Datasets:

JingyangYi
/

CMV_op

Dataset card Viewer Files Files and versions Community

Split (2)

train · 6.38k rows

input stringlengths 114 23.1k	output stringclasses 2 values	instruction stringclasses 1 value
I think the federal government should privatize the US Postal Service. CMV + + USPS is loosing huge amounts of money for our government and it's a relic from an era when nothing else like it existed. Now with UPS, FedEx, DHL, etc, our federal government could save tens of billions of dollars a year by selling part or all of the USPS. (Up until last year, New Zealand did this -- http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/nz-post-ends-courier-joint-venture-dhl-wb-121981.) While the USPS has been, in my experience, as reliable as those private companies, UPS and FedEx are generally more pleasant to deal with and to visit in person. I realize there would be job losses, but those fired employees could potentially be hired up by whatever company buys the Postal Service. I also realize it would mean the death of one of America's institutions, but the USPS replaced the Pony Express, and now email has replaced the need for USPS. 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?
Trash talking in online video games is fine CMV + + To begin, I would like to preface my argument with the assertion that my online self does not reflect my personality in real life, and I do not think such aggression would be appropriate in real life. Also, this submission will mainly pertain to the online game League of Legends (henceforth LoL), both because it's what I mostly play and due to the fact that it is a good example of the phenomenon I am about to elaborate upon. Also, if you are not familiar with the game please allow me to provide some insight in to the current state of the chat system and player's respective behavior to such. Nearly every game someone (or multiple people) are reported for either verbal abuse or negative attitude, for reasons ranging from saying "gg" (good game) slightly before the game ends to people filling chat the entire game with racist accusations in all caps. The community is so report-happy and self-righteous that many simply ignore everyone at the start of the game or hide chat, due to the perceived toxicity of all players or own fear of succumbing to inclinations to chat and being reported thereafter. I'm not happy with this current consensus and feel a dramatic shift of opinion is needed. First, allow me to point out the hypocrisy the LoL community currently exhibits. People love watching other people get trash talked, but get offended when it is directed towards them. I will provide some examples. [Here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYI0Tf7-Vvo), Dyrus (a professional celebrity in the community paid and endorsed by Riot) recently called a majority of the other NA teams non-existent. Here is a [compilation of trash talking excerpts from LoL interviews](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxS76Dk3Rk4). Riot Games (producer of LoL) actively encourages trash talking between teams and players to build up hype (and the community responds positively), but as soon as a player practices similar behavior in a game, he or she can be banned. Should this example not convince you, allow me to point to the player meatwadsprite, commonly known as Dunkey to the community. In a majority of his videos he talks a lot of trash in all chat and he is by far the most popular content producer for the game (and likewise supported by Riot). People find this type of behavior hilarious to watch, but as soon as such harmless commentary is inflicted upon them, the perpetrator deserves some sort of suspension. Heroes of Newerth (HoN) was (is) a very similar games to LoL. Both were multiplayer battle arenas and were based off the same game (Defense of the Ancients). However, in HoN, players were rarely reported and banned less often than that. The community in that game is what I envision for LoL, where players were unfiltered and free to express themselves. Celebrities in the game such as KingRaven, Daggius, and MoonMeander were most popular, for they were the most entertaining, and players were often coming up with and one-upping their personalities displayed on stream and in videos. These glory days of HoN still bring me nostalgia as the community and my friends alike coordinated in [creating chat macros](http://forums.heroesofnewerth.com/showthread.php?382071-Chat-macro-compilation), ridiculous all chat [messages to disorient the enemy](http://www.dotallyrad.com/2011/10/drd-insult-generator-goes-live-to-help-you-post-big-comments/), while the game developer (S2) created in-game taunts for heroes for purchase [that embarrassed your enemy on successful execution](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VC4j4U7K6mc). I believe these players should get over themselves and embrace the trash talk. It relieves stress, is a fun outlet, and the creativity can often be hilarious. Players seem to prefer a robotic version of the game, where the only allowed chat is as a "gg" when the game is over and communicating strategy. A majority of people play the game for two reasons: fun and competition. Both aspects are enhanced through trash talk, as the creativity often produces great laughter while the ladder is augmented by the fact that trash talking raises the stakes of the game, as neither side wishes to lose face.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: America will crumble internally like the ancient Romans. + + I'm not anti-American by any means, but I just like to think about possible switches in world power because it interests me (I Blame Rome Total War). it's pretty clear that no one country or even a large group of countries could topple America militarily; Hence I believe that if another country were to rise to power, first the U.S would have to crumble internally. And with the way things are going politically (The financial shut-down a while ago, American spying), it wouldn't surprise me if the government took a step too far and truly pissed off it's citizens. Let me just state: I am in no position to argue either side to this point, I live in New Zealand and lack the education necessary to say what exactly the situation is like over there, this is just purely from my point of view. I in no way want America to crumble because they're practically the big brother to every other country and we definitely need that, I just need some peace of mind that it wouldn't actually happen.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV:"Brave New World" was not Dystopian Fiction, and even had a happy ending + + I never exactly saw how 'Brave New World' was considered Dystopian Fiction. Sure, it has all the trappings of dystopian society, but Aldous Huxley's London 632 A.F seems to be more a parody of modern life and the fledgling dystopian fiction genre, rather than a piece of dystopian fiction itself. John dies, but it is on the note that he didn't sacrifice his freedom, leading to a heroic ending for him akin to Cyrano de Bergerac: Cyrano didn't lose his panache, and John doesn't lose his freedom. Bernard Marx and Helmholtz Watson are both exiled to Iceland--but ironically, it is a place of complete creative freedom, unsupervised living, and more of a reward than a punishment--a paradise for non-conformists. Marx reacts to this with displacement, satirising (in my view) those who are over-reliant on government protection and sanctioning, while Watson views it as an opportunity. Regardless, the ending was hardly sad. I don't know, but these are just my conclusions. CMW.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
"Swinging" is the most stupid excuse I've seen in my life to be a slut. CMV PLEASE. + + So swinging is just exchanging partners with another couple to have sex? No way in hell I would let my wife fuck another guy, what the fuck is wrong with people? I just thinking that swinging is the most bullshittiest excuse to be a slut or to cheat on your husband, complete bullcrap. Maybe I do not know exactly what ''swinging'' means, but reading it on google and looking at the principal all I can say is that its the biggest stupid shit I've ever heard in my entire life. So, that was all I had to say, I really want to see how you guys will prove me wrong.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
I believe everything is preordained [CMV] + + my position is that reality follows phisics without exception therefor all action in reality are a reaction of different effects comming together. for example, if we roll a dice, the idea that the result is random can only be maintained if we are ignorant to all the variables applied to the dice, if we where to know them with precision, we could predict exactly how the dice would land, rejecting the idea of randomness. I believe the same applies to free-will, I think that our mental proceses are ruled by chemistry, which is also an exact science (assuming we have all variables) our decision to take certain actions or think certain thoughts is one predisposed by those variables, and that we cannot do otherwise. so I think reality and everything that exists in it is preordained since the beguinning of time, just like a rock falling in a vaccum has no choice as to which forces affect it and what direction it moves in this variables include everyting from the chemistry of our brains to the physics of our atoms, to our perspective of reality, and social preasure.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Punishment for criminal acts is unnecessary + + Hi all :) I believe that punishment for crimes is a very rock-fisted approach to a delicate issue. I would claim that all crime stems from societal, cultural or personal problems. Economy, mental health, the treatment of a person or class in society, etc. all cause crime to happen. I think that this applies to the most brutal criminals in history, too, most of them falling under the "personal" label. If crime, then, stems from all of these things, it's necessarily a bad system to punish criminals, since they are not, except in our perception, truly guilty. I think we should take the view that crime is a signal of distress. People who steal, murder, etc. should be taken in, yes, but compassionately. We should attempt to alleviate any illnesses, provide financial or social help, etc. If the government is for the people, as it should be, it must be for all the people, not just the innocent ones. Obviously this is all very cerebral, and I know that advocating this to a mother of abducted twins or some other victim would be needlessly cruel. But I do think that this is because of a clash of perspective. In another situation, with different variables and environments, I do believe that any person could be driven to commit, or attempt to commit, awful crimes. Looking at the practical side of things, I realise that what I say here would be incredibly hard to implement. People aren't always cooperative, the role of the benevolent carer would be a tough job to anyone with a sense of justice or emotions, stuff like that. I still can't see, though, that it being a near-impossible system to implement means we shouldn't strive to adopt a practical system nearer to that. I also struggle to empathise with what I believe. I am human, I do also feel hate for abusers and murderers and rapists; even if I can reason out that their life has been a domino trail leading to that awful moment, I still struggle to see them as deserving compassion. I cannot for the life of me decide if emotion and gut reaction has a place in this argument, biased and subjective as they are. Is it a case of us simply not being advanced enough societally to do this? I.E. we do not have the economy, resources, infrastructure to be able to aid people, and the current prison system is the best way we have to keep the majority of people safe? Or is it generally believed that criminals do deserve punishment? I'd really appreciate somebody walking me through their thoughts on this, and helping me muddle through my own. CMV	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Meghan Trainor's song, Dear Future Husband, is feminist and is not sexist. + + Hey y'all, I first heard Meghan Trainor's song, Dear Future Husband, a few months ago when giving a presentation of feminist/non-feminist artists. While our project described her song, All About That Bass, as non-feminist due to not showing respect for all women for all sizes, we did label her song Dear Future Husband as a feminist work. I believe this is true because in her song, Meghan Trainor outlines what she'd like her relationship to be like. At no point does she state that all relationships need to be like and at no point does she state that men are less than women, nor is there any conflict between types of women in the lyrics. I was not going to bring this up until I saw that the general reddit community feels that her song is sexist, and therefore anti-feminist. I ask you to please provide evidence and use it to argue against my view. My view is that: 1) This song is a feminist work. It will, of course, be easy to argue against this if you can counter my next point. (This point has been argued and I now think that this is not a feminist work. I still do not believe that it is sexist. See second edit for more info.) 2) This song is not sexist. There's many reasons to dislike this song. While it is catchy, it also has the same general beat as two of her other songs. It also may not be a healthy song for children to listen to and think that most relationships are like this (opening doors for giving... kisses). I'm fine with people disliking it for these reasons, but it shouldn't be called anti-feminist or sexist.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Section 8 housing does nothing to bring people out of poverty and destroys communities in the process. + + I understand the argument for section 8 housing. If people are moved out of an impoverished area, they'll do better. This is a completely flawed argument. I'm not even going to touch the " you can take the person out of the ghetto, but you can't take the ghetto out of the person". It is true culture doesn't disappear if you pack a uhaul, but it's over-simplistic. Living in East Bay, CA I have seen an increase in rental properties. Properties that were formerly owned are now rented, and section 8. I can really deduce this without referencing too much data. The average income for the area is $40k and the average house rental is $1600/ mo. (The subsidy raises prices). I'd love to get ahold of stronger data than just deducing the increase (HUD doesn't have any data posted), but it really isn't rocket science that these former foreclosures are rentals. A realtor friend said anything under 300k in value is becoming rental property. The town that was hardest hit near me has seen a substantial rise in crime. 16 murders so far this year; up 600% before 2007. With all of these over-priced rentals (has to be section 8) and the murder rate spiking, I have to conclude section 8 housing does more damage than fixes.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: The US visa system is generally the most difficult in the world + + I think this because while I've been abroad I've known people to apply for US visas. The process is very difficult for citizens of countries that require a US visa (not the UK, etc.). It requires a lot of paperwork and even a required in-person interview at a consulate just to get a freakin' tourist visa. I definitely have my share of tourist visas in my passport, and I couldn't imagine jumping though the hoops my country requires for a visa. I haven't heard of any other country that requires an interview for most tourist visa applications. I have heard that Israel can be pretty strict going in, but I've entered Israel 3 times without being stopped for an interview (leaving, however, was strangely a problem). I want to make the argument to my dad (who works in US politics) that the US visa system is insane compared to most countries, but I want to vet my perspective before I give it to him. So, CMV! Thanks!	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Police dogs should not be considered anything more than chattel and hurting or killing one should be a civil suit at the most, and definitely not a crime + + While police K-9 units are only honorary police officers, it is a felony in many states to injure or kill one. There are ever increasing reports of police officers shooting, maiming, stomping, and injuring the pets of families that they are conducting raids on. Almost without fail, the officers are cleared of any wrongdoing by their superiors. (Surprise) And the killings found to be justified. The families of the murdered animals often have no recourse to sue, yet even if they do, family animals are considered chattel and there is no worthwhile compensation given for the loss of what is basically a family member. So...If animals are considered chattel then ALL animals should be considered chattel. Including police dogs and horses. Why should a cop be given free reign to indiscriminately kill my German Sheppard but if I kill his German Sheppard, suddenly it's a felony? Police often order these large, high strung, attack trained animals to chase down, bite into, drag down, and maul on human beings. And that's just fine with the cops. But let YOUR dog on YOUR property bark at a cop, and that cop is free to empty a clip into it's head with absolutely no repercussions. I maintain that just because it is a police officer that cares for, maintains, feeds, and maybe even loves his animal, that does NOT suddenly mean that that animal is a police officer, human, or more valuable than any civilian's animal. [Texas Law Regarding Police Dogs](http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/38.151.00.html) Felony [Florida Law Regarding Police Dogs](http://law.onecle.com/florida/crimes/843.19.html) Felony [New York Law Regarding Police Dods](http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal/PEN0195.06_195.06.html) Class A Misdemeanor	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV:Young Earth Creationism is nonsensical from a strictly theological viewpoint + + Young Earth Creationism holds that the creation of the world as described in the Book of Genesis is literal, historical truth, and that all of history has been recorded in one fashion or another, maintaining that pre-Biblical times did not exist. This is in contrast to almost all observable evidence. In order for a literal interpretation of Genesis to be correct, at least one of the following must be true: * Humanity's understanding of science, particularly of biology and physics, are hopelessly incorrect on almost every level. Despite this, humanity's flawed understanding of science still produces reliable, reproduceable data. * God intentionally engineered the whole of creation to be utterly misleading when confronted with rational investigation. All of this was done as an implicit test of faith. It is implicit because the Bible never mentions any scientific topic as flawed, meaning that this grand charade was created without a specific directive from God on how humanity should interpret it. * The Devil has altered the whole of reality to reflect the above. This interpretation makes the Devil vastly more powerful than any interpretation I have seen. The alternative is to reconcile science and theology by simply acknowledging that God gave a figurative account of creation because He was speaking to humans who lacked even rudimentary understanding of science, for whom complex topics like evolution and celestial mechanics would require thousands of years of discovery to even begin to comprehend. NOTE THE TITLE OF THIS POST. I am asking posters to reconcile Young Earth Creationism with the observable world from a strictly theological viewpoint. I am not interested in arguments that take the tack of God being an invented figure and the Bible being fictional, because these are not viewpoints that are relevant to the conversation.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Macs are Worth the High Pricetag + + First, I won't talk your ear off about viruses or how my grandma could use a mac. I feel that my opinion is more informed than the average mac user. I have heard countless times that building your own PC is the cheapest possible route to buying a computer. I do not Refute that self-built PCs are cheaper if you are looking for the best parts for the cheapest price. I also acknowledge that PCs are better for gaming. But macs have a large number of features not included with a desktop PC. Also, there is no downside (other than said above) to having a mac. Anything you can do with a PC I can do on my mac through bootcamp. Below is a list of what the components in my mac might cost. The numbers range from actual prices to plain guesses. Please keep in mind that A) apple does not make the names of the actual components easily available. B) All of the components used are ones that will fit into a computer .71'' thick, and might cost more for it. If you feel that any of these prices are wildly off, say so and I'll probably edit the post. The retail price of my mac (15" MacBook Pro Retina Late 2013) is $2000. NVIDIA GeForce GT 750M - $175.00 Iris Pro 5200 ~$80.00 INTEL i7 Processor ~ $200.00 Custom Motherboard ~ $200.00 8 gb Memory ~ $80.00 156 gb SSD ~ $180.00 2880 x 1800 Display @ about 300 ppi ~ $800.00 Speakers ~ $50.00 Backlit Keyboard ~ $45.00 Industry Leading Trackpad ~ $60.00 8440 mAh Battery ~ $80.00 Power Adapter ~ $30.00 720p Video Camera ~ $20.00 Custom Aluminium Body Only .71" thick - $200 The (estimated) total price of all these components is $2200. Even if you assume my estimations are off (let's say the real cost is 80% of my estimation) The price would still be $1760. And there are also a number of advantages to macs that can't be quantified in dollars: The aesthetics of macs are streets ahead of Every. PC. (Yes I mean that) There's no competition. The aluminum construction of my Mac, for a laptop, is Sturdy.As.Hell. Other than a select few PCs built for strength (which look like shit) there's not much of a competition. My computer is super small (slim) and can be taken anywhere. The same cannot be said about self-built (specifically desktop) PCs. This is a biggie. In the same way that most business programs are made for windows (that can be run through bootcamp), most art and music programs are made for mac (which cannot be run with a windows computer at all). I can run mac and windows applications side-by-side with Parallels. OS X is a better operating system (in my opinion, of course) because it is simpler (not necessarily easier) to use for experienced users. I have much better options to receive support: hundreds of apple stores, online and phone service that aren't run by baboons and don't have insane wait times.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
Schools should implement comprehensive sex education and hand out free condoms. CMV. + + I'm a strong believer in feeling comfortable with your body, as well as being informed on how to protect it and pleasure it, starting in your teen years. Schools should abandon the abstinence only sex education and provide a comprehensive curriculum, going as far as showing how to properly put on a condom, and the anatomy of one's genitals (including the pleasure parts). Especially as a female who has felt the pressure of double standards and unhealthy perspectives on sex, I think that schools have health class for a reason, and if they're going to address depression, PTSD, alcohol, and drugs, they should address this issue as well. We should also at least mention that there are asexual people, there are people who physically can't have sex, there are people who just don't want it. The point is to open this generation's narrow mind of what they only observe in their own experiences and porn. What is wrong with being comfortable and safe?	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Todd Packer from "The Office" is not straight. + + This might be an extremely big stretch, but I recently decided to rewatch the show and have noticed certain things about Todd Packer. If you've seen the show, you'd know that Packer is a raging pervert and he usually is found giving many inappropriate comments. More specifically, inappropriate comments about women. With this, it could be a safe assumption to think Packer straight. On the other hand, every single time he makes any physical contact with anyone, they're male. Every single time, and it's usually humping or other waaay over-the-line stuff. In the St. Patrick's episode, he makes contact with Meredith, but that's even a little gay because she was on top of him, making him the "catcher." Coming from an actual, real life homosexual, I think that Todd Packer could never be 100% straight, and that if someone got him either drunk enough or in the right mood, he would happily consent to having intercourse with another male. Change my view?	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
I think that copyrights should expire when the creator of an original work is dead. CMV + + All books, movies, TV shows, and video games should have their copyrights expire when the creator is dead. In circumstances where multiple people worked on it (it was created by a team, there are multiple authors, etc), the copyright shouldn't expire until all people who collect royalties for its creation are dead. The reason I think this is that no one should profit off of a work that they did not have a hand in creating. George Orwell's descendants, for example, should not be profiting off of royalties from 1984 like they are.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: I think it is not in the best interest of healthy and/or young people to buy healthy insurance under the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). + + My view is this: Healthy and young people will not get any benefit from getting health insurance and would be better off saving there money or spending it elsewhere. How to change my view: Basically demonstrate that healthy/young individuals will be better off by purchasing health insurance. This does not mean how the group as whole is better off, I'm only concerned with the individual. Why I think this: Since health insurance is a business which is primarily focused on making money, I see no reason why has any responsibly to support it unless they choose to do so. Basically, I'm under no moral obligation to subsidize this industry because it exists only to make money. Supplemental: I keep hearing on NPR how there is concern that not enough young and healthy people are buying health insurance. This does seem like a problem since the economics of insurance rely on more people paying into it than are using the services. From the insurance industry's perspective, it is a huge problem if too many sick and old people compared to healthy and young are insured because it basically causes the whole system to collapse. I understand the economics behind it, however, that doesn't mean it is in the individual's best interest to support this system. I feel that it might be important to add that I'm not one of these individuals who doesn't need insurance. I'm young, but I have a chronic condition and so I need health insurance. Also, I personally think healthcare should be somewhat like the security industry: if you want/need you are allowed hire private security but everyone has access to police.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Neil Degrasse Tyson isn't actually as pretentious or as annoying as everyone, all of the sudden, thinks. the internet is simply sick of him the same way they get sick of every person / trend / meme. + + Neil Degrasse Tyson is still the same cool, black scientist guy that we've all known and loved for so long. i still think he's awesome. but there is this new trend of hating on him just like there was a trend of quoting him only a few short years ago. remember when we all had crushes on jennifer lawrence? and now everyone is all "omg am i the only one who finds jennifer lawrence to be kinda average looking?" or on any jennifer lawrence related post, the top comment is always a sarcastic "SHES SO DOWN TO EARTH. SHES JUST LIKE US!" ... she is down to earth. she always has been. just that at first, we liked her for it and slowly we got sick of it and decided we didnt like her anymore and all of the sudden her being down to earth isn't true or is a bad thing. its the same with NDT. its just the internet and its collective bullshit. two years ago an NDT quote was front page gold. now, its /r/iamverysmart gold. its not that the things he says have become untrue. its just that we're sick of him and are trying to justify it by pretending as if he has become pretentious or annoying or whatever. change my weird and specific view!	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
I believe the US spends too much money on its military. CMV. + + I thought of this after reading the recent ELI5 post on this topic: http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1o6vem/eli5_why_does_the_enormous_cost_of_the_usas/ccpdzfj. The thread explains politically why the budget doesn't get cut, but can someone explain why it might be a good idea to have such a large budget? Even if the money was spent efficiently, I still think military spending would be unnecessarily high. The US spends orders of magnitude more money on its military than most other countries. CMV.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: John Boehner is a terrible leader and about as mature as a 6 year old. + + I won't even dignify him by calling him a leader. He's not a leader. The only thing I've ever seen him do is block Democratic legislation. John Boehner was asked why he was blocking Obama's immigration bill. His repsonse was "Obama is not enforcing Obamacare properly, so why should we support this bill?" That makes no sense. He's like a 6 year old holding his breath until he passes out because he's not getting his way. Obamacare was not only upheld by the supreme court but also by the american people who re elected him by both popular vote and electoral vote. There's nothing else Boehner can do to against Obamacare, except throw temper tantrums, such as * blocking fiscal bills and causing United States Federal Gov't to go into shut down. * blocking bills that have nothing do with Obamacare so that Obama goes down in history as a weak president who got nothing done. * suing the president. This really comes off to me as a pathetic, last ditch, desperate effort to do anything at all against Obama, because he's out of ideas. Boehner said about the shutdowns "The American people don't want a federal government or a shutdown." That's false. John Boehner is an obstructionist. He's not about getting things done, he's about stopping anything from getting done. Sad part is Obama will go down as a bad president, despite growing economy. And if Obama said "well they're blocking everything, that's the problem" that will come off as whining, even though it's true.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
Fat people are fat because they eat too much. Its not their metabolism, their genetics or some wrong-tuned glands. CMV + + Even if they have a metabolism that facilitates obesity: nothing can change the simple fact that you can't build up fat if you do not have an energy intake that's higher than your consumption of energy. Fat is not produced in some alchemical process, it actually comes from somewhere. So despite all the treatments, remedies, operations, therapies and diets that are out there, the only thing fat people have to do to loose weight is simply eat less, no matter what excuses are made up by themselves or even offered to them by society.	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 word "deserve" represents an awful concept and should never be used. CMV. + + It can be used to deny someone something that would help them ("You don't deserve to be treated"). It can be used to claim entitlement for something that would be better used elsewhere ("I deserve a raise!"). It can be used to self-deprecate ("I feel like I don't deserve a good life"). Even in the best possible situations it constitutes one of the flimsiest arguments possible, hinging on zero-sum concepts and simultaneously placing a suggested quantitative value on acts performed for their own sake (i.e., by saying one "deserves" something one signifies that others do not).	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Clapping at the movie theatre when the film finishes is pointless. + + I go to the movies a lot and it seems to happen pretty often that when the film finishes people in the audience will clap. I've never understood this as no one who had a part in making the film can hear the clapping. I could understand if it was a special screening, premiere, or there was an actor from the film or a special guest in the audience. But for normal movie-going circumstances, it just doesn't make any sense to me. Please change my view so I can stop getting annoyed when a theatre full of people clap.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV:Political Correctness/Tolerance in Europe is destructive for society. Political Correctness/Tolerance is possibly worse than elitism(May not be the right word). + + Alright, so there are two main views I currently have. The first is that the current levels of Political Correctness/Tolerance most countries have, especially in Europe, is detrimental to society, seen as how ISIS is actively allowed to recruit in the streets and how the government of certain countries are afraid to punish Muslims for committing Rape (I believe there were stories about Denmark for instance.) and hate crimes (The most recent that come to mind are attacks on Israelis in Europe by Muslims). Simply put, it is allowing horrible, even socially destroying, ideas to be nurtured. Alright, this view is a bit more challengeable I would say and quite more extreme. The current levels of PC/Tolerance are even worse for society than elitism. This is because PC/Tolerance actually causes society to digress instead of progressing. Elitism, I will define it as people being given less leeway for having flaws/not contributing to society. The extreme version would be how the Nazis were elitist in that only Blond Blue Eyed ~~Aztecs (The race they used escapes me at the moment, but it started with A)~~ Aryans! were upheld while all others were seen as inferior, with people with disabilities being persecuted and especially those of other races/religion. That is naturally too extreme however. The elitism I am talking about is elitism of ideas. This would mean a hard crackdown on ideals such as the ISIS, Communism, Anarchy groups and the like as they are threats to society's overall morality and peace of mind. I understand this has problems in itself, especially for those who advocate more "liberal" ideals and identities such as LGBT as it promotes close-mindedness but given that the current state of the world, it probably would not affect them too much and probably wouldn't warrant a government crackdown as it doesn't pose an imminent threat to peace or society. The bigger problem I would see is strikes and such movements that protest the government can be labelled as "disruptive" but eh, governments seem to do that right now regardless of Tolerance or Political Correctness anyhow. Simply put, the Elitism I describe is more of a society that points out and punishes flaws in the thinking or actions of people compared to the one of now.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
There is no element of the human experience that anyone reading this knows nothing about. CMV. + + Everyone of a certain age has learned at least something about every element of the human experience. Whether this is because no scenario is truly that different from another, or because we wouldn't realize we know something about every element of the human experience because we don't realize just how much we do know, or not, there still isn't any element of the human experience that someone reading this could know nothing about. Element of the human experience I'm taking to be the common usage: seeing your single parent date someone, getting breakfast in the morning, going to sleep and dreaming, getting work, feeling bad about yourself, not wanting to do something, trying to have fun, pranking someone, etc.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Insults such as 'You're gay' are not an affront to gay people + + I've seen some discussion about this topic, where many kids and adults may call people something they aren't to try and insult them. For example: 'That's so gay' and 'You throw like a girl' type insults. Many people come to the conclusion that these type of insults are homophobic and misogynistic, but I don't believe that's necessarily the case at all. I think the most insulting thing about being called a girl for a boy is the affront to his own identity. He is being called something he is not. He doesn't think its insulting because he hates girls and thinks they're inferior, but rather because his identity as a boy is being taken away. Women in general also hate being associated with masculinity. They tend to want to be smaller than their partners because they feel masculine if they are taller. They religiously pluck facial hair and shave away body hair because that's manly. But they probably don't hate men. Similarly, being called gay is a huge insult to many guys not because they are all homophobic, but because they are being called something they are not. I think the best way to see it from my point of view is looking at how offensive it is for trans people when they are mis-gendered (Purposely). It is a deliberate refusal of their identity. No one says a trans woman is a misandrist if she hates being referred to as 'he'. The people calling them 'he' are also unlikely to hate men, but say it to hurt the trans person. So CMV, insults such as those above aren't necessarily homophobic or misogynist. They sting because they are an affront to identity more so than because being gay or a woman is a bad thing.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
I don't believe the lives of children and women should be put before the lives of men. CMV + + Often times in the news I see stories that treat the deaths of children and women as if they are more important then full grown men. Specifically, they will say something to the tune of "130 casualties were reported, 36 of the casualties were children and 25 were women". I find this acceptable when the event was targeting children or women, but when there's say a natural disaster it comes off as the media discarding the men who also lost there lives. I find it sexist to ignore the lose of life just because people are more sympathetic to a certain gender and children.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
I don't believe IQ is important to society's advancement CMV + + I believe emotional stability is the most important aspect of humanity's advancement, something a high IQ has been shown to be in conflict with. http://psychcentral.com/lib/2010/intelligence-linked-to-bipolar-disorder/ http://www.livescience.com/36259-anxiety-linked-high-iq.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_giftedness It's hard for me to believe that an increase in mental capacity doesn't lead to an increase in the potential for "crossed wires" so to speak. Aside from that, the g factor related to IQ testing seems incomplete, as the general interpretation is limited to to the person's ability to solve abstract visual problems, not construct novel theories from seemingly unrelated information.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Cultural appropriation is not bad + + --- It appears to me that 'cultural appropriation' is an increasingly common term, both in its use and application. For clarity, when using the term, it seems to refer to 3 acts: 1. Acts which have negative historical connotations (e.g. blackface) 2. Acts which have special significance to a culture and cause harm when others undertake them as they are trivialised (e.g. Native American headdresses) 3. Acts which are simply associated with or started by another culture (e.g. wearing cornrows). I understand #1 and #2. It is #3 that I have trouble with. In the last few weeks, I have seen criticism of people with cornrows, full lips, skeleton makeup, full eyeliner, twerking, hip-hop. Firstly, I fail to see how this is truly harmful to people. There is a root of any trend, and I don't see how anyone can claim exclusive ownership of something just because it originated with them. Look at fashion and music; there is obvious 'appropriation' there and while some of the original artists may not appreciate it, for the most part they are not claiming personal hurt. I have heard it argued that it is harmful because people 'want to look black, but not be black' in so much as people like Iggy Azalea will rap but then be notably absent at protests such as against the shooting of Trayvon Martin. However, my problem with this is - shouldn't we ALL care about these issues, regardless of whether or not we rap? It feels like a separate issue to me. Secondly, some of these 'trends' didn't even exclusively originate with one group. Braids, for example, have been worn by many groups over many centuries. Relatedly, while I acknowledge the 'power' issue, it is worth noting that European/white culture seems completely immune to calls of cultural appropriation. If you take the line of argument that someone wearing something without understanding the cultural significance is harmful, then this should apply across the board. Yet no-one batted an eyelid when Chanel made Dutch Clogs a fashion item. Thirdly, even if you do believe that cultural appropriation is wrong, it seems to be more misguided than racist. I believe to label anyone who wears cornrows as 'racist' is not only unfair, but trivialises the word. Race is an absolutely massive issue around the world, and I feel like focusing on Taylor Swift for pretending to twerk is just a non-issue comparatively and potentially undermining conversations we need to have. The honest truth is, I feel like I am starting to disengage with these conversations because it begins to feel like unless you are an expert in race issues in modern society, you're likely to be called a 'racist.' I genuinely want to understand and 100% accept that my background of being a white female means I may not grasp the realities of this situation. So please reddit, CMV!	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV - I believe that the crimes committed by the Nazis, even though they were terrible, are a display of human nature + + First off I do not in any way think that the crimes were OK or justifiable in any way. What I do think though is that crimes like these are a perfect display of the human nature in it's most basic state. IMO it is natural for humans to be brutal and "barbaric". And that human kind as a total will probably never (or at least not in a long time) stray from the path of violence and brutality to a path of kindness and fairness because it is just a natural trait of humans to be brutal. Good examples to this are actually all the wars that have ever been fought. Sure sometimes you have to stand up against something but still a lot of situations could just be solved without using force or without starting a war yet humanity continues to choose force and war over peace and diplomacy. Or in other words humans are by definition and nature brutal and tend to be so. (Sorry somehow my English skills are just giving up on me -.-) Thanks for your replies so far :) CMV :)	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV:Richard Martinez, the father of recent shooting victim is a tool. + + Okay, so I feel terrible hearing about the horror and atrocity recently carried out by the psycho virgin in Santa Barbara. That is first and foremost and my views about the father's rants don't change that. But here's the thing... Within hours of learning that his child had been murdered, Richard Martinez was holding a press conference and calling for more gun control. He has not stopped yet and keeps ranting about how poor gun control led to this killing. I feel bad for him for his loss, but he hasn't shown any real sadness himself; just a lot of political pandering to push a liberal cause. He doesn't seem to register that 3 of the victims were stabbed (not shot) and the last "victim" was the killer committing suicide. So... less than half the victims were murdered by gun (not counting the suicide)... but gun control could have fixed this? I am NOT an advocate for gun control which is probably why this guy bugs me so much. I believe that psycho killers will always find a way to kill, regardless of laws, and the only way to really stop this would have been for other people to have been allowed by the government to be sufficiently armed to stop this loony before he got far.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
I don't believe that women should be held to a lesser physical standard when it comes to jobs such as the military and firefighting. CMV. + + Yesterday, it was announced that [the US Marine Corps. was delaying it's female fitness plan](http://news.yahoo.com/marines-delay-female-fitness-plan-half-fail-203830967--politics.html) after less than half its female recruits could do the minimum of three pull-ups. Then there's the story of [Wendy Tapia](http://nypost.com/2013/11/10/female-fdny-recruit-fails-running-test-five-times-but-graduates-anyway/), who despite failing a required FDNY running test five times (a 1.5 mile run in 12 minutes without gear), was allowed to graduate from the Fire Academy and become a firefighter. In Sweden, despite a leak that [that female firefighters take more than 10 minutes to break through a secured door](http://www.the-spearhead.com/2013/02/20/swedish-equalism-endangering-lives/), the law mandates that they cannot be fired. Now, I would never advocate for being allowed to ban women from these jobs. If you can meet the standards, you can do the job, period. However, it's one thing to ban profiling based on gender (you can't try out to be a firefighter because you're a girl), but another thing to change standards in order to get an equal outcome (lower standards for women). It's downright dangerous to lower the physical standards for military, firefighting, policing, et cetera just to get more women involved. I understand that there are physical differences between men and women, but you know what doesn't understand that? Fires. A fire isn't going to say "Oh, the firefighter is a female, let me put myself out." Long story short, physical standards should never be lessened for the sole purpose of opening the door to more female candidates in careers such as the military, firefighting, and policing. CMV.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Over-moderation of online forums is a lot worse than under-moderation + + I have been a big forum user before forums were even a big thing on the internet (~at least 15 years). And I have seen forums go from virtually unmoderated wild west to the extremely moderated "sanitized" forums we have today, reddit included. I have been banned and have threads deleted for the most mild things, and I have seen threads from other users dissapear on various forums that actually had interesting discussions but could of "offended" someone or a view wasnt "mainstream". It makes participating in those types of forums a waste of time (if you participate in a interesting yet controversial thread, it might be removed within the hour), and all of the post generic, safe, and dull. There is also the problem of moderator bias, in which if your views don't line up with the moderators views, your thread is removed as "trolling" even though it's a perfect valid discussion. So my view is: 1. Even if some flamebait/trolling slips through, overall a lightly moderated forum is a lot better than a heavily moderated forum. 2. Over-moderation kills opposing and controversial views of getting discussed. 3. Moderators should not remove threads just because someone on the internet "might be offended" 4. Admins allowing strict moderation often leads to moderator bias removing threads for personal reasons (bias) rather than actual forum moderation	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Using the christian calendar year system (2015 C.E.) as an official standard of the United States violates the First Amendment of the Constitution + + Now I'm not talking about European countries because most of them are tied to the christian church as the official religion, so this doesn't apply there. But in the U.S., it shouldn't matter how popular a particular religion's calendar is to most of the population, it is not legal to use one particular religion's calendar as the official government standard to the exclusion of all others. I'm Jewish and my family moved here from Israel to be free in a secular nation, but so much of the christian intrusion into our government here has proven that American Dream wrong to me. For Jews, the year is 5775 A.M., which counts from the traditional year of Creation in the Hebrew Bible. How is the christian year of 2015 C.E. any more worthy of official status than the Jewish year, or for that matter the Islam year (1445?), the Chinese year, etc. Keep in mind before presenting your arguments, that popularity is irrelevant. You could use those same arguments to say that because christianity is so popular, it should be the state religion... or references to Yeshua of Nazareth should be allowed in government. It doesn't work that way. My solution? First of all that's not really relevant to the CMV, since I don't have to provide a solution to be correct in my original reasoning. But any number of solutions could be manufactured. We could start counting from the year of Independence, which is something that is actually referenced in the founding documents as an alternate year system, so 239 A.A. (in the year of America) could plausibly be the new current year. Sure it would take a while to get used to and to change everything over from the christian calendar, but it would satisfy the requirements of the Constitution to avoid establishing one religious preference over others. I look forward to some rational arguments that try not to take into account the potential difficulty of solution, please CMV.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: The US is not ready for automation, and we are all screwed. + + The video that scared the shit out of me and made me realize this can be found [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU). Basically, here is the logic conveyed in the video: automation is reaching a point that the majority of low-paying/low-skill jobs will be run by robots. This means that a significant portion of the population of the US will be unemployed with no income and will be stagnant in the economy. The income gap will increase, with the men owning the companies employing robots owning a very large majority of all the money in the US. My opinion is not that there are no solutions, but that our current democratic system and the gridlock in Congress will mean that solutions will never see the light of day because politicians are looking for votes and not the betterment of the country. Please tell me I am wrong and the government will address this pressing issue so that we will be ready for this massive change in the economy.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: There is no longer a need for traditional drummers. + + With the advancement of drum machines and the possibility for them to have thousands of different authentic drum sounds, there's no need for a drummer with a drum set to be on stage during performances anymore. Drummer's can be replaced with producers who can control a drum machine and a laptop that can add other synthetic sounds and effects. Drumming is still a nice hobby and an impressive skill to master, but as far as live performances go, there's no need for an actual drum set anymore. Change my view! I'm having trouble thinking of arguments so I'm interested to see what you guys come up with.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Absolutism is the biggest hurtle in modern society, and at the root of nearly every single issue we face today. (Potentially edited for grammatical errors, content will remain the same) + + [Absolutism](http://www.thefreedictionary.com/absolutism) is defined as: the acceptance of or belief in absolute principles in political, philosophical, ethical, or theological matters. NOTE: I am NOT speaking of the form of government where there is only one ruler, but of the philosophical notion that there are absolutes in morality. More specifically, this includes but is not limited to, Moral Absolutism. That being: [Moral absolutism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism) is an ethical view that particular actions are intrinsically right or wrong. On nearly every major issue facing society today, from bigotry, to abortion, to pharmaceuticals, to excessive use of force by authorities, to war, to religion, to environmentalism, and security, each side tends to take an absolutist point of view, seeking out fringe examples as [confirmation bias](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias). Examples: Anti-vaxxers will point to instances of pharmaceutical companies abusing the public trust to release dangerous medications, abusing their authority to push prescriptions on doctors, and unethical studies. Ignoring any and all good that pharmaceuticals do on a daily basis, or independent studies on individual medications and vaccinations that verify their safety. The other side ignores the examples of misuse of the public trust entirely, in favor of focusing on what good pharmaceuticals do. Neither is completely correct or incorrect. Not all pharmaceuticals are "evil" or out-to-get-you. Many do quite a lot of good, but it is much easier to label "big pharma" as evil and move on with your life. Genetic Modification is another example. Anyone who is against GMO's can point to potential avenues of abuse, or of Monsanto's use of copyrighting genes. Ignoring the good that GMO's do. GMO's are not inherently "evil", they can be abused, and they can be used responsibly. War is probably the biggest example. War is always horrible, but not inherently good or evil. To lay down and die is not acceptable, but neither is killing your neighbor because you think they might be threatening. Wars are perpetuated through "well they killed my cousin, so I shall kill them" and then the other says "well you killed MY cousin, so now I'll kill yours!" No one wants to see the other side as human, they must dehumanize them in order to fight them. Religion is not inherently bad or good, it can be used as a tool to give hope in the face of absolute despair, but it can also be used to control those same people and bent to justify horrible atrocities. There is absolutely NO country, culture, religion or ethnicity that has clean hands. Every single community has blood on its hands at some point in their history. These past atrocities cannot, and should not, be used to justify further atrocities. And yet how often do you see people justifying "killing all muslims" for the actions of a few, while ignoring their own fringe groups who kill, rape, and cause terror? Pro-choice activists ignore the fringe examples of abuse by those who get many abortions, while anti-abortion activists ignore the potential to save lives, to prevent unwanted pregnancies in horrible situations, and that there are times where it is absolutely necessary for the safety of the mother. At the end of the day, absolutism is easy, and that is why it is so popular. Pragmatism is inherently difficult, and muddy. Just looking at any thread in /worldnews or /news/ or /politics, you always see the absolutist arguments voted to the top or downvoted to oblivion, while the more pragmatic responses are almost always +/- by only a few votes.	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 driving is a right and not a privilege. CMV + + As we have had drilled into our heads by every cop, judge, teacher, politician and grumpy old fuddy duddy since the industrial age began. I believe it is one of those bullshit lies that civic leaders thought up one day long ago as a way to generate more money into the system and has been repeated so long and often that it's become truth, however I raise 2 important arguments. 1: The roads, infrastructure, police patrols and everything else to do with them are paid for with my taxes. How are you going to force me to pay for roads then tell me I can't use them? How are you going to force me to pay sales tax on my vehicle then say I can't drive it? How are you going to force me to pay for licences, registrations, insurance, tags, road paint, blacktop, street signs, stop lights, crossing guards and every bit of minutia that goes into public roads then tell me I am not allowed to use them? I'm "public" enough to pay taxes but not "public" enough to use what I paid for? 2: Driving is a necessity in almost all areas that are not inner city. Employment, shopping, medical care, etc., all revolve around you reliably being able to get to them to survive. To deprive someone of their ability to earn a living is a violation of the all three aspects of the basic right of Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness. Certainly jail or fine those who abuse, cause harm, damage or death with their vehicles but I don't feel stopping that person from being able to make a living is helping anyone in the long run except for the courts to extort more money into the system. Having a drunk driver in jail or prison will certainly stop his bad driving a lot more effectively than taking away his licence.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Libertarianism Would Lead to a Happier More Equal and Prosperous Society + + When people talk about Libertarianism they usually talk about how in it's own principles it should work, but exposing it to reality makes it fall apart, every time an example of this is given it seems to be refuted pretty well from my standpoint. An example such as this, "The Libertarian model assumes the consumer is 100% educated on the products their buying." Is easily refuted with the fact that businesses will constantly be educating consumers about their products, an educated consumer is in their best interest - every dollar matters and outdated businesses are no longer propped up by government subsidies. Or Free Markets / Banking causing the Great Depression which is disproved by the fact banks Pre-Depression were limited to one branch / office which led to poorly diversified investments and therefore common bank failures throughout the 1800s and culminating in 1929. Libertarianism from my point of view, in a nutshell is just the removal of coercion from society through governance at the most local level, allowing people to live with the consequences for their actions as long as it doesn't harm others and from an Economic point of view giving businesses and consumers the ability to compete between each other for market share and jobs. Please CMV, by finding a few situations or entirely disproving the philosophy using logic or statistics or pointing out things that I have overlooked or don't know. Note: I believe in Government, I'm not an Anarcho-Capitalist Thank you.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
Overall, women are more superficial than men when it comes to dating. CMV + + First, we must define superficial. Let's say superficial is judging a person's romantic value via non-personality traits. On that definition, we are all superficial to some degree and that's ok by me. However, women are more superficial overall. Women judge a man's romantic potential more harshly on the following non-personality traits: (1) Income (2) Height (3) Race (4) Social status Facial and bodily attractiveness still matter to them quite a bit but not as much as for men. Women are so superficial, in fact, that their subjective perception of a man's physical attractiveness can be heavily influenced by how much money he makes.	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 America's two-party system ruins our democracy. CMV + + There are lots of problems with the two-party system, but for the most part, it just creates conflict in the government. Democrats and Republicans treat government like it is a game. Instead of working together to compromise and create government policies that help our country, they simply spend their time attacking the other party. They would much rather make the other party look bad than do what is best for the country. It creates an "us against them" mentality. Only having two parties makes things black and white. You are either a Republican or a Democrat. You are either liberal, or conservative. When in reality, the vast majority of Americans are somewhere in between. Both parties, especially Republicans, are constantly trying to appeal to their base, and completely ignore the moderates of America. As a result, there is constant gridlock in congress, and the congressional approval rating is at an all-time low. If we are dissatisfied with both parties, we don't really have any alternatives. This is because Democrats and Republicans have created a system where it is virtually impossible for a third party to gain significant popularity. If you do vote for a third party candidate, you are essentially "wasting" your vote. As a result, you end up voting for the candidate or the party that you dislike the least. Without a viable third party to choose from, our freedom to elect who we want is severely limited.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: The Scottish Independence Referendum should be voted on by the whole UK, not just Scottish residents. + + [Scottish residents who are citizens of the UK or EU](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_independence_referendum,_2014#Date_and_eligibility) will be voting on independence from the United Kingdom on September 18. In my opinion, the referendum should be decided by all UK residents - that is, EU citizens living in England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. I believe this because a Yes vote affects everyone in the UK and will force the UK government to be restructured. The current Referendum was approved by the Scottish Parliament. The rest of the UK has not had a say so far, and will not in September. This is simply unfair. I understand why it is the case (the vote is already going to be close and this would guarantee an overwhelming No), but that doesn't make it just. 59 members of the UK House of Commons, 6 of them Cabinet ministers, are Scottish. The Labor Party (currently constituting the Opposition government) is disproportionately Scottish, so Scottish independence would essentially guarantee another Conservative (aka Tory) government. Obviously in some cases independence should be voted on by only the relevant minority. For instance, before independence Ireland was oppressed by the UK so I am glad they got the right to self-determination. But Scotland is not oppressed. Scotland became part of the UK under peaceful circumstances hundreds of years ago. There is no real ethnic or cultural difference between Scots and other Brits. The last UK Prime Minister was Scottish. So there is no compelling reason to allow only Scots to vote on the Referendum, except that its supporters know that's the only way it will pass. So please convince me that the upcoming vote will be legitimate despite not including all UK residents.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Most gay rights supporters are hypocritical, and think about sexuality the same way as conservative evangelicals do. + + I first started thinking this when Rick Santorum made his infamous comments comparing homosexuality to bestiality. While this statement was obviously just pandering to a knee jerk emotional reaction to the idea of bestiality, the reaction from the GRA (Gay rights activists) was surprising. While some lip service was payed to consent, the emotion of the responses seemed to sum up as "Bestiality is disgusting to me, and homosexuality is not. Therefore the comparison is invalid and offensive." The consent idea was more of a rationalization and an afterthought. Now consent for animals is doubtful to say the least, thats not where the outrage was coming from. But as I looked into it a far more clear example of hypocrisy emerged: Polygamy. Consider [this article](http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2006/03/dont_do_unto_others.html), which attempts to distance gay rights from legalized polygamy. In particular this quote "Here's the answer. The number isn't two. It's one. . . Second, the number isn't arbitrary. It's based on human nature." (Emphasis mine) Imagine that argument being used on gay marriage. Nowadays you'd rightly get laughed out of the building. How about the fourth entry on [this otherwise correct article](http://www.mibba.com/Articles/Politics/4522/Debunking-Five-Arguments-Against-Same-Sex-Marriage/), which says the idea of marrying whomever you want is "childish". Hows that for marriage equality? [Another one](http://www.minnpost.com/community-voices/2012/10/marriage-equality-not-slippery-slope), that compares polygamy to pedophilia (12 year olds cannot consent) in the second paragraph, using the same cheap shot he's criticizing. This shows the thought process behind all this: they think about sexuality and law just the same way conservative evangelicals do. They consider sexuality they approve of to be worthy of being legal, and scorn sexuality they find disgusting or "wrong". I'm not a polygamist nor do I want to be one, but I recognize that social change is constant and GRA are not as high-and-mighty as they think. When the new social issues come up they will be the ones with the bigotry, and they will be the ones "standing in the doorway, blocking up the hall". Bt then again this all is making me agree with [Rick Santorum](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/post/rick-santorum-compares-same-sex-marriage-to-polygamy-in-spirited-exchange-at-nh-college/2012/01/05/gIQAdEwXdP_blog.html) and [Mike Huckabee](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/01/mike-huckabee-gay-marriage-polygamy_n_3530188.html), so please, CMV!	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
I think suicide only happens to stupid people. CMV + + Slightly exaggerated title, but I think it is always possible to convince yourself out of suicide. When I have had suicidal thoughts on occasion, I've always been able to prove to myself that there is something better on the horizon, and that life is always worth living. I think that when someone kills his/herself, it's because they weren't smart enough to think of all they would be missing in the future, and all the great things life has to offer. I know depression alters people's mental state and all, but I think that even in the midst of depression, intelligent people can see that they won't always be as down on life as they are in that moment.	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 Large Hadron Collider is a waste of public money. CMV + + I live in the UK and I believe that we spend around £34 million per year on the project. I can't understand how this can be considered a justifiable way to spend public money just to find out if this Higgs Boson exists or not (we know now that it does exist, but how does that help us anyway). Not only this but I feel that the dangers of the LHC outweigh any benefits, mostly because I can't think of any actual benefits other than giving some scientists a new toy to play with, especially at a time when money is so short and people are struggling to eat. 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 manned space flight to be a waste of time, resources, and the intellect of our best minds. CMV. + + From what I understand, everything manned craft can do, unmanned craft can do better. I don't want to understate the value that manned space flight can provide in terms of inspiration, but it seems to me that without so much labour and cash being wasted on the ISS and LEO missions in general we could be probing Europa and other moons, looking more in-depth at Mars, have more (and better) Hubble-esque telescopes, etc, all of which provide much more data and knowledge. What's more, it seems like actually making discoveries might well inspire people more than manned space flight. The ISS has given us a music video from space and made a diplomatic statement, while probes and telescopes could discover alien life, more viable exoplanets, stellar phenomena, etc, all of which seem much more interesting. CMV?	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Midget wrestling is more morally repugnant than cock fighting. + + This morning I received a snapchat video, from last night at a frequented college bar, of my buddy watching midget wrestling. A huge crowd was drawn to witness this spectacle. I don't know if the wrestling was real or for show but it seemed quite evident by the large crowd around a probably smaller than regulation size ring that a large number of people were willing to pay money to see midgets wrestle. It seems silly saying this, but I have a visceral(visceral:emotion from instinct not intellect) feeling of disappointment and shamefulness knowing that people I associate with in society would want to watch fake or real wrestling of midgets. At the same time, I don't feel that way with cock fighting. To sort this feeling out in my mind, I asked myself a series of questions: What are the differences between paying to watch midgets fight and paying to watch roosters fight? The midgets fighting are largely unharmed, while roosters die. But what about the implicit statement made by paying to watch these acts? Are you willing to support the killing of a rooster for your personal enjoyment? Well, I'm willing to support the killing of chickens--I like meat. The volume of chickens I've ate is probably a greater volume of the roosters I'd have the opportunity to watch get killed even if I frequented cock fighting. (I've never watched cock fighting, by the way.) What statement would I implicitly be making by paying to watch midgets wrestle, then? Well, when I watch American football or basketball, I'm paying to watch a combination of skill and genetic luck--these athletes are quick, tall and well-trained. Skill doesn't seem to be the factor in drawing the crowd in the snapchat video, though. Besides being at a bar on a Thursday night, the reason people come is because it is funny--because it is degrading. I'd be paying to degrade the value humans give to other humans. Would I rather devalue humans or roosters? Roosters. Could devaluing roosters in turn devalue humans? Cock fighting could devalue humans respect of animals, could encourage greed through gambling, could encourage violence. Could there be any good in cock fighting? in midget wrestling? In this context, the bar was hosting a show and giving people a way to spend their Thursday night. Cock fighting could just as easily cater to a Thursday night. But cock fighting caters more to men and I know that men in the western world are worse at bonding with friends and have a higher suicide rate than women. I also know that one, women usually divorce men more often than vice versa and two, having friendship outside of your wife helps make you a happier and more interesting person for your wife.So my conclusion must be that men would lead happier lives and have a lower divorce rate if they participated in cock fighting. This sounds vague and absurd as a stand alone statement, but I really do believe male friendship is important to a functioning society and that male friendship is being lost. I'm not saying there aren't other avenues for male friendship--but at this point in my analysis, the idea that we can condone midget wrestling and not cock fighting still befuddles me. After those questions I came up with a thesis: Midget wrestling is more morally repugnant than cock fighting because midget wrestling normalizes making fun of other humans, cock fighting does not and it gives men a needed avenue for friendship. Disclaimer: I believe midgets prefer to be called little people. I apologize if my casual use of the word 'midgets' offends you personally. However, I'm interested in knowing what you think about this sort of wrestling, the movie the wolf of wall street and how you feel these events shape the perception of little people.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
People have no excuse to not care about the environment and climate change. CMV. + + When 99.99% of the world's scientist agree that anthropogenic climate change is happening, accelerating, and is the biggest problem facing human civilization as a whole, I don't think it's okay for an informed individual to not do their part and stick their head in the sand. Whether it's driving less and biking more, substituting chicken for red meats, installing solar panels, wearing sweaters indoor in winter rather than blasting the heater, there are a million ways that we can save energy without going out of our way. That's not even accounting for the larger-scale changes a person can make that are beneficial economically as well as environmentally. I'm not trying to suggest that the only ethical pathway is to be a environmental martyr, but I think somebody who refuses to make simple adjustments or act like it's not "their problem" should be ashamed of themselves for their ignorance and nearsightedness.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: The soccer/football time keeping method (counting up to 90 + injury time) is inferior to the counting down and time-stop methods used in other major sports. + + Watching the world cup, their time keeping method is a glaringly inferior system. There is no reason the fans shouldn't be able to see the same time that the time-keeper sees. Some of my main gripes with it: - It creates an unnecessary barrier to new viewers of the sport. I've heard countless people ask how long the game is, and why they are still playing after the 90 minutes, and how long injury time is. - It takes away from the suspense of the last few minutes, when for all the players/fans know, they could throw another 10 minutes onto the time. Using counting down/time stop just seems like such an obvious and easy fix that they could do, and the only reason I see for keeping it this way is because of tradition (which is a poor reason).	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 most insurances are a weird concept and shouldn't be needed. + + Let me begin by saying I think life insurance and the like is absolutely necessary and very useful. I think a slightly more expensive insurance for the dentist to cover an additional check-up is unneeded. If everyone with that insurance goes to the additional check-up, everyone ends up paying more because the insurance company needs to make money. If around 80% goes to those visits, they might pay a little bit less, but the other 20% pays a lot more than needed. I feel like an insurance for your phone should only be bought if a phone is extremely important for you, and you wouldn't be able to buy a new one. I think the insurances to cover low costs should never be needed. I understand an insurance such as the ones I described can be beneficial for certain people, but that also means it's detrimental for others.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: The atomic bombing of Japan was both morally and militarily justified. + + It seems like most people in this modern day see the atomic bombing of Japan as a morally reprehensible act, and to be honest I really don't understand how anyone can hold this view. The main thing I believe is that it boils down to a simple numbers game. When you look at the casualty estimations for Operation Downfall they are staggering, A study done for the Secretary of War estimated that the conquest of Japan would cost 1.7-4 million American casualties and 5-10 million Japanese casualties. These were on the extreme end of the spectrum, most numbers that President Truman had access to put the number of fatality's on the American side between 500,000-1 million with unknown Japanese numbers (though they would far exceed American ones). In comparison the combined number of dead from Hiroshima and Nagasaki is 129,000-246,000. So the loss of life in the actual invasion would have far exceeded the amount who died from the bombing. Now I know that many of you are thinking "You cant make a straight comparison between civilian and military casualty figures, there is a difference between dropping a bomb on unsuspecting civilians and combat casualties". I concede that yes this is true, but we cant forget that most American soldiers at the time were drafted. They were not volunteers and they were aged 18-22. Those kids were our babies. The only way I believe that you can say the bombing were unjustified is if you believe a Japanese civilians life is worth more than that of an Americans. In fact if we over estimate the casualties of the bombing at 250,000 and go on the conservative side for the allied casualties at 500,000 (by the way this does not even count all of the dead Japanese soldiers and civilians that would result from an American invasion) you would have to think the the life of one Japanese civilian is worth in excess of 2 American males aged 18-22. Since I believe that the lives of each are equally important the bombings were justified. So CMV. Just so you are aware you will not change my view by saying that we could not have known how many would have actually died in invasion since we never did it, The numbers I have quoted are what key decision makers in the USA believed and were operating with and they most certainly made the decision with these numbers in mind.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
I believe abortion is immoral and should only be allowed in cases of rape or danger to the mother. CMV. + + I am an 18 year old atheist male. I believe that abortion is not a matter of women's rights, it's a matter of morality. A common pro-choice argument I see thrown around is the fact that the baby is essentially leeching off the woman for 9 months against her will. I disagree with that entirely. In most cases, pregnancy is entirely the result of one's own actions. If steps were taken prior to sex, one would say that there is practically no chance to conceive a child. Therefore, pregnancy is a direct result of poor planning. Therefore, it's unjust to simply "opt-out" of having a baby. Barring cases of rape and the rare chance of protective measures failing, pregnancy is 100% a choice. It doesn't matter if it was an accident or not; it was your mistake, so you have no right to take the life of another human being. Also, I've seen the argument that the fetus is not a human being, as it's just a clump of cells that has the potential to become a baby. I disagree with this as well, as fundamentally speaking, if nothing is altered within the woman's body, the fetus will grow, and will be born. Nothing will halt this other than external actions (barring complications and so on). I don't understand how some people do not consider that "alive" or "human". However, I do believe that abortion should be allowed in cases where the mother's life is at risk if she were to give birth. At that point, the birth of the baby is directly putting the woman at risk, and she shouldn't be forced to go through that unless she chooses to. Besides the cases of rape and danger to the mother, I believe abortion is wrong and should not be an option. CMV.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
Legal, consensual sex scandals cause disproportionate damage to political leaders careers. CMV + + My basic thesis is that if you didn't base your campaign on family values, sex indiscretions in your private life shouldn't be able to ruin your career. It now looks like Anthony Weiner's political career is about to receive a final nail in the coffin with the latest scandal coming out about him sending pictures to that young woman. And it's a damn shame because he was a very talented politician with courage and conviction to stand up for what he believed in. [Here he is defending healthcare compensation](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O_GRkMZJn4) for firefighters in 9/11 after the measure was block on some procedural technicality. For Eliot Spitzer on the other hand, although I really liked him, it was probably the right thing for him to step down. My problem wasn't so much with him having sex with a woman, but the fact that he broke the law to do it (prostitution). I'm all for making prostitution legal, but until it is political leaders have a responsibility to uphold the law. My point goes for both republicans and democrats alike.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Libertarians condone racism. + + Every single discussion I've had with Libertarians suggest that they want to live in a world where racism is completely OK, where discrimination for the sole reason of sex/race/etc is completely OK. Libertarians claim that the free market or "social pressure" will eventually lead to a post-racial world. I vehemently disagree. 100 years of social pressure did nothing to force the South to desegregate. 100 years of social pressure has done nothing to alleviate Japanese xenophobia. Like crime, murder, and theft, racism is one of those qualities that can never be completely eliminated, only suppressed via government force. Moreover, a Libertarian mindset is the worst possible to try to socially pressure people to conform to ethical standards. The vast majority of Libertarians are against any sort of social conformity (excluding social expectations on the concept of their property). What will actually happen if racism (in terms of discrimination on housing, employment, and public services) is legalized, is that the free market will react to the demand of racist services. Markets will react by opening up segregated shops and restaurants. Homeowner associations will open up segregated housing units and neighborhoods. As society becomes more segregated, racism will become normalized once again and we will be right back in the social situation of 1950. People will grow up with a life where the only people they know are the same race because they grew up in a segregated neighborhood, and attended a segregated private school, and got a job at a segregated business. They will label minorities as the "Other", because minorities will indeed become the "Other" when you have absolutely no experience with them. The country will become divided up into those that tolerate other races and those that don't. Nonconformists will be forced to move when businesses, social clubs, and homeowner's associations impose trade sanctions on either racists or non-racists. Because the majority race has the most economic power, these trade sanctions will one-sided and thus be most damaging to minorities. "Oh but this will never happen!" Yes it will. The more important question is on what kind of scale? Will this discrimination only happen in isolated areas? Will it be so small to be negligible? Or will it become widespread and eventually become the norm, like it has in so many other countries? I tire of discussions of natural rights and how Libertarians treat everyone with equality, because everyone is allowed to discriminate equally! Please don't bring those up, I find them completely unconvincing. The only things that will convince me are practical, utilitarian, or empirical arguments. Tell me why the society that condones racism is "better", especially for minorities. Tell me a good reason why an Asian, or Latino, or Black, or Indian, or Native American would want to live in your kind of society. Libertarianism is the perfect ideology for the closet racist. CMV.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: The negative perception of Pedophiles in society causes pedophiles to be more common and more dangerous. + + Its seen by everyone with phrases like "They should be shot immediately" or "buried under the prison.". The hate for pedophiles is strong, aggressive, and vocal. This view is bad because it causes pedophiles to be more dangerous than they would be otherwise, and leads to acting on pedophilic urges more common. First I need to specify, a pedophile is simply a person sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children. I'm not talking just about those who act on this, but also those who don't act but have these urges. * More Common: Because pedophiles are hated by society, there are no good resources for them. If there was a support group (specifically group therapy with aid from a professional.) for those afflicted by these urges, to help them avoid acting on them; it would be destroyed immediately. Because it is so hated and accompanied by violent threats these people would be risking their lives by opening themselves up to get help. They also risk destruction of their life if this information is even rumored to be true. The fact that they cannot get any help dealing with this issue, they are more likely to act on them over time. This is the biggest irony of it, the vocal hate of it actually causes that behavior to be more prevalent. * More Dangerous: Due to the social view of pedophiles they have greater motivation to harm to a child to prevent being caught, or threaten the child which would cause more mental damage. They would also be more likely to offend again because after getting caught, convicted, or suspected, they would be completely ostracized by the community (this is made worse by the rules accompanying sex offender registries.). This isolation could very well lead to seeking comfort in children who don't reject you the same way everyone else does. * Conclusion: I concede that changing the views of society is so difficult its pointless to try. I simply wan't to show that these ideas are harmful and actually have the opposite effect than intended. CMV.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: I don't believe that the cultural or scientific victory in Civ V should count as a victory since it makes little sense why achieving space or cultural recognition would make you the world leader + + So in Civ 5 there are different ways to win the game the ones I will focus on today are the cultural victory, through getting 5 whole social policy's and scientific through building a space ship. The entire premise of Civ 5 is to becomes the world leader and make your civilization the greatest there has ever been I do not see how achieving a space ship leads me to being basically King of the World. Contrary the domination way through defeating all enemies makes perfect sense all my enemies are defeated no rebellion I am now basically king of everything. The diplomatic way also makes sense, since you can be made a world leader through the world congress. The cultural victory makes your civilization a utopia but just because I have a utopia doesn't mean everyone will want to make me king it means the cities I control will want me to keep ruling but when I die they might fight amongst themselves for who will replace TheFishlord the great XVII but through world domination my civilization could stand the test of time by pushing down all insurgency since I tend to be an autocracy. TLDR: cultural victories and scientific make little to no sense why they would make me the worlds' king. Only domination and diplomacy could lead to it. CMV	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: It's a good idea to get married for a tuition break + + Assuming: * Without getting married, you are a dependent student * You have a significant EFC (enough to outweigh lawyers fees, your spouse's income, and the general trouble of getting married) * Your school doesn't require cohabitation with your spouse to be considered independent Then it really does make sense to get married just for a tuition break, then divorce after you're done with undergrad. I don't really see a reason not to. You save money, and then you get divorced. Also, it's not illegal to marry somebody you've only met once in the courthouse for a tuition break like it would be for citizenship. So to me, it seems like a nifty loophole that it would be wise to exploit.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: There is no objective reason to support President Obama. + + I am shocked 40% of the US still supports President Obama. I understand why people voted for him in 2008. I even understand why some people voted for him the second time. I also understand hating the other side (Republicans/Conservatives). This is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about support President Obama now. I don’t understand how anyone can support him now. I'm not giving my reasons for not supporting him. I want unique opinions, not attacks on mine. You are also not allowed to mention the other side in any form, past or present. If your reason for supporting him is blocking legislation supported by the other side, name the legislation that was written and blocked, not the people pushing it. Bottom line... Stick specifically to accomplishments that President Obama has had over his term as President.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
When watching the paralympics i came to the realisation that a huge amount of people who claim they cannot work because of disability are wrong. CMV + + First of all, I KNOW SOME PEOPLE ARE TOO DISABLED TO WORK, but i genuinely believe a shit load of disability benefit recipients could work if they chose to. I'm not saying it would be as easy for them as it is for the able bodied, but its still completely possible. Seriously. Those guys have no legs, sometimes no limbs and they go out and run a bloody marathon! Then there are people who claim that because of the same disabilities they cannot work because of issues like transport. If people with no legs can run a marathon, you can make it to the bus stop. OR WORK FROM HOME! Sell stuff over the phone. Have an internet based business. Even if you can't leave your house there are still jobs that can be done. I'm not saying that everyone can do everything. But maybe if people started seeing themselves as "differently-abled" they would find something they could do rather than letting their disability define them. Just because you've been dealt a shitty hand doesn't mean you can't still play, and win, the game of poker. Honestly, CMV because i get called up for this opinion all the time and i would be happy to genuinely believe something different. A big thank you to errbody contributing, this is very interesting and most have been polite and well spoken. Hope you all have a great day, i'll check back later. Peace and love.	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 Foreign Language should be switched to an elective, and that Comp. Science should take its place in the core curriculum. + + In America, Or in New York at least, you need at least 2 years of foreign language in high school. This time spent learning foreign languages is a waste of time in my opinion, since i have hated learning foreign language and have no need or want to learn it. I do, however, want to learn more in other electives. I have not been put in certain electives and I am forced to take foreign language because NY state(America) deems it necessary to be in the core curriculum. It also has no use in real life and no one usually ends up fluent from these classes. Computer science, on the other hand is a much more useful class and has many career options and major options, foreign language has no real major or job options. So go ahead reddit, change my mind :)	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
Police should be subject to additional criminal charges for "Violation of the Public Trust" when they are found to have acted outside of their appropriate legal authority. [CMV] + + I think we might need to institute a new criminal law called "Violation of the Public Trust" where a representative of the legal system can be charged with the additional crime of violating the trust and responsibility the public and the law itself expects from such officials by acting beyond the bounds of their legitimate authority. This would allow specific criminal charges in addition to the already available civil penalties a citizen might seek in compensation for false arrest, assault or death resulting from inappropriate police behavior. A conviction might allow or obligate a judge to increase the prison sentence or add community service for an offender. This criminal charge would bring such cases before an actual jury of citizens and allow them to review the evidence for themselves rather than having a single judge make a unilateral decision or a biased "internal review board" clear the cop behind closed doors. We need these cases heard in open court and subject to public scrutiny via the media. The current secrecy and "brotherhood" slap-on-the-wrist penalties do nothing to protect the public or achieve justice for the victims of police lies and brutality. Currently, police are allowed more lee-way to use force under the assumption that they are acting in the public good. Even when this act is later shown to be improper, it is assumed they were acting in "good faith" and thus not subject to penalty. Either citizens must equally be assumed to have acted in "good faith" in use of force against police and not subject to prosecution, or cops must be equally subject to criminal penaly when they overstep, regardless of whether they believed they were doing the right thing. *** One other point raised is that regular citizens can be arrested and charged on the word of an officer alone. An officers sworn affidavit of eyewitness is given more weight and is often sufficient to "prove" guilt (e.g. speeding being the most common, but also "resisting" arrest). This power is not available to average citizens when making accusations of police abuse. When a citizen makes an accusation it is treated as a mere "complaint" and then handled by "internal review" which most often finds no wrongdoing, even in cases where evidence was available that later clearly showed the complaint was true. My version of this law would force such complaints to be treated like any other criminal accusation and tried in open court like any other crime. This would take the power to determine guilt or innocence out from behind the closed doors of the precinct and put it in front of the public for a jury of citizens to judge for themselves. Perhaps a necessary feature would be to make prosecuting these cases compulsory so that DAs don't get the blame for bringing charges and avoid placing that strain on their relationship with the police. Having this separate charge would also allow juries to find the officer specifically guilty of only abusing their power, even if evidence was lacking to prove other criminal acts. *** [NYC Civilian Complaint Review Board](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Complaint_Review_Board) "All cases sent to the Police Commissioner come with recommendation of discipline made by the Board, which the Commissioner has the privilege to review and enforce or overrule. In fact, if s/he so chooses, the Commissioner can essentially dismiss the complaint once he receives it." In other words, such bodies have no teeth. One additional option that should be available is to give these review boards the authority to pursue criminal charges, at least so far as to mandate a [Grand Jury](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_jury) be convened to look at the evidence and determine if an indictment is warranted. ***** "Lest this post give the wrong impression, I will openly state here that I have tremendous respect for the very valuable job that Good Cops do, and I am very certian that the majority of cops are good and are acting appropriately, according to strict policy/procedure, and with only the best of intentions. I agree that better training is always good and I would encourage all departments to riase the minimum education requirement for an officer to a Masters in Criminal Justice or equivalent law degree. "Our police should be the epitome of civility, intellect and physical prowess, not simply brutish thugs with a badge and a gun who excell only at following orders. I realize this is a VERY high standard, but I believe it is fully appropriate. If we are to give individuals such authority, we must demand that they be raised to this level of power and responsibility because they have proved they are worthy. Then we must expect them to demonstrate that worthiness on a daily basis in every official act. "If you are one of these Good Cops, you should have nothing to fear from such a law as I propose, just as innocent citizens who have done no wrong should have nothing to fear from police who are acting within the bounds of their appropriate authority. It is improper to say that a cop's decisions should not be subject to a more strict review or the possibility of criminal prosecution simply because the job is difficult ("You don't know what it's like out there or what we have to deal with! you don't get to judge me!"). "Would you so broadly excuse the mistakes of a surgeon if their mistake resulted in your father's death simply because surgery is complicated? Would you accept the excuse, "You don't know what it's like! Don't judge me! You're not a surgeon!" if such was their defense for improper or criminal behavior? Many jobs are difficult and many tough decisions must be made. The difficulty of the job is no excuse for significant, or especially lethal, errors in judgement, let alone willful abuse of power." *** I am accused of a crime and I am arrested, placed in jail, forced to pay bond if I wish to be free, taken to court and subject to prosecution by the full power of the state in collusion with the very arresting officer who made the claim that he witnessed me breaking the law in the first place. An officer is accused of a crime and he gets put on paid leave while a closed-door, sealed-record "review" is conducted by fellow officers who typically dismiss the case or more rarely provide some impotent reprimand, after which the officer is back on the street free to continue such abuse at will. How can such a thing even remotely be considered proper? How can this not be viewed as some "illuminati"-style double standard where those who enforce the law are themselves virtually immune to the law? Why would we not try these cases in open court rather than having some toothless parallel process that allows police to evade real justice? *** My response... "It would seem appropriate then that so long as a citizen reasonably felt they or others were at grave theat from an officer then that citizen should have the authority to use deadly force against that officer. And, as we must presume innocence, we should simply take the citizen's word for it and let the matter be. After all, the cop brought a weapon to a public place and this indicates a willingness if not outright intent to use it. We can simply convene a closed door council of the citizen's neighbors to hear his account and they can conclude he acted appropriately. Or, if he did not, he can be let go with a warning not to kill any more cops under similar circumstances. No more criminal charges for killing police. Actually, I rather like this plan. Perhaps I will CMV after all."	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Scrooge McDuck is ruining Duckburg's and the world's economy. + + Scrooge McDuck, popular wealthy tycoon of Duckburg is a plague to the economy of the Donald universe. First of all he hoards money in his money bin. The money he possesses, obtained from the profits of his many businesses is never re-invested. This is a huge blow to the economy, since by not being re-invested : - consumption is lowered and the money doesn't benefit companies and therefor the workers, who, by not getting paid higher, will spend less, thus creating even lower wages and unemployment. This vicious circle cripples the economy. - people and small businesses cannot loan it, this makes opening your own business very hard. And since Scrooge owns most of the businesses around, this could very much be an anti-competion technique. These shenanigans against entrepreneurship create unemployment and poverty. Secondly the amount of money he possesses in not clear. Amounts vary from one multiplujillion, nine obsquatumatillion, six hundred twenty-three dollars and sixty-two cents to 607 tillion 386 zillion 947 trillion 522 billion dollars and 36 cents and sometimes five multiplujillion, nine impossibidillion, seven fantasticatrillion dollars and sixteen cents This makes it very hard to assess the value of the currency, which could also be very fluctuant, an obsquatumatillion could become as worthless as a fantasticatrillion very quickly. This is very bad for the stock-exange market. Also, people have calculated that based on it's size, his money bin could only contain $27 trillion. This could mean that he could be hiding the multiplujillions in overseas accounts, safe from the IRS. Also, since there is only $77 trillion worth of things in the world, this means that, if the calculations on the money bin are correct, Scrooge owns 35% of the world's money. And since the world's second richest is Flinthead Glomgold who owns about he same amont, that means the population of the donald universe owns less than 30% of the world's riches, the two richest owning about 70%. So in the duck universe, the richest 1% (or in this case 2,86x10^-8 % assuming there are 7 billion inhabitants in their world) swims around in their gold, rubbing it on their feathered skin whilst the rest of the population and the economy suffers. I believe Scrooge McDuck is a plague to the economy. CMV I wish I could, like Scrooge, put my first gold at the end of a string and carry it around with me :)	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
I think the "Freedom of Speech is not Freedom of Consequences" is a strange/poor argument. CMV! + + It has been all over Reddit lately that "Freedom of Speech does not mean Freedom of Consequences". As a quick little don't think rhetorical device, it makes sense. But if this is the case, then doesn't everyone, everywhere, at every point in history, have freedom of speech? I mean, as long as nothing is physically restricting you from speaking, you can always say whatever it is you want to say, and then there will be consequences, which, from this quote, you don't have freedom from anyways. Even though consequence typically has negative connotations, it isn't necessarily a negative word. The argument just seems so obvious that pointing it out doesn't really contribute to discussions in any meaningful way. So what is the distinction here? Is it that the government isn't the one enforcing consequences? Or what? I think there is a gap in the argument that I am missing, would love to have it explained a little more thoroughly.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Unconditional support of Israel by the US government has caused significant harm to both parties. + + I've been hammering this around in my head for a long, long time now. I am an avid student of history in general and WWII in specific; as a result, I am intimately familiar with the horrors of the Holocaust and the need for an independent, self determinate Jewish state. While we can argue about the logic behind the Allied powers creating that state out of whole cloth in the Holy Land, the fact remains that the Jewish people are there now and it's unreasonable to expect that to change. That said, I believe that the presence of the US government backing literally every action of the state of Israel since 1947 has proven to be a corrosive influence; Israel knows, no matter what, that they have protection not just militarily, but economically and diplomatically, as well. Various events, such as the USS Liberty incident, Johnathan Pollard, Lawrence Franklin, and reported failures to communicate or otherwise cooperate in intelligence matters show that Israel views its' relationship with the US as very one sided; Israel will do whatever it feels like, and feels no real concern for how the US (or the greater international community) will respond, because it never has before. This is how the blind support of the US has harmed its' own interests, because no matter how much the US gives, Israel doesn't consider US interests if they conflict with Israeli interests in any way. For Israel's part, the relationship has led to an increasing failure on the part of the Israeli government to act in a responsible fashion. There's no way to argue that racism isn't present in Israel, and the most apt comparison to modern day Israel is [South African apartheid](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid). The recent election of Benjamin Netanyahu only served to further highlight this; many are crediting his come from behind election win to a desperate move on his part to reject a two state solution (independent sovereign states for Jews and Palestinians) and to insist that Arab Israelis were voting "in droves". This resulted in hardcore right wing voters converging to vote for him instead of disparate, fractured parties that would not necessarily have caucused for him to form a coalition government; while Mr. Netanyahu is already attempting to downplay those remarks, the efficacy of making them highlights the underlying problem: the greater Israeli society has no problem supporting openly racist views that disenfranchise an entire other ethnicity. Thus, Israel has been hurt because the US acts a shield against it listening to its' better angels, so to speak. I believe, strongly, that if Israel had more to fear from outside censure that they would be much more interested in negotiating a meaningful peace agreement that if both sides couldn't be happy with, at least both sides would be equally unhappy about. So, CMV!	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
I think video game shops should not be allowed to deny an underage person the sale of a 18/M game if the age rating system is not enforced by the law. CMV + + I'm 16 years old, and just this weekend I tried to purchase Battlefield 4 at a Gamestop outlet. The employee behind the counter said I needed to show ID to show that I was over the age of 18 to buy the game. The PEGI age rating system is not enforced in Ireland, where I live. I am an avid gamer I always have to end up buying the more mature titles online. I find it very annoying that even though I know of everything that will be in these mature games and know I will not be affected by it in any way, I am still denied the right to buy the game at my local Gamestop even though PEGI rating are not enforced by Irish law.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: public teacher should not be allowed to wear any religious artifacts or clothes. + + The highest german court recently decided that wearing a headscarf is not neccesarily a violation of "schulfrieden" (school peace) Therefor muslim teacher in particular are free to wear their religious clothes while serving in public schools as represants of the state. I see the ruling as a mistake and think that neither religious nor political symbols should be allowed in schools. I think that teacher wearing them might infringe my freedom of speech(due to my fear of bad grades without fault of my own) or my right to 'fair education'.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
Nuclear Weapons are to a national defense what firearms are to individual defense, it is immoral to prevent countries from acquiring nuclear weapons. CMV + + I believe that restricting nuclear weapons is little more than powerful countries trying desperately to hold onto the power that they currently posses by maintaining a monopoly on the most powerful weapons. In this day and age having nuclear weapons is imperative to the national defense of any country. The technology has been available since World War II, and serves as a powerful deterrent to invasion by foreign powers. I believe that the powerful countries want to restrict access to nuclear weapons not out of any concern for potential damage resulting from their use, but simply that they want to keep third world countries safe to attack. If we told some country that their military was no longer allowed to use firearms or explosives it would be seen as completely ludicrous, and I don't see nuclear disarmament as any different.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Reddit's reaction to the Donald Sterling incident has been a complete failure. + + CMV:If reddit were to actually follow the story, they would be outraged over other aspects of Donald Sterling. They would not be overly concerned about the tape recording. Here is the best source: http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-sterling-racist-history-2014-4 I have compiled some others for specific issues. He is a serious offender of housing discrimination. http://thinkprogress.org/sports/2014/04/29/3432139/sterling-housing-discrimination/ There are stories of his ex-wive posing as a door-to-door marketer to check on the racial status of his tenants. He called Baron Davis a bastard. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2044371-baron-davis-recalls-donald-sterlings-cursing-him-out-and-delusional-demeanor He brought his girlfriend into the locker room to admire "these beautiful black bodies." He was sued by his former (black) general manager for racial discrimination. Example of the ignorance I see on reddit: http://www.livememe.com/ews69y9 Nobody is surprised. If anyone was going to do this, it was Donald Sterling. http://imgur.com/5xTPXbr This user does not understand housing discrimination, and the destruction it causes to the black community. This mans ownership of an NBA team was ruined, not his life, and Sterling has legitimately destroyed the lives of many people. If reddit did its research, it would be outraged that it took this to oust Donald Sterling, and not the many previous ethical violations. It's so easy to be "above race" on reddit, where the world is pure and clean without any significant consequences. And breaking down an extremely dark and complicated subject into an uninformed meme is extremely offensive. http://imgur.com/fpIWf3K TL;DR Reddit really shit the bed on this story. 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 joining the military is the best way to change your economic fate if you're born into the lower class in America. + + 1) There is nothing moral questionable about being a soldier for money. 2) It is the most consistent, stable employment that will leave surplus income. 3) It not only pays for an education, but also develops the life skills to live independently. 4) Military Culture provides the best chance at resocialization when coming from criminal/disenfranchised populations. 5) Military members are granted a privileged position in working class/middle income environments. Due to these beliefs I believe that being a soldier should be recommended to all low income children as the most viable way to improve fiscal and social standing. I'll change my view in light of a better option or the changing of any of the above points.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
I believe it is wrong to teach the Pledge of Allegiance in schools (not for religious reasons). CMV. + + Okay, where to start? My view: If you want to pledge your allegiance to a flag and a government, go right ahead. But don't make your kids. That's their decision to make, and telling them to say it from such an early age just desensitizes them to what they are actually saying and what it means. Okay. Now on to the pledge itself. Pledging your allegiance to a flag? That doesn't make sense. Why wouldn't you pledge your allegiance to your country? Hm. What? According to [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic): "A republic is a form of government in which affairs of state are a 'public matter'". So, at this point, you've pledged your allegiance to a piece of cloth and a government. That's crazy, [who would ever do that?](http://lloydthomas.org/Graphics/Reichstag-Jan30-1937.jpg) Which God? There are thousands. Civil war, anybody? Nope. Here's where I have the biggest problem. Let's take a look at the good 'ol [US incarceration rate](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate), shall we? So we're record holders? Cool! So along with that incarceration rate (in Federal prisons, over half of the prisoners are in for non-violent drug charges) Our Government is obviously stripping our liberties away from us in plain sight (PRISM). So that's a load of shit. ...But what about that "for all" part? Blacks account for 13% of the population, yet account for 39% of the total prison population. Hispanics account 16.3% of the population, yet account for 20.6% of the total prison population. We all know there are massive amounts of racial bias in our justice system. Reddit. FFS. CMV.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
I believe that abortion should be illegal due to the possibility of fetuses being human beings CMV + + I want to say that there have been some very good discussions and I thank people for them. My views are still the same but I know much more clearly why those who hold differing views hold them. I think the most interesting explanations was the introduction to me of the violinist analogy. And I think from there that the biggest issue I have is that I see the active nature of unplugging a person to be murder. If you don't agree I'm not sure if anything can change either of our points of view. I also find the correlation of unplugging the violinist to be equal to refusing to donate organs to someone who needed them to be a bit of a jump. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBdfcR-8hEY The above video is not my point of view but different questions on the morality of murder and complicated nature of the question. I think the main difference in the people I discussed with was our interpretation of active/passive killing. Unfortunately this is the kind of view that does not change easily but I thank the people who discussed it respectfully. Above all I hope this reminds people how complicated the issue of abortion really is. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Quick statement: Fetus implies not a human and baby implies human so not to start with a bias I will call the thing growing in a lady's belly, for lack of a better word, a "betus." I am agnostic and politically ambiguous so this isn't coming from a listen to my religion or conservative view point rant. I think the abortion issue is terribly simplified by both prolife and prochoice advocates. It generally gets broken down into sound bites like: Prolife: "You're killing babies!" Prochoice: "Stay away from my body!" Now if I had to answer those sound bites I'd say: Prolife: No one like abortion. It's legal so that people who want one (and there will always be people who want one) can get one without causing harm to themselves. Also, what makes you say they are babies? Prochoice: It's your body harboring what will very soon be a new human body that will have rights that you cannot violate despite it being inside you. Some people think that the betus inside you already has rights. My point of view is... it might and how can we really know if it does or not? If human beings have universal human rights (a fairly new but rapidly growing point of view that most American would agree with) then who is to argue that a betus of 15 weeks has rights when one of 14 weeks does not. Doesn't that seem a bit arbitrary especially if one were to believe in things like a human soul? Isn't this another case of human rights being stripped of people due to differences? (plenty of societies put these differences on age, deformation or gender). The underlining question seems to be: are fetuses (sorry couldn't keep writing the word "betus") people and how do we know? Maybe this is in part due to my agnosticism but I think that if you can't prove something isn't a human being when in a few weeks/months it will unquestionably be a human being then you probably shouldn't be killing it on the off chance that it is murder. CMV	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: People should learn proper etiquette when dealing with police. + + I don't want to toss out dozens of anecdotes here, but I THINK the general consensus with Americans is that people generally felt MORE comfortable interacting with police in the past than they do today. In my opinion, people today are focusing on the wrong things, and fail to take into account what it means to be a police officer. When both of those occur together, you end up with a populace that hates and fears the police, rather than trusting and respecting them. 1) Police officers have a duty to combat and possibly prevent crime. It is literally a part of their title--on any given day, police across the nation will directly encounter every aspect of any given society's criminal elements, from petty speeding violators up through mass-murderers. That's their job. 2) Any given encounter must be treated as a potential worst case scenario, if the officer wants to maximize his chance at survival. Granted, most encounters are NOT worst case scenarios, but that only magnifies the fear for cops. It's like winning the asshole lottery--i.e., is today (and in particular, this one stop) the day that you win the asshole lottery and have to use lethal force in order to survive? Is today the day that you could die because you didn't respond accordingly? 3) Normal human beings have a survival instinct. Assuming that police officers are normal human beings, they must also possess the same desire to protect their own lives when they make an arrest of any sort. Thus, they will judge encounters based on prior policing knowledge in order to gauge threats and will react accordingly to protect their own lives. Now, I'm not arguing that police can (and do) abuse power. But I AM arguing that a combination of both media saturation and cultural misunderstandings skew public opinion away from police legitimacy and authority. Furthermore, I think that people today would have a greater appreciation for police if they: A) Understood a cop's daily life, and; B) Understood how to act when a police officer detains you for any reason--be it traffic or otherwise. TL;DR--If people knew what it was like to be a cop (and as an extension, how they should act when a police officer confronts them), they would be less likely to act belligerently and they would also be less likely to suffer harm as a result. CMV.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: The Islamic State is a state just like any other, and their activity should not be considered any different from all other states + + The Islamic State (previously ISIS) is a state, meaning an organized political group, just as the USA and Spain are states. The activity of IS should thus be judged no differently from how the activity of the US should be judged, and vice versa. I often hear IS referred to as 'like a mafia', and their revenue acquired through extortion and kidnapping. However almost nobody refers to the activity of ANY other state in the same way. My belief is that there is absolutely no relevant difference, and if anyone considers the activity of IS immoral and unjust, they must also think the same of all other states. Those who cite things that IS does as examples of a mafia must also cite these same things that other states do as examples of a mafia. To quote from a relevant [article](http://finance.yahoo.com/news/heres-worlds-richest-terrorist-group-194402806.html), "ISIS collects taxes on a variety of commercial items, such as trucks and cellphone towers, according to Ahram. Raqqa's Credit Bank has transformed into a functioning tax authority, with shop owners paying $20 every two months to ISIS in exchange for utilities and security. ISIS functions a lot like a criminal syndicate. "The group is like the Mafia. It really doesn’t discriminate in how it gets its money," Colin Clarke, an associate political scientist at Rand Corporation, told CBC News. "Anything that's a revenue-generating activity, this group is engaged in."" If tax collection makes IS a criminal syndicate, then what makes any other state not a criminal syndicate?	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
I believe tattoos without personal meaning past "it looks cool/pretty" convey a shallow depth of consciousness and creativity. CMV + + I have around 20 tattoos (multiple sessions, lost count; they all relate to something about my life) and have always taken the view that tattoos should have more meaning than "I liked the design". Call me a purist or a hardliner, but I've always felt that tattoos should be a reflection of the wearer's life, not just decoration like a peacock or a [Capitol citizen.](http://thehungergames.wikia.com/wiki/The_Capitol) Served in the military? Your respective branch emblem would be great. Grew up elbow-deep in engines? Knock yourself out with those crossed pistons. Had a badass grandpa who worked a farm? I could totally see getting the homestead inked out, in all its glory. Hell, I'll even play the other side; even horrible reasons apply here: in a gang? Killed someone? Done time? Fly that freak flag, just be ready for some odd looks. No one's saying it's illegal to have a teardrop tattoo (but they might give you a wide berth on the street). But when you decide you want, say, a dolphin, and go to the shop and just pick one off the wall... to me, that just seems cheap, tasteless, and unimaginative. That is my main gripe about tattoos with no personal meaning: it comes across as the wearer going through motions of which they have no comprehension (like a chimp wearing garish amounts of makeup), or just plain posturing (like a bird that puffs itself up to appear threatening). I know my opinion on this subject is more than a little strict, so someone... change my view.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
I think naked protesters only hurt their causes. CMV + + This year there have been so many protesters, mainly women, who have taken to wearing no shirts in a bid to get a message across. Some examples are: [This](http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2012/oct/03/femen-topless-protest-tunisian-woman-video) protest in Paris [This](http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2012/may/23/euro-2012-topless-activists-ukraine) protest in the Ukraine And most famously of all the protests in Paris that came as a result of [this.](http://www.policymic.com/articles/30936/amina-femen-19-year-old-tunisian-girl-faces-death-threats-over-topless-pictures) The things these women are fighting for and trying to bring to people's attention are very important issues. But why do they need to paint protest signs on their naked bodies? If anything the stories are overshadowed by the fact that a tonne of naked women are being arrested and causing public unrest. Yes, their cause is being written about, but it's generally somewhere below the first paragraph. Then there are articles like [this](http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/the-man-who-made-femen-new-film-outs-victor-svyatski-as-the-mastermind-behind-the-protest-group-and-its-breastbaring-stunts-8797042.html) which show it really is just coordinated stunts. If you look at the women protesting, they are all gorgeous and fit. It has to be coordinated because if these were protests by REAL feminists there would be women of every shape and size. TL;DR These women are just using an excuse to flaunt their bodies and hide behind a cause as an excuse. This is detrimental to the causes and doesn't do anything to help. CMV.	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 try to actively "polinate" our solar system with microbial life + + I believe that every space probe that leaves this planet without a big box filled to the top with radiation-proof germs and microbes able to survive in space is a huge missed opportunity. I believe that this should have been our first priority as soon as the first rocket left earth's atmosphere, far more important than putting human beings on the Moon or Mars. It could have been a great insurance policy for life, and ignoring that seems incredibly selfish, making "human survivality" the one and only priority and ignoring the rest of life on earth. The entirety of human civilization is worth it just so we could reach a point in time where our technology allows us to do this, and not doing it is absolutely insane. Now you could say, well doing this would effectively end all of our chances of finding proof of intelligent life, and you would be absolutely correct (sans having some extraterrestrial intelligence sending us messages), but I believe that assuring the survival of life is far far more important than satisfying our intellectual curiosity. If we had decided to pollinate the solar system we could have bacterial soups thriving in half a dozen planets and comets, hell, we could have sent a few samples of the most ultra-resistant bacteria we know of inside of the Voyager, making sure that life continues in a case of disaster, and instead after fifty years of almost continuous space travel we have zero assurances that life will not end completely if the sun suddenly decides to start acting like an edgy teenager and, against all odds, roasts the earth. Change my view.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: I think recording concerts on your phone or Ipad is stupid, inconvenient, and a waste of time. Pictures? Sure, but because they only take a second. + + Hey yo, CMV. Thought I'd submit this post because it's something that has been bugging me a bit since going to a concert in October. It's the obnoxious amount of phones I see being pulled out and held up forever because ravenous fans decide to record entire songs on their phones or ipads(that takes a special kind of audacity). Overall, I do sincerely believe this is an incredibly stupid thing to do. 1) No matter how good the camera on your phone or hand-held device, the quality will be garbage. You really think those speakers of yours will pick up the awesomeness of the moment or sound? Even in HD, the videos uploaded are garbage and both eye and ear sores. I liked that song, but not when it sounds like that.. 2) It's obnoxious to other concert goers. Yes, if the venue doesn't ban them, you are free to do it. But in exercising your freedom, you are imposing on the freedom of others. We as fans paid good money for tickets to see our favorite musicians show us a good time and entertain us. I didn't pay to see some jackasses hold up a rectangles. I sure as hell didn't pay to see the artist through your damn lens either. 3) This one is more anticipatory for a possible counter-argument of there was no other way for people to see it. Guess what? If you didn't pay the dough, know about the gig, or couldn't catch it, you're not automatically entitled to seeing it. You're not the first person to miss an event, and you surely won't be the last.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
Employees and employers are not a team in a meaningful sense of the word and 'teamspeak' is used by employers to manipulate employees. CMV. + + Team: cooperatively functioning group: a number of people organized to function cooperatively as a group Teamspeak: words or phrases using 'team' or provoking team mentality In most cases, employees will apply to many different companies and, possibly, many different industries. An employee who gets accepted at MCDonalds would often be similarly happy working at any other restaurant including restaurants that directly compete with MCDonalds. An employee at MCDonalds would often happily leave MCDonalds to work at KFC if they were offered a substantial pay raise. They would leave even if it dramatically hurt their MCDonalds 'team'. The 'team' means much less than the employee's pay. Employers, who are often employees themselves, behave similarly. This shows that being part of the 'team' is, in most cases, less important than pay. The payment part of the employee/employer deal is antagnostic. Employees generally want more. Employers generally want to give less. Employees mainly work for payment so the entire employee/employer environment is built on this competition between supposed teammates. Employers will generally not keep an employee that makes them less money than some other employee or method even if the employee is well-liked and/or would be substantially harmed by losing the job. This, once again, shows that the power of the 'team' bond is significantly less than the power of money. For those reasons, I believe employers and employees are not members of the same team. The bonds of the deal are too easily discarded and the interests of the members too divergent. Next, how teamspeak is used to manipulate employees: 'Teamspeak' is often used to motivate employees instead of other, tangible benefits. Pay raises could be used as motivation, as could additional benefits, vacation time, etc. but these are costly to employers. However, provoking shame and embarassment through the idea that the employee is letting their 'team' (or, occassionally, 'family') down, is free. Employees generally care about letting down their fellow employees and employers use that worry to increase productivity and make themselves more money. "You're letting down the team" works better for employers than, "You're not making me enough money" so they use that even if the employees actions do no harm to their fellow employees. Also, using 'letting down the team' instills fear that the employee may be fired, which will motivate the employee to do more without the employer giving more or seeming like the bad guy. This causes the employee to stop wondering about what they deserve or how they're treated out of fear of unemployment. What happens when the employee starts to use teamspeak? So, for example, Wal-Mart will provoke teamspeak but ignore or dissuade teamspeak coming from their employees. If Wal-Mart employees want to form a union to benefit their team members, Wal-Mart will take action against it. Wal-Mart will claim that unions don't benefit the team even as vast numbers of the people on the team ask for it. Employers are unaffected by teamspeak from employees. In my opinion, employees and employers are not a team and teamspeak should be replaced with plain speak: "I employ you because it makes me money and I'll stop when that is no longer the case or I find someone better" --- "I work for you because you pay me and I'll stop when that is no longer the case or I find someone who pays me more". This sounds harsher but is an adult way of doing business that doesn't deceive or manipulate.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
I believe that a cop that kills someone should face an official tribunal to determine if the killing was justified CMV + + In light of an ever increasing number of police officers shooting civilians (both innocent and guilty), there should be some form of oversight and official judgment passed on police officers that kill someone in the line of duty. No matter what the circumstances of the incident, I think that the officer should face some sort of official tribunal, with a jury composed of fellow police officers and normal citizens. The jury can either "acquit" the officer (by finding the killing justified), or find him/her guilty (if the killing was preventable, unnecessary, or otherwise illegal), and that the punishment for a guilty officer should range from termination from the police department to an indictment to stand before a criminal court to face charges for the killing. Hopefully, this would make officers think twice before they fire their weapon in situations where it is not necessary, and prevent criminal activity by police officers abusing their position of power and killing innocent people. http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2010/07/when-police-shoot-unarmed-man-oscar-grant-verdict-Mehserle https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/licensed_to_kill_the_growing_phenomenon_of_police_shooting_unarmed_cit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Unarmed_people_shot_by_police http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/10/04/miriam_carey_capitol_police_was_the_use_of_deadly_force_justified_in_thursday.html (this is more of a thinker piece, as I don't know how to classify this shooting) http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/08/24/empire_state_building_shooting_reports_suggest_5_shot_1_dead_in_new_york_city_.html (the bystanders are the victims in this case, the suspect was clearly a danger to police) http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2005/12/shoot_to_kill.html	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Instrumental music is, all else being equal, a purer experience than sung music. + + My view is that the integrity of musical experience is compromised and rarely enhanced by the addition of linguistic content. I am of the belief that when one is trying to appreciate the notes, textures, spaces between the notes, and the rhythm, lyrics become intrusive and frustrate the careful, non-verbal attention given to the musical elements of a piece rather than the attention required to parse lyrical content. Of course, non-verbal vocalisation is welcome and can enhance a piece. Listen to Bobby Mcferrin with Chick Corea playing on "Armando's Rumba" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lw2t2_NcGoI I think this is because Mcferrin's vocalisations are as though an instrument; there is no semantic content to parse, and no semantic content to get in the way of finely directed attention. TL;DR: Semantic content, in the form of lyrics, hinders the close attention required to fully appreciate a piece of music beacuse you have to parse what's being said FIRST. Speech is such a basic element of our cognition that it interrupts or disrupts any task when heard.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Waffles are completely superior to pancakes + + Title says it all, Waffles > Pancakes. They are better on so many levels. - Texture - You want soft waffles? Done. You want em crispier? Done. You want crispy pancakes? How 'bout some "well, they're not actually burnt, just really brown" pancakes? Winner - waffles. - Practicality - Waffles are the perfect transportation mechanism for toppings. All of those little squares are perfect to grab and hold butter+syrup, fruit, nutella, whipped cream, or whatever delicious food you put on top. Pancakes? Good luck just smearing stuff around and having it fall off. Winner - waffles. - [Belgian Waffle Maker](http://i.imgur.com/tuk84QS.jpg) - 'Nuff said. - Built-in cutting lines - Waffles are like the graph paper of breakfast pastries. All those lines make sure your cuts are nice and even. Pancakes? Good luck having it not end up like [this](http://i.imgur.com/dfgDA2g.jpg). Q.E.D. Waffles > Pancake.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: ASSFAGGOTS is the most fitting acronym for the genre of video games that includes League of Legends and Dota2. + + ASSFAGGOTS: Aeon of Strife Styled Fortress Assault Game Going On Two Sides. Ignoring the obvious crudeness of the acronym, this is a succinct description of the genre available. The other suggested acronyms are far too vague and lack a history behind them to fit. MOBA: Multiplayer Online Battle Arena This acronym is simply too vague to describe the genre. Multiplayer Online Battle Arena could refer to almost any Online video game, from card games to an FPS. ARTS: Action Real Time Strategy Again, this is too vague. They've only added Action to the RTS genre, which doesn't explain the difference between them at all. An argument against mine might bring up the point that RPG: Role Playing Game is also a vague acronym that could technically fit any video game where you control something. My response to this point is that the acronym has a history behind it. The RPG genre can claim it's title because it chronologically came first. It came about from tabletop games such as Dungeons and Dragons, predating conventional videogames by quite a few years. The acronyms MOBA and ARTS lack this characteristic. It is only fitting that it retain the title.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
I do not believe Native Americans deserve any kind of special treatment under the law. CMV + + I do not understand why Native Americans are treated with so much respect and given so many dispensations that other American citizens are not given, like freedom from various laws and the right to build whatever they want on the reservations. I realize the reservations are hardly great places to live, but I do not see why the Native Americans should be given any land that they do not purchase. I think the main reason people are okay with it is all of the broken treaties that we have with various tribes. However, there are examples of treaties being broken all across the world throughout history without any compensation so I do not understand why the Native Americans are different. CMV	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: I believe that affirmative action is an unnecessary, racist towards Asians, and just a result of Blacks/Hispanics/guilty Whites in positions of power. Finally, it doesn't improve the black condition. + + While I know this is a popular topic, I feel that I have specific points in my argument that have not been addressed before. Full disclosure: I am an Asian living in a high income white town, [Glastonbury, CT](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glastonbury,_Connecticut) In addition, as a high performing student, I am directly affected by Affirmative Action. In my defense, I would point out that a black/hispanic on the other side would be just as affected. With this argument, everyone has a bias and an agenda. First the facts: [SAT Scores](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action_in_the_United_States#Bias_against_Asians_and_whites) (Note: while this is in the criticism sections, please only look at the data and not the editorial comments, as to get a non-biased outlook) [Black graduation](http://www.jbhe.com/features/50_blackstudent_gradrates.html) (Note: as this is called the "Black Journal of Higher Education", I trust that no one will call me out on using a source that favors my case) 1. Let's address my last claim first: It doesn't improve the "black condition" and is unnecessary for the vast majority of blacks/hispanics -This idea is supposed to "level the playing field" with all races. All this actually does is passes deserving and intelligent Whites and Asians over for less intelligent and undeserving people in an environment they can't succeed in. For example, [black graduation rates are much lower than white graduation rates.] (http://www.jbhe.com/features/50_blackstudent_gradrates.html) The difference reaches up to +20 points, which is clearly not equality. This disparity is due to affirmative action putting incompetent and undeserving Blacks and Hispanics in college. However, I must make an important clarification. I believe that the vast majority of blacks can succeed in college, and have done so. Affirmative action is not necessary for these kinds of people. The only people affirmative action helps are those who wouldn't be able to get into college otherwise, and by getting them into college, they will only have false expectations and ultimately perform poorly when they realize that college grading is color blind. This is the idea of [mismatching](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action#Mismatching) and has been backed up by research. 2. Affirmative action unfairly favors blacks/hispanics over Asians, and thus is racist towards Asians. -Ok, you make the argument that this favoritism towards blacks/hispanics is simply reparations for past transgressions, Jim Crow and the low. Well, Asians have been heavily discriminated against in the past. Jap interment, railroad building, and racial slurs and stereotypes have all been a part of Asian-American history. In fact, I'd argue that hispanics have been least discriminated in US history. [wiki page](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_the_United_States#Asian_Americans) From this, if you believe that AA is "payback" for past actions, defend the favoring of blacks over Asian Americans. 3. Affirmative action is a result of blacks/hispanics that just want to favor their own race. Note: I must admit, for this I have no direct proof, only my anecdotal experience and statements made by others. -Blacks/Hispanics have more political power in this country than Asians, in both positions of government and constituents in voting. Therefore, I believe AA is simply a way to get the black vote/blacks helping out each other. Obviously, being against this political suicide and will get the racist tag labeled in a second. Clarence Thomas, as he is unaffected by these factors as he is appointed and he is black (this is a big factor, a white Justice would get labeled racist), is able to speak out and say that affirmative action is indeed racist, not only towards other races, but blacks themselves. [Source](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas#Equal_protection_and_affirmative_action) This is my case. While I do admit I believe very strongly in my position, I would point out that I have remained civil in my point, provided sources, and made full disclosure in my situation and any opinions not directly proven by facts. Most importantly, I recognize that I am heavily influenced by this topic, and thus may be blinded. I hope we can have a civil discourse.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: I think it's wrong for people to make a living off of YouTube + + Now I'd like to start by saying I hold no resentment or jealousy toward any particular YouTuber simply for the money they make; in fact there are a lot of YouTubers that I enjoy watching in my free time and would like to continue watching. I also understand that doing YouTube is still entertainment, and is no different than going to the movies or watching a comedian and I feel that many should get compensated for their work. But, I don't think people should make enough to live off of YouTube, the reason being is because money corrupts. I recently discovered an interesting Youtuber (who I won't name). His content is somewhat interesting and he seems like a genuinely nice and down-to-earth person. He only has about 800 subs the last time I checked but he's already opened up a merch store and has a nickname for his fanbase. A while back his recording equipment broke so he opened up a paypal donation thing and made a video to try to get people to donate. Not to mention the kickstarter he launched earlier and the many times he's mentioned wanting to make a living off of YouTube. It's apparent that this person is very focused on making profits off his videos. This person is just one example of what I assume are countless others who are like this, though I am also aware there exists YouTubers that don't put much thought into money. I truly believe that you need a degree of knowledge, charm, and responsibility to succeed in YouTube, and as such requires effort and "talent" to do unlike what many say. But, it is undeniable that a large portion of YouTubers don't put the same amount of effort in their videos than what they're worth. This encourages people to start YouTube because they think they can make easy money off of it, not because they truly enjoy it. This just spells disaster since if you're reason for doing something is for money and not for enjoyment, it will eventually get boring. And if you've already set your livelihood for YouTube, it's unlikely that you can quit or at least miss the dough you used to make. These are just a few examples I could think on the top off my head. I might post more in the comments if any comes to mind.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: I can't wait to upload my mind + + I believe that our mind (consciousness, memories, personality and whatnot) emerges from the physical structure of our body, particularly the nervous system. Creating an identical replica of the latter should be enough to recreate ourselves. I also believe that in some time our technology will be able to create replicas of people in a computer, thus uploading the mind of existing persons to some digital media, allowing human beings to turn into virtual being (singularities, basically). Assuming that actually is feasible, I really can't wait for it to happen. Getting rid of our mortal bodies and becoming pure data has no drawbacks: we'd defeat the laws of physics (including pain and death), we'd be able to easily control our bodies and our minds as much as we want (regulating pleasure, happiness, becoming smarter, erasing memories and whatever), we'd even be able to choose to die if we wish so, or to move ourselves to different media, including back to a biological human body. Of course it might happen that this technology gets misused by somebody who detains power, or something else goes wrong, but let's pretend it won't happen: I'm more interested in the moral, ethical and philosophical issues rather than in practical ones. Most of my acquaintances seem to dislike a lot the idea of uploading themselves, but IMO they're some kinds of bigots who can't let go of some values that have no real meaning outside of their culture: values such as the uniqueness and the history of material things. Please change my mind! (No pun intended.) *** If you guys care about practical issues, we should create a new post about it (probably /r/futurology is a better place for that). Here I'd like to assume that all the issues that might arise will be overcome, and everything will be technically perfect.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: College sports are over-idolized in American society + + The focus that a lot of colleges have on sports is detrimental to their status as an educational institution. Colleges spend way too much money on sports versus on improving the education they offer and the benefits given to non-athlete students. The highest paid employees are sports coaches at many colleges and this is a shame, because college should be about education instead of sports. In Penn State a dedication to their sports team resulted in the molestation of tons of children, I don't believe this would have happened if a non-football related employee were molesting children. Accepting students who would not match the academic requirements for that school because of success in athletics can potentially devalue the learning experience of those who got there through academics, and the huge amount of full ride scholarships that athletes are given reduces the amount of scholarships that could potentially pay for hard-working academically inclined students.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: I am completely screwed and depressed for college as my only choices are to continue my (discouraged) current major, switch into something else (penalized by time, money, opportunity costs), or drop out all together. I believe dropping out is the best approach. + + Male 21, took the spring and summer semesters off working a minimum wage job (now at $8.50). 3.6 GPA (3.0 major gpa). A question I keep asking myself over and over: should I continue my major I have no interest in learning (electrical engineering) or switch to something more enjoyable (business, finance, accounting, or economics) but risk having to pay 3x the tuition amount (out-of-state) due to Texas's credit-hour limit? Or perhaps instead test the job market a little more to find something I can build a good set of skills through hands-on experience? * I have been a Texas resident all my life. I currently receive in-state tuition. However if I switch or go over the credit limit of 30 hours (which includes all repeated courses as well as any credit earned in a Texas public college or community college) I will have to pay out-of-state tuition. I am at 12 extra credit hours already. * I have already done 2.5 years of college but still have 2.5 years remaining on my current degree plan. I just dread studying the topic but cannot cope with the additional financial burden and guilt if the school decides to charge me out-of-state tuition. * The only reason I did this major was because my dad offered to pay for my college education and thought it was a right fit. But I don't believe I have an engineer's mind. College has been the worst experience of my life so far. * I rather drop out of college than fail understanding a major I have never enjoyed. Also if I study something I dislike, it will limit my networking abilities. I cannot relate to the topic at hand. It isn't interesting. I am not a computer/coding/hardware guy. I find reading the material extremely dull, tedious, and stressful. Most of my professors don't seem to care and teach in a draconian manner. I know I'm not interested in EE at all. But I have very limited options left and when I'm out of school I tend to sit around and never move forward. To me my only choices aren't really choices at all. I feel helpless. I rather drop out than pay even more money to a hopeless cause (trying to avoid the cost sunk fallacy).	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: When trying to understand behavior, it's always preferable to look for an explanation other than 'laziness' + + I don't think that there's such a thing as laziness, on its own -- I think the word can be used to describe behaviors, but those behaviors always have more complex underlying mechanics (examples below) and it's always more useful to approach the behaviors from the perspectives of those mechanics than from the perspective of laziness -- unless your only goal is to be hostile to the person whose behavior you're describing. Laziness can be: * Depression -- sometimes people are just psychologically/emotionally incapable of motivating themselves to do a thing that they want to do. * Fear of failure. * Bad faith -- sometimes people don't want to do a thing because it conflicts with their goals, but aren't being honest with what their goals are. * Indecision -- like bad faith, sometimes people have multiple conflicting goals and avoid taking action that would definitively establish a choice. * Hostility -- sometimes people don't do things that would benefit them because they would also benefit someone else, from whom they want to withhold that benefit. There are more, those were just some examples. The word 'laziness' could defensibly be used to describe any of those rationales. My point is that, unless your only goal is to hurt the feelings of the subject, or disparage and discredit them, choosing to use the word laziness to describe the subject or their choices is counter-productive.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Abortion Is Far More Than Just Religion VS Science + + People act like Abortion is some sort of a war between religion and science, but honestly, there's so much more to it. The bible never mentions abortion, as it was not possible at the time. Any church claiming abortion is sin is merely a matter of interpretation. A fetus is interpreted as life, therefore intentionally killing it is interpreted as killing, thus a sin. As a result of Christianity determining it to be a sin, it does in fact cause people to be pro-life, simply because they fear what religious consequence may occur(heaven/hell). Thus, religions have taken an interpretive stance on a moral issue, and preached it as religious issue. The end result is that interpretation by religious leaders resulted in religions acclimating to this belief as a whole, thus developing the association between religion and the concept of abortion. At the same time, people treat abortion like a scientific feat. We discovered how to 'safely' terminate an unintended pregnancy. There is so much more reason to oppose it than religious purposes, however. Simply because a seemingly useful technology becomes available does not immediately confirm that it is morally acceptable, unless that's what your relative view of morality leads you to believe. Weaponry such as guns and explosives are products of science and research, but violence isn't seen as moral. Violence is only determined as moral when it is interpreted as a "necessary evil", such as putting an end to a greater evil. When people argue about abortion, it comes down to one thing; do we interpret a fetus as life? Scientists will say no, because it doesn't fit an arbitrary definition. A fetus is dependent on the Woman's body, thus it isn't "life". But should we really base our decision off of an arbitrary definition established for the sake of classification? A 1 day old child cannot survive on its own. If a women abandoned a baby to die by not feeding it, she would be seen as a murderer, a terrible person, deserving life in prison or even the death penalty. Yet a woman receiving an abortion is praised by many for utilizing her rights to her body. This is a clear result of human empathy and emotion. Morality is defined by the emotional and empathetic response we develop to particular actions. When we see faces, we develop a sense of connection or value in human life. Empathy is likely an evolutionary trait. If people feel connected and value each other, they're more likely to help each other, thus stay alive and grow as a population. When a woman gets an abortion, there isn't as much to trigger an empathetic response. When we see a clump of cells, or an underdeveloped fetus, our minds do not think much of it. We do not develop the emotional connection that leads us to value this form of life. It is not the same life as a woman, however. It is an entirely different product of combined DNA/chromosomes of the male and female, supported by a Woman's body. Thus, saying it is the "woman's body" isn't necessarily true, if you're also referring to the fetus itself. We see a fetus as incomplete. Some forms of abortion can be extremely painful for the fetus. Do we define it as immoral once either emotion or physical senses are developed? Or is intentionally sabotaging an established product of DNA and chromosomes immoral? I believe abortion is an issue of morality, and this morality results entirely from empathetic and emotional stimulation. In the end, I think beliefs on abortion are relative. How evil is it, if at all? At what level of development is it immoral? In cases of rape, an abortion can help a victim not have to deal with raising a child alone. In cases of severe birth defects(such as resulting from incest), it can prevent someone that would struggle to come to life. Is it worth it to let them live? You don't know if the person coming to life would want to live in that state, that cannot be answered until they're grown and developed. While an empathetic response, it can still be interpreted as a necessary evil in some cases I'm not taking a side for or against abortion, so don't try to sway me either way with common arguments-I've looked into both sides extensively. Try to discredit my argument with additional information such as elements of psycology I may be unaware of, or things about fetus development I may be unaware of. I'm not a biologist, so I'm sure there's much for me to learn.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: a lot of people around here seem to be hating on /r/NoFap, but I think it's a good way to get rid of a destructive addiction. + + A pornography addiction, like any other addiction, can take away from your personal life and friendships, not to mention destroy your ability to 'get it up', and can create huge insecurity problems for your SO. /r/NoFap is like an online AA for pornography, and a great way of combatting this addiction. Almost all of the arguments I have seen against it have been personal attacks on the people, calling them things like 'deranged' and 'delusional,' or calling the subreddit things like 'cult-like,' but I have yet to see an actual good argument against the subreddit's values and what it achieves.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: As far as I'm concerned, the QB GOAT question was answered last night. Tom Brady is the undisputed GOAT. + + Before last year, the Peyton Manning vs Tom Brady debates both had plenty of valid points. But now that Peyton went to the SB and lost, while Brady went to the SB and won the game and the MVP, there is no question. Brady has a career completion rate of 63.5. Over 250 passing yards a game. A TD:Int ratio of about 2.75:1. A passer rating over 95.0. The guy has 4 super bowls stretched across a period of over a decade (so it wasn't the team carrying him). He had THREE super bowl MVPs. No one even comes close anymore. The guy is clearly head and shoulders above every other QB that has played.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Driving a car is insanely risky and probably the most dangerous thing you do in your everyday life. + + I find it difficult to understand how so many people enjoy driving a car or can even relax while doing it. I am almost continually tense while on the road thinking about what's at stake (and I've been driving for almost 20 years). While I have never been in an accident, I often find myself thinking how dangerous even small motions of a driver can be. For example, a sudden small jerking movement of an arm on the steering wheel leading the car into oncoming traffic can lead to almost certain instant death. I cannot think of any other action in my daily life where so many small actions (of me or other people) can be lethal. Even leaving accidents and catastrophic scenarios out of consideration, driving a car seems extremely risky to me: For many, maybe most people their car is the most expensive single item that they own. Even small mistakes like a lack of concentration or a tiny miscalculation while parking into a small space, can lead to high damage and expensive repairs.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Capitalism and Consumerism have created a culture of choice that causes people to think in terms of the individual instead of the community, when in fact cooperation with the community is vital to the success of humankind. + + Capitalism and consumerism is all about an individual's choice. We have the choice of what deodorant brand to wear, the choice of what job to have, the choice of how to be educated, the choice to invest or move or succeed or fail. These structures of society have shaped the thinking of members of society to focus on the individual rather than the community. Our successes and failures are viewed as the product of our individual efforts alone. However, success of humankind is dependent on community cooperation. Defense against outsiders (and also the invasion of others) requires group cooperation. Large projects like creating a transportation system requires group cooperation. Disaster recovery, environmental protection efforts, political lobbying, boycotting or rallying.... in order to enact change in society people must work together. Rarely does one single individual create change for an entire society; rather, members of the society must cooperate and act together to create change, defend themselves, progress their society and/or develop new infrastructure, etc. Yet because of capitalism and consumerism, modern U.S. society views things in terms of the individual. If I want environmental change, then I should vote for a candidate who cares and I should drive a hybrid car and I should stop buying single use plastics... and that's it. That's all I can do... and that doesn't do shit. We have to have millions of Americans all doing the same thing at the same time (like all of us boycotting single use plastics at the same time) in order for change to happen. But our society doesn't encourage us to think like that.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
Objecting to abortion rights in all cases makes sense. Exceptions for rape and incest don't. CMV. + + Since this is a post about abortion, I want to start by saying that I am entirely in support of legal, healthcare covered abortions under the current limits of 24 or 20 weeks (in the US). My view comes from my evaluation of arguments that often come from the other side of the debate about abortion. There seem to be two main types of positions people against legal abortion argue: 1) Abortion is wrong in all cases. 2) Abortion is wrong in all cases except rape (and often incest). My confusion comes from this: Much of the rhetoric and arguments against abortion concerns whether or not a fetus is has rights as a person or is considered a human life. If someone believes that a fetus IS afforded the rights of personhood and/or is a human life, then why does it matter what series of events caused them into being? Are the rights of personhood no longer afforded to them because they were not created consensually? Why? IF consent is the crux of the belief, how is the abortion argument not about there being consequences for sex? Furthermore - what is the imagined world where abortion would only be legal in cases of rape? (forgetting about the common incest exception for the moment) What burden of proof is on the person to show they were raped before they are given access to an abortion? How do we deal with the fact that rape is hard to prove, vastly underreported, and consent has different meanings to different people (the concept of enthusiastic consent, for instance). When people disagree with abortion except in cases of rape, I really have a hard time understanding what mechanisms they would actually put in place to support that view, or how it can possibly be compatible with the view that a (non-viable) fetus is a person and therefore afforded the same rights. 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 we exist only in a computer simulation created by another more technologically advanced sentient race. CMV + + Until the next paradigm shift in computer power takes place (i.e. carbon nanotubes, etc.) Moore’s Law will continue to innovate and eventually blur the lines between video graphics and reality. Within the next 200 years homo Sapiens will be able to generate a simulated reality indistinguishable from what we live in today. With the laws of physics based on mathematics and computers powerful enough to generate and maintain those laws. Eventually (within the next 200 years) humans will find a theory to unify the general theory of relativity and quantum mechanics. Integrated with computer code powerful we will have the tools to build a Universe with universal constant laws. If homo Sapiens will be able to generate a simulated Universe within the next 200 years then other sentient races have done so already. The probability of homo Sapiens beings the only sentient beings to exist at this very moment in 'time' is next to impossible. Firstly, if you take the approximate age of the known Universe 13.8 billion years and the age of our galaxy (Milky Way13.2b), and solar system age (Sun ~4.6b and Earth ~4.54b). Given the fact that the transition between unicellular organisms and multicellular took ~3.2 billion years to achieve on Earth. And given an additional ~500million years to present day until homo Sapiens came along (~200kya). With that being said, life could’ve evolved at a much faster pace on other older galaxies and older solar systems. This means other Earth-like planets harboring technologically advanced sentient species have already achieved greater technological advancements then us. And have already begun simulating Universe. Like the one we live in today. Please CMV.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
cmv abortion is wrong because the moment a fetus "becomes" a "person" isn't ascertainable and prevention of his/er/its later life is akin to murder. + + I believe a woman has a right to deny use of her body to anyone, but what I'm struggling with is whether she has the right to kill her (literal) child to cut off that usage. If the fetus couldn't care for his/herself anyway this removal wouldn't change the death, just its cause, but the exact moment where he/she becomes "viable" is nigh impossible to pinpoint.Thus when an abortion is permissible (if ever) becomes muddied. That all aside, It might be wrong to kill something/one that will be a person (if he/she's not one already). Isn't preventing development of a human inside the womb the same as murdering someone outside (i.e. the continuation of his/er life)?	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV:I think it is better to cull those infected than risk the greater spread of ebola. + + I have only been hearing bad things about the situation, and more so I cannot see there being many survivors. I think euthanasia may be a more humane alternative than to to create further suffering, and more so, stop the spread. It seems that our current system of addressing the issue is falling short, and more so that the cost of curing every patient is more than any one organization is willing to pay. Possible points of contention I have include the fact that apparently there are other incidents of ebola that are occurring independently of the current outbreaks, and there is the obvious human rights one. These being said, I cannot honestly say the risk is not worth the reward. As the saying goes, the lives of the many... Please give me reason to think otherwise. I think damning any group of people for any reason is morally wrong, but I feel like quarantine isn't working.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
Indoor live music gigs are far too loud, and should be quieter. CMV. + + Why do sound technicians ruin so many indoor gigs by turning the whole volume up (especially the bass) so loud that the entire thing becomes distorted and mushy? I love loud music as much as the next person, but the volume level of music at gigs is absurd. I saw Less Than Jake at a very small venue (with a capacity of about 500 people at most) and the sound levels were absurdly high - the whole thing became a disorienting blur of sound. Recently I brought ear plugs when I went to see The Bronx, and the experience was incredible - I could actually hear the songs in a clarity that was comfortable and enjoyable. It seems to me that seasoned gig goers and sound-techs alike simply don't mind how loud live music is because their ear-drums have been significantly dulled from years of going to loud gigs (effectively removing the need for ear plugs). For those of us with hearing mostly intact, I think gigs are absurdly loud, and sound-techs could reduce the volume by up to 50% in many cases for a much more pleasurable listening experience - still loud, but not so loud that the vocals and rhythm all fuse into what can be, effectively, white noise. In any case the bass needs to come down. When the bass is so loud that you feel your clothes rippling: something is wrong. And yes, I blame the sound-techs and not the band. Being in a band myself, I know that it's very hard to tell what you sound like from the audience when on-stage, even with monitors. So I think that gigs should be quieter. This would not only be more enjoyable, but spare many people the hearing loss later in life that live music can cause. I don't think it should be acceptable to have a gig so loud that you hear a ringing in your ears the next day. Change my view. -------------- P.S. - I go to gigs in London. Maybe this isn't such an issue elsewhere in the world. P.P.S. - As you may have noticed in the title, I'm only referring to indoor gigs. Outdoor gigs still tend to have sound issues of their own, but their volume is generally at a much more comfortable level due to the sound having room to disperse rather than bouncing off walls in an indoor environment. P.P.P.S. - I'm referring specifically to 'guitar oriented' live music. The issues in quality of sound are rarely - in my experience - present during a classical orchestra concert, or a jazz/swing band gig.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: PC is the master race of gaming. + + There surely has to be a reason to ditch my old PC because of all the Console craze.... So why should I switch? PC is able to achieve 1080p, 60 fps (or more, if you wish.) with YOUR own choice of hardware parts. PCs are not made by a single company, so those companies can't restrict games they don't want you to play. You can have steam, origin, gog.com, and uplay ^^^^^...ugh games. PC games can be streamed to an NVidia shield with little or no lag. PC can be hooked up to a TV, and can be used with a controller. Then you can open big picture and browse the Web, open all of your steam games, (surprise, no disc!) and play them. Plus many more. But yes, please, CMV.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?