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 believe successful diets work due to calorie restriction, not fancy metabolic 'reasoning', e.g. Keto - Ketosis; CMV. + + Same with paleo really; I simply think that the shift in these diets makes people feel fuller, and less likely (e.g. keto) to eat high calorie snacks and drinks. I don't believe there is any great scientific reasoning like they say, or even if a slight such reasoning exists, it is of extremely minor significance (a few cals here or there).	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 literature (and Bible, but that's just my country) should not be taught in high-school. It's a useless subject for a large majority and a completely uninteresting subject for most kids. + + Here in Israel, we are taught "tanach" (Hebrew for Bible, which is obviously the first testament) and literature (short stories, songs, poems, novels, etc.) in highschool. They are part of a few required subjects along with English, math, history and Hebrew. I don't think literature and Bible should be in the same group of required subjects and I think they should be completely optional altogether. It's obvious as to why English, Hebrew (the countries main language) history and math are objectively important. Math is a subject used daily. Kids will always use the "I don't need this in life" argument but I disagree with that when it comes to these 4 subjects. Math is insanely useful and even the super long equations are, because they develop your thinking and your thought process and all that stuff. It's got obvious benefits, aside from the fact that with 5 "units" of math, the highest you can do here in high-school, you can get pretty much anywhere. English is another obvious one, it's the language of the world. You can't leave the country without English. Everyone on earth should have some basic English speaking ability. Hebrew is even more obvious, I won't even go into that one. Finally, history. History is deserving of being a require subject, IMO, because it's literally just a bunch of facts that lead to where we are today. It's simply the shit that happened before I was here. It's important. It comes up in every day conversations all the time. It's important that we all never stop leaving history so that it doesn't repeat. History, put simply is the things that happened. You can't get any more important than that, in terms of what should be taught IMO. And then there's literature and Bible. Two subjects made up of pure fictional nonsense. I mean, I guess it depends on your beliefs when it comes to Bible but I think 95% of people, even in Israel, can agree that seas splitting and bushes burning never actually happened. and even if most people do think it happened, its because of bible being taught in public highschool. we know that seas cannot be split, this is fact, so why is it being taught as fact that they can be split? thats as bad as telling kids that climate change isn't happening. its a flat out lie. this should not turn into a religion debate but regardless of how you feel about god, a sea does not split (i hope you see that sea splitting is just my example of weird ass bible shit that makes no sense), seas splitting is false. it is taught as fact. something must change. its 2015, why are we teaching kids things that we know are not true? It's literally just a large novel, The Bible. Analyzing it for years and years would be the same as taking a class on the Harry Potter series. You're analyzing nonsense. Yeah, you might know that nonsense very well, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still nonsense. It's crap, it's nothing. It's irrelevant to anything in the year 2015 and it should not be something anyone wastes any time with. Literature, to me, is quite frankly the same thing. Nonsense. Fiction. Nothing. There are morals to the stories, I guess, but other than that it's really quite stupid. I compare it to history, which is literally the events that took place on the ground under my feet before I was there. And literature is just silly poems with a "fake deepness" to them, or silly fictional stories about nothing. And the amount of assumptions being made is astounding. I'm sure you've heard this before but blue curtains are sometimes just that, blue curtains. You cannot keep assuming the writer meant something that you aren't sure they meant, just to fit your narrative or your understanding of this cluster of words you call a poem. And that's the next part, if anyone can interpret a poem however they please, then what's the fucking point? What's being taught? Nothing. Nonsense. Some people like literature and Bible, and that's why it should be opt-in. If you like it, go study it. But for most people who don't, it shouldn't be required. CHANGE MY VIEW!	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Both homosexuality and polyamory should be legalized and accepted by society + + As long as an action doesn't cause harm to anyone else (including society as a whole) or infringe upon someone else's rights, then it is not immoral. Furthermore, a moral action increases happiness and improves the lives of others. For this reason, homosexuality and polygamy should be accepted by society. Furthermore, even if something can be proven immoral, it still shouldn't be a basis for being made illegal (think lying). Thus, gay marriage and polygamy shouldn't be illegal in countries like the United States, that support individual freedom.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: I think that the 2 party system in the United States has been largely beneficial to its growth and sustained success. Change my View + + A lot of my general thinking on this topic started with [this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo). The creator makes a great point about the flaw in the voting system, but at one point he makes the point that neutral voters who change their mind from election to election determine who wins. To begin, I do think that the voting system is flawed, but in many ways what it has led to is two very centrist parties who only really differ in ideology. While this does not make for great conversation on capitol hill, it certainly does effect what really happens when bills are written. The best example that I can think of this happening would be with the bailouts/stimulus packages. Both republicans and democrats wanted to help their constituents, so they were both forced to compromise. Republicans may have not loved the idea of a stimulus, but they were willing to do it, because it helped them to get the bailout for banks/auto companies. While it is debatable how successful these things have been, it shows how having two relatively centrist parties willing to compromise has been good for America.	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 space exploration is an unjustifiable waste of resources that owes its support to childish science fiction fantasies. CMV + + The reddit hivemind loves space, and NASA, and giving NASA money. I strongly disagree. It doesn't seem to me like space exploration or travel is remotely realistic or practical or that there is anything out there that can justify the cost. R+D is great, and insofar as NASA promotes it that is a fine thing, but can't we achieve that same thing more efficiently by changing NASA into a dedicated R+D program and cutting out these space projects that seem to exist only as PR? Our own solar system is so large that it seems impossible to get outside it without altering human biology in fundamental ways and I'm not aware of anything inside of our solar system valuable enough to be worth getting people or machines to. Asteroid mining seems a laughable idea, since mining is an engineering problem and won't it always be easier to solve that engineering problem in earth's most inaccessible locations than in outer space. Some people have a sentimental attachment to space programs, but I don't see that this should matter, since there are many things groups of people have sentiments about that we recognize as bad policy choices. Is it simply the case that nerds are willing to apply a different criteria when considering things they like (NASA) compared to things they don't like such as farm subsidies?	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
I think claiming "victim blaming" in a rape case is a copout. CMV. + + I'm not suggesting that rape victims are ever totally at fault, but if a girl gets wasted at a party in a skimpy outfit and hasn't/isn't making any effort to protect herself, a small percentage of the blame can be placed on her for being irresponsible. If a guy were to run around Detroit screaming "I hate niggers" and got killed because of it, would saying "he bears some of the responsibility" be considered victim blaming? If someone goes into saudi arabia and starts burning the Qur'an and is murdered because of it, would asking "what the fuck was he thinking?" be considered victim blaming? Guys should stop raping women, yes. We should teach our children not to rape, yes. But the same can be said about murder. Am I crazy? I'm honestly afraid to express this view in real life because people seem so quick to judge, when all I want is to have a discussion about it.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
I enjoy the Metal genre far better than Techno in every way. CMV, anyone? + + I can't stand techno because of a few reasons and my friend thinks that I should start listening to it. However, some of those reasons are * All electronic/techno music sounds the exact same to me * It's loud noises that bother my ears * I enjoy guitar and drums far more than wubs and other techno sounds * I feel like metal takes more talent to produce I will say, I like Daft Punk's newest album, but I'd much rather listen to Black Sabbath or Deep Purple Also, the only time I actually listen to techno is when I'm carpooling to college and my friend is the one that's driving. (which is every day) And even though I've been listening to nothing but techno on the way to school and back every day of the week for about 4-5 hours, I still cannot stand the noise that it produces. So I come here, to r/changemyview, to see if there's something someone can say or do that can help me enjoy techno a bit more. Thank you	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV:Eating animals is morally wrong. + + First of all, I eat meat. In fact, I eat more meat than most of my friends. I have some friends that are vegetarian and vegan and I admire them for it, but I don't think I could ever do it because 1) I just love the taste of meat too much and 2) I'm already fairly underweight and I worry that I would become dangerously so if I tried to cut out my main source of protein. However, I still believe that eating meat is morally wrong. Because people in wealthy countries have the ability to substitute vegan foods for meat without significant health consequences, there is no logical reason to continue to eat dead animals. If killing something can be avoided, it should be. Just because other animals don't have the same intelligence as humans does not mean that it is morally permissible to kill them. And to people who would ask me if I think animals eating other animals is morally wrong, I think that the fact that we are aware of other options for food and have the ability to switch to them makes us unique and more responsible for our food choices than them. Having said that, I'd love for someone to change my view so that I don't have to feel like I'm betraying my morals every time I eat meat.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Free Choices are an Illusion + + I don't believe that it is possible to make a decision that is not dictated by how you have been shaped by your experiences up to the "decision" that you are about to make. Everything that we do as humans is a result of our past. In short I don't believe in free will, but I don't know how this belief dictates my feelings towards society at large. What else could affect decision making? Is there any possible way for a person to make a detached choice? I don't believe so. Please CMV. I would like to avoid arguments from religion since that is a whole different can of worms.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Westerners have no right to be angry at poachers who kill endangered animals + + Every so often a story will be on /r/worldnews about a poacher who killed an elephant or something and act as if they are the devil. Poachers in third world country's likely do it because they have no other option to make money, and compared to other illegal activities, like human trafficking, it seems a lot less severe in terms of immorality. The majority of westerners also eat factory farmed meat which kills far more animals than poachers ever will. Instead of just being angry and poachers and sending them to prison, we should focus on giving them a more stable economy where they can have an alternative, legal career.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Accommodations offered on the basis of Religion discriminate against atheists. + + Tax treatment, in flight meals, seating preferences, alternate testing dates, and special consideration of any kind that is offered in exchange for verification of religious observance is unfair to people without religion. Secular people who have preferences (arbitrary or not) which are not accommodated on a special request basis, where religious accommodations are made, are having their interests subordinated. Institutions are acting on the premise that religiously motivated predilections deserve more respect, concern, deference, and action than those derived from other reasons. From a secular point of view, respecting the beliefs, preferences, and interests of religious people may be fine so long as the same courtesy is offered for non-religious reasons to non-religious people. At least in American society, this is not the case. The reductio ad absurdum might be: In American (probably other liberal countries) society, it is in the best interest of atheists to fabricate a "religion" in order to give equal weight to their interests. So far interesting points are: 1. This is a result of economics not unjust preference. But, then special treatment should be allowed for in all situations where economically viable and not only scrutinized when spurred by non-religious reasons. 2. Society must scrutinize religious beliefs, actions, and preferences as well as secular ones and this should be done on an equal footing. 3. 501(c)(3)s are a mess	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: I don't think online should force you to make an over complicated password, and should just limit log-in attempts to prevent brute-forcing. + + Nobody likes having to memorize dozens of passwords, and people usually just end up saving their passwords to a document, or emailing it to themselves so they can remember it later, which defeats the purpose of trying to keep someone's account safe. Instead of forcing people to use a 16 character password with mandatory upper case, numbers, symbols etc, they should give the customer more freedom to use any password they want. Brute forcing is not an issue as long as you limit log in attempts to something reasonable that wouldn't affect the user (like 15). As long as you temporarily block log-in attempts from that certain IP after a number of incorrect guesses, any password over 6 characters would take an ungodly amount of time to crack. There's no added benefit to a longer and more complicated password requirement that is worth the hassle to the user and cannot also be achieved with limited log-in attempts.	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 almost all rape convictions are unjust. CMV. + + According to our legal system, a person ought only be convicted if it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty. I also believe this is a requirement for a just conviction. I believe that in almost all rape cases, it is impossible to reach this standard of proof. What evidence could possibly prove that someone was raped? You have the victim's testimony, but the fact that a person claims something happened doesn't prove it's true. I know that rape kits exist, and that they can be used to test the DNA of hair and semen and connect them to a particular person. The person doing the inspecting might also find bruising. But, these things are not proof of rape. If a person has rough, consensual sex with another, all of these things would still be found. So, whenever someone is convicted of rape, there will almost always be a reasonable doubt, since you can't prove whether the evidence was created by consensual sex or by rape. I would make an exception for cases where there is video evidence, or where there are multiple witnesses, but such cases are extraordinarily rare.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: extra thin or extra fat people don't have dibs on body image issues and mental health + + I am sorry if this is half CMV/half rant. I am female, 5'6", and currently 120 lbs. I have always stayed the same weight, give or take about 15 pounds. In my adult life, I have never fallen below 102 lbs or been heavier than 133 lbs. I have battled body-dysmorphia and anorexia my whole life. Obviously, my struggle doesn't match those who have it hard enough to land themselves in recovery centers or hospitals (and best of luck to them, I can only imagine how could it get worse), but it has been a dominating factor in my life. It is a daily struggle that sometimes isn't so prominent, and at other times it controls my every decision. I haven't been hospitalized, but I have been monitored by our family doctor at home during the worst times in my life. Right now, I've been really struggling with a re-emergence of this dominating force in my life, which is what brings this topic up now. In my attempts to seek out like-minded people who have the same struggle, I have been rebuffed mainly by very overweight people who say "I roll my eyes at people like you," "What do you have to complain about?", "I would love to be your weight," "You can't say that around me, it's triggering," "you may have body image issues, but you have less of a right to them since you're thin." My struggle is reduced to not offending people larger than me. I have explained to them that the size of your body doesn't necessarily match the size of the disorder, but am obviously rebuffed each time. Even those who have agreed with me that those of normal weight can have crippling mental disorders or dysmorphias say that "we shouldn't talk about weight around those larger than us." So, I guess my opinions are as follows: - just because you are larger or smaller than I am does not mean I have to censor myself about my body, weight, or struggles around you. - Just because I am of a normal weight does not mean my disorder doesn't exist. - Just because others are much larger or smaller than I am, does not mean I am automatically just a "pathetic whiner" if they hear me talking about how I am having an especially hard day dealing with my lot. - I shouldn't have to justify my disorder by prefacing it with "proof" like my doctor watching me and specific struggles in order to be heard. - My struggle should be heard with as much respect (and not negated as "not that bad, not even a struggle" by someone larger or smaller) as the struggle of someone who is more underweight or overweight than I am. - If you are overweight or underweight, you do not have a right to dominate/censor a conversation and say "you can't talk about weight if you're a normal size because it upsets me." ** I will say, though, if you have a mental disorder like this, I think it's perfectly fine in private conversation to say, "Please don't talk about that, I am uncomfortable with it." Just not in a group setting or public setting. In those cases, the "triggered" person should remove themselves from the conversation since the world doesn't revolve around those of us with mental disorders. I am really tired of being told my struggle is not a struggle. Apparently the only support I have is myself, but I am also my own worst enemy in this particular topic.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Transgendar and genderless people are sexist. + + I'll be using the term 'transgender,' in this, but I'm talking about all the different atypical gender identities. I'm as liberal as they come, and I don't care what people call themselves or do with their bodies, but I can't get my head around people who don't identify with their physical gender. I haven't knowingly met any of these people, so I've never been able to have it explained to me first hand. I would have said that the definition of a male is a person with male genitalia, and the definition of a female is a person with female genitalia, and it doesn't go further than that. No matter how you act, or how you look, your gender is just what you have in your pants. I could understand if they thought that society demanded you dressed and acted in a way that society deemed fits your gender. I'm not saying society isn't guilty of that, but obviously, anybody who accepts transgenders, also accepts people acting and dressing in a 'masculine' or 'feminine' way, regardless of their gender. Therefore, I don't think one can argue that they are doing it to fit into what society demands of them. It just seems to me that transgenders must have a sexist idea of what genders are. They must feel that being a man means you you like sports, women like fashion, etc. I am a man, and I would fit into the stereotypical idea of a man, than I would a woman. But I would have imagined that if I had all of the stereotypical characteristics of a woman, outside of the genitalia, I would be comfortable calling myself a man. I also would thought that a liberal person's defintion of gender would be similar to mine; only identifying gender be genitalia. But transgenders don't seem happy with this definition. I'm also open to the possibility that transgerism is caused by some sort of mental disorder that causes them to have anxieties about their gender. In this case, you can forgive sexism, when it's caused by a mental disorder. Mental disorders are usually irrational. I'm also open to the idea that some people are simply not happy with their genitalia, which is perfectly fine, but it always seems to be more than just genitalia.	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 this sub-reddit should get into the habit of using the acronym at the start of the post rather than the end. + + I feel like it would be much better all around. I don't know how many times in just the week I've been subed here that I've read the title of the post only to get to the CMV at the end and then have to re-read the title knowing that I should be forming arguments to the belief stated.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV George Zimmerman should be found Guilty. + + George Zimmerman should be found guilty. In the 911 call he was told to stand down & leave the kid alone. If he would've done what he was told & left the kid alone, Trayvon would still be alive today. He was in his father's neighborhood, minding his own business. If someone came after you with a gun, I'm suspecting that you would fight for your life too. I feel like I am missing something here because with what I know it seems like a basic case to have an answer to, but I have an open mind and I really want to see what other people think.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
I believe that knowledge and invention are intrinsically good. CMV + + Of course, knowledge and technology can be used for evil, but that is merely an obligation to do everything we can to understand it more to counter evil uses. Knowledge and invention in themselves are always good, regardless of application. This is on the scale of a civilization or the scientific community - I realize many people cannot handle some kinds of knowledge, or there are things that you, personally, may not want to know (like when you will die). Basically, I am looking for any exceptions to this rule. Is there any discovery or technology that will be evil in and of itself? Is it possible for the human race to simply know too much?	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
I feel that college-level classes should not count attendance as part of a student's overall grade. CMV + + I've never quite understood why attendance adds weight to grades. I feel that as long as you show up for quizzes and tests, you should be allowed to get a good grade. The truth of the matter is, some of my classes I don't need to attend to get a good grade in the class. The only thing is that those classes put attendance as about 20% of your total grade. One of my professors feels this way. He only asks that you come to quiz and test days and couldn't care less if you show up for class. It's your money, if you want to waste it by not showin up for class, that's up to you. CMV	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
I believe all forms of nationalism, patriotism and 'national pride' are inherently racist and so is anyone who believes in any of these things. CMV. + + What is nationalism? A pride in one's place of birth, right? A belief that a place is better merely because you were born there. Also, that you should share 'pride' in the achievements of those who just happen to be born in the same rough geographical landmass, like you somehow effected this. A belief that roughly drawn border of some sort, probably created for financial or power based reasons on behalf of a small number of individuals, is better than anyone else's area of birth. I believe that the current attitudes around the world that patriotism is a 'good' thing are seriously damaging. I also cannot see how on earth a person could be patriot without being racist in some form or another. I find it hard to believe that humanity will be able to go forward while any of these attitudes are still in place.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: I don't think that Zionists had the right to occupy already inhabited land just because the Roman empire unjustly destroyed the Kingdom of Israel 2,000 years ago. + + The British Empire won the land from the Ottoman Turks in WW1 and decided to give the land to the Jews and tasked the League of Nations to implement this. After WW2 the United Nations took up this task. However the land was already inhabited and existing houses were bulldozed because they did not possess "official" Israeli building permits. I do not believe that Zionists have the right to this land that was already occupied just because the Roman Empire destroyed the Kingdom of Israel 2,000 years ago. 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 do not believe on denying someone a job because that person is overqualified. CMV + + With raising unemployment around the world, I am constantly hearing about people who can't get jobs because they have too many qualifications to be in a certain function. This sounds crazy to me, because if the person who is applying has thought about his/her decision, they have thought about the possibility of doing something that is "beneath" his/her qualification level. It's a decision that should only be done by the person who is applying and not by the one who's recruiting. Example: a graduate student who wants to work in a supermarket to gain experience before working for a big company, to know what it's like to do the "ground" work. IMO, that person should be able to do so and should be thought of in the same way any other person should. If a person who has been a director at a company and now wants to mop the floors, they should be able to do so, if that is their choice (in fact, I believe the best directors are the ones who know what it's like to do the most basic things about their business). Change my view, Reddit RonJon18 has done it [here](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1l9awj/i_do_not_believe_on_denying_someone_a_job_because/cbx00ig) Thank you Reddit !	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Non-scientists have over-estimated our impact on global climate and under-estimated our ability to cope with minor changes in global temperature and sea levels + + I've read quite a bit recently on the causes and impact of global warming and am very interested to see reasons why 1) People think we caused (or impacted at all) the changes 2) Why people think these changes are catastrophic to our way of life I know one article isn't representative of everyone's opinions, but I have to start somewhere. Just reading [this article](http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/03/23/global-warming-is-now-slowing-down-the-circulation-of-the-oceans-with-potentially-dire-consequences/), it seems that there's a lot of "could have been caused by us" and "may have the potential to be worse and have great consequences" - just conjecture about how bad things are or could be and no facts to back up those fears. In the conclusion, the sentence makes huge assertions not supported by the evidence presented. Why are we more responsible than any other on Earth? Why can't we deal with a sea level rise? They've been doing it for hundreds of years in the Netherlands. I'm not denying climate change or any of it's potential effects, I'm just curious as to why people think it is caused by civilization or will end all civilization - which are claims always present by alarmists talking on the subject.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: As soon as we discover effective life extension technology, it is in the best interest of the majority it implement severe procreation restrictions -- perhaps more severe than the 1 child policy. + + ###Escape velocity Life extension "escape velocity" is when we figure out how to extend life 10 years, but in that 10 years we learn how to extend life 15 years, and then with in that 15 we learn how to extend it 25 years. And this continues until we've mastered age. The escape velocisty is when life extension outpace the rate at which one's body dies. And these will not be decrepit lives -- at least eventually -- not hook to life support, but vital and vibrant. I believe most people will want this (except some group of religious people, but they'll die and be replaced by those who likely do want this). ###Demand While this will initially this will only be available for the rich, it's practically an inflexible demand: use it or die. Inflexible demands make a hell of a lot of money, and also generate a lot of political activism. Short of a totalitarian government that can contain and deny its citizenry the life extension, it seems very likely it will be used broadly. Once the economy of scale helps kick in, millions won't die. Then maybe a billion. ###The ever-changing population replacement rate If 75% of the population has their life effectively extended, then we need a birth rate of .5 per woman. As life extension improves, the birthrate has to reduce in tandem. If these millions or billions keep having children, even at a the low rates japan has right now 1.41 births per woman, the world will quickly begin filling up. Yes, western society has a declining birthrate, and yes, reducing infant mortality and increasing female education is significantly lowering the birthrate in developing countries. But this looks to be insufficient, as a birthrate of 2 per woman goes from being the replacement rate, to growth. So far, no western society has even neared a birthrate of .5, so we have no examples of this being sufficient motivator to prevent overpopulation. ###Eventuality Don't waste your time trying to convince me that we're actually going to keep dieing -- whether we figure this out in 20 years as some predict, or in 250, all of this still applies. ##Conclusion: human rights will change In the future, it seems to me that the Right to Life and the "Right to Children" will be in direct conflict, and that it seems both practical and inevitable that the Right to Life will be valued more highly. Therefore, I believe that we must sacrifice the "Right to Children", and implement for the good of society severe reproduction restrictions as soon as it is evident that life extension technology is outpacing aging. CMV ###A few things I'm not advocating * The one child policy had a lot of nasty implementations. It was violent, and ugly, both due to the police and fathers and mothers murdering their own daughters in favor of a son. So when I say "severe" I do not mean "more violent", I mean "aiming for an even more restricted birth rate." * I'm not advocating a violent approach. We can have a whole lot of carrot instead of stick: paid-for sterilizations, for instance. Also, those who violate the law would not have their child murdered, but instead pay a hefty fine and lots of community service. * I am not advocating forced abortions. Everything should be focus on preventative measures and glorifying the "childfree" lifestyle. The consequences of violating the law should have the harm to the child minimized, and focus on community-benefiting punishments, like 20 years community service for the parent. * Unless you have a better idea, yes it does mean I think the shaky solution of a "child license" is the way to go. No I don't want any of the yahoo's in Washington deciding who can have kids, but even if "whoever finances my campaign the most" is the criteria, it's better than global suicide-by-reproduction.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
I think politicians should be legally required to do things that they promised to do before the election if they win. CMV + + In the UK each political party puts out a manifesto before the election stating what they would do in government. I think this should be made legally binding on the MPs, so they would have to, at some point before the next election, vote for the policies that they said they would support. They could put conditions on their promises (e.g. we will cut income tax as long as the economy is growing by at least 1%), and they would be free to say "we will consult experts about what to do and follow their advice" if they weren't sure how to vote, or they could just leave it out of their manifesto. Individual MPs could release their own manifestos saying how they would vote differently from their party (e.g. they could promise to vote against gay marriage if their party was for it). The punishment for not doing this could be a fine, or being barred from standing at the next election. If the whole party voted against something then only the leadership of the party would be punished, but if it was just a couple of MPs then they would be punished individually. An independent panel could be set up to rule in cases where it was uncertain, or where there was an unforeseeable problem that meant they couldn't vote for what they promised. I think this would force politicians to be more honest and help to increase trust in politics.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Supporters of the anti-vaccination movement meet the diagnostic criteria for psychiatric illness and should be treated accordingly + + The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is one of the most important resources for diagnosing mental disorders, and is utilised around the world by psychiatrists and psychologists alike. DSM 5 defines "delusional disorder" as a psychiatric illness, which is characterised by at least 1 month of delusions but no other psychotic symptoms. There are a number of other criteria though I am unsure if I can reproduce them here verbatim. In general, the other criteria include mostly unimpaired functioning, no obviously bizarre behaviour, no major manic or depressive episodes, no substance abuse, and no other identified mental disorder. The evidence for the efficacy of vaccinations is overwhelming and the benefits far outweigh the potential risks. Thus, a person who holds an anti-vaccination belief is delusional, and may be diagnosed as having delusional disorder. Because their anti-vaccination stance presents a risk to themselves (via contracting disease) or others (either via spreading disease, or preventing their children from being vaccinated), then this is grounds for involuntary admission and treatment in a psychiatric facility. CMV! 1. Delusional disorder: http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/292991-overview 2. Criteria for involuntary admission (VIC, Australia) http://www.health.vic.gov.au/mentalhealth/archive/pmc/amend_invol.htm Note that criteria for involuntary admission (scheduling) varies between states and countries but generally includes risk of harm to self, or to others. A. The presence of one (or more) delusions with a duration of 1 month or longer. B. Criterion A for schizophrenia has never been met (hallucinations, if present, are not prominent and are related to the delusional theme). C. Apart from the impact of the delusion(s) or its ramifications, functioning is not markedly impaired, and behavior is not obviously bizarre or odd. D. If manic or major depressive episodes have occurred, these have been brief relative to the duration of the delusional periods. E. The disturbance is not attributable to the physiological effects of a substance or another medical condition and is not better explained by another mental disorder, such as BDD or OCD. (as found here http://prezi.com/s2zykdjctcbl/delusional-disorder/)	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: I don't vote. + + Change my opinion here. I've never voted in an election. I think the electoral college system sucks balls. I think elections are won one of two ways: based on geographic party affiliation (i.e. local elections in red states are going to consistently choose the Republican and nothing will change it), or based on marketing (who runs better ads, who has better buzz words like "Change" and "Hope", who can come off as the better people-person). Neither of these reasons have dick to do with policy. Even the minority of voters who do evaluate the candidates policies are often misguided, as elected officials will say one thing prior to being elected, and then do another once elected. Finally, I think that the general public are idiots. I don't care about "my right to complain once my candidate loses", I haven't been old enough to be directly affected by politics, and I find myself somewhere in between political parties and find flaws and benefits to each candidate, so I don't really care who wins. I am glad we have a democracy. But I don't exercise my right to vote. Change my mind, wise Reddit.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: The American lifestyle is immoral, and unless as an individual Americans are looking to escape and change their lifestyle they are immoral. + + The current American lifestyle is immoral, and unless an individual Americans is looking to escape and change their lifestyle they are immoral. Internationally America constantly ignores the human rights of non American citizens, and has had a questionable influence in places like the middle east, overthrowing democracies that do not serve American interests. Without American support Israel would not be exterminating the people of Palestine. This is probably the weakest part of my argument however, as Americas foreign policy is really no worse than any other nations. Ultimately it is the potentially catastrophic environmental damage American citizens inflict on the world themselves, especially when we consider how their economy drives much of the pollution caused outside of the USA in the Middle East, Europe and China as well. Americans have on average the biggest environmental footprint of all people of the world. Most American people live incredibly unsustainable lives, driving everywhere, eating meat, flying regularly, throwing waste away needlessly without recycling and doing all this while sadly ignoring the poorest and most vulnerable in their own states, which provide a laughable welfare state that would have Europeans rioting in the street (I dread an American style health-care system in the UK replacing the NHS). This would be forgivable if American citizens seemed to be working to change this. However most Americans seem content with an incredibly corrupt political system awash with publicly recorded bribes in the form of lobbying (https://www.opensecrets.org/). Whenever challenged on their individual lifestyles they reel of a host of excuses “I can’t give up my car, it is very hard to get about without it”, “I can’t give up meat, I can’t afford it / it’ll make me unhealthy”, “I can’t do anything about the corruption in my local and national government, I don’t have time”. Most don't attempt to look at how they can work round these barriers, happy to have found a reason for inaction. If in the next hundred years civilisation collapses, history will blame the average American citizen who was unwilling to be an agent for change and wilfully ignorant of their impact and ability to do good in the world. If someone is living the ‘American Dream’ blindly consuming without consideration, passively participating in politics (if at all) and making no effort to move towards a better lifestyle they are living an immoral life by any measure. If you are not a materialist and believe in something more than this world, then you must value conscious life beyond yourself (maybe for good treatment in the afterlife, maybe because it makes logical senses, maybe because you somehow divine ‘gods’ will for you to do so) and cannot look at an individual living such a wilfully unsustainable life without condemning their behaviour unless the are genuinely working to change. If you are a materialist, unless you are an immature nihilist who refuses to imagine that life may have some meaning, even a fleeting one, then you must subscribe to either a utilitarian or principled idea of morality. From a utilitarian point of view, the average American citizens destruction of the ecosystem can only be considered immoral, and the individual living such a life unquestionably without working to change without a conscience. If you subscribe to a set of rationally derived moral principles such as Kant’s categorical imperative, then you cannot justify the behaviour of the average American (if we were to all live as Americans we would be without an ecosystem within a few years, and our children would surely perish). I'm rubbish at philosophy sorry If someone is living such a life, but trying to break these habits, change their diet, cycle more, recycle more, get rid of their politicians and joining campaign groups I think they are living a life that could be considered moral. It’s the people who think that history or other people will sort all these things out, they are wilfully ignorant in a world of knowledge, and their ignorance is already causing misery to many living beings, if not yet already millions it soon will be, and in our lifetime probably billions, unless the average American bloody well pulls themselves together. TL:DR Americans are killing the planet, and it's those who can only come up with excuses for their individual behaviour instead of implementing solutions are immoral. I’m not looking to debate climate change, your sceptical argument has been addressed here http://grist.org/series/skeptics/	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 Shakespeare is not as great as people claim. + + I just saw the TIL post about Shakespaere having his own Dewey Decimal Number and for some reason that bothers me. Agatha Christie is one of the top selling authors in History yet she doesn't have her own Dewey Decimal number, so why did Shakespeare? Yea, he may have created a genre or two, but the same could be argued for J. R. Tolkien and the Fantasy genre (it existed before him, but he made it what it is today, he defined it). Shakespeare's works annoy me, I find no point in them and the drama among the characters is not believable. I honestly believe that people think it is so good because they are told to believe so. He is lauded as being the best author ever, so people associate good writing with his style. It's a feedback loop. As they are told to believe he is so amazing, they pick out things that "make" his works really good and then say any work with such qualities must be good as well. To me it is a self defeating argument. Akin to saying quality A makes a work good because Shakespeare used it; and since Shakespeare is the one who first used it, a good work will contain quality A.	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 we can change american school's by allowing students to evaulate their teachers, CMV + + As a soon to be graduating high schooler, I see that the american education system is failing. mind you not in the "sky is falling" sense but in a slow nose dive to the earth. I believe that one of the solutions, of many, is too allow students to evalute teachers on their ability to educate and inform their students. one of the many problems in the education system is Teachers Not caring about how to teach their fellow students. I respect teachers, and think that they need more funding and bigger annual salaries. So please understand i don't hate teachers, just the ones who don't teach. so please, Change my view.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: I think most video games are a waste of time + + For the most part, most video games do nothing but waste your time. Playing video games accomplishes nothing. What does it accomplish? I feel it does not make you a better person or makes you learn anything. For example, Pacman. Pacman has been played a million times. What is the point of playing it? People play it for fun. But that fun is a waste of time because nothing is accomplished. Once that screen turns off, you have accomplished nothing. Sure it was satisfying, but that doesn't mean it advanced you in life. Playing pacman does not make you a better person in any way really. Sure you might get better at it, but whats the point? Not like you're making money off it or anything. Plus there are probably a thousand people better than you, its not like you're going to become a pro gamer or anything. What is the point of being good at Pacman if it doesn't advance you further in life? I feel like it sort of a selfish thing, satisfying your own self. It's not a creative game, you can't be creative with it that much. You play by the rules, no room for creativity. However some games like Minecraft, you are being creative. You're creating. So that is a good thing. You are creating something that is somewhat unique. And other games like the Shadow of the Colossus. Beautiful game. I played it. I loved it. It made me travel to another world and it felt like a movie. Movies aren't a waste of time because you learn something. Movies can change your life, and some video games are just like movies. With that game I felt like I learned about beauty and nature. I learned through that game. But games like pacman or tetris, what can you possibly learn from that? It's not a movie. Its not realistic. Not much to learn that is beneficial.	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 plea bargains are immoral. CMV + + As I understand it a plea bargain is when someone charged with an offense agrees to plead guilty in exchange for punitive measures that are less harsh. Please correct me if this is a straw-man. I have two issues with this. The first is that it usurps the legal notion of determining who is guilty and innocent by extorting the potentially innocent into accepting a guilty sentence in exchange for an easier one. People who are sure of their innocence often accept plea bargains because the daunting prospect of a stringent sentence is quite frightening, and offenders would rather have the possibility of jail time plea bargained down to a fine. The second is that it trumps the concept of legal universality. In my ideal perception of justice, consequences for actions are always uniform or at least in the same ballpark. In a plea bargain system, it is possible that offenders of the same crime could have drastically different sentences for the said crime committed in similar circumstances. I find this immoral. Please CMV because plea bargains are very popular in many legal systems and I am trying to understand why.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
I think the mainstream's acceptance of marijuana and rejection of cigarettes is delusional to the degree of insanity. - CMV + + The frontpage of reddit simultaneously reflects two things. 1) Celebration of the legalization of marijuana 2) Denigration of cigarettes and the people that smoke them The latter category of popular posts includes those about laws that make smoking extremely difficult or prohibitively expensive. The justification is that people should be forced to stop smoking because it's bad for them. The former category of posts includes those about laws that make marijuana smoking easier. The justification is that people should be free to choose their favorite method of relaxation, and that weed is no more harmful than cigarettes or alcohol. The freedom argument isn't applied to cigarettes, and the health argument isn't applied to marijuana. THERE ARE NO CONCLUSIVE SCIENTIFIC STUDIES THAT DEMONSTRATE THAT CIGARETTES ARE LESS HEALTHY THAN MARIJUANA OR VICE VERSA. Indeed, such a study would be impossible to conduct, given the breadth of factors and difference in individuals. The difference between them is an entirely illusive one, yet the groupthink believes strongly in the denigration of one and the celebration of the other.	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 American public is NOT entitled to know EVERYTHING. CMV. + + Individuals are intelligent, people in a group are stupid. After this debacle with Snowden and the NSA, there seems to be a limitless supply of White Knights for the American public and privacy, some armchair "world issues experts" throwing in everything from their 2 cents to $5 worth of opinion into the privacy rage inferno. A lot of it involves the 4th Amendment, our privacy, calls for transparency, and the words "what the government does in our name." There are too many people out their claiming the "oh what's next? the government killing citizens on US soil with drones?" Everything is worst case scenario and the sky is always falling. People in large numbers are stupid, angry and uncontrollable. Individuals are smart, intelligent, and thoughtful. Too many people subscribe to some Utopian view of the world that if government were tiny the people would be fine and can handle themselves. This is unbelievably naive. People are people and are capable of great good and great evil given the right motivation. Give them a situation with an open outcome and I guarantee that each person chooses something different in the spectrum of possible conclusions. There are good people out their who are still capable of evil and there are evil people out there still capable of good, and there are malcontents set on watching the world burn. Now I don't understand what people were so surprised over when they found out the government had surveillance on the public. Actually, I assumed we were always under surveillance and really it didn't bother me because I really didn't care. I live in a house, I make enough money to pay bills and buy food, I have electricity and running water and I have my friends and family. I was just lucky to be born here. But it seen there are many people that find that's not enough for them constantly using terms like "police state", "surveillance state", "fascism." I wonder, if somehow all governments were gone tomorrow, all the politicians disappeared, would these paranoid state people truly feel free? Would someone telling them, please don't walk on my lawn as they wander the new lawless Utopia result in a "police state" shouting match? How much is too much control for the government and how much is too little? How naive do you have to be to really think that the enemies of the US only exist outside our borders? They live here too, just like your neighbor whose dog shits your lawn. The world isn't an action movie or a spy thriller, but we have enemies within these borders and we also have insane people willing to spread a little peril. Just a few hundred miles from where I live is the KKK headquarters and I know there are Neo-Nazis active in my state. Do I want them watched? I sure fucking do because I'm not white and as a brown person in a Southern state I exercise my second amendment right every time I leave my home with my CCDW permit in tow. To think that your fellow American are as innocent and hard working and patriotic is just ignorant. If Snowden did anything, it was to reiterate the point that whistle blowers should be protected, but he and Wikileaks must be pretty dumb if he just proceeds to meander around the globe thinking the only people after him is the US government. He has more secrets in that little white knight head of his and I'm sure more than a few countries would be happy to drill it out of there, figuratively or literally. How is it that so many people are willing to take what he says at face value? Just because he sacrificed everything to bring us the truth? So did Jesus and I don't believe that story. What were his real motivations? Why travel to Hong Kong first, to China who is more than happy for the secrets of the US government? Then to Russia who would equally be happy for some secrets? Anyone? Did anyone catch that the first 2 countries he "fled" to are 2 superpowers who have been our enemies previously? Does anyone know that Ecuador is closer to the US than to Russia and he could have taken a plane to Ecuador for a lot cheaper? Who is bankrolling these travels and accommodations at these destinations? He isn't the plucky hero everyone wants him to be. And if you really believe that governments don't spy on each other and the US is the only big bad guy then you probably have a tumor. Did you know the Vatican has an intelligence agency all over the world? Think about that next time you go to church to confess. Governments spy on their friends, on their enemies, on their enemies friends and it's one big messy intelligence orgy. Do you think the US just blindly and bluntly proceeds through international affairs with no guidance and no information? Information is true power. How else are we supposed to be making decisions about who we are allies with, who we fight and who has switched sides? We need information and acting like our intelligence gathering tools and capabilities are the only big bad evil is naive, simplistic and just small world thinking. Because of Snowden the US looks weak and our rights and freedoms look more like a hindrance to our standing on the international stage. Obviously someone with say "But it's about what's right!" No it's not, It's about the context the action is taken in. Our country is really the only one with everyone thinking their individual opinions are unique and special. You are not a snowflake. Many countries have general sense of nationalism and pride with making their country a world power and everyone pulls together. Even in China, where they have the Great Firewall of China and their own version of FB which was used against it's citizens organizing an uprising a few years ago, people still believe in the family unit and working together as a country to make it great. In the US we work separately as individuals badmouthing a country we were lucky to be born in that have homeless people who can afford cell phones. Snowden didn't do us a favor and I'm glad we're prosecuting him because even if he's the only whistle blower who's honest, there will be those who just want fame, money and glory.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV:One dollar, one vote, is better than our current voting system + + We currently have a voting system which equally weighs each person's choice. We see this system used in many things like in tv shows. (The Voice, for example) I think that this is a wonderful and fair system which works well when all voters have sufficient skill to judge candidates. In The Voice, the audience is adequately equipped to decide who is the best singer. People are fully capable of voting on things like their favorite ice cream, or their favorite tv show. This system breaks down when the voters do not have the necessary skills or knowledge to make a proper judgement. Take for example, a boxing match. Many matches go to the judges, and most members of the audience do not have boxing experience. If the audience were allowed to vote for the winner, it would often result in the winner being chosen via a popularity contest rather than by the rules of the ring. Most people watching a match would not be able to give an accurate judgement of the match simply because their seat in the stadium or their seat in front of a tv does not permit them to reliably count the number of clean punches. Let's take another example, Net Neutrality. Most people probably spent 10 minutes reading an article by someone who spent 10 minutes googling the subject before writing. And now they think they know everything there is to know. The Net Neutrality documents are hundreds of pages and would take weeks to read through and analyze. Industry experience would be a requirement in making a proper decision. See the danger of letting the average person cast a vote? Finally, let's address the voting of political candidates. Each candidate represents an allegiance to a bundle of different policies, which represents thousands of pages of documents, which can represent years of reading and analysis. Understandably, citizens are not allowed to vote on individual policies. The only alternative to an equal weight system is to weigh the votes differently. I believe that each person should have a number of votes equal to the amount of federal taxes paid for the previous year (or some variation, like average of past 3 years). This would be the effects: 1) Any attempt for the wealthy to reduce their taxes will result in destroying their own voting power. This is key and many people don't get this. The system is self correcting in that you cannot choose to not pay tax and also control the government at the same time. 2) You would get a vote size proportional to your contribution to society. It seems rather fair that you should have a bigger say of what to do with the money if you contribute more. 3) There is a high correlation between intelligence and income. Weighing votes this way would help to put more voting power into the hands of people who are more likely to make better decisions. 4) We'll finally be able to have smart politicians instead of popular politicians in office. From what I've seen, the smartest politicians who can actually address issues are not popular. Any time a politician goes into specifics of why something has to be a certain way, the audience doses off. Most of America wants to be entertained with buzzwords and it often results in candidates manipulating the voters into voting against their own interests.	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 death penalty should be something like a firing squad rather than be lethal injection to save money. CMV + + It is 10 times more expensive to kill someone than to imprison them for life. Part of that cost is keeping them in prison for the years up to their execution, which takes so long due to appeals and what not. I believe that if we KNOW the person is guilty of murder (evidence, witnesses, confessions, etc...), we should simply spend the couple bucks for ammo and just shoot them. It will save a lot of time and a lot of money. If we are going to kill them, why wait so long and spend so much? That being said, if we aren't positive they are guilty, then don't give them the death penalty. 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: Opposing gay marriage and supporting welfare programs are both forms of legislating morality. Therefore, the mainstream liberal ideology of criticizing people for legislating their morality is hypocritical. + + The way I see it, those who want to keep gay marriage illegal are attempting to legislate their own personal morals. And your average/mainstream liberal takes issue with that, because they allegedly don't want people to legislate their morals. Yet, (and again this is average/mainstream ideology... I recognize that liberals are not one cohesive unit that all think exactly the same way) they have no issue legislating their morals when it comes to helping the needy. They have no issue forcing people to give up their hard earned money, whether they want to or not. Because they believe, morally, it's the right thing to do. To me, this is either a double standard where liberals have allowed themselves to legislate morality, but no one else, or it is hypocritical. For the record, I am a libertarian. I have no problem with helping the needy (although I don't believe by force is the proper way to accomplish that goal), nor do I have a problem with gay marriage.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
I believe water is an "universal right" CMV + + I believe that clean water, for the purpose of drinking, should be a universal human right. Governments should work to provide it for their populaces, it should be illegal to refuse someone drinking water, and control over drinking water should be outlawed. Water is necessary to life, and access to water is restricted solely because of the actions of communities and governments. Back in the day water ran freely in streams, rivers and lakes. It was available a few dozen feet below the ground in many places, and it has only been since the massive extraction of water by governments and private companies that it is no longer available. Given that, I think it is the responsibility of governments to ensure their people have enough water to drink.	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 the study of business contributes little to nothing to the progression of society. + + The more and more I am exposed with those studying in the field of business, the more and more I see that this discipline doesn't advance the knowledge or progression of humanity. Doctors study medicine to better understand how the body functions and responds to different environmental conditions, which will necessarily advances the total understanding of the human body, which will inevitably progress the species to live longer, healthier lives. Physicists/Engineers study the interactions between systems in the universe. In the future, the study of these fields will yield further knowledge about how the universe works, which will help in understanding how, when, and why we got here. This knowledge will also allow us to develop better and more useful technologies which will create more extensive and happier lives. But Businessmen...They study how money functions in a populated system. However helpful and useful that is in facilitating the exchanges between people in a system, it can't ever advance society. There is no aspect of business that can improve society as a whole. It cannot improve or elongate the lives of people, nor can it further the total understanding of the universe around us. In short, it seems as if business merely predicts the monetary exchanges between people, but cannot improve society as a whole. But science is necessarily focused on the advancement of society.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: People should stop pronouncing English loanwords as if they're speaking their native language. + + First of all, let me be clear that this is not some 'speak 'murican', anti-immigrant screed. Multiculturalism is the way of the world, and I'm all for it. Plus, immigrants bring fresh ideas (and delicious food). Not to mention that English is an insanely difficult language even for native speakers, so I'm not going to begrudge people for speaking it with an accent. What I do have a problem with is people who speak English fluently and with an American accent suddenly lapsing into another accent to say a specific word. This mainly arises with Latinos using identity markers ('latino', 'chicano') or foods ('quesadilla'). However, most of these words have been adopted into English as true loanwords; English speakers understand them and use them often. But I often hear people on the news, e.g. a policy analyst of Latin-American extraction, using words like "latino" with a Spanish lilt that sounds (to me) out-of-place and exaggerated. Suddenly switching to another accent, at best, is confusing, as it takes the listener's brain that extra millisecond to adapt to a new style of speaking. At worst, it sounds kind of pretentious and exclusionary. I'm not arguing that we should completely anglify these words -- I don't want to hear someone pronounce 'quesadilla' with a hard L sound, like the grandma in Napoleon Dynamite. Rather I think we should treat Spanish loanwords like we do words like "kindergarden" (German), "sake" (Japanese), or "joie de vivre" (French) -- try as best we can to respect the original pronunciation, but maintain our typical accent when saying them. Doing otherwise is just kind of disrespectful. To illustrate: I am a reasonably proficient Spanish speaker and have spent a lot of time in Spanish-speaking countries. Once I was speaking with a local (edit: in Spanish) and used the word "iPod", which left him scratching his head. I couldn't figure out why -- I knew, in fact, that he owned one too. Then it hit me -- I was pronouncing the 'i' sound like the English "eye", which is a confusing sound for Spanish speakers, especially when surrounded by Spanish words. Once I pronounced it as "ee-Pod", he immediately knew what I was talking about. From then on, when speaking Spanish, I always try to 'spanishify' the pronunciation of vowel sounds to avoid these kind of misunderstandings. So 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 Rolling Stone "rape article" controversy is not a commentary on the failures of feminism, but on the failures of media sensationalism. + + My argument is that the failures of Rolling Stone in their reporting of the fake UVA rape story have nothing to do with a world in which feminism has gotten out of control, and have everything to do with a world in which media sensationalism has gotten out of control. I will touch on a few other aspects of this story as well, so bear with me. I will not bother summarizing the story in its entirety, as I will assume you the reader know what I'm talking about. [An excellent in-depth review of the story and Rolling Stone's failures](http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/a-rape-on-campus-what-went-wrong-20150405) was written by an outside source and then published in Rolling Stone yesterday. The report is damning, and I recommend it to everyone if you have the time. I was struck by the comments on r/news about this story yesterday. Most of the top comments blamed feminism for this journalistic disaster, such as [this top comment](http://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/31kbp6/no_firings_at_rolling_stone_over_flawed_story_a/cq2h3es) (currently at 2,191 points and 5 gildings) which starts with the words "Feminists and social justice warriors." I'm unsure where that conclusion is coming from, so I'd like to address my conclusion. If you read that damning report of Rolling Stone's failures, you'll see that they skipped over a number of policies they would have normally followed. The student who claimed to be raped, Jackie, told the reporter that she had discussed the incident with friends of hers. It was later revealed after the story's publication that Jackie had given her friends an entirely different account of what had happened that night. But the reporter and Rolling Stone's editors did not make a sufficient attempt to contact her friends. If they had, the story would have quickly fallen apart. Jackie had even given her friends the name of someone who didn't really exist, whereas she had refused to divulge a name to the reporter. If this had been explored at all, the falseness of the whole thing would have been exposed right away. Worst of all, Rolling Stone's article was phrased in a way that made it sound like they really had interviewed Jackie's friends by failing to mention that all quotes of these friends published in the article came from Jackie herself. Do you see where the sensationalism is creeping in? The article wouldn't have had a rich narrative structure if it had to keep interrupting itself with the disclaimer that all these supposed facts came from Jackie herself, and only Jackie. We all know which version of that article gets the most clicks, and Rolling Stone undermined the journalistic process when they sought clicks over veracity. But none of this has anything to do with feminism or what feminism says about how alleged rape victims should be treated. Alleged rape victims really should be treated with full trust, at least until they name the perpetrator (more on this in a bit). The consequences of believing a mentally ill person's made up story about an anonymous rapist are far outweighed by the potentially traumatic consequences of being skeptical about a real rape victim's story. Real rape victims, male and female, have a number of reasons to refrain from telling their story (social taboos, fear of repercussion, outside pressures, personal feelings of unworthiness and disgust, etc.), and society should therefore be as welcoming as possible when it comes to letting alleged rape victims talk about their trauma. Yes there will be crazy people like Jackie who make it all up for attention, but we cannot treat real victims with undeserved skepticism because of a few bad apples. In this way, no one who interacted with Jackie was at all at fault, except for Rolling Stone. Her friends rightly believed her, because who wouldn't trust a friend in a time of need like that? What would be the benefit of doing so, going back to my point about consequences earlier? The school did the right thing in providing her with counseling, and it never even pursued action against the fraternity she named. [A sidenote: I do believe the university should have issued a warning to its students about a possible fraternity-related sexual assault happening on their campus, even though it turned out to be false, for the same reason that universities must make their students aware of bomb threats no matter the veracity - "better safe than sorry" to put it simply. By not making their students aware of this possible sexual assault, they left their students in danger if the story had been true. This is one failing that I think the original Rolling Stone article gets correct, and there are numerous other cases of UVA failing to address sexual assault properly involving incidents which really happened.] So now we ask ourselves: where did Rolling Stone go wrong? In my opinion, their biggest mistake was to publish the story without knowing the name of the person who raped Jackie. In the damning report of their failures, this point is brought up again and again: Jackie did not want to provide the name of her rapist. Now for a friend or school counselor, this would not be the time to express skepticism. Again, there are real rape victims who find it very difficult to talk about their attackers, and if they don't want to pursue criminal charges that should be their decision (hopefully real victims can be convinced, but badgering them does no good). So the consequences of letting women lie for sympathy are not as bad as making real rape victims feel unwilling to talk about their trauma, as I mentioned above. But when an alleged rapist is named, everything changes. Now it has become a direct accusation, and as with all other crimes, the accuser must be subject to skepticism. This isn't a pleasant process, but it is a necessary one. And I think that journalistic institutions have a similar responsibility when it comes to allegations of rape. When Jackie refused to give the name of her rapist, Rolling Stone shouldn't have pressed harder, nor should they have gone ahead and published the story anyways. They should have simply backed off from this story, and found another one where the facts were all verified. Without a name of the accused rapist, Rolling Stone always ran the risk of finding one of those mentally ill women who lie for sympathy and attention. They should have known this was a possibility, and they failed to prevent it. In fact, the reporter had been trying to find a good college sexual assault case for a while (like a journalistic vulture) and hadn't found any that were "good enough" (wow that's horrifying to say) to be published. So we can see that the problem was not with feminism or the way that feminism tells us we should treat alleged rape survivors, but with the way Rolling Stone clearly sought the most sensational story they could find. And boy did they find it. A fraternity gang rape? Incompetent school administrators (speaking of which, for those who think this controversy was the establishment striking out against white males, two female school administrators were lambasted in the original article)? No justice for the victim? They had struck gold which turned out to be pyrite, and they missed all the warning signs which should have led them to simply not publish the story. They were right in a way, because their story got huge attention and more clicks than any other article on the website that isn't about a celebrity (per the damning report published yesterday). What feminism says about how to treat alleged victims of sexual assault is 100% correct. You should treat them with full welcoming trust, at least until a real allegation is made. There is no concrete reason to do otherwise, because believing a lying woman has no real harmful consequences for anyone, while disbelieving a real victim of rape has a lot of harmful consequences. The failure here was not in this standard, but in Rolling Stone's standard of journalistic integrity. They betrayed their readers by ignoring warning signs in the pursuit of a sensationalistic story, and by framing their article in a way that made it seem like they had done more research than they really had. We know that media sensationalism has poisoned so many other media sources. I don't see why Rolling Stone is exempt from this phenomenon, and why feminism must be to blame instead. Talk about blaming the victim! ***Related to the above, I want to touch on the argument some Redditors made that this kind of false reporting will only stop if false rape accusers get as much jail time as rapists. I think this is just an awful idea. Most if not all women who falsely accuse someone are mentally ill. The way that Jackie describes her attack in such vivid memorable detail tells me that she is very likely mentally ill. Normal people don't weave complicated stories about their personal victimhood. Throwing her in prison would not be justice. Reddit would normally agree that a mentally ill person would not belong in prison (check out any Reddit post on people who are addicted to drugs, and whether they should be in prison or rehab - a valid point), but when it comes to a lying woman the vitriol comes through.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
I think that being gay is a mental sickness that can be cured with the help of a psychologist. CMV + + Humans evolved as species since 2 mln b.c. and it is obvious that the 10 000 years of us being civilized and cultural is nothing compared to that time period. Therefore, we're first and foremost animals, and animals' main goal is to reproduce in larger numbers. That leads me to my point: humans are made to reproduce because it is only natural to us, similar to eating and protecting ourselves. Homosexuals go against the nature due to reasons, that almost all the time seem psychological. I personally think that if you're born as a male, then the urge to reproduce with women comes with the package. If it's not the case then there are either biological (lack of hormones, etc.) or psychological reasons for that. I even think that the last century made men less masculine due to social and economic changes. We don't hunt mammoths anymore, we sit at our desks and drive our cars and we're no more as masculine as we were, thus on an unconscious level giving some people a legitimate reason to start questioning their sexuality. Soo, I really want to understand what's up with this recent pro-gay vibe in the West and a common acceptance of LGBT lifestyle. I just don't want to be left out as a barbarian. CMV.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Andrew Jackson was a low class thug, a lousy president, and should be taken off the $20 bill. + + I'm not really sure where to start, besides to say that the fact that America elected such a raving lunatic over men who were clearly much more competent, intelligent, and overall better human beings (John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay in particular) is a sad point in our history. J.Q. Adams was a brilliant statesman and a decent man who was loathed by Jackson and his followers because he was seen as "aristocratic," which in normal speak really just means that he wasn't a backwoods savage like Jackson. Adams was from the North, had an excellent education, had a father who was President of the United States, and was a gentleman, which was enough to make Jacksonians dislike him. The only negative thing I can say about his personality is that he could be grumpy like his father, but I attribute that more to not liking attention than anything else. Henry Clay was also seen as "aristocratic," but did much more for this country than Jackson ever did, especially considering his 1850 compromise delayed the dissolution of the Union and the Civil War by ten years. Clay fought tooth and nail to keep the Union together and prevent war. On the subject of Jackson, Thomas Jefferson said "I am much alarmed at the prospect of seeing General Jackson become President. He is one of the most unfit men I know of for such a place. He has very little respect for laws or Constitutions." What's even sadder is what Jackson did when he was president. The arrogant disregard of Supreme Court decisions, forcible removal of some of the least troublesome Native Americans from their lands, and the intentional destruction of some of the pillars of the American economy are just a few of the achievements of Andrew Jackson, but it's fine because he was a common man and appealed to them. The fact that he is on the $20 bill in the first place is ironic and he would hate whoever came up with the idea to put him on it.	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 ending net neutrality is preferable to letting the government regulate the internet as a common good + + Net neutrality is a valuable goal, but many say that the way to keep it is to turn the internet into a common good like roads and railroads so the government will protect it. This seems like a terrible idea, because giving the government more control over regulating the internet opens it up for over regulation and abuse. The railroads have hardly innovated in decades and are abysmal for passenger traffic. I wonder how much better they might have been with competition. CMV. I think the fact that corporations mostly want profits is actually better for the state of ISPs--it means that if a corporation comes along that provides a far better product (like Google Fiber, and I'm waiting for more to come) they can push Comcast & co out of the market entirely. With government regulation, those companies will be protected in their positions. Overall, I'm not convinced that the government will make the right decisions or do anything other than impede the progress of the Internet. Neither will the current ISPs in the field, but without regulation at least other ISPs have more opportunity to enter. If anyone can show me that I'm wrong, I'll gladly CMV.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: I think governments should own core utilities. + + I think democratic governments should own core utilities, for example power lines, fibre and telephone cables, mobile network towers, water pipes and sewage. Private business can still on-sell services at a retail level, but the government would on the core infrastructure. The aim would be a greater reinvestment in infrastructure rather than profits, a fairer spread to benefit the whole country (I.e. 4g in rural areas), and more efficient use of limited resources (I.e. Using the radio spectrum to deliver one great mobile network).	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: The world and the average person would be better off if we were fewer people on this earth + + http://www.reddit.com/r/AdviceAnimals/comments/2ls8om/old_economy_steve/ I was reading this thread which again confirmed my views on this matter. Being fewer people may decrease the overall BNP, but I'd say the average person would have a higher purchase power and simple jobs would pay more money because it wouldn't be any competition for "low-paying" jobs like today. It's true that political and economical system greatly affects this as well, but it's not the only explanation. Take China today, it's a capitalistic economy in 2014, and the competition is extremely high for all kinds of jobs hence why salaries are pressed down, especially for entry level positions. Now, take Denmark or Sweden, countries with a low population. They have until recently (because of extreme mass immigration) had good wages for low skilled jobs and plenty of openings. For example, a fresh high school graduate can get a 60,000 dollar/year work in the mines, and more with over time. Because the demand is very big but there are not so many people to press down wages, even if it's unskilled work that anyone can do. The same job in China barely pays subsistence level. Another positive thing with keeping the population low is the environment. Fewer people means less polluted air. The fossil fuels can also be used for more generations without being depleted and give the people a higher living standard. Housing would be a lot cheaper with fewer people since more free land for everyone. Here again we can compare China to Sweden or why not Canada/USA. Housing in big cities in China are more expensive than a mansion in USA because of not enough free space. Explain to me why the AVERAGE person benefits from an increasing population like many economists say? I never understood this for above reasons. Sure, the overall BNP will grow and CEO's will make higher profits because more people will buy their stuff, but the average person would have a worse time. Hence why I think the population of the world should decrease a lot so everyone can enjoy a decent standard of living without killing this planet.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
I earn a good salary but still live with my parents at 25 and think that's fine. CMV + + I see a constant rhetoric that criticises 20 somethings still living at home with their parents on Reddit. Although it might be due to a high percentage of Americans and British culture is different. But I want a different view anyway since all my friends think what I'm doing is fine. I'm an only child if that changes anything. Long story short is I got employment after university with a different university that happens to be about 4 miles from my parents home. I couldn't realistically move much closer due to how the roads are around me that lead to the University require you to take a main road which is near my house. So without that motivation I've never seen the point to move out. I earn a very comfortable wage which is a good starting salary in IT business. I do my own washing and often shop for my parents and have payed for meals out and the like. I also pay rent to them but much less than 1/4 of what I'd pay for renting my own property. I don't feel like I'm scrounging in any way and they're financially better off with me living at home. Obviously I don't want to live here forever and if I was dating in a serious relationship I'd move in with her. But in my present situation I really can't think of any reason why I'd spend 80% of my salary on moving out rather than to save it for the future at home. I don't spend a lot of money so it's all going into savings. I'm personally against one night stands so the likely hood of going out pulling a "bird" and bringing her back here are zero. If I were to meet someone that wouldn't date me on the premise I live at home, well I wouldn't want to be with them anyway if they thought that was a legitimate reason not to be with somebody. But considering how much a large part of Reddit believe this lifestyle is literally worse than Hitler, I wanted some counter opinions on it. I admit that living at home at 30 with kids and no job forcing your parents to raise your children for you is very irresponsible. But I feel given the right responsible circumstances living at home can be a good thing for both parent and child.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Weekend golfers aren't athletes, and weekend golf isn't a sport. + + My reasoning: Prescript: I'm not bashing the PGA here. Professional golf is without a doubt a sport. Weekend golfers aren't athletes and weekend golf isn't a sport because there's absolutely nothing athletic about it. If someone elects to walk the course, then MAYBE but I still can't picture it. Now to the other end of the spectrum. People who elect to ride. No way in any way, shape, or form are they athletes or playing a sport. They DRIVE to the ball, usually within 20 feet of it, hit the ball, and get back in the cart. If they're playing in a foursome, they're more than likely SITTING DOWN LONGER THAN THEY'RE BEING ACTIVE. Which is what athletes do right? Be active. The only way in my opinion that a weekend golfer is an athlete is if they go to the gym and work out to make themselves more physically fit to perform better at golf, and they don't take a cart. I'm open minded though, change my view, Reddit.	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 most current car dealerships are terrible experiences. People should be able to walk into a car dealer, point at a car, and buy it. Consumers should not be forced to go through endless negotiations and people trying to sell them extra stuff. + + I think the car buying process is way too tedious. I really ought to be able to go into a car "store", where I pick a car and go straight to financing/checkout, and drive out quickly. I shouldn't have to spend a whole day (or at least 4 hours) at a dealership listening to people selling me stuff. Most car dealerships are just the worst thing. I have spend at least 20+ minutes negotiating a basic deal for the car, which may or may not be advantageous to me in the end. Even if I'm willing to pay MSRP, half the time they often still try to up the price somehow. After the initial deal is done, someone else comes and is trying to sell accessories, and he wants the consumer to buy those accessories and the car NOW. I don't want to be pressured to make these decisions on the spot; it's just manipulative by working on my psychology to give them more money. I would be more empowered if they gave me a catalog to look at and were available to answer questions. Finally after hours at the dealership, the car is ready to go. Then the consumer goes to financing. The finance dude always tries to up the price somehow, or get good financial terms for the dealer. They try to sell you loans that have interest rates 2-3% above what the bank would normally give you, which is ridiculous. They even make life hard for people paying with cashier's check, because they prefer to get some kind of financing incentive from banks. From start to finish, the whole process never takes less than two hours to complete; and it usually takes at least 4-6 hours. Really, if I come in to a dealership with a car in mind, it should take 30 minutes if I were willing to pay MSRP, and no more than 2 hours if I wanted to test drive/shop for accessories/negotiate etc. If I point at a car and say "I want this", then I should have the power to pay for it, get the legal stuff done, and drive out with the damn thing. If I have cash available, then I ought to be able to give them the money and walk out with the car; I shouldn't have to deal with 15 minutes of listening to financing bullshit that I don't want and isn't beneficial to me. I know there are a few dealers that run their dealership like the way I prefer, and obviously Tesla does the same, so this is definitely a feasible way to sell cars. And I think it's the way to go. The way that most car dealers work these days wastes consumers' time and is highly manipulative. I know car dealerships are low-margin and low-profit, but that doesn't mean that their model of putting constant on the consumer to buy things is good for consumers.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Teachers should have a comparable salary to doctors + + I strongly believe that the two most important things we should supply to our society is health care and education. Health care to keep us alive, and education to give us a reason to live (poetically speaking). In other countries (Japan, Korea, Finland, etc.), being a teacher is one of the most honorable professions available. In the United States, teachers are one of the most loudly vilified. Education is the key to improving your life. Even if an individual realizes early that they don't want to go far in academia, having the best education possible will still prepare them for life better than a worse education. In order to discover medical breakthroughs, create cool new gadgets, and in general increase the quality of life for citizens, a good education is vital. Teachers have a demanding job and do it as a labor of love. Shouldn't our kids be taught by the brightest and best available? If the compensation teachers received was comparable to doctors, the quality of teachers would undoubtedly increase as the field became more competitive. Many teachers today don't stay in the field too long because they don't feel well appreciated or well compensated.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Florida's 60% "marjoity" requirement for an amendment to be passed promotes the status quo and takes away power from the people + + The only two ways to get the amendment passed is to 1) appeal to legislatures or 2) gather the required amount of signatures and then put it to a vote. Making the requirement to pass the measure 60% (As opposed to a simple majority) puts an unfair burden on people trying to make change. To be clear, I am NOT only talking about the recent medical marijuana proposition, but ANY law that is voted on via referendum. Voters have to move through a constantly broken bureaucracy of representatives who are more concerned with being reelected than the wants and needs of their constituents. Therefore, a 50% majority should be the standard as opposed to a 60% standard that gets nothing done just like the legislatures.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV:People should be able to choose how their tax money is spent. + + Every year I do my taxes and show the government exactly how much I make how much I have spend and on what so they can decide how much money to take from me. Then they spend it on things I do not agree with. I think every year when we do taxes we should also get the ability to determine where we want it to go, such as 50% education 24% community building (roads, cleaning ect.) 5% military, you get the idea. The system could be either that your money goes directly into those sectors based on your preferences or having everyone's numbers get averaged out so you wouldn't be able to say that the rich are getting an unfair advantage in controlling the nation.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Cutting in line is never acceptable. + + Context: I was standing in a long line at Chipotle, when this lady, standing three persons behind me, walked up to the lady in front of me, and joined her. They were chatting, and I waited for a few minutes, hoping she would go back to her position after the chatting was done. But she didn't. So I politely reminded her that she was basically cutting in line. They both then said that the 'cutter' and the one before me were meeting for lunch, and that they were friends. I do not care what they had planned, what the situation is, but the way I see it, the lady was behind me, and then just walked past me to go one position ahead of me. That is not acceptable to me. What if I chose to befriend some guy ahead and drag my family of 15 with me there? Would it be acceptable to these 'cutters' being pushed back by 15 people? What if every person in line called up a friend to join them? Would it be acceptable for the person who had been in position 20 to suddenly become in position 39? I asked the guy behind me if he was okay with it. He said he was, and that one person is not a big deal. I disagree- it's not a big deal only if it's not a big deal to every person that got pushed behind one position. They are the ones getting affected. Chat and cut is never okay. 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 Pedophilia is a sexual orientation, like homosexuality, and should not be subject to forced "treatment" when diagnosed. CMV + + So, yeah. Kind of an unpopular opinion right there. Basically, I fail to see the difference between pedophilia and homosexuality, or heterosexuality for that matter, besides the subject matter. A pedophile is simply someone who is attracted to children. The common view seems to be that pedophilia is a disorder -- in fact it's classified as a psychiatric disorder, rather than an orientation or a paraphilia. I think this seems unfair -- there are likely thousands, if not millions of good citizens of the world who are struggling to get by as closet pedophiles, deemed to have a disorder by the doctors of the world. Surely a pedophile who has no inclination or possibility of molesting or abusing a child is just as functional in society as a homosexual, if not a heterosexual? Why then is pedophilia, the paraphilia itself, touted as a disorder, and pedophiles thought of as needing theraphy, or treatment, for their "condition"?	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Gender identity should not be a 'thing'. + + An assigned female at birth should be able to dress/act/feel however she wants (ie can be in a stereotypical masculine or feminine way or a mix of both), without having to feel she is betraying her 'gender'. Most people do not possess just masculine or just feminine traits. Most people do not only do just the stereotypical masculine or feminine activities. This therefore eliminates the concept of transgenderism/feeling like they're the opposite gender stuck in their own body. I also do acknowledge that there are biological differences between a male and a female which can lead to more differences than simply just biological. However, it is also common for a male to also have feminine traits, and vice versa. It should not mean you're any less of a male simply because you have feminine traits. In conclusion, I believe the factor that should be used to decide whether a person is male or female, should only be the sex they were born with. They are biologically that sex. Their myocardial infarction symptoms (just as an example) are usually going to depend on their assigned sex at birth. However, they do not have to conform to the stereotypes of that sex. They should be able to dress/act/feel however they want without having to say they're the 'opposite gender' simply because of it.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
I believe that increasing gun control laws in the US would be an ineffective way to curb mass shootings, because there are already so many guns distributed amongst the population. CMV + + Don't get me wrong, I do think heavy gun control laws can be (and usually are) pretty effective in countries where guns aren't already so ingrained in the psyche and so widely distributed among the populace. However the US is the most armed country by every statistical measure, by total number of guns, by guns per capita, etc. - it is estimated that there are 270-310 million guns out there already (legally and illegally) according to gunpolicy.org. My thought is just that if you were dead-set on a mass shooting, access to a gun wouldn't hamper you in this country despite any laws, you either have access to one yourself or could get one illegally relatively easily - my opinion is essentially that the situation is too far gone to be able to simply rectify it by increased regulation of the market itself. Go ahead and CMV, folks!	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: We need to make human farms + + Human is not synonym to person, a human is any member of the genus homo, of which the only extant population is the species sapiens. A person is someone who is self conscious and a bunch more things, [not all people are humans](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/sandra-the-orangutan-inside-argentina-zoo-granted-human-rights-in-landmark-ruling-9940202.html). If we have human farms where no intelligence or reasoning is given to the babies they will be no persons. Animals and humans, yes, but no more smart or capable than chimpanzees. And for medical investigation, it will be a huge improvement. We will can experiment with actual humans and no with practically biological humans. We will have nice blood banks and organ donators too. Note that animal to human transplants are a [thing](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenotransplantation).	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: I belive that hydro power is a lot better than wind power, and that windpower is pretty much useless. + + Hi everyone!! Ive had many hours of debates with my fellow colleagues about this matter. I believe that hydro power is a lot better than wind power, for the following reasons: 1. Cheaper. While it may cost a lot to build a dam, its a lot lot more cheaper in the long run with low service costs. 2. More efficient. Hydropower will produce a lot more electricity, for a lot lower price. It can produce electricity all year round, and it produces a lot more electricity too. 3. Doesnt have to be shut down. Wind power must be shut down if there is too much wind. 4. Not effected by extreme weather. Storms can damage wind powers. 5. Noisy and threat to wild life. They are super loud, and can kill birds. Not to mention they are ugly to look at. 6. Locational. Wind power cant be places everywhere, they have to be put in hilly areas or coastline. 7. Consistency Wind doesnt always blow consistently, while water always flows as it should. What dou you think, /r/changemyview? Am I wrong? Please change my view, i am really looking forward to hear what you say.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Conservative is a word that has lost its political meaning in the united states and should no longer be used by anyone to describe political viewpoints. + + Conservatives are not conserving any values, they are proponents of a new radical agenda. -they advocate the right to own and possess technologically advanced, new types of weapons with power that would be considered super-powerful by anyone from historical past -they advocate radical meddling in numerous foreign governments -they advocate gerry mandering that in historical context is extreme -they advocate no privacy rights and total police rights, which is historically extreme -they advocate an ever growing military budget which is historically extreme -they advocate high pressure fossil fuel mining which risks the entire potable water table of the united states which is historically extreme -they advocate no actual conservation of resources, whether trees, water, metal, beauty -they advocate imperialism which on any historical scale is extreme -they advocate extreme centralized power 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 birth control should be mandatory to receive welfare in America. CMV + + For those people who are in situations where they already require welfare to survive having more children will just mean that they are even more dependent on welfare. I know there are also people who are on welfare who have more children simply to receive more money every month. To put everyone on welfare on some form of birth control (both male and female, not sure what kind or how) would prevent a lot of increased burden on a system that shouldn't be too heavily relied upon in the first place.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Swimming is the best form of exercise + + While obviously a balanced exercise regimen is the best choice for health and well-being, if someone were forced to stick to a single exercise technique, there is no reason other than lack of availability to choose anything other than swimming. Swimming is: A) cardio, able to be done at a variety of speeds over a variety of distances, making it suitable for a wide range of fitness levels B) resistance in many muscle groups, especially when strokes in question are varied and tools such as fins or kickboards are added C) low-impact, making it suitable for older people, people with recent injuries, or those with longer-term joint problems D) whole-body (or at least most-of-the-body) With all that said and considered, is there any reason to choose another single form of exercise over swimming, other than lack of accessible facilities (EDIT: or physical inability to swim)?	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
I believe human rights are a lie. CMV + + Setup From my observations I define a right as follows: A right is an option or a contract offered by a specific benefactor to a specific beneficiary, in which the benefactor incurs an obligation to carry out the underlying promise if the right is excercised by the beneficiary (terms and conditions may apply). Example: A governement issues a citizen a right to vote in an election and thus sees to it that the citizen can vote should he decide to do so. Some implications: - A right is owned by (in the sense of a binding obligation) the benefactor. - If the benefactor is unable to carry out the underlying promise in the specified terms, the right is void and is for all practical purpose non-existent. - A right without a benefactor of a beneficiary is void. - A right issued by the benficiary is meaningless and such contract has different names (forcing, extortion). Main argument Human rights "commonly understood as inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being" (Wiki) are a lie and as such are void. There is no benefactor issuing such rights. Inb4 society is the benefactor - society is in this case a fataly vague name. Inb4 a state/governement is the benefactor - this makes the right in question either a civil right or a meaningless right if the state is impotent to cary it out. Example The best example of the non-sense I observe is the alleged right to life/live. It is issued by the beneficiary, it has no specific benefactor and no one within humanity even has the power to carry it out in the most pragmatic sense. I understand it as one of three cases: Right to an unspecified lenghth of biological life, valid after a person is born. - tautology Right to be protected from dying as long as possible. This is not only criticaly vague but also not a right. - linguistic vandalism Right to be protected from death. Combined with the alternative definition/implication - a right is a something that if violated means injustice was suffered - is but a huge collective narcissistic fantasy of human self-righteousness. Similarly all other "human" rights are in my opition either meaningless, misnomers or narcissism. CMV	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
"There will be Blood" (Daniel Day Lewis movie) is completely overrated. CMV. + + I had some pretty high hopes going into this one, especially considering all the praise it gets for being one of the top movies of the last decade, but I left the movie pretty confused. There wasn't really much in the way of character development and the story didn't have much of a logical ending. Daniel Plainview started out as a greedy oil man and ended that way (only with even less friends.) He finds out he has no brother and was using his son the whole time to make money, and he ends up killing Eli for no apparent reason other than that he hates religion and that's how the movie ends. I really get the feeling that i'm missing something here. Is there some deep symbolism i'm not getting? So far, the only message I can come up with is that the pursuit of money corrupts people, but that isn't exactly deep or innovative in storytelling. I did like the acting, but felt the progression of the movie was pretty slow especially considering the strong implications that it would be more action-packed based on the title. Anyone have any other takes on the movie? Should be an easy delta.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
I believe you're a bad parent if you let your child play rated M video games.CMV. + + A lot of parents believe childhood violence is caused by violent video games and I believe that's not entirely true. Violent children comes from bad parenting so instead of blaming the video game companies try doing your job as a parent and pay attention to what they are playing. You don't have to be a genius to understand the rating system it's rather self explanatory. What really get's under my skin are parents who let their kids play these games knowing the games are violent and then blames everyone but themselves. Be the adult and take responsibility for your own actions. Normally kids can't afford a $60-$70 game so it's not like you have no control over what your kids are exposed to.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
I think there is a rape culture and it is self selected by women. CMV + + Women are and always have been the selector of what semen impregnates them, except in cases of true forced rape resulting in pregnancy. As the selector of the sperm women have chosen dominant men who are not afraid to push the envelope to initiate sex and even get a little rough. Women do not seek out submissive men to have sex with. There are even many women with rape fantasies and pain fetishes (choking, slapping, etc) are so common they might not even be fetishes. Despite what they say, women as a group have a genetic need to be physically dominated and they enjoy it as much as they need it. This also explains why women stay with men who beat them.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: reddit is fertile ground for white supremacist recruitment + + If you were a white supremacist looking to spread your views, then I believe reddit is the perfect platform for this goal. Why I think so: a) The 'general' subreddits with the largest following (eg. /r/todayilearned, /r/videos, /r/pics, /r/funny) are easy places to push an agenda. They have huge audiences and mod teams that don't care about what gets submitted there, so long as it follows their very short list of rules. b) Site demographics/popular opinions. From my time on this site, I feel like the majority opinion across most subreddits is conservative on issues such as race or gender, and liberal elsewhere. So when discussing Ferguson you'll see many comments about 'thugs' ruining the movement, or how it's black people's fault for committing so much crime, 'the media won't cover black hate crime' etc. [This one /r/videos thread has that and much more.](https://np.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/32yq1n/black_man_who_tortures_kills_two_white_teens/) c) Upvote/downvote system. It doesn't take much to control the content on a sub. All it takes is a few upvotes/downvotes within a few minutes and you can guarantee your post gets a lot of attention. If Stormfront uses an IRC to coordinate voting, then they could easily get away with manipulating content. I've seen numerous threads on 4chan's /pol/ directing users to vote on threads in /r/news or /r/videos before. d) The recent uptick in 'SJW' hate. All this talk about 'SJWs' and how they're a scourge primes people to ignore many racial issues if it sounds even remotely like something a 'SJW' would say. In the /r/videos thread I linked above, there's numerous references to 'SJWs' being BTFO for trying to say that that one dude's trial shouldn't represent the whole #blacklivesmatter idea. CMV: if you're a white supremacist, then reddit.com is the best site on the Internet to recruit because of its huge userbase, lax moderation, upvote system, and popular opinion	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
I believe that large dogs are dangerous, regardless of their past behavior or how well trained they are. CMV + + A few years ago back in high school I was hanging out with some friends in my neighborhood when we decided to go visit another mutual friend who lived down the street. When we got to his house, we rang the doorbell and heard a dog barking inside. I have a dog, albeit a small dog, and am very familiar with their classic behavior of barking at whichever stranger arrives at the front door and subsequently running up to them and checking them out. I had never had a bad experience with dogs and wasn't freaked out by them at that point in time, so when we walk in and I spot this kid's German Shepherd at the top of the stairs, I don't think much of it. The dog is barking, starts to run down the stairs, and I start to brace myself in the event that the dog jumps up on me to sniff me or what not, but I'm not afraid at all. Then suddenly the dog jumps up and onto my friend standing directly on my left, bites into his shoulder, and thrashes his head back in forth. When they finally pulled the dog off my friend, he was bleeding all over the place. I've never seen someone's flesh so torn up. After we left to take him to the hospital, I couldn't help but think that that could just as easily been me. The dog apparently had no history of that kind of thing. Why he bit my friend, no one knows. He wasn't displaying any kind of aggressive behavior, wasn't being threatening, he was literally just standing there and within 15 seconds of being in the room, he was attacked. Needless to say, this event left me pretty scarred and I have never been able to look at big dogs the same way. My belief stems from my opinion that while dogs can learn to trust their owners after being fed and cared for over a long period of time, they are simply too unpredictable to be considered safe for strangers. There is no way you can know the behavior of a dog at first glance, whether it is friendly or aggressive. Even good natured, well trained dogs can't be considered safe, because if they perceive you as a threat to their owner, they will attack you defensively. I'm writing this post because I have recently become friends with a few people who have bigger dogs and I know in my head that it is illogical for me to feel this way, but I just can't shake the fear. I just want to be able to sit on the couch, or walk into a room, and not be on edge all the time that the dog is going to go berserk. So, please please please help me out Reddit and CMV!	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Feminism is not needed in the USA + + Kind of a long post here, I have a lot on my mind, maybe this isn't the best place to post. Anyway, this view has many facets to it. Let me lay out some things in general first. * Yes, I am male. I don't think that discounts my position. * Yes, I acknowledge that there is an issue of income inequality between men and women. This is bad and needs to be fixed. * It's possible that my view is a little warped because of the community I grew up in. More on this later * These argruments pertain only to the USA. Feminism may be very helpful in other less developed countries. * I am ALL FOR equal rights. I just don't think Feminism is helping us get there. --- So let's start with some generalities. Then we'll get into a couple specifics. * Why is the focus so much on women only? Before you overreact, hear me out. There are plenty of other groups of people who aren't treated fairly or ethically. We can't we just be concerned about liberty and equality for everyone? When someone says "I'm a feminist" usually I will think that means that they care about equality of women to the exclusion of all other groups. This has come from several nasty encounters with people who identify themselves as feminists. I understand that this does not represent the majority. Nonetheless, the name now has a reputation, and it's true that there are a fair number of people that think that way, it I believe it to be wrong. I'm not trying to diminish the issue, I just don't see why we can't be concerned about everyone. --- * My background I was raised in a very very safe community. I was taught that women were to be treated with respect and that I'm never allowed to hit a girl. I was taught to defend myself if necessary, but refrain from harming them if physically possible. I understand that not everyone thinks this way. Regardless, I mention it here as it may be a source of confusion on my view of the world. Also, I am a student of engineering. This further affects my view, as in this field, women are preferred for their gender alone. Businesses don't want to appear sexist, and there is an extremely high demand for female engineers. All other things being equal, the woman will be chosen over the man in an application. I understand a bit more about the school system though, in that it has a harsh disconnect with the previous statement. I remember that I study was done somewhere that just by placing a female name on an application to a university, it had a smaller chance of being accepted. This is quite strange. I agree that it's wrong and needs to be fixed, though I'm not really sure how it can be done. So the reason why I say this is that in my field of study, women are considered more valuable than men, thus another item that is influencing my view, which may be incomplete. --- So those are my generalities. Not much really, but it's because I have specifics and wanted to avoid repetition. Hopefully that works out and isn't too jumbled up. --- These two specifics both came from my browsing Tumblr. I found a couple posts that seem to be a little warped. It seems to me that they have an incorrect view, so let me explain my reasoning and maybe someone can point out where I'm wrong. --- [First post by yungsunshine](http://yungsunshine.com/post/86796092228) I'm just gonna drop through each tweet one by one, starting with number 2. * Who is telling girls this??? The only case of public groping I've seen, the girl slapped the guy in the face and that was the end of it. Where are they hearing to take it as a compliment? I've never seen any girl be told this. * I think you just need to get over that one. Everyone - everyone - endures verbal persecution. Myself included. You gotta have thicker skin than that. If a close friend says something hurtful, I get why you would be upset. But a random stranger being dumb? We don't need feminism to fix that. We need a better education system. (That applies to a lot of things) * I'm not an expert on self defense classes for women. I have taken several years in American Freestyle martial arts though. So I don't really know what happened in that training, but I'm guessing the instructor said "Don't yell rape, yell fire, it's more effective." This is not bad. Think about it. If you yell rape, that means that one human being is overpowering another. The action required is to stop the assailant with physical force. This means that someone must 1) hear the call, 2) by physically able to stop an attacker, 3) pinpoint the location of the cry for help, and 4) actually hold off the attacker. There's no such thing as a fair fight. On the other hand, if you yell fire, everyone in hearing distance is prompted to a simple action. Move This is going to create a huge amount of commotion and it's going to be easier to get away. The cry of "fire" calls to a much smaller skill set for action. That's why it's more effective. * No offense, but so have men. If you're getting death threats, I'd say you're hanging with the wrong crowd and should probably move. Those people have more than one thing wrong with them, or maybe you owe them a lot of money. That's an issue every human must consider in a dangerous place. Being a woman really doesn't have much effect here. Additionally... the tag makes no sense here. So you mean to tell me that "YesAllWomen" have lived through every one of those? Yeah, it's nitpicky, so more on that later. * Yes. Yes it is. Problem? We all live in a dangerous world. My girlfriend requires the same of me. I'm not "safer" because I'm male. I love my girlfriend and I care about her, that's why I have to know she made it to her destination safely. I'm failing to see any problem with this. If the argument is that it's not safe for women to be out, then I believe there's an error in that thinking. Everyone is unsafe. Any human could get robbed, murdered, or hit by a car. Your chromosomes don't change anything in the context of that tweet. * Okay, I can see an argument here. But I still think it's partially messed up. For one, as an individual, you can do nothing to control the actions of others. Your safety is your responsibility. Don't get mad when people try to help girls do that. Now, I give you credit. They are being taught the wrong way, and boys should be taught just as much. Personally, I would be a lot more comfortable if my daughter had pepper-spray and a handgun and was trained to use them (correctly) rather than a rape whistle. Additionally, boys should be taught to respect girls. Just like I was. However I don't think that will solve every problem. More on that later. Feminism can't fix this though. Parents must instruct their children. * Yeah, okay, good point. That's messed up. True, those athletes probably have pretty big heads anyway (not all, just some) so there's more than one issue here. Feminism isn't going to fix the pride of athletes. But it's still a decent point. * This is where my view may be warped. I have only seen one woman suffer this, and she put the dude in his place. (See above) I have a hard time believing that every single woman in the entire world lives with the threat of male violence every single day of their lives. Not more than any human lives with the threat of serial killers every day of their lives. If they mean it in the sense that it's possible on any given day, then the logic is just broken. Many of us live with the threat of a car accident, or a shooting, or a building burning down every day of our lives. Feminism can't fix the fundamental problems of the human race. (Which there's only one race, by the way, the human race) * That's messed up. If you as a women are honestly scared that any given man you every meet could kill you, then maybe you don't understand statistics. I'll get into the issue of murders on my next specific issue. * Finally, the generalities here are impressive. "YesAllWomen" is the tag used to report your personal struggles? Not seeing the logic there. It's a generalization that should be avoided. --- [Second post](http://turn-it-up-tune-them-out.tumblr.com/post/86887543820/literally-all-these-girls-having-fucking-meltdowns) (Not sure who to credit, I don't know how this system works very well) Well it appears that I'm running out of characters. So I continued this in pastebin. I'm not sure if I'll actually get any answers to this... In any event, the rest is here: http://pastebin.com/LJHnSaJ4 Thanks to anyone who made it to the end here, sorry its so crazy long. I'd appreciate any input.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
I am not interested in dating a girl that is not a virgin. I encourage you to CMV. + + I am 23 years old and grew up in a very religious family that believes in only dating within our church and places a high focus on maintaining sexual purity until marriage. I've dated a handful of girls and after getting to know them, the majority of them admitted to me that they've kissed other boys and since I knew them pretty well at that point I was able to move past it but I'm not sure if I could have forgiven them if they had told me they'd had sex. I'm not with anyone right now and I feel very limited by the fact that I'm not interested in dating or potentially marrying a girl that has had sex, even if they look back on it as a mistake. And since it's related to the topic; I have never had sex, never kissed a girl, but I have gotten physically close to some of them. If pressured on it I would admit that I've been in love as well. I'm here to answer any qualifying questions.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
Neil deGrasse Tyson is not a scientist. CMV. + + Caveat: I think NdGT is doing great things. We live in an era of poor scientific literacy and engagement. Anyone who fights to change that is doing good work. Main Argument: Scientists are people who do science. I actually have a fairly broad definition of this. Doing science is about creating knowledge. Creating knowledge may involve laboratory work, observational methods, theoretical musings, etc. I don't care if you work at a university, in a corporate lab, or in your garage. However, creating knowledge also involves engaging the scientific community about your new findings through conference presentations or publication in scientific journals. To the best of my knowledge, NdGT does not do science. He neither creates knowledge nor participates in any accepted form of peer reviewed scientific discourse. NdGT is a science writer (he writes about science). NdGT is a science PR rep extraordinaire. But, he's not a scientist. Anticipated rebuttal: Yes I understand NdGT holds a PhD in astrophysics. But I don't think a credential alone is enough to qualify one as a scientist. I could have a PhD in music; that wouldn't make me a musician. NdGT probably had to be a scientist to finish his dissertation, but I don't think he is one anymore.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV:"Literature" (fictional) should not be a core high-school subject or a key part of any mandatory English class. + + First I have to clarify: I don't want to eliminate things like composition, grammar, or rhetoric in high schools. These things are useful and should be kept around in HS english curriculum. What I'm saying is that the focus on literature (particularly fiction) within a composition class should be exchanged for more focus on composition and rhetoric. (Also, in comp classes, the reading should be more essay-based instead of novel- or short-story-based.) Likewise, classes that focus exclusively on literature (i.e. mandatory lit classes) should be replaced entirely in the core curriculum by other, more useful classes. I've searched, and I've yet to come across any good arguments for the retention of Lit class in the mandatory HS cirriculum. Take this article for instance: http://www.brighthubeducation.com/teaching-methods-tips/100744-the-importance-of-teaching-literature/ The article is called "The Importance of Teaching Literature." It lists five reasons that teaching Lit in HS is important and elaborates on each. To quickly address each point: We teach Lit for/to develop: Cultural Values* The article says: kids need to be able to understand references to unifying works like the Bible and Shakespeare. I say: These literary references (especially Shakespeare references) are only necessary to understand other literature...sure, maybe the odd movie or game now and again references Shakespeare or mirrors his stories in some way, but is it worth it to have a core HS class just to catch these references? On top of that, when was the last time anyone heard of reading the Bible in English class? And do we really want to keep the Bible alive (Lit classes tend to make certain works immortal) just to preserve a cultural touchstone that delares damnation for homosexual people and other wild stuff? Expanding Horizons* The article says: Lit can transport us through time and space. We can experience life through another's eyes with Literature. I say: We can do the same thing with movies. And especially video games. But if the focus is to transport ourselves into the past, then why not read letters written from the past? Autobiographies? First hand non-fiction seems to be more valuable in this regard than fiction does, whether the fiction be in the form of a movie, video game, or book. Also a movie takes 2 hours to watch while a book takes weeks to read (and you can get just the same amount of pathos from a good movie as you can from a good book.) Building vocabulary* Article says: Book-reading builds an expansive vocab (can't disagree here.) Better vocabularies lead to more complex discussions. I say: First off, literary fiction is not the only place in the world of the written word to find new words. Essayists love a nice, uncommon word, and so do long-form reporters. Heck, even some of the past's better letter-writers liked to take the old thesaurus out for a spin. This is my main rebuttal to this point: fiction is not in any way necessary for building a better vocab. Now for a more personal rebuttal: I think that when people use words like "rebuttal" it's annoying more than anything else. And it distracts from their message. Generally, when a person uses a word like "utilize" instead of "use," or even little harmless words like "nor," it just sets off a fedora/neck-beard alarm in my head and I can't take them seriously anymore. Not saying we should keep people from learning new words or anything...just saying that I think people place too much value on an "expansive" vocabulary. I also realize that I'm a hypocrite, talking about vocab like this, but oh well. Doesn't make the idea that "sometimes a bigger vocab is just annoying" wrong. Improving writing skills* Article says: More you read the better you write (can't disagree.) I say: All types of writing are not created equal. Reading lit fiction will not help you improve your practical writing skills, like e-mail writing, persuasive writing, or tech writing. Reading more lit helps you write better lit...but we can't just be reading lit for the sake of writing more of it. That seems ridiculous. And even if you see a lot of value in lit itself, its got to be mostly aesthetic value, and we shouldn't teach a core class in lit just because lit is "pretty writing," wouldn't you agree? Teaching critical thinking* Article says: With so much malicious sensory data out there these days, students need to learn to think critically (I agree.) Literature is the best way to do this. I say: Why not protect kids from groupthink by having them deconstruct advertisements or political rhetoric directly? (I remember doing some of this in an english class of mine...it was eye-opening. But for some reason we only did it for a class period or two before it was back to lit.) I know that these points aren't perfect representations of the points in the article, but I just wanted to address a few straw men before I let you CMVers at me. Also, there are so many subjects that could take the place of Lit in high school classrooms! Philosophy and computer programming are two good ones. In fact, philosophy sounds like a perfect class to develop your critical thinking skills in. It sounds like a better way to teach critical thinking than lit, anyway. 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 less of people who use Apple products CMV + + I work with Windows and Linux servers and spend far too much time reading up on the latest patent Apple has sued something over, meaning I'm effectively bombarding myself with anti Apple information a lot of the time. Intellectually I understand Apple devices are quality hardware, user friendly consumer product that represent value for their price. I respect the business acumen of Apple creating an ecosystem of products that efficiently take people's money from them. I've recently met some some Apple product users whose technical opinions I significantly respect - prompted me to reevaluate my 'Apple fans are useless with technology' position. My conclusion is that my Apple hate goes beyond the rational e.g. a person says they are a Mac fan, I immediately think less of them. Please change my view.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
I believe that I am worthless. CMV. + + Well maybe that was a bit harsh, but I think I am insignificant. The universe is much bigger than anything a person can imagine; I don't think that anything I will ever do will matter because of this. This picture reaffirmed how I felt (http://imgur.com/vyOiKDu.) I am non-religious and I guess that might be part of why I feel this way (No personal god). One other thing to mention is my personal philosophy is close to Humanism. I have joined healthcare system and believe that helping my fellow man is as close to as being significant as I can. I still ultimately feel that nothing I will ever do will matter. So go ahead 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 don't see why people insist on the term "feminist" being used for someone who supports equality, rather than something which actually means "belief in equality for all people". + + I'll get this out of the way first - I am a man. Let me also say that more than anything else, I believe strongly in the equality of not only the sexes, but races, sexualities, everything. I believe that everyone should be equal and I think this should really be common sense. And yet, I cannot bring myself to call myself a feminist. I think my reasoning for this is sound, and yet I constantly see people talk about how horrible anyone who claims to believe in equality yet doesn't use the term "feminist" is. This makes me feel horrible, because there is nothing I want more in the world than for everyone to be treated equally. At first I fought against it, trying to argue my position, and I thought that I was doing well, but I just got called names and mocked for it. Now, a lot of people that I respect very much have been recently saying this same thing ("Feminism IS equality, the terms 'humanist' and 'egalitarian' are misogynist"), and I've come to think that there simply must be something here I'm not seeing. I'm either overlooking something or being unnecessarily stubborn in a way I can't seem to realize. Before that, though, here is why I still believe I am at least partially in the right: * The word "feminist" implies focus on women, just in its name. I don't mind this when used in connection to women's rights - that's what it's for, right? And I certainly support women's rights, I just don't like the term because it seems to erase the fact that inequality is constant, from both sides. When someone says "feminism IS the belief in equality for both genders", they are right, in the technical sense, but by its very nature, feminism only focuses on women's issues. "Masculinism" is stupid for the same reason, with the added bonus of devaluing women's issues. I think we need an all-encompassing term, and "feminism" does not seem to be it. * I have also been faced with discrimination from so-called "feminists" simply for being a man. I understand perfectly that these people are NOT examples of the movement as a whole, but they are prevalent enough that I don't want to use the same word to describe myself as the word they use to excuse their hatred for men (which is the definition of misandry, though they claim that doesn't exist). I have also been discriminated against for not only being a man, but daring to believe in equality. If men truly have more power, isn't it more to the advantage of feminists to get men on their side? Not according to the extremists. But those are extremists; I am digressing. * I understand that the term "humanist" was claimed by another movement which did not allow women to join. I don't use that term. I don't use "egalitarian" either, if only because of the negative stigma feminists give it, but that word means "belief in equality for all people", and I cannot fathom what the problem with that is. That is exactly what I believe. It goes beyond sex or gender, it is all people, and that is how I prefer to think of it. Yet, if I were to call myself an egalitarian, I would be met with cries of such things as "you're ignoring women's issues", etc. I don't understand how an all-encompassing term would ignore any part of it. If anything, a term which focuses on women is ignoring part of it. * Women CLEARLY have it MUCH, MUCH WORSE than men. That is the main reason I think Men's Rights in general is a load of rubbish. I think we should solve all issues of equality, but there are priorities that need to be followed, and I think women's rights are the priority right now. However, there are some issues on the opposite side which I think are just as pressing. For example, male victims of domestic abuse have hardly anywhere to get support. Either they are not believed, or they are mocked. It is similar for some male rape victims, though I have heard from a few actual victims that in recent years this has been getting much better. (As a side note, one that I've seen getting thrown around is the higher suicide rate among men... But I'm not sure how that's really relevant, because I don't see a way to change that without simply better mental health care for everyone, and even then the divide would still be there.) * The phrase "not all men" has been misused by assholes to distract from real issues, but I don't understand why people don't seem to realize that it's true. If you don't believe than not all men are like this, then you do believe that all men are like this - this being misogynistic serial rapist-murderers waiting to happen, if they haven't already. That is sexism. I perfectly understand the ridiculing of the term's most common use, but it seems to get washed away completely because of aforementioned assholes. Isn't that the same thing as discounting feminism because of the man-hating extremists? I think I had more to say but I've run out of steam, it seems. I really, honestly do want my view to change about this, because I want to be able to understand why everybody else is arguing for the use of the term. Please, help me understand. I am as sincere as I could possibly be.	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 taxation is theft. CMV. + + I would like to make clear that I am not interested in debating whether taxes are good, necessary, or whether they provide useful things. If it's OK with everyone else, I would like to restrict this discussion to debating whether taxation is theft. I've read the previous post on this [here](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1fxmsq/i_believe_taxation_is_theft_cmv/), but none of the arguments presented there are convincing. I am entirely open to changing my view on this. I may very well be wrong. It has happened before, and will undoubtedly happen again. That said, let me briefly explain my view: Theft is the confiscation of property using coercion. Coercion is the act of forcing someone to do something involuntarily. A few scenarios will help clarify how taxation fits in to this definition. It should be fairly obvious that this is similar to the following scenario: Now, there are some common objections to this: * The person in the latter case did not give me anything in exchange for my money, whereas in the former case I received something. * I have an implicit contract in the former case that does not exist in the latter case. My response to these objections is that there is an example of theft that we all recognize where I am subject to an implicit contract, and receive something for my money. Here is that scenario: Scenario 3 is a case of extortion, which is an instance of theft. To make my responses to the objections explicit: * The receiving of services for money extracted by force does not matter. The fact that I paid for something I didn't want is irrelevant. It is still theft. * A "social contract" is not a valid contract. Valid contracts must be opted in to, there is no such thing as a valid opt-out contract. In other words, I am not bound to a contract by not doing something. Forcing me to adhere to the payment terms of a contract that is invalid is theft. Since I am not bound to a valid contract, I have no obligation to leave the neighbourhood/country. Now, it might be said that as soon as I use a road or a bridge or any other product/service provided by the government, I bind myself to the social contract. I would agree to this. However the government can then claim no right to stop me from building my own road/bridge or providing an alternative to their product/service which they have no ownership over, since by doing so they are forcing me to bind myself to the contract, which invalidates it. I also cannot be said to consent to any service I cannot refuse, such as police or military protection. If I have no ability to refuse the service, I have no ability to consent to it either. I should be allowed to offer an alternative to government services that future citizens could then use, and avoid entering in to the social contract. If all property is ultimately owned by the government in such a way as I can't do this, then the contract is invalidated since I cannot be bound to a contract I can't refuse. Anyway this is hugely long enough as it is, so I'll leave it at that. I look forward to your responses! TL;DR whether or not the social contract (the basis of taxation) is wrong or right, taxation can't be called theft.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
JFK is only considered a great president and held in high regard because he was assassinated. CMV. + + I honestly don't get the love for JFK. Where many see a heroic president, I see an ineffectual leader who, among other things, bungled the Cuban Missile Crisis, blew it with the Bay of Pigs invasion, and was ineffectual at getting his agenda passed while he was alive and in office, which was significantly harmful to much of his legacy, most notably with civil rights. His actions regarding the steel industry in particular were harmful to the economy. I'm not seeing where he was a great, or even good, president. If he hadn't been assassinated, I don't believe we'd hold him in high regard at all, nor would many of the accomplishments attributed to him have passed.	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 our legal system is built on a capitalistic model which removes the fairness factor. + + It seems to me that our legal system is built on a capitalistic model. If a lawyer is really good with a proven track record they can charge more money than other lawyers who don't have such a good record. This seems to indicate to me that the people who can hire these more expensive lawyers are increasing their odds that they will have a more favorable outcome of any litigation. Say someone is being sued by someone else who has a lot of money and they hire a lawyer who has won 95% of his cases and with the first person who can't afford such a high caliber lawyer, wouldn't the odds be slightly in favor of the more seasoned lawyer with a proven track record? I would like to not believe this, so please help me change my view.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV:Dating a friend's ex is not wrong + + I recently found out about a situation that happened in my class.Girl A was dating boy B.A decided to break up with B, and B was devastated by this.C(A's best friend), started spending time with B to try to confort him, and they have now started dating. B is now mad at C, and has decided to break all contact and start hating her.A number of people support her decision and think it's justified and right. I don't agree with that.I can understand that if it was B that had broken up with her, she might feel something like betrayal and might find hard to keep being friends.However, to start attacking somebody for dating your ex is very inmature and wrong.While I understand that a break up might be emotionally damaging, it still should'nt give you the right to be an asshole. I think that the underlaying reason for this is the tought that dating somebody somehow gives you special privileges. People are not private property, and having dated somebody doesn't give you the right to restrict who can they date.Furthermore, I believe that, as long as we don't directly harm others, we shoul be free to act as we please. The arguments I have received are all variations of "bros before hoes" and "she's a bitch if she does that,she shoulnd't be allowed".I would like to hear some rational arguments instead of hormonal-emotional babble. Sorry if something is not clear, I'n not a native speaker.Thanks.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
The Prime Directive from Star Trek is Stupid CMV + + The prime directive is Starfleet's General Order number 1. It has some variation from series to series but generally dictates that there can be no interference with the internal development of alien civilizations. It is generally regarded as a moral philosophy used to guide star trek captains: "The Prime Directive is not just a set of rules. It is a philosophy, and a very correct one. History has proven again and again that whenever mankind interferes with a less developed civilization, no matter how well intentioned that interference may be, the results are invariably disastrous." —Jean-Luc Picard, Symbiosis So maybe there is hypothetical evidence that interfering with alien cultures is always detrimental from star trek history that the viewer never knows. But as a moral philosophy and a practical method it seems stupid. Here are the problems with it: 1) It seems to be propagated by the naturalistic fallacy and bans playing God, which is pretty weird because everything else about star trek moral philosophy is centered on secular humanism. 2) There is a disturbing application of Social Darwinism. Only the fittest civilizations which can avoid their own destruction and can achieve technical wonders on their own are worthy of survival, or joining the federation 3) It can easily be used as an excuse for inaction when there are tough decisions to make. 4) The evidence we have in the real world generally indicates that technology is a good thing 5) It limits what the general mission of the federation is, exploration of new life and civilizations.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: It doesn't bother me that the leaders of charities make tons of money. + + A common thing to complain about is that the leaders of big charities make large salaries (idk the average but for the purposes of this discussion let's call it >$250,000). People see the big gap between that salary and what is necessary to live fairly comfortably (almost certainly less than $100,000, and it depends on location) and they immediately think, "Bullshit! You don't need that salary! I'm not going to donate to a charity just so you can have a villa in Tuscany!" They're missing the point, though. If the charities want to do a good job, they need talented, dedicated people to lead them. Talented, dedicated people are not common and therefore command a higher than average salary. The kind of person who commands $300,000 probably brings a marginal benefit worth much more than $250,000 over the kind of person who commands $50,000. From this point of view it only makes sense that the charities invest in a highly paid executive, figuring that they gain more than they lose by spending the extra money. Of course, this is a different matter from people who embezzle money from charities, and if you give the charity the benefit of the doubt, they don't spend $300,000 a year on $50,000 a year talent except by mistake. To conclude I'd like to counter one probable argument, which is that the talented, dedicated people who can get a large salary from a charity should be willing to forego that large salary for the good of the cause. While this is admirable, it's not terribly realistic. Very few people are willing to leave hundreds of thousands of dollars per year on the table for the good of a cause; those that are willing to do so should be commended, but those who aren't shouldn't be chastised or insulted for putting their own interests first.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: That pre-orders and season passes are leading to poorer quality games + + Recently there have been numerous games that have been full of bugs, poor stories and have been overly hyped before release (2 publishers come to mind). I believe that it is the modern gamer's pre-ordering based on trailers and "believing the hype" that has led to this. The developers, in my opinion, have taken advantage of this, knowing that no matter what the put out on day 1, the sales will soar. All you have to do is venture onto metacritic and see the user scores to see that people are disappointed with what they have bought. I believe that if gamers were to resist buying on day 1, and would instead buy based on a bit more research, this would force publishers to take a bit more time and care on putting out the best game they can. Change my view.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Napoleon was not a great leader. + + Of course, Napoleon did many things for france, it's infrastructure, economy, laws and in general frances future, but it seems like he did nothing for the people as individuals and was in general a douche bag to most people? I don't know if this is a common known fact or not, so i'll just provide some source. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxQ4TcTcPbI at about 16:40 Zamoyski talks about Napoleon as a person being a douchebag, which reflects on how he treated his people. Even though Andrew talked about the positive sides - what he did to france as a country, it still seems like he did nothing much for individuals living in france back then.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
I believe wages should be based on how much the individual contributes to society. CMV + + The problem right now is that we live in a society where CEOs will make 400 times the average worker (source: http://www.rhetoric-culture.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/executive_compensation.jpg) This to me, is absolutely disgusting and it makes absolutely no sense. No doubt being a CEO is an important and challenging job, but to me it is completely illogical how one person can be worth the salary of 400 other persons. Not only that, the people in society that are making the most money aren't necessarily the ones contributing the most, it's not the teachers, the nurses, the firemen and the law enforcement personel. Rather it's the hedge fund managers and the bankers, now contrary to popular beleif I do realize that they contribute to society, they'll help and provide to market liquidity which will decrease market volatility and sure that's a good thing, but I don't believe that these people deserve the macabre amount of money that they are making. I'd love to see your take on this, CMV!	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
"Religion is the opiate of the masses" is true. CMV. + + I'm not taking the statement to be that spiritual traditions are actual drugs, but that "religion is the opiate of the masses" figuratively since collectively they function as a drug can. How various spiritual traditions affect you mentally in the way drugs can: 1. For people who think "this is how it should be" because they consider their life a gift not from their parents but from a god or force, actually blunt their ability to feel deep despair. This despair would kick in when they really see something wrong that they disagree with, and so while it seems to be beneficial in a control and personal health sense, it actually gets you to not react poorly to some bad things in exactly the way you would normally that might actually cause you to do something about it. 2. Spiritual traditions encourage worrying, because even though most contain some wisdom about not worrying, they also involve the idea that what you do may be wrong according to a non-manmade law. This means that if you think gays are ruining the country and tempting souls away from god, your spiritually given worry is actually the problem, and it is helping you choose to think that another person's dating life can harm. Worrying puts you out of your best mindset anyway: joy. Any joy you get from thinking that you've followed the right non-manmade laws will pale in comparison to real joy. It's like the difference between someone thinking "oh why am I airing out the sheets this gay couple slept on in my bed and breakfast last night, I shouldn't be doing this, damn sheets, thank the lord I never became gay," and so on, versus someone thinking "ah first exercise of the day, these sheets look interesting flapping in the wind with all their dimensions reflecting the light," and other things that express real joy and stand for you being in the moment. 3. Spiritual traditions ask you to accept things that are not good, like that going to hell is bad but the it you're supposed to be believing in order to not go to hell, is itself the very thing presupposing the existence of hell. There are other not good things, like focusing on whether the people around you are spiritually involved like you, rather than actual good things like self-expression and open communication, healthy lifestyles and academic knowledge. 4. Spiritual traditions can cause you to become complacent or justify disinterest in important things like how to do things you don't do well, or how to stop doing the things that don't solve what you're doing them to solve, and in the traditional sense of "opiate of the masses" can emotionally comfort you about making the decision not to become better in many ways. How various spiritual traditions can affect you physically the way drugs can: 1. Spiritual traditions can have you acting like your own bodily health is less important than souls, afterlives, penance, etc. Not all drugs have harmful physical effects when taken at regular dosages, but you don't have to OD to see where the similarity is. If sins that damn your soul, or actions that drop your next karmic stage of existence, or whatever the idea that is more important than your body happens to be, allow you to adopt a lifestyle where you actually don't even plan to have a healthy lifestyle then those spiritual traditions are in your way. Now, sure being unhealthy may often have a root cause other than spiritual traditions, that doesn't mean that the spiritual traditions aren't allowing you an easier time of keeping yourself from planning since your concept of importance has you below other things that exist when you have no body. 2. Spiritual traditions can even cause you to support things that cause death, like not seeking certain medical treatments, or endorsing the killing of other ethnicities or spiritual traditions or nations. How various spiritual traditions can affect you socially the way drugs can: 1. Spiritual traditions can cause you to treat your place of worship like a social club, which usually follows all the social club rules: some people aren't allowed, ostracization is something everyone will get in on, and people come to make relationships for business or among families rather than out of a celebration of beliefs. 2. Spiritual traditions can cause you to distrust other ways of life, and actually not seek to understand other people or customs but rather treat them as odd and not something you want when you don't even know anything about them. 3. Spiritual tradition can cause you to restructure relationships around spiritual ideas, rather than what might actually make for a good relationship. This means as you're growing up and finding out how to be close to people, and how to care for people, a spiritual tradition can get in the way of what you discover works best for you and brings you the most joy. 4. Spiritual traditions can encourage you to not turn people in for crimes if you're the one who knows they did something illegal but you're all of the same faith. TL;DR: I see spiritual traditions supporting and suffused with many bad things that allow it to operate as the opiate of the masses, mentally, emotionally, physically, and socially. More bad things than I have mentioned as well. I consider good things to be humanitarian aid, healthy lifestyles, cultivating love, intellectualism, open communication, self-expression, sustainable growth, taking inspiration from the world around you, conservationism (environmental protection), social acceptance, good timing, not taking things for granted, not supporting or acting out abuse or deception, religious freedom, national defense, business protections, community activism, and humor.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Most of the typical negative comparisons between the United States and Europe are complete bullshit; Americans are no more racist and no less cultured than Europeans. + + There's a strong anti-American bias on many subs that devolves into a circlejerk of "everything American is bad". Some specific examples of criticisms that get levied at Americans are (off the top of my head) that: 1) we're racist 2) we're culturally ignorant 3) we're homophobic 4) we're crazily religious Buuuuut it seems to me that it's pretty hypocritical of Europeans to cast stones. After all, "we" (Americans) get criticized and characterized as being racist against black people... but any time the Roma come up, Europeans become (at least) equally racist. We're supposedly ignorant of other cultures, but at least where I grew up (Texas), a foreign language was required as part of the middle and high school curriculum. Most of us took Spanish because it's practical for a border state. The states that border Canada and Mexico are more culturally aware due to exposure, and most other states are locked inside a huge landmass where there are limited opportunities for cultural enrichment. Also, there's a huge divide between education in large cities (Austin, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, etc) and small towns. Some Americans are homophobic, but when Europeans criticize America on gay rights they always seem to conveniently forget places like Russia or most of Eastern Europe. Yeah, our rights record looks a lot better if we cherrypick the states that have done the best. But when Europeans conveniently leave out Eastern Europe, that's like us taking the entire south out of comparisons. Again, some Americans tend toward the crazy side of faith, but most Christian Americans are very... I dunno... normal people. We've also never established a state religion, unlike many European nations. We also have no equivalent to UKIP or the Golden Dawn, despite our general conservatism compared to much of Western Europe. And don't get me started on criticisms of American militarism-- England conquered a large slice of the world, the Soviet Union was extended and maintained by force (the Hungarians, Czechoslovakians, etc.), the French had a colonial empire, the Germans had colonial holdings in Africa and committed genocide... pretty much every European nation with any kind of wealth or influence has benefited significantly from the blood on their hands. America is just bigger, but we aren't more bloodthirsty. That's not to say that there aren't a few legitimate criticisms. Off the top of my head, I'd say that our failure to implement a British-style national healthcare system stands out. But truly legitimate criticisms of America seem to be few and far between.	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 we should have a 'Reverse Boot Camp' when veterans return from active duty, in order to better transition them back into society. CMV + + So, from my limited understanding of this, I've read that PTSD and Depression (just two examples) are reaching [ridiculous levels](http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/10/prweb11195568.htm) [of diagnosis.](http://www.nami.org/Template.cfm?Section=Depression&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=88939) It would seem that coming back from the events of war causes significant changes in one's mental state, and that transitioning back to society is extremely difficult, even for the soldiers who are 'fine.' Now, we know a lot of ways to [combat PTSD](http://www.helpguide.org/mental/post_traumatic_stress_disorder_symptoms_treatment.htm) [and depression](http://www.helpguide.org/mental/depression_tips.htm), and [there's new studies coming out all the time, so it's clearly something we as a society care about](http://depts.washington.edu/hhwb/Thm_Mental.html). It just seems to me that generally, American society continually spouts the whole, "I support the troops" mindset, but what does that really mean? The biggest problems that face troops don't have to do with supplies, funding, or a lack of training going into the conflict, but their transition back into society afterwards. We train them to go into the conflict, why would we not train them to come out of it? If we know that many, many troops struggle with this, and we know how to treat it (obviously each case is different, but I mean as an overarching topic we do know treatment methods), it seems like a no brain-er that we should be doing something about it. In my mind, the best way to do this would be to have some sort of mandatory program for soldiers when they return. It could be just a month or two long (after which those soldiers who still need help will at least have the resources readily available to them), and it would consist of living and working as a group to achieve peaceful goals, possibly [raising animals](http://www.helpguide.org/life/pets.htm), [spending a lot of time outside](http://depts.washington.edu/hhwb/Thm_Mental.html), etc etc. Even for those soldiers who aren't suffering from these serious issues would benefit from some down time to reduce stress levels and transition back into everyday life. The money for all of this, in the perfect world, would come from all the excess military spending that this country pumps out (if you don't believe that, just [Google excess military spending](http://lmgtfy.com/?q=excess+military+spending) and see what comes up). One final supporting point is that [over half of all enlisted forces are between the ages of 18-30](http://www.statisticbrain.com/demographics-of-active-duty-u-s-military/). This means that most people who are enlisted are still relatively young, and have not spent a lot of time off in the real world on their own. So another argument is that since they have not spent a lot of time interacting with society as a regular citizen, then they have very little to 'fall back' on in terms of old habits or old feelings to relate to. So that's the thinking behind my view. I'm really interested in reading some arguments as to why we don't already do this. Thanks everyone! P.S. I understand that funding might be the biggest issue people are going to raise. I would prefer to hear other arguments against this, because funding is the most apparent/easiest one to spot, but also the easiest one to refute. P.P.S. This whole topic was sparked in my mind over this recent [This American Life story](http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/515/transcript) (skip to "Deep, Dark, Open Secret").	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: I cannot enjoy anything knowing that all things come to an end. + + Everything is just a reminder of the futility of life. Having a good time with friends becomes loneliness. Drinking and kicking back is just a distraction from the end-all that is death. Another birthday is just another year towards the end. Life is just a series of replacing old goals until you die... For example, You aim to graduate high school... but then you have to make a new goal, so you aim to graduate college... but once you're there, you get a career, and then a family, and a home, vacations, etc. The journey is just a distraction that the end is meaningless. • life should be about what you do while you’re alive &nbsp; • worrying about death gets in the way of living &nbsp; • post-mortem influence in life &nbsp; • all things that end are not unenjoyable &nbsp; • so what? just have fun. YOLO. all you have is right now. &nbsp; • value is not contingent upon permanency &nbsp; • Knowing is not the be-all and end-all to life &nbsp; • “Don’t cry because it’s over; smile because it happened.” &nbsp; • avoid trying to change the unchangeable &nbsp; • have curiosity about life and its mysteries &nbsp; • it’s all so ridiculous that there’s nothing to do but laugh (embrace the absurdity) &nbsp; • Death shouldn’t dictate life, it is simply an experience &nbsp; • Ends are liberating, not constraining &nbsp; • living forever would get boring &nbsp; • the limitations of death provide the foundation of joy &nbsp;	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
Empathy is an inherently disadvantageous emotion, and I would be better off without it. CMV. + + I have come to understand empathy as the ability to relate emotionally with others. While it is understandable that in a complex society, empathy would be good to allow for coordination, teamwork, and overall greater successes as a community, I feel that when observing one's specific life, empathy does nothing but hinder one from becoming the best they can be. By being distracted by other persons, we are forced to put our own lives on hold for sake of "feeling" towards other people. If we were to get rid of all empathy, we would be more successful beings, individually. 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 people should pay the same rate of income tax. + + My opinion is that taxing people at a higher rate simply because they earn more is penalising you for being wealthy, which is contradictory to the point of having wealth in the first place. I don't intend to make any statements on Corporation tax or VAT or anything of that nature, simply that you shouldn't be discriminated against because you are successful. I also believe that your societal obligations do not increase simply because you earn more, rather that you'll pay more tax anyway, because you earn more in total. (I should state I am a resident of the UK, and I would not qualify as a 'high earner' so it's not as though I'm arguing for my six-figure salary to be protected. I also believe everyone should pay as little tax as possible, and that, overall, paying less tax can increase, as well as decrease the contribution to the Treasury.)	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
I believe all broadcast news is bias and those that only point out Fox News are ignorant. CMV + + Often I hear people only complain about Fox News and how terrible they are but then go on to tell how great their news channel is without even a mention of its own bias. I believe that only pointing out a single news source and refusing to say that your own is also bias is fairly ignorant. All news is bias whether you are Liberal or Conservative, Democrat or Republican. I realize that Fox News is bias but so is MSNBC, CNN, and others. I believe all people should listen to both sides and then an outside source too.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
I dislike gender identity as a concept. CMV. + + Okay, so here's my understanding of the issue. Everybody is born either male or female, and this is your sex, but whether you are a man or a woman is a an issue of identity, and is independent of your sex. That is, one can be born a male, but later on in her life, realize that she identifies with women and women traits, and thus decide to identify as a woman. She would request to be referred to by feminine pronouns, start wearing girl clothes, practice changing her voice until it sounded feminine, may or may not get genital/chest surgery and/or hormones, and then, she would be a girl, and do girl things. Here is where I have the problem. What are "Girl traits"? What are "Girl things"? I have always considered myself to be an advocate of equality and non-discrimination. I dislike stereotypes of all kind and think that everyone should be treated equally regardless of factors outside of their control such as race, orientation, etc., and as such, I don't consider any trait to be distinctly masculine or distinctly feminine. And I think the concept of gender identity promotes the idea that certain traits are. When did we decide what traits are? What is it that makes a male decide that she is a girl? Or a boy for that matter? What, if you're...sensitive or something, then you're a girl? I'm a pretty sensitive guy! And I can tell you, there's ALL SORTS of things that I do that other people would consider "Girly". But the thing is, I think people are full of bullshit. I mean, I don't really care. If people were to start referring to me by feminine pronouns, I would be pretty indifferent and probably wouldn't correct them. It's just, I don't get it. To me, assigning certain traits to a gender, and saying that identifying with these traits means identifying with that gender seems...backwards. It seems to promote gender stereotypes and roles. Like, if you're a male but you identify as a girl and decide to wear dresses...well, wearing dresses doesn't really help you identify as a girl, does it? All you need to be a girl is to identify as a girl. All wearing a dress is is conforming to how society says a girl should look. That's not about how you perceive yourself, it's about how you want society to perceive you. Like, when you tell me you're a girl...well, great, I just learned nothing significant about you at all. That doesn't give me room to presume anything about you, it gives me no information. So why is it such an important identity to so many people?	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
I believe that in the near future AI will deserve rights, CMV + + I believe that it is likely, although not certain, that in the near future artificial intelligence will be powerful enough, and exhibit enough human characteristics, that it could be considered conscious. I'm not personally certain that AI is or ever can be conscious, but I think that, with lack of further information, the ethical choice is to assume that anything with very human characteristics is conscious until proven otherwise. If computers are not conscious, then by giving them basic human rights, such as the right to property, or the right to not be killed, all you've done is avoided having them be angry (remember, the premise of this scenario assumes that the AI is sufficiently human-like so as to exhibit behavior which externally appears to reflect inner emotions. Whether or not they actually are angry, a computer can certainly behave angry if that is its programming). If they are in fact conscious, by granting computers rights you've avoided an enormous ethical lapse of humanity comparable to slavery or the holocaust. Still, I think this entire topic is so far deep into uncharted philosophical and political territory that there could very easily be downsides to offering rights to a computer which is arguably conscious. As one last point, I think it's valuable to draw analogies between intelligent computers and animals. There had been much debate over whether or not animals are conscious, or "feel" in the sense that humans do, but we've granted them basic rights regardless. Unwarranted and excessively cruel mistreatment of animals is illegal, and I believe the same should hold for artificial intelligence.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Escalators are meant to be walked up, not ridden. + + Standing on a escalator - even if it's to one side so as to let people pass - completely undermines the point of the device. The point of escalators is to increase the flow of human traffic in congested areas. I can't tell you how many time's I've gotten off the subway during rush hour and had to wait an extra 2-5 minutes by the escalators because there's such a huge backlog of people waiting to get up them that can't because they are: 1. waiting for a spot to free up so they can slip in and stand on the escalator, riding it to the top. 2. trying to slip into a spot to walk up like a sensible person but can't because either the entire escalator is blocked by standers, or is so congested that walkers can only get on one at a time. We're at the point that urban planners would be better off just not using escalators any more, because in the end they just end up causing more congestion than they prevent. ^If ^you're ^phsyically ^disbaled, ^or ^elderly, ^I ^don't ^think ^this ^applies.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
I think pimps are slave owners and should be treated the same by the police and the criminal justice system. CMV + + I'm black, so here's some perspective. I'm mostly referring to pimps in modern day America. But also the sex trade around the world. People say Thailand has a pretty gruesome sex trade, but I don't think it's much worse than America's. In the 18th century, a slave worked sunup til sundown for no pay (rarely some pay, but even then very little). If they tried to run away, they were beaten savagely to break their spirit and keep them enslaved. In fact, even as children as soon as they come of age (4-7), they were whipped mercilessly just to teach them their place, that they were property to be bought and sold. In modern day America, the same thing happens to prostitutes. In 2014, slave owner will kidnap a girl, or take in a run away, and "pimp train" them. Which means constant rapes and beatings until she realizes that the only reason she exists is to have sex for money, 90-100% of which is owed to the slave owner. Some pimps pay their slaves a small portion, but most do not. And guess what happens if a slave tries to run from the life? They will be beaten and raped until they realize their is no escape, aka (Broken spirit). In 2014, if a whore tries to run from a pimp, he will view it as someone messing with his money. Because all the money she gets is his ultimately. See how I'm using pimp interchangeably with slave owner and prostitute interchangeably with slave and it makes sense? Yes, there are a few prostitutes that work for themselves and are in complete control.... but those are exceptions to a rule because they are so few. TL;DR. Pimps are slaveowners. Prostitutes are slaves. Black music that promote pimping is the same as 17th century white media that promotes slavery. US gov't should abandon the unproductive war on drugs and start a war on slavery instead. 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 teenage sex and sex outside of a committed relationship/marriage is bad. CMV + + I understand that teens don't have the best self control and generally act on impulse but I don't think that we should encourage that behavior. I believe that being intimate with another person runs the inherent risk of pregnancy and/or STDs no matter how "safe" you are and if you aren't willing/capable of accepting that risk, you shouldn't be having sex. I believe the modern view of comprehensive sex education actually encourages teens to engage in these behaviors because "everybody does it anyways." 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 beastiality is amongst the most depraved and disgusting things humans do. CMV + + Up until last night, I had never come across or even thought about actual beastiality. I had always heard of it along with religious bigot arguments, and about how it was illegal in very many places. So to me, it's always been up there with "things that only insane people do", along with child pornography and torture. Rednecks fuck sheep. EW. Then last night my boyfriend sent me a shock gif of a girl sucking off a horse, with some joke about how that was nothing to some stuff he'd seen. I was absolutely and completely apalled, and nearly vomited on the spot. I told him that was absolutely disgusting (and I like to think I'm a reasonable person from the internet), and that I seriously hoped he had never watched anyting like that before (he's done aaaall of the fetish porn out there at some point, which doesn't really bother me. So have I.) He was completely taken aback, and told me that beastiality is not that uncommon, and sure he had seen a bit of it, was never into it but loads of people are. Coincidentally, I had my zoology final this morning. Yay. I have not been able to stop thinking about it since then, and I can't get over the fact that this thing which I consider to be completely and utterly disgusting, is regarded as fairly normal amongst the liberal community which I like to consider myself part of. I feel like I know what homophobes feel like, and it REALLY bothers me. I don't want to be a bigot. Please, CMV.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: i have a hard time feeling sympathetic towards ebola aid workers (and feel bad about it) + + in the uk there's a story going on right now of a nurse who got transferred to a london hospital/isolation ward, and that her condition is deteriorating rapidly. i don't take death lightly, i try and picture myself in that situation and everything i would be thinking, and it's awful to think about. at the same time though i think "what were you really expecting?" even worse than this i'm slightly resentful over aid workers sometimes, for instance she shared a plane on the way back with other people, imagine how they must have felt upon hearing they shared the same flight? parents getting given the idea "if we happened to get hit with awful luck, we may just have to watch our kids getting lowered into a grave in a coffin", or flight workers who could easily be you or me pondering "well I may never see my family again" if they happened to shake hands on the way out i dunno, is it really fair on those people? or her family who could have easily been exposed to it? i know she was trying to help people, but she's also creating a risk for innocent people who equally don't deserve to die. sometimes i just feel like saying "jeez, just stop it you idiot, don't you realise how foolish you're being? why are you risking leaving your entire family behind like that? it's not worth it" my rough thoughts, I guess	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: It is nonsensical and hypocritical to claim to support free speech while supporting any regulations or restrictions whatsoever regarding political speech + + DISCLAIMER: I do not wish to debate the merits of free speech vs regulated speech as this has been covered to death in other CMVs. I hear people all the time claiming that they support free speech, but think that there should "reasonable limits" on it. This, to me, is like saying "I'm not a racist, but I sure do hate those blacks" or "I'm a Marxist, but support free market capitalism." That is to say, it's a completely self-contradictory statement. Free speech is 100% a black and white issue with ZERO room for shades of grey. Either it's free or it isn't. If it is free, you should be free to say things that the government disagrees with, and therefore the government should have no say whatsoever in what you may or may not say. Otherwise, there is no free speech, only free speech within the limits set by the government. Every nation in the history of the world has this type of "free speech," including every oppressive dictatorship. Freedom of speech means precisely freedom of speech for people whom society despises. That means free speech for the KKK, Golden Dawn, and other such groups. You may oppose these groups having free speech and feel you have good reason to do so. That's a reasonable position to take (although one I disagree with). However, by objecting to this type of speech, you become an enemy of free speech, and should not pretend to care about it at all.	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 to idea of Christopher Columbus being the first to cross the Atlantic Ocean is absurd + + First of all, I'm not giving any credence to any of the Afrocentrist claims because they don't stand with any firm evidence. The same goes with Eurocentric claims. There's no denial that the conquest of Christopher Columbus was a monumental occurrence in human history. It lead to the convergence of human populations that diverged from each other thousands of years prior. He expanded the neolithic culture across hemispheres. However, I'm a bit skeptical that he was actually the first to cross the Atlantic. How could he be? We know that humans at the time were already capable in maritime travel. Oceanians were sailing the Pacific Ocean, an area much more vast than the Atlantic, for centuries. Native Americans were capable making their way deep into the Atlantic. This is why they were afforded to inhabit the island that we know today as Bermuda. Nevertheless, indigenous North Africans sailed out towards the Canary Islands to inhabit them prior to European conquest. Given that we know humans had maritime capabilities, why weren't they capable of crossing the entire Atlantic prior to 1492?	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
I think that after all the innocent killed by US air strikes and other attacks, the most dangerous terrorist group nowadays is the US army themselves. CMV. + + Over the last years there were repeated incidents when US strikes killed civilians who were mistaken as terrorists. After the [most recent event](http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/12/us-yemen-strike-idUSBRE9BB10O20131212) I realized that this is just terrorism. Imagining that I was an average citizen of for instance Yemen nowadays, I could not live without fear to be struck by one of these attacks anytime, anywhere. I'm paying my bills, I'm following the law, and I have no intention to hurt anyone. However, I'm in constant fear of death, because there is a group of people who may decide to kill me for their personal interest. I know the motivation is different from the al Quaeda attacks for instance, but the outcome for people is the same. Therefore, I think that, in particular from the point of view of a person living in these regions, the US military (and also allied forces performing similar attacks, which I am currently not aware of) is a terrorist organization.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?