness only applies *in the present*, the reason being that today we have so much less reason (ignorance, societal pressure) to believe or at least feign belief in a major God than centuries-old men and women had.
Hope that clarifies my position.
Just trying to be clear. I'd rather not get any more "There are super smart religious people therefore you're wrong" comments. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I have little to no problems with the proposed bans in the UK on the production of British halal and kosher meat. CMV! +
+ Anyone who wishes to read the background to this can do so [here](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britains-top-vet-sparks-controversy-with-call-for-ban-on-slashing-animals-throats-in-ritual-slaughters-for-halal-and-kosher-meat-products-9173258.html).
In this country there have been moves towards high standards of animal welfare, including the correct treatment of animals for the slaughtering process. Normally such a process involves stunning the animal, but in the case of kosher and halal slaughter this is not done as it is not permitted according to the religious rules of both religions. This can cause great suffering to the animals, as they are typically conscious when their throats are cut and blood can end up in their lungs as they struggle for breath before dying.
But I honestly cannot see why these two groups get some magical exemption where everyone else is forced to abide by the rules under threat of prison sentences and fines. The only justification I have ever heard for such practices is 'because it's in our religion'.
Similarly, whilst there is much evidence to suggest than stunning, when done correctly, is effective, no-one seems to be putting any evidence forward (and I'm talking about proper scientific evidence here) that any ritual slaughtering process really is better than the standard practice. If this was the case and evidence was produced in support of non-stunning slaughter, I wouldn't have a problem with it.
I'll head off one argument though- it's nothing to do with religious persecution. No-one is being prevented from believing whatever they want. No-one is being prevented from practicing a religion. If anything, the failure of both Muslim and Jewish authorities to stop the childish footstamping of stubbornly sticking to a unchanging, uncompromising position and working out a compromise (as Sikhs have managed with the kirpan for example) is a big part of the problem.
So, CMV.
**IMPORTANT: I know I'm likely to get accusations of anti-Semitism. I personally respect and love all religions deeply, and would fight for religious freedoms, with physical weapons if necessary. However I think that there needs to be free discussion of religious practices and what can be deemed permissible in a modern society, and that any attempt to disrupt such debate with accusations of 'anti-Semitism' is little better than a lazy admission you haven't got any arguments to offer.**
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think the Windows key on my keyboard is completely useless, CMV! +
+ First of all, I think the windows key exists as a counterpart of the Apple key, which actually serves a purpose, because Apple gave it one.
Windows, however, somehow felt the inexplicable need to create a key of their own.
Literally the only function I have ever known it to have is that it opens the start menu. I have never used this, because the start menu itsself is in the bottom of my screen, so if I wanted to choose something from that menu, I would have to move my mouse to the bottom left anyway. Might as well press the start button on my screen while doing so.
One of the reasons I hate the windows key so much is that it also opens the start menu when you're in full screen. When playing games, the Alt key is used often enough to sometimes miss it and press windows instead. This causes my game to exit full screen, and often my character to die.
Yesterday, I found out that my leopard doesn't have one, but two windows keys. Why? Just why? Does my right hand also need immediate acces to an unimportant function?
Please, CMV!
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: in most cases, it isn't worth it to defend an unpopular opinion on Reddit. +
+ On reddit, if you get downvoted too heavily, even if you are a long time user you can be told that you can only comment once every ten or so minutes, and even then you can get turned away.
Reddit, whether it is right or wrong, uses the downvote button as a censor of kinds. Hate speech is often side by side with "I think abortion should be illegal" and "marijuana should be illegal" opinions.
Other possible consiquences for speaking out against things reddit likes can even be bans if you are on te wrong subreddit.
Unpopular opinions are sometimes allowed to reach the top or to not get downvotes, but often times, it is simply downvoted. For example /r/saynotopot posts are almost always downvoted, if you look at the history as of the time I post this, the vast majority are going to have under 50% upvote/downvote ratio.
Defending a view can mean many posts, giving people many chances to downvote you.
I simply think that at this point, there are more incentives on reddit to not defend your view than to just go along with the circlejerking
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Humanity would be better off spayed and neutered, with a cryogenic bank for their seed +
+ As the age of artificial wombs arrives, I feel that fertility is irrelevant. Say it's the year 2215, robot wombs are the norm, a better chemical sterilization method is invented. There is no need for functioning testes or ovaries.
Everyone knows that Geldings (neutered horses) are WAY better than Stallions. They are more hardworking, gentle, focused, docile and intelligent than stallions (Stallions only want to force their way into the mare's living space, they are crazy and sex frenzied). Same with dogs, before your neuter your dog, they are humping everything, spraying everything, and way more aggressive.
I submit the same goes for humans. Men's sexual drive hinders common sense, wastes time and is utterly illogical. It ruins lives, I myself have been raped before, molested, taken advantage of by otherwise decent-ish people. Eunuchs are way more respected, way more neutral. Same goes for women, If we spay women, no periods, no monthly mood swings, no unwanted children.
My plan would be to neuter and spay everyone after puberty. Then open a sperm or egg bank "Account" to deposit enough sperm or frozen eggs (edit: or "Grown" eggs, from stem cells taken from a female's skin) to have up to 10 offspring. (?) or 100, who knows. When you want a kid, all you have to do is insert the vial of sperm into the [artificial womb machine](http://rhrealitycheck.org/files/teaser-images/2012-02-23-artificial-womb.jpg), insert the egg and you're good to go!
It would eliminate abortion, accidental pregnancies (Which is probably the biggest cause of unhappy kids, thus criminal activity. See [Freakonomics](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zk6gOeggViw)), rape, gender inequality (no one is the prey, no one is on the prowl). If someone did get pregnant the "Old school way", then it would be just like the animal shelter, they can spay the mother after birth free of charge. It wouldn't be a poor person thing vs rich "still-has-balls" person thing. EVERYONE is equally castrated with nominal charge :)
TL;DR: Humans are animals too. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I have this strong belief that communism will only lead to dictatorships +
+ Hello fellow open minders. This is my first CMV and I chose a pretty important topic for me.
I live in this town where there are many people with communist ideas and some of my closest friends have these beliefs. I often find myself arguing with my friends about communism because I have a stiff belief that communism will always lead to a dictatorship or some authoritarian government like it happened in the USSR and still happens in countries like Cuba, Venezuela and China (I didn't refer North Korea on purpose). But my friends say that communism was poorly implemented and their governments were just corrupt, and they say that communism is going to be someday a good regime, unlike the ones in Eastern Europe and so on.
I searched a lot on communism and Marx's Manifesto, and it still seems to me that those ideas can only lead to non-democratic regime. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe everyone should have to be routinely mentally evaluated. CMV. +
+ I believe everyone should have to be mentally evaluated by a professional psychologist/psychiatrist at multiple points in their lives. Critical points include before entering elementary school, high school, and college. (However, I believe it should extend beyond college as well.) Mental evaluations should be viewed similarly to physical check-ups at a general practitioner's office. I believe mental evaluations are necessary because many people with mental illnesses refuse to speak up, even when treatment is necessary.
Change my view. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe that the human race is going to be mostly exterminated within my lifetime CMV +
+ Pakistan is almost a failed nation-state, and they control enough nukes to radically change the face of the entire planet, and effectively end humanity as we know it. We are breeding super, antibiotic resistant bacteria, viruses and prions in factory farms and in our hospitals, one of which will eventually kill millions if not billions of people. So called 'Democratic' governments around the world function as lackeys to mega-corporations whose war on the environment will kill us just as surely as nukes, and cause illness and suffering for millions before they finally kill us all. Any attempt to rock this government/corporate boat is met with derision in the streets, and knives in backs, or more appropriately drones in skies, removing all dissent.
tl;dr We're all fucked. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |