input
stringlengths 114
23.1k
| output
stringclasses 2
values | instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|
CMV: Discrimination against short people is no better morally than discrimination against black people, but it is more socially accepted +
+ I think height-ism is just as morally wrong as racism, but it's still accepted socially and no one says anything about it.
I think racism is wrong because it demonstrates a glib writing off of an entire person, just because they happen to have a certain (immutable physical) characteristic.
So if I said, "I will only date people who are this shade of white or whiter" then I'd obviously be racist and people will avoid me for being a bit of an asshole. So people refrain from stating that "preference" or whatever, because it's a gross mental structure.
But if I say, "I will only date people who are over 6'0" then everyone acts like that's completely okay, even though they are committing the same moral offense of completely writing off a person or people just because they have some immutable physical characteristic.
Racism and height-ism are both a form of sociopathy, because instead of people, you just see cartoon cutouts based on your prejudices, and that allows you to be horrible to them.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: It is not the job of a school to regulate student's social lives. +
+ Inspired by this post http://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/2fxek1/syracuse_university_bans_a_location_known_for/
I agree with the students in the video, but I seem to be a minority on reddit. Understanding an administrations view on the subject might alleviate some of my frustration. Legally, most college students are adults, and a university is not a legal guardian. Also my fraternity owns its own house and property. The point of going to school is to get a degree and learn class material. What I do with my time outside of that I believe is my business. My college within the last four years has added these restrictions.
- Fraternities must tell the school 2 weeks in advance before having a party.
- Fraternities must pay for a bartender that can only serve 6 drinks maximum per person over 21.
- Freshmen are not allowed into fraternities until 3 weeks into school.
- Students are not allowed to live off campus without permission from the administration.
- Students must buy a meal plan.
- Traditionally all fraternities take a trip to Florida, the school has mandated that we all do it at a time they choose for us.
- Every semester I have to spend a few hours doing a course on alcohol that I've taken four times so far.
- Kegs are not allowed on campus so we just have to spend more money on beer.
The housing and meal plan rules seem to be purely to take money from students. I believe the other ones are made because most of the tuition money comes from parents and the rules are made to look to good them, because they actually make them more dangerous for students. Since the bartender rule was added, there was a significant increase in freshmen hospitalized for alcohol consumption. The reason was because since they couldn't drink at a party, they had get drunk really quickly before it started. My main issue, however, is that a school making rules like this because they disapprove of our lifestyle seems a lot like the attitude people who oppose gay marriage have (I do not mean to claim that my struggle is as significant as a homosexual's). I should be allowed to decide what risks I want and make mistakes and learn from them.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I don't think smoking cigarettes has any benefits. CMV +
+ Out of all the things we do in this world I think smoking may be the single most fruitless and costy.
It quadrouples your chances of death. It will most likely end your life in a very slow and painful way, way prematurely.
It makes you smell. It makes your skin look white-grey-yellowish.
It makes your teeth yellow.
It gives you wrinkles.
It fucks up your overall condition and make everything feel WAY more exhausting than it really is.
It causes second hand health problems to innocent bystanders and the little "good feeling" that it gives you just isn't worth it by a long shot.
At least cocaine gives you one helluva night when you take it. Cigarettes give you zip nada shit | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Sports are a waste of society's resources. +
+ I think that sports in general are a tremendous waste of time, energy and money and that they are a distraction from the things in our society that truly need our attention. I think far too much effort, manpower and resources, both mental and physical are poured into meaningless feats of strength. These resources could be used to truly change our society for the better.
The entertainment and camaraderie are a benefit of sports, but I believe that could be achieved on a smaller scale, freeing up massive resources which could be used for the true betterment of mankind.
Change my view please!
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Drug addicts do not deserve any of my sympathy. +
+ I'm writing this as my SO is trying to convince me otherwise too.
I don't have anything but negative feelings towards drug abusers (thought I am quite reserved and don't express it). My SO on the other hand somewhat pities them and wants me to understand that 'there may have been other factors leading them down the path they're on'.
I, however, just cant bring myself to accept that they don't rightly deserve the repercussions of their bad decisions. I think in todays day and age there is no excuse for ignoring all the warnings about drugs and drug abuse. In my opinion, you would have to be very ignorant to pay no heed to these warnings.
Drug addiction does not only harm the user, but also puts strains on their friends and family and the public welfare and health systems, which isn't fair on genuinely sick people who didnt have a choice in the matter.
In summary, I believe drug addicts have made a bad decision that has plenty of obvious warnings surrounding it. Because of this they have chosen to become a drain on society and thus do not deserve my sympathy, regardless of past situations that brought them to this point.
CMV!
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: There is nothing wrong with being labeled an opportunist. +
+ I've been labeled by some as an opportunist. The label was meant to express the notion that I was willing to pursue circumstances that were beneficial to me. Living in a capitalistic society (I'm from the U.S.) I believe that it benefits me to be this way, and should not be interpreted as a negative quality.
The argument against being an opportunist is that you are not a loyalist. Now granted their are things that you would want to be loyal to and not take the opportunity that may exist. Say for example the ability to date a friends ex, or being able to exploit someone for your own benefit. However, overall I think if you want to be successful in a capitalistic society you have to be an opportunist.
The whole concept of capitalism reflects around the notion that opportunity exists and is there for the taking. Those who do take it are the ones that are going to be successful. To try to suggest that these people are immoral for such actions is an unfair qualifier in a system that teaches us to be this way.
Being an immigrant further solidifies my belief that being an opportunist is a good thing. My family pursued the opportunity that the U.S. afforded them and took advantage of coming here and building a better life for themselves. I see no reason why they should have a negative feeling about this opportunity that they have taken, and I think we should motivate more people to be opportunists. That way they too can pursue circumstances that will help better their lives.
In regards to the new rule: I am looking for a reason why being an opportunist is considered a bad thing. I don't want a circumstantial response. Meaning I don't want scenarios in which opportunity should not be seized, as I have already conceded that those situations exist. However in regards to living a lifestyle of either seizing opportunities vs. not seizing them, I would like to understand why the latter would be considered better and why the former should be considered a negative quality.
Change My View.
P.S. If you don't believe this is a black and white issue, meaning there is no reason to be one or the other, and there should be a healthy blend of the two, then I would agree with you. I also don't think you would have the perspective that being an opportunist is a bad thing if you feel this way. Since I have been labeled this in a negative way, I'm looking to engage in discussions with people who truly believe that being an opportunist is a bad thing, be it for societal reasons, personal reasons or other reasons.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The proposed "Paycheck Fairness Act" is bad idea because it imposes ridiculous subjective rules on managers. +
+ I don't believe women should inherently be paid less. All else being equal, I have no problem with a man and woman getting paid the same if they do the same work under the same conditions (or two people of any gender).
However, life's never the same. Aside from obvious differences (experience, credentials, etc.), some people are simply better at their job, some people are better at negotiating for raises, heck, some people are simply more attractive than others!
But at what point do we stop the insanity of forcing managers to explain their decisions to the tiniest levels? First, they're forced to report why John gets a higher salary than Susan just because they're different genders? Next they'll have to prove John doesn't make more than Henry because of [looks](http://www.businessinsider.com/beautiful-people-make-more-money-2014-11)? Or [height](http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/Careers/02/02/cb.tall.people/)? Or [weight](http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/educate/college/business/articles/20050724.htm)?
There are so many potential surface level reasons for pay discrepancies, but the burden should not be on managers to justify every choice they make. It's already illegal to discriminate based on gender and a plethora of other things. Hence, the second bullet point of the [Paycheck Fairness Act](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paycheck_Fairness_Act) would be an unnecessary restriction on managers because of how it shifts the burden onto them and paves the way for an infinite number of questions to managers and their decisions.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
The refusal to say 'curse words' is idiotic CMV +
+ I have never understood how the U.S. government can censor radio and television from saying words like
Shit
Piss
Faggot
Fuck
Cunt
Nigger
Voldemort
Cocksucker
Motherfucker
Tits
By not saying "bad" words you give them power and encourage people to use them for emphasis. Its an extremely idiotic endless cycle. As Albus Dumbledore said "Fear of a name increases fear of a thing itself." But seriously though it makes no sense 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 toll roads are bad and just another tax for what our government should already be providing. +
+ It seems every city has them or wants them, and even when its proposed to only last a few years, they somehow keep running cause the free money is good. Sure, some of them are well maintained, but aren't all of our roads supposed to be well maintained? Toll roads basically tell us only those who can afford to pay to drive get quality roads that our government is supposed to provide anyways.
And for the most part, private corporations are the ones that end up getting a good deal out of the projects while we get shafted. If our legislators need money to improve our roads, shouldn't they be upfront about it and tell us how they plan on doing so? But even then, it seems like people are somehow ok with toll roads and understand the costs that are needed. Yet, when other taxes are proposed, people get up in arms because the word 'tax' was used as a way to improve things.
Why isn't this issue brought up more often?
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? |
I believe pick-up artists have an extremely unhealthy view of life. CMV +
+ Today I was exposed to the wonder that is /r/theredpill for the first time, which is why I made this thread. There's a quote I once heard that summarizes my views almost perfectly: "Pick-up artists see women as arcade games that dispense sex." It's impossible to have a healthy relationship that's based on manipulating your partner rather than communicating with them.
eta: Holy vote brigade, batman! You realize that's probably not going to help CMV, right? | 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 no reason to believe there is no afterlife, science only allows me to believe nothing. +
+ Not a christian afterlife, to be clear. I mean any continuation of my soul after the death of my body.
People tend to believe that they have a scientific reason to believe there was nothing before their birth and nothing will follow their death. This is not true.
Science has no basic theory for what happens, we just dont know, so you're not basing your beliefs on science, you're just not believing anything at all which to me is a massive disservice to yourself and your growth as a person.
I have no reason to believe that my consciousness is a product of my brain rather than just facilitated by it or channeled through it. I can use logic and apply the dynamics of the physical universe to say that maybe I am part of a bigger cycle, just like the water which consists of most of my body, and perhaps I will be reborn.
[Even big fancy scientific facts usually arent facts](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life_of_knowledge) so in the end you should just make up your own minds about some things. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I don't think British people have a right to get angry over US political standoffs. CMV. +
+ I don't believe that the British public are knowledgeable/qualified to even comment, let alone have any emotional response to the current US political standoff over the budget, which has resulted in the current shutdown. I say this as a British person myself, who has taken the time to familiarise himself with US politics, including the constitution, bill of rights, the independant governing of the individual states, and how fundamentally important this all is as part of a democratic society. My experience is that people in the UK not only ignorantly assume that the USA works the same way Britain does, but that the people have the exact same rights, priorities and philosophies as we do here. They don't understand what is going on and will believe whatever information is given to them, right or wrong, and start getting all upset about it. This to me is utterly ridiculous, for people who have no concept of the situation to be getting angry about it. CMV.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I believe that it is okay for me to compare myself with others +
+ I am really interested to see what others think about this. Coming from a very competitive environment, I have definitely become used to the stresses associated with comparing myself to others. While I do not think it is the best for my mental health, I do think it gives me a massive edge over others. I say this because when you compare yourself, it allows you to see where you stand against others and can cue a desire to improve.
Furthermore, I think the argument of 'we are all unique people, so why compare' is a way to justify our desire not to work for the results. This view allows us to be content with our flaws and gives us the cue that we can't achieve those goals that others have achieved when. I honestly believe that if I stop comparing myself to people, I will lose the edge in my career path (music) and will not be viewed as serious.
Ultimately, people who do not compare themselves are not being realistic and are hiding from reality. In the real world, we are always compared against other people and this is how we grow against others. If I was to stop comparing myself, then I would not be able to see where I stand in the real world and, thus, would have a distorted view of reality. Besides, every compares each other anyway so why not do it to ourselves first to see where we already are.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think I need to have millions upon millions of dollars in order to be happy. CMV. +
+ My entire life, I've always dreamed of owning super cars and beach houses. I need vast wealth to buy luxury items in order to be happy. I'm a student trying (so far, unsuccessfully) to get a degree in Finance, because this seems to be a good route to my millions.
But business school is killing me on the inside, and I absolutely hate it, but I see no alternative. People ask "What do you want to do?" And I want to be an entertainer; An actor, or a musician. But there's so much competition there, and there's no money in it unless you get widely known.
Since my parents are paying for my school (some of it, the bulk of tuition is covered via scholarship) they're expecting me to become a successful businessman and get a more immediate pay off for their "investment". | 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 [US] Republicans are more reliant on personal attacks than Democrats. +
+ This was inspired by a strongly Republican music teacher of mine who, sometime [edit: summer of 2008] prior to Barack Obama's election, told me that he was a "terrorist". Sure, his ideas might not coincide with yours, but accusing him of committing acts of violence to induce fear? Really?
This strongly affected my own view of Republicans, and made me re-evaluate the idea of "patriotism".
I believe that Republicans overly rely on attacks that target Democrats on personal levels, rather than policy. It's a very "follow-the-leader" mindset that allows them to dispose of opponents with inconvenient ideas. Does this bother me? Call it "unpatriotic".
In following with this, I observe that Republican voters are too concerned with the present: what does this candidate do to ME, how does he/she make ME feel, and how much will they tax ME? The end result is that they are unable to vote in a way that supports America's future.
I feel that this emphasis on emotional voting, rather than based on rational logic, is going to severely hurt America's ability to make forward-looking decisions in the future. Change My View.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I believe that the British monarchy should not be abolished +
+ I am British and have lived in the UK all my life. Despite being generally left-wing in my political views, I support the continuation of our monarchy. There are two main interconnected reasons why I hold this view:
A. The alternatives are not better.
Given the glacial speed of constitutional reform in the UK, I think it's highly unlikely that the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy will be overturned any time soon. Therefore a republican Britain would probably have a ceremonial presidency in the same vein as Germany or Ireland rather than an executive presidency in the style of America or France. This would limit the extent to which our head of state could act as a neutral representative of all British people.
If the selection method is controlled by political parties (as is the case in both Ireland and Germany) then a significant degree of the UK population will feel unrepresented by a president coming from a different political party. Whilst people from across the political spectrum can support a neutral monarchy, I'm not sure that the same can be said for a partisan president. Especially so when the ceremonial president is likely to be a minor/retired politician.
B. There's no need for change.
Whilst the monarchy is a peripheral aspect of British politics, it still forms an intricate part of our national consciousness. When major national ceremonies or commemorations take place, the monarch is usually in attendance. Their likeness appears on all currency and stamps and our national anthem is dedicated to their wellbeing. These rituals are commonplace largely because the monarch is able to act as a permanent embodiment of the state and is able to transcend the partisan battles that characterise Westminster and Whitehall.
Given that the monarch has no autonomous political role within contemporary British constitutional practice (whilst they are responsible for appointing the Prime Minister and signing bills into law, these are constitutional requirements that they have no veto power over), I therefore don't see why the abolition of the monarchy is necessary or desirable. Whilst electing a ceremonial president would, by definition, be more democratic, I don't know if this factor alone is enough to offset the potential political and social downsides of replacing the monarchy with a politicised presidency.
Whilst I'm therefore not exactly a passionate monarchist, I do not believe that the UK should abandon its monarchy at present. Any thoughts or critiques of my belief would be much welcomed.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I don't think Philip Seymour Hoffman's death is much of a tragedy. CMV +
+ I must be a shitty person for feeling this way, but I don't really think that Philip Seymour Hoffman's death is much of a tragedy.
From what I read on his Wikipedia page (admittedly not much of a source) it seems as though he came from a well-to-do middle-class background (it says his mother was a judge and lawyer), therefore I don't view his addiction to drugs as especially tragic. I view people who have grown up in difficult socioeconomic circumstances and are pushed into drugs by forces outside their control, or that would take extraordinary willpower to resist, as tragic. I do not view as tragic someone who comes from a wealthy middle-class background, becomes highly successful, uses drugs as part of a party lifestyle, and then overdoses as especially tragic. As awful as this sounds, I view it as closer to a Darwin Award than a tragedy. Maybe I'm just an asshole.
I am aware that I don't know the circumstances of his personal life, maybe he had a wife dying of slowly dying of cancer and that drove him to despair and drugs a la Nigella. For me that would be understandable, but I haven't found any mention of those kinds of mitigating circumstances in my (admittedly brief) internet research. Did he have an abusive father or something? If those kind of extenuating circumstances exist, please elaborate for me.
Perhaps his death is tragic in the same way that any human death is sad in some abstract sense, but to me, it's definitely a lot less sad than lots of other deaths or drug overdoses out there. My guess is his death gets to be called tragic because people liked his acting, but if he was some D-list actor who routinely used drugs as part of his party lifestyle and then overdosed not many people who care now would give a shit.
Was he an especially kind and caring man, and that's why people are calling this a tragedy? If so, please elaborate. Perhaps anyone's death is tragic so that's why his is? If so, please convince me. It may be difficult though since I'm the kind of douche who routinely finds Darwin Awards funny.
Perhaps part of my problem is that I have never used a drug beyond alcohol in my life (and even then in moderation most of the time), therefore I don't think people who come from the same middle-class background as me but get addicted to drugs as tragic. More moronic, especially since the consequences of those drugs were made clear in school (even if DARE was a bit over the top).
Maybe that's why I'm an empathy-deficient, judgmental asshole in this scenario, but I'd like to change if possible, 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? |
(US) I think voting should be compulsory. CMV. +
+ While I understand the irony of being forced to participate in a democratic system, I think that voting should be compulsory in the US.
With a compulsory system, we could get a better idea of what EVERYONE thinks, (not just those that show up now, which are mostly ideologues on either side) and possibly get people that represent more of America, instead of polarizing politicians from the left and right.
Of course, we would have to make it easier to vote in order to compensate for this policy: like moving election days to Saturdays instead of Tuesdays, or making election days national holidays, giving people pizza, whatever works.
PS: I'm a total leftist, but I think we need more than left wing politicians in order for a healthy democracy to exist. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Requiring that jurors are willing to impose a death sentence creates an inappropriate selection bias on juries +
+ In the US, when a defendant is charged with a "capital offense" it means there is the possibility that they will be sentenced to execution. In order for this to happen, the jury must vote (normally unanimously) in favor of execution after first voting that the defendant is guilty.
Many US citizens believe that executions should be banned, and would never vote in favor of executing a defendant if they were on a jury in a capital case. Because of this, such candidates are generally excluded from being on the jury in a trial for a capital offense.
My view is that this is a problem because it creates a selection bias among juries. I believe that there is a correlation between people who support death sentencing and people who are predisposed against people accused of crimes. I'm not claiming that death sentence supporters on juries don't consider the evidence and reach a sincere conclusion. But in my experience, people have different expectations when it comes to the burden of proof and aggravating and mitigating circumstances. And I believe that people who favor executing convicts are also more inclined to vote guilty given the same evidence compared to the average juror, and are more likely to feel that a crime meets the conditions that make a defendant eligible for execution compared to the average juror.
I believe that the aggregate bias introduced in this way will be strong because only about half of the population believes in the death sentence, so half of all jurors will be turned away - overall, the half that is statistically more likely to vote not guilty given the same evidence.
The ideal jury would not have this statistical bias. Obviously, if jurors who were completely opposed to executions were allowed to participate in sentencing, they would probably never vote in favor of it, so I don't have a solution (other than banning executions). Maybe there could be two sets of jurors, and those who would be excluded based on their objection to executions would still vote on whether to convict, but that is imperfect because death sentence supporters would still be the only ones evaluating the mitigating and aggravating factors, and because those who object to death sentencing might potentially vote against convicting someone they think is guilty if they know it will allow others to sentence the defendant to execution.
I found [one article](http://abolishdeathpenalty.org/jury-selection-in-capital-cases-less-than-fair/) that discusses the bias I describe here.
In order to change my view, I expect you would probably need evidence that jurors who support death sentencing are not statistically more likely to vote guilty compared to the average juror. Yes, I am placing the burden of proof on you instead of myself. If no such evidence exists, I think a study should be done. | 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 crowdfunding is stupid. It is lazy and a waste of time and money. +
+ So earlier I saw [this post here on /r/changemyview](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2w96ml/cmv_a_friend_is_crowdsourcing_to_help_pay_for_her/) and it made me think of this belief that I've held for awhile. I believe that crowdfunding no matter the reason is stupid. I think it is lazy and a waste of time and money on both the requesting person's part and those who donate money to whatever it is they are sending money towards. Here's why.
First off, crowdsourcing is lazy in my opinion. Now in a capitalist society, people start a business with an idea or vision, then fund their ideas with their own personal money, though a few family members or friends may feel free/happy to give some money or help with said business idea. For example if I wanted to open a coffee shop in town, I'd fund the business idea and fruition with my personal bank account and if my parents and friends wanted to, they could send some spare cash my way, though I wouldn't expected them to nor are they obligated to do so. With crowdfunding, I feel like you're essentially begging for money via the internet. It's the internet equivalent of standing on a street corner with a tin can asking strangers for change. I think if you have an idea and you want to make it happen, you should be get it done yourself without begging your 200 Facebook friends for money. For example, one of my friends that I've known for years decided she wanted to go find the identity of her biological parents. She was adopted as an infant and doesn't know who her biological parents are. So she started a crowdfunding campaign asking for $2,000 to cover the expenses of finding her parents through an adoption agency. If I were in her shoes, I'd never ask for other people's money, I'd pay the bill all by myself instead of asking for money from other people via Facebook.
My next point is, I think crowdfunding is a waste of time and money, for both the requesting person(s) and the people that give money to whatever they're giving money to. It's waste of time for the person starting their campaign because most people will never see their idea get off the ground. Going back to what I said above, people don't like it when you go begging on the internet for money and most people won't donate because they don't like beggars. As for the funding part, I think people that donate money to a campaign on a crowdfunding are wasting their money. Most campaigns wil fail and there is no guarantee that you will get anything from your contribution. To me it would be analogous to going to Wal-Mart and buying a pen that doesn't exist in the store but hoping that someday they will sell it. If I give money to someone, I am expecting results. When I donate to charity I am under the impression that my donation will eventually go feed an underprivileged family or help an abused puppy, depending on who I'm donating to.
Lastly, since crowdfunding has gotten so big and anybody can start a crowdfunding campaign for just about anything, I think it takes away from true entrepreneurship and real ideas. Because crowdfunding is now more mainstreamed, just about anyone can go on and start a campaign for frivilous reason; "I want to paint a portrait, give me money" "I want to travel to London for vacation, help me pay for the trip." The most recent example of a stupid frivilous crowdfunding campaign was [this guy who raised $55,000 to make potato salad.](http://www.theverge.com/2014/10/1/6880201/potato-stock-kickstarter-potato-salad-zack-danger-brown) He didn't have a revolutionary idea or a call to help out someone in dire need. All he wanted was potato salad. This kind of stuff puts me off from the whole idea of crowdfunding because now it seems like anyone can make up any reason to raise a few thousand dollars and people will be dumb enough to donate instead of standing up against bullshit projects.
So with my argument presented, I want someone to try to change my view, or at least give me reason to believe crowdfunding is a valid source to starting a business. | 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 best starting Pokemon was Squirtle. (Of the original 3) CMV +
+ [Research has shown](http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/but-not-simpler/2013/10/22/squirtle-i-should-choose-you-settling-a-great-pokemon-debate-with-science/) that Squirtle is more effective against gym leaders and the elite four, and has less not very effective tendencies against those same trainers than the other two starters.
Squirtle and its evolved forms can learn both swim and cut where as Bulbasaur can only learn cut.
Then when it comes to the 'cool factor,' nothing beats The Squirtle Squad.
I will be open minded but I feel this will be tough to beat.
Please Change My View | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The "pick up artist" community, and specifically the ideology expressed by /r/theRedPill, are are directly responsible for the Isla Vista murders. +
+ This is the article that persuaded me of this point http://www.newstatesman.com/lifestyle/2014/05/lets-call-isla-vista-killings-what-they-were-misogynist-extremism but I'll go over some of the highlights:
### Mental illness is not a credible explanation
* There is zero evidence for the claim that Elliot Rodger was mentally ill.
* Rodger left a lucid, coherent explanation of his crimes. It is not credible to disregard that explanation and offer a different one (i.e. mental illness) without supporting evidence.
* When we've encountered similar cases of mass, indiscriminate killing in recent years by killers who left lengthy, elaborate, coherent manifestos (Anders Breivik, Christopher Dorner, Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris) we have accepted the killer's stated reason more-or-less at face value.
* If Rodger had targeted any other group leaving a well thought out manifesto, no one would pin his crimes on mental illness. For instance, if he created a youtube video about hating black people, and listed all the times black people had been mean to him, and then walked into a black church and murdered 6 people, no one would blame mental illness. They would (rightly) blame a violent, dangerous anti-black ideology that runs rampant in America.
* It's simply not true that only mentally ill people kill. Were the Tsarnaev brothers both mentally ill? Were all nineteen 9/11 hijackers mentally ill? Were all 36 American soldiers who raped and massacred hundreds of civilians at My Lai in 1968 all mentally ill? It's uncomfortable to confront, but the fact is that people kill all the time, not just because they are ill, but because they are *bad*. Maybe "society" makes them that way, but that doesn't erase their personal responsibility. Nor does it excuse the responsibility of those that enable them.
* I hesitate to mention this, but there is zero link between autism (reportedly diagnosed in Rodger) and premeditated murder.
### Elliot Rodger was clearly directly influenced by the "pick up artist" community
* Read the above article or this summary of the connection http://prospect.org/article/how-pick-artist-philosophy-and-its-more-misogynist-backlash-shaped-mind-alleged-killer
* Rodger subscribed to pick up artist youtube channels, and posted on pick up artist forums (notably "PUAhate" for men who had tried PUA tactics and failed with them)
* He used PUA language like "alpha" and "incel"
* His language *reeks* of frustrated, pick up artist imagery. Just a random sampling of horrifying quotes:
* Different elements of the pick up artist/men's rights/the red pill community are keen to point out that they are about "self betterment" but even the most cursory look at they're real world motivation shows that self betterment is an afterthought attached hastily to make their core belief system more palatable.
* Some may draw distinctions between different elements of this community, but it's plain that they all exist on a continuum of misogyny. In the same way that Jim Crow gave license and fire to lynch mobs, PUA give license to rapists and woman killers. Perhaps there's room for a nuanced world view where segregationists are *less* morally culpable than the actual hangmen of Jim Crow—that may be true. But the hangmen could not have existed without the segregationists, and what's more, the segregationists knew it. To quote the first article linked above: "This is not the time, to use the refrain of apologists for bigotry, to play devil’s advocate. The devil has more than enough advocates today."
* I am completely comfortable lumping all these groups (men's rights, pick up artistry, the red pill, puahate) together. Because they all have the same belief at their core: men must dominate women into sexual submission.
* Mens Rights/Pick Up Artistry/The Red Pill are extremist ideologies that preach about a war between the sexes. Rodger carries this dangerous ideology to it's natural conclusion. Laurie Penny summarizes it well in the first article linked above:
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Think that the Ferguson jury made the right call based on the evidence provided. +
+ Okay, so I know that racial profiling by police and fascism is still a big problem in America, I know that. But if I was on that jury and the victim was white, I of course would have voted not guilty. From what I understand, the only evidence there is is that the kid broke the officer's collarbone, and the officer killed him in self defense(not saying I agree with the decision, but there's a legal rationale). What else is there to the story? How is this even debatable? My friends won't even talk to me when I ask what evidence there is against the cop. Please help CMV!
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Symbolism is a big pile of shit that we waste too much time on in school... +
+ Ladies and gentlemen,
I quite firmly believe that there is no inherent value to be gained in teaching symbolism in class. First of all, I have to mention that I am from Germany, so I cannot necessarily relate to US standarts. Basicially, we get the joy of analyzing poems, short-stories, novels, you name it, and are suppossed to find implied meaning within the text.
While I agree that it helps build your general way of looking at literature I think the system that it is taught as is inherently flawed: If there is no "wrong" or "right" answer I feel treated rather unfairly being graded on a more or less binary system. I once wrote a terrible, almost comicial essay because I found nothing that was solid and provable with the text and just made up random stuff - Straight A.
What's the point of it? I try to wrap my head around the entire concept since about 2 years. I like to think of myself as an open-minded person and this is just about the only thing that I simply cannot see the other side of. You could argue that it helps training argumentative skills (find a hypothesis, find things to support it, explain it) but I would much rather see that in the context of actual issues and events. You could make the argument that it makes you a more well-rounded person - if you are not completely put off by how random and unfair the grading is, ruining literature for you on a whole other level.
Two people saying vastly different things both being considered right hurts my fundamental understand of the way that rational thinking works. I simply refuse to accept that you can just come and say whatever you damn well please and be praised for it - without actual evidence beyond a "might be".
I get that for many people, discussing interpretations is a way of enhancing their reading experience, but what does that have to do with my education? Why am I being forced to dig through that? What do they want to teach me? Tolerance to other opinions?
No teacher, parent, or really anyone could give me a statisfying answer since it ALWAYS consisted of: "just do it, we have to do it, i like that you think for yourself, but we have to move on, you will understand later".
Help. 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: This is a logical argument: "Gay people and straight people have the same marriage rights in the US" +
+ This is something my fairly offensive dad told me, and I want him to be wrong about it, but I can't figure out WHY it's wrong.
Basically the argument goes as such:
"Heterosexuals have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Homosexuals also have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Therefore, heterosexuals and homosexuals have the same marriage rights."
This argument appears to me to be both valid and sound, but I really don't want it to be. Can you help me understand how it's not correct?
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: A community can be diverse with all of it's members being of a single race +
+ Race shouldn't even be a factor within a "diverse" community. Regardless of race everyone is still unique. Nobody should have to feel like they're just like everyone else because of their race.
No two people are alike. Everyone is born with different interests, beliefs, and physical characteristics. Now, I'm not saying it's alright to purposely exclude members of different races, but they should not have to be integrated into communities of one race in order to make it more "diverse".
Moreover, even within a single race there are numerous differences in appearance and skin colour. Race really shouldn't matter that much. | 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 modern, mass media is biased, corrupt, and is only concerned with getting views. CMV +
+ It has always seemed to me that the media is only concerned with views rather than giving it's viewers the whole truth, or any truth at all. I believe their selection bias makes people think this world is an awful place because they only choose to show the horrible/disastrous things that happen in the world. I always read stories about how some poor man's car was stolen or how two neighbors had a disagreement got in a fight yesterday, yet I hardly ever read about a that car being found and returned to it's owner or a neighbor helping another neighbor out. I believe this is because the the "happy" stories aren't very exciting to read and don't get very many reads or views. This is why I believe modern mass media is completely corrupt. If it makes any difference, I am from California. I would love for this not be the case, 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? |
I think if a minor breaks the law off campus the school should not be able to take disciplinary action, regardless of whether or not the police are involved. CMV +
+ So I was sitting about a quarter mile off campus at my brothers middle school waiting to pick him up and while I was twiddling my thumbs a kid riding a skateboard hops off and starts walking home. Several seconds later one of the school staff drives up in the school's golf cart and takes him back to campus to fill out disciplinary paperwork.
Now for the most part, I hate skate culture and all it entails. However; the one thing I do agree with that has been seemingly popularized is that it's not the job of the citizenry to police skaters. It's for the cops to handle. That kid wasn't wearing a helmet, but he was also off campus at the point he started riding his board at which I don't believe it's the job of the administrative staff to take action against him when he's distinctly off campus. I also feel giving him detention or what have you over the issue only hurts his educational future, as all it seeks to do is make the individual bitter towards the school for impacting his off campus life.
Consider if he actually lived across the street from the school (we were in a neighborhood). Where does his private life begin where he's not under scrutiny from the school? If someone wants police action taken against a kid for breaking the law, I'm all for it. However; I don't think disciplinary action from the school is necessary or positive when there is an external legal matter at hand. Let the kid hate the government for making him clean up trash after school. Don't make the kid bitter about having to get an education of some kind and make the school into a greater enemy in his eyes.
Also I'd just like to reel it back in guys, we're trying to change my view not circle jerk about weather or not I'm correct. | 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 everyone on earth should speak the same language. +
+ I think this would create a greater unity among all humankind by making communication with different people much easier.
I understand that, to an extent, culture is tied to language, but many people of other cultures still practice those cultures while speaking english. It doesn't seem like other cultures would disappear if all people spoke one language.
In fact, the fact that language is a part of culture seems to provide even greater evidence that speaking one language would bring the world closer together, by making all cultures that much more able to understand/empathize with each other.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Lightsabre duels will almost always end with both parties dead (assuming equal skill) +
+ In my limited understanding of regular metal sword fights, the objective is to either:
1) Get your opponent's sword in a position where its not a threat and strike
or
2) Strike in a way that simultaneously blocks and causes damage.
Failing to do either, and simply hitting an opening will allow your wounded opponent to strike back
The main point of my argument is that it is impossible to get a lightsabre in a position where it cant do damage
1) It has basically no mass so it can be accelerated from any position about as fast as your arm can go
2) "Cuts" with very little power will still burn through any body part it touches.
What this means (to me) is that all sword fighting techniques, such as grappling repostes etc., are thrown out the window.
This thread had pretty much turned into CMV: A fencing style would be the optimal lightsaber duel strategy. after MV was C'd by /u/justthistwicenomore
http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/335oxj/cmv_lightsabre_duels_will_almost_always_end_with/cqhtz9y?context=3
The main point is that the weight of lightsabers are very similar to rapiers. In addition the "electrical tag" game in olypmic fencing, it is very similar to the "this bar of heated plasma will melt your face if it touches you" game.
/u/BrellK Pointed out some lore that basically stated that lightsabers need some force to make deep cuts since they are initially repelled by material before it is turned into plasma. This means that only small cuts are possible, when treating the weapon like a rapier, and adds viability to a more "longsword" style of fighting
http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/335oxj/cmv_lightsabre_duels_will_almost_always_end_with/cqiinzn?context=3
/u/apologeticCultist Proposed a technique involving rapidly turning off an on your lightsabre as a counter to having your guard knocked off point. What this means is that there is basically no counter to just holding out your lightsaber as far as possible and trying to take out your opponents fingers.
http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/335oxj/cmv_lightsabre_duels_will_almost_always_end_with/cqiinzn?context=3
This thread is now CMV: Lightsaber duels will inevitably devolve into finger poking.
(Don't worry people, I assure you this is the most productive thing we can be doing) | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: We should not return to Standard Time and stay in Daylight Savings Time year round. +
+ As a preface I live in northern Alabama. Like many people I work a standard day job, and the vast majority of my free time is after 5pm. I want to have more daylight during the hours after work, so the winter is not entirely relegated to indoor or night time activities. If we decided to stay in daylight savings time year round, sunset would be pushed to later in the day.
Now this does involve removing the semi-annual time change. I think that while this process isn't difficult or in itself inconvenient, that any energy benefits have been significantly diminished by price and availability of lighting solutions. Given that I believe my situation is common enough to warrant the change.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
China's economy and society will collapse CMV +
+ For your information, I am Chinese but I have only lived there for less than three years (when I was a toddler). The reasons I am so critical of China includes: the housing market bubble, an education system where one's life is decided on just one exam, internet censorship, appealing racism towards the Japanese, people with black skin, and to some extent the western world, pollution (especially in Beijing), and the parenting strategies of Chinese parents (though that counts also for other Asian nations and the Asian diaspora in general). This is the first time I have posted anything on reddit so sorry if I do anything incorrectly. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think anyone who brings up "White male" as a negative is a bigot. CMV. +
+ We should be past this as a society, but every day, I see another liberal (always liberal for some reason) bringing up "white male" as a negative, and this is just as racist as bringing up any other race as a negative.
This sort of statement always comes with a group that the person wishes to attack, usually Republicans, Libertarians, venture capitalists, Freemasons, soldiers, etc. The point is that, instead of actually making an argument against this group or viewpoint, you can simply imply that they're representative of some sort of old-boys club that won't let non-white males in (which is pretty ironic, since in the attempt to accuse others of racism, they really just identify themselves as such).
It seems obvious to me that, if you step away from the bullshit of identity politics, that anyone who is wrapped up in the idea that this race is against this other race will always be a racist, no matter what color they are, and that grown-ups shouldn't judge based on such features.
Change my view. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I believe that being attractive is the single most important trait in determining how strangers will treat you. +
+ As an above-average but not stellar looking dude, I understand that in certain scenarios I get treated better than someone who is less attractive than I am. Similarly, when there is someone more attractive than me, I am largely ignored. I don't think this is a matter of youth, as I'm now in my mid-20s and this has persisted with people of all ages.
Women who are attractive get tons of preferential treatment, there's no doubt about that, but I believe it extends to men too and is the single most important factor in determining how people treat you at first. Not kindness, not wealth, but largely your physical appearance. My breakdown would be 70% face/body/how you carry yourself, 30% how you are dressed.
This leads to *vastly* different life experiences in that ugly children and attractive children are treated significantly differently than one another, leading to differences in how they view the world, strangers, and social interaction.
The puzzling question is why? In the case of attractive men and women who are of age, you could argue that wanting to mate with them or improve social status, but even when this is unlikely or impossible (one party is married - don't snicker) the preferential treatment continues. Is it because they are pleasing to look at? Why does that matter so much?
Here I would place an attempt to rebut a counterargument but I can't even begin to think of one, which is why I made this post. Physical appearance is largely out of our control beyond good hygiene and how you dress. It's a pretty depressing thought to think that someone's whole life experience is determined by a roll of the dice, and I'd like someone to change my view on this.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: That "Rape Culture" does not exist in a significant way +
+ I constantly hear about so called "rape culture" in regards to feminism. I'm not convinced that "rape culture" exists in a significant way, and I certainly don't believe that society is "cultured" to excuse rapists.
**To clarify: I believe that "rape culture" hardly exists, not that it doesn't exist at all.**
First of all, sexual assault is punished severely. These long prison sentences are accepted by both men and women, and I rarely see anyone contesting these punishments. It seems that society as a whole shares a strong contempt for rapists.
Also, when people offer advice (regarding ways to avoid rape), the rapist is still held culpable. Let me use an analogy: a person is on a bus, and loses his/her phone to a pickpocket. People give the person advice on how to avoid being stolen from again. Does this mean that the thief is being excused or that the crime is being trivialized?
Probably not. I've noticed that often, when people are robbed from or are victims of other crimes, people tell them how they could have avoided it or how they could avoid a similar occurrence in the future. In fact, when I lost my cell phone to a thief a few years ago, my entire family nagged me about how I should have kept it in a better pocket.
Of course, rape are thievery are different. I completely acknowledge this. However, where's the line between helpful advice and "rape culture?". I think that some feminists confuse these two, placing both of them in the realm of "rape culture".
Personally, I do not think that victims of any serious, mentally traumatizing crime should be given a lecture on how they could have avoided their plight. This is distasteful, especially after the fact, even if it is well meaning. However, I do not think that these warnings are a result of "rape culture". CMV!
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think abortion isn't a bad thing. CMV +
+ I dont think it's wrong for a couple to abort their child if the pregnancy was a mistake. If the parents don't want to / can't provide a rich life to a new kid then why bring it to this world?
Also many people use the argument that you are killing a baby. But I think that's wrong because while it's just a cell transforming, I don't think it can feel pain or even think. If that was true, then everytime a condom is used, half a million of babies are "killed".
I would like to hear what are the thoughts of those people that are against he legalisation of abortion
CMV | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Atheists risking their lives are inherently less selfish than religious people. +
+ Okay, so my logic is as such. A Christian (or whatever religion that believes in an afterlife for good behavior) who dies goes to heaven. Atheists/people who do not believe in afterlives think they are going precisely nowhere.
Therefore, Christian firefighters, cops, military, rescue or anything else potentially life threatening are less noble/brave than their atheist counterparts, simply because they think there is something after this.
Think about it, even if you aren't atheist, imagine the courage it takes to say, "I'm gonna do a job that may kill me, and it needs to be done so thats fine."
Compare this to the religious "Well, I'm glad I help people, but even if I get killed, I'm going to heaven so whatevs."
Admittedly I am atheist and biased and I was a soldier at one point but I am sure I could be wrong. Just hit me with your personal take on this.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Critical Thinking / Philosophy should be a core discipline in modern school systems +
+ Communication is essential, which is why school in the United States has an English class as one of the four core disciplines (English, Math, Science, History)
Everyone communicates, but many do it poorly... So we deem it absolutely necessary to at least attempt refining ones ability to communicate through the education system as a vehicle.
Philosophy is parallel to this.
Everyone uses philosophy, adopts philosophies, spouts philosophies.... but the average person does it quite poorly.
Abstract thought, being able handle big questions... these are skills we should be beginning to equip people with at an early age.
Philosophy has a bad wrap because in a production/consumption society it has no tangible value--- but the value of philosophy as a discipline is intrinsic and can effect everything we do.
Just a few obvious applications and benefits to adopting critical thinking / philosophy as a core discipline are:
1) Child Rearing:
You bring a person into the world and are tasked with guiding them the best you can through the infinite chaos of life. What is the best way to do this? How much should you intervene? Understanding your actions have tremendous influence on their developing minds.... how should you try to act and communicate?
These questions (and many more) are abstract in nature and could be argued to be essential for any prospective parent--- but so many of us are not equipped to tackle such large issues. We commonly say things like "I dont even want to go there..." or "thats too deep for me..." when touching upon huge, philosophical quandaries.
A society which encourages critical thought and teaches us how to approach abstract questions from an early age will eventually birth a a generation of (by average) more prepared parents. The effects of this could be immense.
2) Bullying :
A child is caught bullying another child.... the bully is called into the guidance counselors office and is asked "Why did you make fun of Johnny?"
The bullying child will likely be rolling his eyes and saying whatever it takes to get out of the guidance counselors office at this point... and the bullying behavior will likely continue.
In a society where critical thinking skills are taught from an early age, the child will be used to answering "why" questions, and thinking inward. In more circumstances by average than would likely happen now, the bullying child may actually benefit from the counseling.
3) Conformity :
Organized religion, media, peers etc. all have tremendous toxic weight on society. Freeing slaves, allowing women to vote, allowing homosexuals to marry, allowing people to smoke weed..... these topics take far to long to filter through tradition.
Critical thinking skills arm the populace with the notion of asking "why", and not accepting things at face value. Systems of control would have a much more difficult time normalizing the opinions of the masses.
Of course the volume of examples could be vast but I assume if you are still with me you get the gist of what I am suggesting.
Over the course of time, a society that values critical thinking and philosophical thought as much as quantitative and linear thought would be a society that would evolve quicker and more efficiently with considerably less conflict and arbitrary systems of control.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think people who complain about "spoilers" all the time are shallow and incapable of understanding deeper human relationships through storytelling. CMV. +
+ Perhaps it is because I have a liberal arts background. A specific focus on literature.
I cannot abide people who can't openly talk about books/television/movies/games without absolutely losing their shit and acting like you're a jerk because you told them a piece of information they didn't come across from exploring the piece of art themselves.
It seems like there are spoiler tags in every book/television/movies/games subreddit available. Interestingly enough, there aren't spoiler tags in r/music. I guess finding out the lyrics/sheet music doesn't *ruin it* for people listening to music. (Spoiler, dudes: this song is in G major)
I felt at first that it must be some aspect of not understanding storytelling, character development, or perhaps writing in general. Things that really make a piece of artwork shine other than simply the *plot.* Plots are boring. Plots are insipid. They can be explained in simple terms very quickly, and told in different ways can seem new and fresh. Yet, basic plots are more often than not quite similar in many respects.
The real meat of any piece comes in fleshing out characters, setting, mood, theme. These more complex ideas take a lot more thought and often re-viewing pieces in question. So, one almost *has* to re-read/re-watch/re-play to be able to do things such as take notes, consider meanings, and it would be really hard to do such things if one is too busy being pissed off that they already knows what happens to so-and-so.
However, I also know many people who are not at all bothered by spoilers who absolutely stink at reading, understanding character development, or any such thought-provoking aspect of literature. They can know the determined future and not be upset about it. They can be just as eager to see it play out as they were before, sometimes even moreso!
So, where does this leave me? I don't know, at once I think its roots are in lack of depth of understanding of literature, but I think there is evidence that perhaps it is a deeper lack of understanding of human relationships and a shallow focus on events and their importance.
Change my view, Reddit! | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV Me joining the army is not a waste of time nor does it conflict with my personality +
+ I've always had a respect for the men in uniform and I've always wanted to join. Recently I've disagreed with the practices of the U.S. military but that doesn't mean that I hate the Warriors, just the people that force them into it. I'm an immigrant and a Muslim neither of which is or should be a deterrent from joining. I want to be a doctor, not because of familial pressure but of a genuine need to help. So here's where I am now: currently in first year of college studying biology, enough AP credits to be a tiny bit ahead of my classmates, an itching to explore this giant world God gave me, I'm also poor and medical school in the military (from what I understand) pays for smart kids. Also, please forgive me if this is wrong or arrogant or whatever, I want the respect that people give men and women in the military.
My plan was to graduate College and join the USHS (the military medical school) and become and Army doctor. The only reservation that I had was that it would be a waste of my time because I want to be a neurosurgeon and that's a looooooooong and rigorous path and that I might be losing precious time by joining the military. My mom doesn't want me to join for that reason.
Other things that I've considered: I love the idea of a brotherhood but I don't agree with the ideology, the military putting me through Med school will help me jump start life, I'm very inexperienced and haven't seen much of the world and this I think will help me.
I look forward to having my views challenged! Thanks! | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Democracy is neither desirable nor fundamentally good. +
+ I see it quite frequently: Western leaders touting the great benefits of democracy, putting down other countries for their anti-democratic ways, berating them (often quite ironically) for not embracing the system that, according to them, is quite clearly better for its citizens.
But I don't think that democracy necessarily benefits its citizens, and that the correlation between development and democracy that so many try to make is wrong. Some of the main issues that I have with democracy are as follows:
* The public isn't always well-educated on election issues, and often make poor decisions in who they elect to solve the issues. The number of times an election has gone "wrong" and resulted in a shitty leader who fucked things up is uncountable. What's more, people's misunderstanding of even basic economics leads them to think that many economic arguments surrounding 'job creation' are true, where having a more advanced education (plus better critical thinking skills) would lead them to conclude something entirely different. (This could quite obviously be solved by better educating the public, alas, that would be 'a breach of democratic rights to be free of mandatory state education'.)
* Many of today's nations succeed without democracy, whereas many democratic states fail. The Soviet Union, from its initiation into the middle of the 20th century, experienced great economic growth under soviet 5-year plans. Yes, the human rights situation wasn't the greatest, but is it any better than it is in some democratically elected states? Iran democratically elects its government and are for all intents and purposes a 'democratic state', but the government is still under the control of the Ayatollah and the constitution, which declares it an Islamic republic. It is possible for a democratic nation to be good as well as bad, and therefore it doesn't make sense that 'democracy is fundamentally good', if it can lead to poor results.
* People want the right of democracy, but aren't willing to pick up the slack. With having more freedoms and the right to elect your government, you should be expected to contribute in more ways than just voting. Voting and sending an official to government to represent you means that you should be sure that that person is representing you well, and demanding justice when they don't. Not only do people not exercise this essential tool of democratic election, it actually happens that doing so is not even legal. In Toronto last year, the mayor Rob Ford admitted to using crack cocaine while in office, spurring a backlash from the public. When people called for his stepping down, bureaucratic laws and democratic arguments kept him in power, because 'the law said it wasn't allowed'. So because a law was written, people just stepped down and simply remained angry but quiet. This is not how a democracy succeeds. When an elected official fails to do their job competently, the people who elected him need to stand up and remove him, and they should have every right to do so, otherwise, what kind of democracy is it that you can place a person in a position of power, but not remove them?
**TL;DR**: Democracy (in its common modern form) fails not only to allow people to better interact with their government and choose their own fate, but can even prevent them legally from doing so. We don't need to follow the democratic dogma so strictly, we have seen before that reducing some liberties, increasing taxation, and giving the government more power (whilst letting it demand more from its citizens) can improve a country. In fact, I think it should be a democratic government's obligation to make its people participate, and to better educate them about economics, politics, and hsitory, so they can participate with greater effect.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I shouldn't have to affect my quality of life to save somebody that I don't know by donating an organ. +
+ Hello CMV,
I just stumbled upon [this](http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_27817892/colorado-man-uses-truck-help-find-kidney-donor) post while browsing the front page, and I felt something that I myself couldn't explain. I understand it is up to you whether you want to donate your organs to save somebody's life, but I sincerely can't see the point in it.
You mean to tell me that I will donate let's say a kidney, or a lung, one of the organs that come in pairs. If I were to get some kind of disease or get in an accident and the remaining one was damaged I "could" have been fine IF I had my other one left. (I know it is a long shot but I'm a worse case scenario kind of person.) I will now be in the list for organ donations if I happen to survive the ordeal. There is no guarantee that I will receive a donation in time for me to survive. Not only this, but what if the organ that I donated gets rejected by the body of the person, that would be a complete loss, unless there is another use for that organ that I am not aware of. I have also been told (not 100% sure) that your quality of life is not as great when you are trying to function with one kidney or lung, and that you have to change your diet and you have to limit the amount of activity/exercise you can do.
I understand saving a life can be something amazing, and being a O blood type I donate blood when I am able to even if it doesn't help it does give you a sense of satisfaction. It is just that I believe that the risks outweigh the benefits, I might just be greedy but that's why I am here.
Thank you for your time.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think civilization as we know it will end during my life time. CMV +
+ To give an idea of what "during my life time" is, I am almost 30 years old. I really hope that I am wrong about some of this stuff, because the future is looking really dark in a lot of ways, so please CMV.
The biggest threat I think humanity as a whole faces right now is global warming. It is a scientific consensus that global warming is happening and that the consequences could be disastrous. Recently, even the more conservative estimates are on the quite disastrous side. Humanity MAY have still have a window to stop greenhouse gas emissions and escape the worst, but I think this is unlikely. Recent signals of feedback loops being triggered (arctic ice, tundra melt, methane emissions from the ocean, Amazon going from carbon sink to carbon source) indicate that we are probably not going to be able to reverse this. This leads to a few reasons why civilization as we know it cannot continue:
1. Pollution is killing off species and warming is destroying habitats. If enough species die, we could see a mass extinction event in a short time with a quick ecological collapse.
2. Disasters caused by global warming have already displaced millions of people around the globe. Also, events such as droughts starve millions. If these kinds of things continue to worsen, the global economy won't be able to stand in the face of the disruption.
3. Food resources will grow scarcer from the above stated reasons. Ironically, oil is also becoming more scarce (this is a good thing for reducing emissions, but probably too late for that). As resources dwindle, we are going to see war increase as a scramble to grab the last remaining energy and food supplies. You could argue that civilization will continue for the victors, but certainly not for large parts of the world population.
4. Arguably none of the above would have happened if we hadn't expanded human population during the 20th century so rapidly. We are probably way past the long-term carrying capacity for the Earth and will see it corrected shortly. Again, you could argue that civilization will continue for the survivors, but I doubt it will look much like it does now.
I guess I could word it a little differently. I think large amounts of people are going to die during this century, and whatever is left over will inevitably be more of a rebuilding than a continuation of civilization. CMV! | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Killing with bullets and bombs is essentially no different to killing with mustard gas. +
+ All of these methods of killing result in long and painful deaths. Why is one acceptable but the other not?
A bullet wound to the abdomen can cause intestinal agony for months, which seems on par with mustard gas. If infection sets in, possibly worse.
Having your limbs blown off while you are conscious is probably worse than being gassed. Being burned by the flames from an explosion is probably on par with mustard gas burns.
Assume that mustard gas is only used on the battlefield and doesn't spread to other areas such as civilian areas. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Terrorists don't deserve a trial +
+
So this may be a bit of a controversial opinion but I think terrorist don't deserve a trial, or any other rights from the country they decide to work against. Most terrorists hate the country that they are working against, so why do they get to take advantage of that country's rights? One reason I say all rights and not just a trial is because not to long ago a kid from around where I live started making bomb threats saying he was going to blow up his school, but when he realized he was going to get into serious trouble over the entire thing he started saying that Free Speech protected him from any repercussion from the incident.
You might say 'When the government can pick and choose who can take advantage of its rights, they are no longer rights but privileges' which is correct, but they are already privileges. Yes they are labeled 'Human Rights' and everyone is 'born with them' but that is not true. if they were Human rights everyone, everywhere would have them but they don't. The rights we have in this country, and most other countries, are privileges.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Abortion is justifiable, but most abortions are immoral +
+ Posting with a throwaway as my position manages to offend both sides of the spectrum.
For a long time I believed that abortion was immoral, but I eventually became convinced (based largely on utilitarian grounds) that abortion was permissible.
So why do I believe that most abortions are immoral? For an act to be moral doesn't just mean that it is permissible according to ethics, but you need to actually know that it is moral.
Most people don't understand the issue well enough to know abortion is moral. In fact, most (or at least a large proportion of) people don't know much of anything. For example, only 51% of people don't believe that global warming is caused by human activity. Only [54% of people in the US believe in evolution](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution). 17% of registered voters believe [Obama is a Muslim](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/26/obama-muslim_n_1706522.html). Of those, a large percent probably only say that they believe in evolution or global warming because their friends do. If their friends said the opposite, then they'd probably think that the scientists were just making it up too.
So that's on scientific issues that are relatively clear cut. Philosophical issues are much more messy. What percentage of people (male and female) do you believe actually understand the issue and aren't just quoting whatever they've heard other people say?
From the way that these discussions go, it seems to be very small. Lots of people identify viability as the point where a foetus deserves moral consideration, but they can't articulate a reason why theoretical ability of foetus to survive outside of a womb should be connected to metaphysical rights (indeed this is a weak argument philosophically).
Many people try to construct a right of bodily autonomy, but the situations differ in the important respect that the mother knowing put themselves in a position where there was a risk of pregnancy. Because of this distinction, bodily autonomy doesn't work as a contradiction argument, only as an analogy to aid intuition.
Now while there are strong, philosophically justified utilitarian grounds (and other more nuanced arguments within other moral frameworks), I would be surprised if more than 5% of the population could provide a logically coherent argument. To be clear, I'm sure that many of the people here can restructure these arguments to be much more logically coherent, except that isn't really the point here - the point is that most people are logically incoherent.
Objection: Does any of this matter? If someone does something that is morally acceptable and they believe that it is morally acceptable, then aren't they in the clear?
Not quite. Someone has to also take due diligence. Suppose someone (who believes in utilitarian ethics) is going to go back in time and kill Hitler. This will have a good result (it will save millions of lives) and they strongly believe this. But before they get a chance, they run into another timetraveller with an oracle machine that can tell them if their action is good or bad (perhaps another leader will take over who kills even more than Hitler). If they choose to put their hands in their ears and not listen to the oracle, their act to kill Hitler cannot be considered moral because they were gambling with millions of lives by changing the course of world history and ignoring evidence that might have shown it disastrous. This applies even if the result is that they save millions of lives. The point is that for an action to be moral it isn't sufficient for it to be morally acceptable and for the person to believe that it is morally acceptable, but one needs to also take an appropriate level of care when coming to that decision.
In the same way, human life is hugely valuable and someone who has an abortion without making a rather significant effort to ensure that they understand the issue is acting immorally, as they are not taking the appropriate level of care.
Most people, if they were truly honest, would have to admit that they don't really understand the issue and therefore cannot be justified in having an abortion without knowing that they have solid arguments to support their position.
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: Traffic lights and four way stops are objectively inferior to roundabouts. +
+ Since my town installed roundabouts, I've found that they are remarkably more efficient than the traffic lights and four way stops.
Four way stops force all vehicles to come to a complete stop, traffic lights force many vehicles to come to a complete stop before continuing movement, roundabouts allow most vehicles to go through while maintaining inertia.
Traffic lights also would appear to be the most expensive of the options, considering building costs, general upkeep, paying engineers, and installing vehicle detecting hardware.
Traffic lights also seem to have an increased risk of high speed accidents, because drivers will not always have to slow down and pay attention. WSDOT did a study on this, and they found that [roundabouts had 90% less fatalities than traffic lights.](http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Safety/roundabouts/benefits.htm)
Roundabouts also allow traffic to move more quickly than 4 way stops, [according to mythbusters.](http://www.wimp.com/testroundabout/)
tl:dr; Roundabouts are safer, more efficient for maintaining inertia, faster, cheaper. They are better for drivers as well as tax payers.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Based on the assumption that something can not come from nothing, I don't think that atheism is a legitimate or logical understanding of the world. CMV +
+ I have had this discussion with many atheist friends in the past, and it seems to always deadend. I am under the assumption that something can not come from nothing. Therefore in trying to date back the universe to a beginning point, such as the big bang for instance, there must always be a "something" from which everything else forms. Even breaking down carbon to its atoms, and its atoms into electrons/protons/neutrons, and those further into subatomic particles like quarks and gluons, still points to "something." This then always leads to the question, "who or what created that something which gave rise to everything?". For me, this points to a creator of some form, and thus I can not see how atheism is even possible. (Mind you there are many factors that contribute to my personal faith, so this is not the hinge-all explanation for my beliefs.) | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think birth control should be mandatory until you want a child. CMV +
+ This is inspired by the thread advocating the same thing but requiring proof of ability to support a child before the bc is removed. My version is that the bc should be removed as soon as the person desires to remove it, for free. This has many of the pros of the original posters version (no more unwanted babies, and fewer accidental babies now that having a baby must be a deliberate choice) and few of the cons (no black market for removal of the bc)
For practical reasons (no approved birth control for men, most women's birth control has problems in prepubescent people) I don't think this should actually be implemented until valsagel/risug is approved for men and until an equally ideal bc is found for women.
The reason I believe this is because the number of babies I see people have for the sole reason of stupidity. In my high school we had very good sex ed and people still had babies they didn't want. Even the daughter of the sex ed teacher had a baby because her boyfriend convinced her he would pull out. This is why I don't think education and free birth control alone can solve the problem.
I am ok with a minor violation of people's rights for the good of society (and yes I consider the physical procedure to be a minor violation) | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: If I had a button that I could press that would eliminate ISIS, I would press it a thousand times. +
+ ISIS has been a hot discussion topic lately, and I am glad that they are getting all the attention that they are; it seems like the more people are better informed, the safer we can be.
ISIS is a group of horrible people doing horrible things. I think the world would be much, much safer and well off without groups like ISIS running behind the scenes.
So this is more of a moral discussion. I will take a totalitarian view on this; the good of the many out weight the good of the few. In this case, the rest of the world would benefit if they simply dissapeared, along with their ideology and beliefs because their beliefs are so destructive. I think it would morally acceptable to kill them all if it meant the safety of anyone who can be harmed by them.
Until I read about them removing science and mathematics from the education system, I did not pay much attention to them. But then I read that, and honestly that is when I said to my self "I really wish I could get rid of all of them."
This doesn't stop st ISIS however. I would gladly rid the world of all groups who exist to convert people to an ideology by systematically eliminating higher education that might otherwise convince them oppositely, and by murdering / raping / maming / suppressing / molesting / beating / burning anyone who doesn't follow suit. This is morally reprehensible and a blight on our species.
To sum up my CMV: I believe it's morally correct to rid the world of people who work to destroy, through horrible acts of violence, what we've achieved as a species in terms of science, technology, and the freedom to express religious beliefs. CMV. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe that kids should not be allowed in a movie theater after a certain time, whether it's a kid's movie or otherwise. CMV +
+ I've always had this opinion, although not as strongly as today. I just came back from watching Epic with my girlfriend, and I absolutely could not fully enjoy the movie because of the extreme amounts of talking and whispering in that theater. I'm talking: Asking questions in the middle of important or emotional scenes, repeating lines from the movie over and over again after the scene has passed, and even complete conversations with their parents at normal talking volume. So I think that the only solution is to not allow kids below a certain age to enter a theater after a certain time. CMV | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I disagree with the concept of inheritance, CMV +
+ Firstly, I should probably start by saying I'm unlikely to inherit a large amount and my prospects of becoming a millionaire are slim to none. I was born and continue to reside in the UK, of which I would say social class is very important.
I guess my main annoyance is that it keeps the class system in place i.e. the rich inherit a lot of money and largely stay rich, whilst poor people, who struggle to get onto the property ladder, would arguably need this money more. I think the whole idea of ''I'm rich because I've earned this money, you're poor because you're lazy'' is outdated, of which I would say is the main counterargument.
In my opinion, the majority of today's wealthy elite have had rich parents over generations, possibly from the colonial days, although I must add I have found no data on this. I believe that only a small fraction of wealthy people have 'worked their way up' and it is a myth that if you try hard enough, you can make it.
I would love to see the day when this 'inheritance money' is shared to try and make a fairer distribution of money. I am a firm believer in the welfare state, the NHS, and free education. I think money would be better spent going into these organisations than into someone's already bulging wallet.
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? |
You cannot have both a healthy career and a healthy social life. CMV +
+ I've spent so much time studying in college to get good grades, and learning programming that I've completely neglected any interaction with real people. I've substituted most human contact for some ghost of it via social networks such as reddit.
However, I can never seem to have fun going out and being friendly with people for the same of being friendly. Every time I attempt to have intelligent conversation with another human, I realize that I'm not on the Internet, where 95% of the world's knowledge is at. So naturally I go right to my phone or laptop to look something up (back where I started).
Every time I go on subs like /r/seduction, I get told that I have to spend years of free time reading books, working out, hangout out at bars & night clubs, getting to know random people. And not for any direct benefit to myself, but just for the *chance* to meet a girl that I might like.
I'd love to hear about folks who have found the healthy intersection between career & social life, where they can truly say they are in perfect balance. But I honestly think that anyone who has a healthy social life does not actually have very much financial ambition.
The only way I can see this equation balancing is if someone actually manages to "make it big" and finally set some time away for themselves. Otherwise, you're short selling yourself in one of these two areas. | 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 even if there is an explanation on some level for why the universe exists, eventually it would still have to lead back to some first thing that 'just was' for no reason and without any cause. I see no way around this. CMV. +
+ Say you have a cause for time and space existing. Well then what caused that thing? Say we find the cause for that thing. What caused that cause? Unless you have an infinite regression of causes, I don't understand how there couldn't inevitably be a first cause that has no prior causes, and thus just exists with no explanation whatsoever.
Even if there were an infinite regression of causes, it seems to me that this still wouldn't avoid the problem. We would still need to explain why the infinite regression existed in the first place (although "first place" in this sense doesn't mean in the actual chronological sense, but in more overall sense). So no matter what, it seems that there must be some first thing that is just there for no reason and with no cause.
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? |
The presumption of innocence is rampantly violated when suspects are kept in jail. CMV +
+ When a person is arrested, we say they are "innocent until proven guilty". While this may be true in some senses, it is also a major lie.
Unless there is a bond set that you can afford to pay, you stay in jail for months, if not years, awaiting trial.
1. Being in jail itself is a punishment. If you are eventually found not guilty, you may not get any kind of reparation for that unwarranted punishment.
2. The punishment can turn out to be afar harsher one then many of us realize. A news search will quickly show you mountains of evidence that people in jail are likely to be physically hurt, psychologically tortured (i.e. kept in solitary confinement) or killed. You may be sick or become sick and denied medical treatment. And if you are in jail for an extended period of months, even if nothing especially bad happens to you there, you are likely to lose your job and even your home because you cannot earn income or pay your bills.
If we are going to take the legal principle of presumed innocence seriously, we need to radically change the way we treat people who are accused of crimes.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Final Fantasy and many other video games got it backwards: The spell Cure should heal status ailments, and the spell Heal should restore health. +
+ The Final Fantasy series, as well as many others, have spells like Heal and Cure. Intuitively, it seems like Heal should *heal* your wounds, which would be like restoring HP. Likewise, Cure should *cure* you of poison and other diseases. However, they have it backwards. Cure restores HP and Heal removes ailments.
More recent games tend to do away with Heal and replace it with spells like Esuna which differ in name but are identical in effect. But Cure has remained. Old games tended to have poor translations so it's understandable. I assume the continued use of incorrect names is due to momentum rather than perceived correctness, but I still feel that Cure is the wrong name for the spell. And as we move toward the present the quality of translations improves and they often correct mistakes they made in the past. For example, the FFVII character Aeris had her name corrected to Aerith in sequels. If they can change the names of central characters, why not fix the spell name?
| 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 Muslims do themselves a disservice by using the word "Allah" instead of "God" even when speaking in English. +
+ Jews, Christians, and Muslims all worship the same God (albeit quite differently). I think that using the word "Allah" in English does Muslims a disservice. It marks their religion as an "other" to Christians and Jews, rather than as the fellow Abrahamic religion that it is. Even in a secular context using foreign words can be self-ostracizing.
Also I think there is a large set of people who don't realize that Islam's Allah and and Christianity and Judaism's God are one and the same. If Muslims used the word "God" more often it would probably be more clear, and perhaps lead to a little more understanding between the religions.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: If you can learn alone, going to class in college is a waste of time. +
+ I study something in the health sciences field, but I am not in med school or becoming a doctor. I feel as though I learn nearly nothing in class and I can achieve the same passing results by just studying on my own. I use the time I'm suppose to be in class to have fun and of course to study the material. I know many people hold the view that by not going to class, I am wasting money. Currently, I disagree with this sentiment. The way I see it, I am just paying for the degree that I need to score the job that will provide me with the income I desire. The material I am learning is not relevant to actual job that I am going to be performing upon graduation. Frankly, I find it uninteresting and I am just here to get that degree. I understand that some people benefit from going to class. But like my title says, I don't see anything wrong with going to almost none of your classes if you can pass without them. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe racial profiling works. CMV +
+ I believe that racial profiling has utility in the law-enforcement/national security realm. I am arguing for it's utility, not it's morality. I believe that as a nation, we have to be willing to sacrifice our security effectiveness in order to preserve our citizen's rights.
Having said that. Racial profiling works. It is not a solution, but it is simply one of the traits law-enforcement should use to prioritize their tasks. A simple example:
After capturing a known terrorist in the US, the FBI discovered this person has basic phone contact with 100 other people. The FBI also discovered a plot to blow up something, in the near future. Considering that:
* Statistically our domestic terrorist has much higher likelihood in a specific gender, race, ethnicity, and religion. (edit: People have pointed out this is a false blanket statement and I agree. I meant it in reference to leads from CT investigation into Muslim terrorist organization.)
* The FBI has no other additional information they can rely on to prioritize the list.
* This is a time sensitive situation.
Given these premises, there is no reason why the FBI shouldn't profile the list of POIs by gender, race, ethnicity, and religion.
Thus, racial profiling has utilities.
Here is the more provocative argument:
If statistically, in a specific area in the US, that white males between the age of 20-30 are murders. Would it be unreasonable for a police officer patrolling that area to pay more attention to white males between the age of 20-30? Said police officer is trained to be prepared for all threats. So for that officer, if he was approached by a 26 year old white male and a 26 year old Asian male at the same time from different direction and he can only choose to observe one, it would be reasonable for him to observe the 26 year old white male because statistically in this local area that is where the threat is likely to be from.
Again, racial profile has utilities.
CMV.
1. There are other better ways to profile than using race.
(Agreed. I never claim race is the best way, or even a good way to profile people. I am claiming it has its use at certain circumstances. That it is not "always useless")
2. If you racially profile one race. You let the other races go free.
(For some reason there is a perception that if you racially profile one race to prioritize your investigation, that it means you will **not** investigate the suspects outside of the profile. Racial profiling (when used correctly) allow you to prioritize tasks, not eliminate tasks.)
3. Law-enforcement should be fair, racial profiling will unfairly mark one race as criminals.
(I agree with this. Which is why I don't think racial profiling should be used. But that doesn't mean it is not effective. If you can remove 10 murderers of the same race, or 2 murderers per 4 different races, what is more effective?)
4. Racial profiling creates more criminals by alienating a race.
(This would be a very strong argument if someone can cite a study that can show this is true. I am having a hard time submitting the idea that seeing your race being targeted by a stereotype, your response is to go commit some more crime to reinforce that idea. As in: I just saw my cousin got tossed in jail because he committed a crime. I am a law-abiding citizen and I just got pulled over by the cops and harassed. They wasted my time and insulted me in front of my family, but found no reason to arrest me. Now I am going to go commit a crime because I am angry.)
5. Criminal justice data is wrong. There is a false conviction rate in the criminal justice system. If all criminal data is wrong, then any profile based on that statistic is also wrong.
(This is an interesting argument. But I dismiss it because this argument basically make **all** criminal justice discussion irrelevant. As in: You shouldn't have more police presence at a high crime area because your high crime data area is wrong. So if your argument is that any data you have is fallible because the way the data is corrected is fallible, than no data can ever be used to support any argument.)
6. People will use this incorrectly and make mistakes.
(Mis-using an item doesn't mean it is useless. Are cars useless because it can kill people?)
Also, see keel_bright's analysis, pretty awesome.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Bitcoin (for better or worse) can never operate as a real currency, by its own very design. CMV +
+ Basically, currencies are a method to exchange and store wealth. Most (if not all) currencies operate with a central bank that tries to maintain a target rate of inflation. Since the 80s, US inflation has hovered around 2%, depending on the needs of the economy. It is now seen as one of the most stable places to store ones wealth, in the world. As world markets shook, everyone bought US dollars.
While bitcoin may be able to send money anywhere in the world, it has no central authority to guide its inflation. It's price most recently has been trending upward, but even when it hits what may be considered a stable level, it will inevitably have major price variations that I don't believe anyone looking to protect their wealth will be able to stomach. If you disagree, please show me a publicly traded asset that has maintained a more stable growth rate than the USD. And like all publicly traded commodities, bitcoin will be subject to the same speculative bubbles as the rest.
If there's something I'm not seeing, change my view. But I bet I'd be safer burying my money in a bunch of black barrels in the deserts of New Mexico.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Reddit's policy allowing hate subreddits to remain in order to preserve free speech actually does the opposite in practice. +
+ I want to preface this by saying that this is what I've found out from looking around for a few minutes about Reddit policy, so anyone with any corrections please educate me.
As we all know, there are certain subreddits out there dedicated to hatred. Racist, bigoted, I'm not going to name names but they are disgusting places to be on the web.
The reason why they are allowed to exist is a good one, free speech. We allow groups like the KKK and Westboro to exist in real life because despite them being awful people with awful ideas, we value the right of anyone to say anything at any given time.
The difference, however, is in the consequences. In real life, when Westboro gathers to picket a funeral, good and decent people gather against them. We shame them for being so hateful and use social pressure to show them how bad their ideas are.
The problem with Reddit, however, is that all these subreddits are moderated by people who are the MOST hateful and spiteful of anyone in the subreddits. Good people can't speak out in overwhelming numbers to drown their hate speech like they can in real life.
Anyone who dares to speak against their shitty philosophies are banned. This ensures that the bigots always outnumber the reasonable people in those subreddits and it gives hate a place to foster without being shamed as it should be.
Despite Reddit's admirable attempt at preserving free speech, the result is actually allowing hate groups to flourish when they would otherwise be stunted.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: If boycotting is seen as an an effective means of change, then it should be completely okay to not tip servers, bellhops, caddies, etc. +
+ Inspired by the post where a patron left a note talking about why he doesn't tip to the server.
I am going under the assumption that boycotting is seen as an effective means of creating change. It was used extensively in the civil rights movement, many wars, and in today's world with the gay acceptance and marijuana legalization movements.
If you want servers to make a living wage, stop funding the vicious circle. In America it's always seen as taboo to not tip restaurant servers, even if they do a horrible job you are expected to tip. I don't see why the customer should be forced to make up for the establishments low wages.
A common reason I hear is that it makes them work harder and serve you better, but this is simply not true for a lot of places. Having a well paying job is reason enough to work hard, and if you tip you only keep things the way they are.
I do tip though!
CMV!
I think the main issue I have is that servers pool their tips usually, so a bad server will still get an equal cut of the money compared to the best server there. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: In general, I don't think Italians, Jews, or Arabs should be considered "white". +
+ Hey CMV. I've been trying to think of a view of mind I could post here, and this just came to me all of a sudden.
So, I don't think Italians, Jews, Arabs, or Greeks should really be considered white people. Now, I've got nothing against any of those people, I just think there is no possible definition of "white" that applies to them. At the most basic level, there skin isn't white. Obviously, this varies from person to person, but I don't think the average Italian is any whiter than, say, the average Hispanic person. They aren't Caucasians, because they didn't come from the Caucasus mountains. It's not a big deal, but I think it's a bit ridiculous that [these](http://guestofaguest.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/theguido.jpg) guys are supposed to be the same as [these](http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/group-young-people-white-18566866.jpg) guys, who are completely different from [these](http://i3.asn.im/My-group---_t1c7.jpg) guys.
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: Atheism is not a smart choice because you gain nothing by being right +
+ I guess [this comic](http://i.imgur.com/OaI398t.jpg) sum's up what I'm saying.
If you believe in a higher power or God, you get rewarded if you're right. If you're wrong you end up just like the atheist and you're worm food. If you're an atheist and there turns out to be a God, you're in trouble and might suffer for it.
So reddit CMV: Betting on there being a God is the smart decision because there might be a pay off, while atheism has no reward.
(For the purposes of the CMV I'm not talking about the psycho "No such thing as evolution, gays are evil" religious crowd. I mean just the regular redditor subbing to /r/drunk , /r/gonewild , /r/trees , /r/Charity , /r/science , /r/technology subscriber deciding whether or not to believe in God(and yes it's not always a decision but for the purposes of this let's say it is.))
**
**
**
So the assumptions for the CMV:
* You should live your life as a good person (as reddit would generally define a good person) to get rewarded in the afterlife
* Belief in God is a requirement for the afterlife
* In reality being true to your own beliefs is key, but I'm talking about someone making the most prudent decision
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I am an atheist, but I don't think there is a good reason to dismiss karma and/or reincarnation. CMV. +
+ First, about my atheism: I have a very specific shade of 'soft' atheism. I think those atheists who actively assert that 'there is no god' (the 'hard' atheists like Dawkins) are making an unjustified jump in logic and/or belief. I am a 'soft' atheist, meaning I have a very definite *lack of belief* in a concept called god. But, in contrast to an agnostic, to me there is no possibility of being convinced that a god can exist. The idea of a god is too incomprehensible in my thinking. It's sort of an epistemological catch-22 I think that the concept of 'god' as I have been exposed to it throughout my life, is so nebulous and contradictory that nobody who actually understands what 'god' is can believe, and anybody who believes doesn't actually understand. I should mention that when I say 'understand' I mean understands the concept of a 'god' as an all-powerful being while simultaneously believing in a scientific world view (Evolution, Earth geology, Electromagnetism) -- science is the most certain knowledge we have about the universe, and the most sure footing on which to speculate about that which is not known, or that which is unknowable.
But that's not the view I'd like to invite you to change. I now live in a predominantly Buddhist country (Burma/Myanmar), so naturally the topic of reincarnation comes up regularly. I've been told by some people that I must have inhabited this country in a previous life, or at the very least have been drawn here by karma. In these situations I often don't know what to say.
I notice coincidences and have feelings of trust with people I barely know, and I feel at home here in a way that I can't explain very well. I know that in life coincidences are to be expected, and sometimes snap-decisions turn out to be surprisingly wise in retrospect. And perhaps my feeling of contentment is just a romanticizing of my life and the sort of cultural plunge that I decided to take when I moved here about 5 months ago. But still, I have friends who tell me I seem like I am familiar to them, and one person even went so far as to suggest that I am literally a reincarnation of somebody who died in Burma when I was born; that I have 'come back' for that reason.
I have my doubts about that last one, but I can't think of a good argument against reincarnation as a concept, because unlike the idea of a 'god', I feel like karma/reincarnation could be consistent with a scientific worldview.
Here's how I might rationalize it:
If you are like me, you think of life on earth as a purely physical (albeit complex) system. That system, made up of quarks, protons, carbon, glycogen, cells, bones, etc... obeys very elaborate patterns. Perhaps 'karma' is one property of life that also obeys similar rules. Like information, karma could have predictable and meaningful behavior on earth -- behavior that, to an outsider, is almost entirely impossible to decipher. To an alien life form without a concept of language and embedded digital information, a person who suddenly acquires large amounts of power and influence over others is a mystery; to us it can be explained easily by a lucky investment in the stock market or a winning lotto ticket. What if karma is as real as information, as influential in human/life affairs as information, but unlike information, is not understood very well by humans? When lives are destroyed or saved by what appears to be pure random chance, what if there is a real tangible cause that we are simply unable to observe?
So perhaps the rough collection of patterns and molecules that I call 'me' is somehow intricately connected with all the other similar patterns with a similar size and lifespan. Perhaps the sustained collection of patterns and connections that could conceivably be called 'me' extends longer than 70+years, and regularly dissociates and re-emerges in other places at other times, under different conditions, but still retains an unbroken set of causes and effects, like a message that is periodically encrypted and deciphered. CMV. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I have an irrational fear of guns and don't ever want to touch one. CMV +
+ Ok, I'm not sure if this is the best candidate for a CMV but it has been bothering me. My roommate is from the country and when her parents were helping to move her in a few months ago they talked about having us out to their house to shoot skeet (I guess it is when they throw plates in the air and you shoot them as targets).
This has recently come up again and I'm confident a date is going to be set and an official invitation this spring or summer. I've never held a gun. I don't like guns. I don't really want to like guns. I have no interest in doing this. But there will be some intense pressure from the roommate, her parents, and my other friends who are also invited and want to go.
* I'm scared of getting hurt or worse, hurting one of my close friends. Accidents can happen and I'm not a very strong or coordinated person. I fear I won't handle a gun well and that I won't have control over it.
* I find gun culture generally unpleasant. I don't mind that people are into guns but the entire culture around them turns me off. I don't really want to be a part of it or grow to like it.
* Alcohol will almost certainly be involved and that scares the shit outta me. Guns and drinking, could their be a worse combo?
* I don't want to be bad at it. My friends like playing sports and video games. I don't. I feel like they will have a leg up on hitting targets and doing well and I will be the punchline, the loser who can't hit anything. I'm already the ~~"gay"~~ gay one, I don't like having new ways of having my "manliness" questioned.
I don't want to be closed minded. I don't want to miss a potentially fun weekend and learning something new. But I am just so intensely uncomfortable with this whole thing and see myself making an excuse and skipping it. So CMV. Why should I see this weekend as a fun adventure and not an anxiety inducing chore.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:The Ice Bucket Challenge, that has been making the rounds on Facebook, does nothing for ALS. +
+ If you are unaware of how the ice bucket challenge works, basically I have someone take a video of me pouring lots of water on my own head. Then I proceed to tell the cameraman, I now challenge 5 friends to do the same. They now have 24hrs to complete this challenge or they are forced to donate $100 to support funding, to find a cure for Lou Gerig's Disease.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for awareness of a devastating disease. However, the fact that people dump a gallon and a half of water on their heads, and challenge 5 people to waste a gallon and a half of their own does nothing for ALS. We are actively persuading people to NOT donate $$ to a worthy cause.
Most of the videos don't mention that the participant has to donate $10, just by doing the challenge itself.
Instead, people are wasting precious, drinkable water on a planet where 780 Million people lack access to clean water. It is the most recent internet trend that will likely expire, in say a month from now.
A month from now people will go back to their lives forgetting about ALS. (And procrastinating we don't have an impending water crisis).
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'm losing faith in trying to perform well in my sport (cross-country) because I believe that some other competitors have an unfair genetic advantage. CMV +
+ I'm only 14, and I might be on the verge of giving up running because I thinks my genetics are holding me back, or maybe the competition's genetics are pushing them too far forward. I don't think I'm too bad at running (19:50 for a 5k) but I am noticing some other people my age, who do the same training, that are making it at around late 18- early 19 minutes. Basic statistics about myself: I'm roughly 5'5" and weight 134 pounds.
I've been doing cross-country for a while now, and I liked doing it from the start, but lately I've been in a slump. I feel like even though I put in the effort, it's all for naught because the other competitors are pre-destined to have the edge.
I was looking at a few (possibly biased) sources that talk about the role of genetics in sports:
http://www.medsci.org/archives/athleticgene.html
http://www.businessinsider.com/16-revelations-about-sports-and-genetics-2013-8
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19630564
http://www.scienceofrunning.com/2010/07/10000hr-rule-and-why-talent-and-genes.html
http://sportsmedicine.about.com/od/anatomyandphysiology/a/genetics.htm
http://www.endlesshumanpotential.com/genetics-role-in-athletic-performance.html
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1169440
I found that a lot of them actually say that putting in the extra hard work makes more of a difference in genetics, although some argue that it doesn't make too much of a difference at all, and everything is pre-determined from birth (Kenyan runners for example). I don't mind putting in too much more hard work than everyone else if it means I can compete with them. However, I'm not sure if I can maintain that attitude about the extra training if I see everyone literally run past me, despite my training. I even read that factors like determination and perseverance are genetically based as well. I think I am usually a guy who is determined in things he sets his mind on, but lately... not so much.
I hold this view based on anecdotal evidence, such as people I run with getting better faster than other who start at the same time (or even later) and get better faster. I'm not 100% sure if I can hold my view based on the sources, because the topic is highly debated, and the sources are probably unreliable and biased.
I hope someone can change my view to keep running and trying my best. Is genetics (I read that some of the sources say 20-80% of overall performance comes from genetics) really such a determining factor when I comes to sports (even at my age level)? Does putting in that extra hard work even make a difference, is it even worth doing? | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Affirmative action is a valuable tool for increasing campus diversity at colleges and universities and benefits the entire student body. CMV! +
+ **A more diverse student body provides a richer cultural, social, and intellectual atmosphere than would be possible by admitting simply on the basis of conventional admission metrics such as academic achievement and standardized testing. All students who do attend the university benefit from this diversity more than they would from marginally more students with slightly higher grades and test scores.**
My argument is from the perspective of providing the best possible experience for students at the school. For the sake of this viewpoint, I am not interested arguing the merits of affirmative action as a whole, but rather two specific points:
I acknowledge the many complex dimensions of affirmative action and am curious to explore my view beginning from these two points, which I do hold fairly strong views on.
**Therefore, I would prefer to exclude a broader discussion of affirmative action from this thread, namely the following questions:**
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Satire news websites have reached a point where they are as unethical and misleading as click-bait sites. +
+ Back in the early days of The Onion, satire was a fun way to catch out your friends and colleagues, but only because the website was so appropriately designed and the videos were professional and clearly had a good budget. The thought process used to be "it has to be real because who would put all this effort into making it otherwise?".
Now it seems my Facebook news feed is flooded with badly made websites that have totally plausible titles concerning things that could actually happen but didn't.
For the most part it's no longer satire, it's just lies.
The Onion is still clearly satire. I'm talking about its copycat websites.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:Bernie is more than the best candidate for President, he is The best candidate we've seen in decades. +
+ I really don't know how to state my opinion more clearly than that. I feel that the myriad of Problems addressing the United States today aren't even being addressed my the majority of elected officials. Bernie Sanders, who is the longest-serving Independent in Congress has (almost) no ties to the bi-partisan system, and can open a dialogue about many problems most politicians won't even acknowledge.
By all means, i am willing to change my view:
* Tell me something horrible about Bernie that i didn't know.
* What's the skeleton in this guy's closet that's going to keep my from registering to vote for the first time in a decade?
* is there some stance that he takes that is so fundamentally flawed that he should be a joke candidate?
I truly, with all my being feel that he is without a doubt the best thing that could happen to American Politics. Even if he doesn't win the Democratic nomination, running as an independent could address the problems of apathetic voter turnouts, two-party systematic voting, and campaing finance reform. Even before the reddit-karma-train cirlce jerk started, i've always had a great sliver of hope that he would run, and now it's happening, and it would take some seriously sturdy debate to change my view, so get crackin'.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe polygamy and polyandry should be legal CMV +
+ its none of our business how others form their families. All of the arguments against plural marriage are either based on tradition (and monogamy is a recent one in human history) or complaints against pedophilia and abuse, which i don't see as necessarily part of plural marriage. I had an ancestor with many wives (over 40) and none were underage. I also believe the risk of abusive pedo marriages would be far less likely if we allowed consenting adults to have plural marriage. Let's say i live in a polygamous compound and i have 4 wives, what are the chances i will report my neighbor for taking a 16y/o to wife if when the cops show up there is a good chance my family will be broken up as well? | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Rotating shifts shouldn't be used. +
+ Making a worker continually change their sleep, will lead to fatigue/tiredness and lower productivity.
Besides lowering productivity, it greatly strains the workers and creates a ton of health problems. Workers will develop sleep problems like insomnia, be at an increased risk for illness, poor metabolism (from strange meal distributions), and are more likely to develop unhealthy habits such as smoking; lack of exercise; and unhealthy diet.
I don't see any benefits to using a Rotating shift to cover undesirable shifts over the standard shifts. Sure the graveyard shift isn't ideal, but I understand the need for workers 24/7.
Forcing employees to constantly change when they sleep seems idiotic to me. So, please change my mind.
---
For more clarification, What I'm opposed to are: scheduled rotating shifts as part of the job description which makes it literally impossible to hold a constant sleep schedule.
A couple examples of commonly used "slow" shift rotations:
"2-2 3-2 2-3"
It consists of a 4-week cycle where each team works 2 consecutive day shifts, followed by 2 days off duty, works 3 consecutive day shifts, followed by 2 days off duty, works 2 consecutive day shifts, followed by 3 days off duty, 2 consecutive night shifts, followed by 2 days off duty, works 3 consecutive night shifts, followed by 2 days off duty, works 2 consecutive night shifts, followed by 3 days off duty.
"Rotating eight plan"
| 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 it should never take more than a few hours the night before an exam to study. CMV +
+ I have heard many people talk about how students shouldn't wait until the night before an exam to study and I have seen many of my friends study for over ten hours for a single exam. I do not understand why doing this is necessary. The purpose of an exam is to quantify how well students understand material that has already been taught. Everything that an exam covers, the students are expected to already have learned through lectures, reading the book, homework assignments, labs, etc. At the point that a student is studying for an exam, all of the information they need, they should already know. It is my understanding that the purpose of studying is to refresh your memory and recall details about things you learned a month ago that you had since forgotten. If that is case, it shouldn't take more than a few hours to do. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The legendary birds are the least cool/useful/awesome legendary pokemon +
+ Articuno? Moltres? Zapdos? They're just birds man. What powers do they have? The same powers that like 50% of the rest of pokemon have? What do they do? They just fucken fly around and look pretty! There's no lore behind them and they don't seem to stand for anything. They're all pretty shitty competitively and too hard to train up to be useful. Try harder legendary birds, try harder.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think beards are disgusting. CMV +
+ I have friends who have huge beards that they're incredibly proud of, and every time I see them I think it's just gross. Whether the well-groomed, short type or the long lumberjack-y growth, beyond the stubble stage it's all kind of weird to me. Nothing about them seems manly or rugged.
I've heard a variety of responses to my view - some agree, some think that I'm going against some unspoken tenet of manliness. I've been most surprised to hear women that find unkempt, large beards attractive.
I'm a man and I can't imagine doing it. I've bypassed the stubble stage into light beard territory before but I always reach a point where I start being bothered by it. What's so great about it? Why are people attracted to them? Why do people want to grow them? 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 Maleficent from Sleeping Beauty is the greatest Disney villain of all time. CMV. +
+ Let's do a lighthearted CMV shall we?
First, Maleficent has the coolest costume. She has like devilish horns on her head and a huge cape.
Maleficent pretty much sentences a baby to death because she was not invited to a party.
She can disappear in a cloud of green smoke.
She has a really fucking cool staff.
She kills beautiful flowers with her frost
She has a pet Raven.
She lives in, what looks like, the Goblin King's castle.
Her minions are pretty ugly.
She taunts the prince after she captures him. That is pretty fucked up.
And lastly, She turns into a fucking Dragon!
You can try to CMV, but the fact she turns into a Dragon kind of makes her unbeatable. However, I am curious, and think CMV can use a lighthearted post.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I don't believe Obama should have been involved in the Trayvon Martin/Zimmerman case. CMV. +
+ Obama is undoubtedly considered one of the highest regarded leaders in not only the African-American community, but also in the United States. Therefore after he made the comments "If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon" and more recently "The death of Trayvon Martin was a tragedy. Not just for his family, or for any one community, but for America," many people, whether they were black or not, became impassioned about this case. The trial became more about "How far have we really come?" (in regards to civil rights) than "Is Zimmerman guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?" I do think the case would have been covered heavily even if Obama had not commented, but I also believe he made it messier. If the president of the United States of America takes a side in a trial, the opposing side will be seen as nothing short of abhorrent in the eyes of his supporters.
My view is that Obama's involvement in the case was divisive and further separated the gap between white and black in 2013 America. CMV
Note: I don't want to seem annoying with another Zimmerman-related CMV, but I did not see one that directly related Obama when I used the search bar and I have a strong opinion about his role specifically. Apologies if it is a repeat. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe allowing unrelated topics to be part of the same bill is damaging to the legislative process. CMV +
+ It is a common practice in the introduction of legeslation to include completely unrelated issues in an attempt to get them passed as part of the main issue. For example, one party might want to pass law A, but not law B. A second party wants to pass lab B, but not law A. So when the first part introduces a bill on law A the second party will tack on law B in hopes that the first wants law A to pass so badly that they'll be willing to allow law B to slip through. A recent example was anti abortion legislation being grouped in with motorcycle safety laws.
I find this disruptive to the process. By forcing politicians to weigh the merits of completely unrelated issues against each other, the consideration given to individual issues is diluted and good laws get shot down to avoid the passing of bad, or vise versa. 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? |
[Meta] CMV posts that are a matter of taste are not disputable, and should be removed by mods. CMV. +
+ I have seen numerous posts lately along the lines of "I don't like bacon, CMV" or "XYZ musical act is not good at music, CMV". These posts are based on personal taste, and there is no logical argument that could make the poster change their taste. These posts seem to be more of a statement, rather than a call to change their view.
The obvious rebuttal to this would be how do we define a removable post, since there would be some grey area. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:Patriotism is the belief that being born on one side of a line makes you better. +
+ American patriots have a general mentality against immigration. Saying these people shouldn’t be allowed to become part of the country, is the same as saying they are worse, because they were born on a different side of a line, and americans are better because of the side of the line they are born on. This is prominent in many ads and political champagnes, namely the slogan “Creating jobs for americans”. I understand why politics use this slogan, because they are trying to get americans to vote for them, but this slogan is also prominent in ads made by private corporations. As if creating jobs for americans is morally superior to creating jobs for people of other countries. The companies launching these ads may be trying to win in the american market, so they can sell more of their product, but the fact that this can increase sales shows that many americans hold the being born on one side of a line belief. I am not blaming the politicians or corporations running ads running these slogans, they are merely trying to win votes or make money from this mentality, but really it is the citizens that have the belief that they are better, because of the side of a line they are born on, that are at fault. Patriotism is really just this belief.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe when the accused is found not guilty in a "my word versus yours" case, the accuser should be made to stand trial for lying. CMV +
+ Thinking to the recent Le Vell possible child abuse case in the UK: we have an actor who was accused of abusing a child over multiple occasions.
The press, naturally, dragged his name through the mud thinking this case would go the same way as all the other abuse scandals from the last year - only he was found Not Guilty on all counts.
But this will change the rest of his life forever. Innocent until proven guilty means nothing in the court of public opinion. There are those who will never believe him, those who say "it just wasn't proved", those who say "no smoke without fire". He will never be able to go near a child again without people watching his every move like a hawk. He is also less likely to be believed if someone else decides to claim he abused them merely by association to the first case.
So I understand we don't want to put the fear of jail into potential victims, and I get that someone's going to tell me that conviction rates are lower than one would believe from the media, but neither of this changes my mind that in a case of "my word versus yours" where no physical evidence is brought forward: someone must be lying. Either the accused is lying and will be sent to jail, or they aren't and will (hopefully) be acquitted. Whereas for the accuser: if they are telling the truth (hopefully) the accused is put away, but if they are lying - nothing happens.
It just seems to me that when one side has so much to lose, the other side should too as a course of balance.
As I mentioned above, Le Vell would most likely not be believed now if another "my word vs yours" case came against him about child abuse. Now immediately you might jump to saying: if two people accuse him then they probably weren't lying, why would two people lie? My answer is: because people do. All the time - whether it be for fun, profit, fame - and in this case there is no downside - there seems to be no risk to accusing someone in a case of "my word versus yours" where no physical evidence can prove the defendant is lying, but no physical evidence can still be enough to see them put away.
CMV | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
US society doesn't uphold its military as heroes, but is instead largely indifferent to the troops that it deploys across the world in the interest of its government CMV +
+ my view is that soldiers are largely ignored by society. This is observable due to the treatment of veterans, the pay of soldiers, and the lack of national interest in the recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq since the initial invasion.
I am a cadet and prior National Guardsman, currently serving in the reserves as I work towards my commission. Anecdotally, the only people that have ever thanked me for my service in the years I've been in have been people who have also served or are related to those currently serving. There seems to be a small community of those who are "in the know" about military life and culture. These people seem to be the ones that are more patriotic, likely because the military establishment is a part of their or their loved ones lives. I believe that the respect that older people give to the armed forces comes from this personal experience with the difficulty of being deployed or loving someone deployed far away.
I think that these wars have been largely ignored by the population. Vietnam was aired non stop in the news. Persian Gulf War (Iraq 1) was short and relatively glorious. The War on Terror soldiers are not worshipped as reddit has constantly said, but instead are generally ignored. Most people can't (without the aide of google) recall a single battle of Iraq or name a province in Afghanistan. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: There is nothing wrong with being a gay guy who is apathetic to same sex marriage +
+ So I am getting some hate from some LGBT people due to my view on same sex marriage. I support it purely in the interests of equality however I don't like marriage as an institution and I don't ever want to get married to anyone in my life I am afraid.
I just see it as an outdated ceremony with no real benefit and if a couple has a falling out things get complicated and messy and stuff like that.
I also have the view that marriage was a thing used to repress LGBT people and used to be a tool of the religious and I think we shouldn't conform to such heteronormative traditions. We shouldn't act like straight people just to get accepted by society.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I'm anti-abortion because I can't draw the line between goo and person. CMV +
+ I think any abortion is morally wrong, because you're talking about human life (I'm atheist). But if you're of the opinion that a fetus isn't human life and you're pro-abortion, how do you decide what's the exact moment when a fetus is just goo and when does it become a person? One month? Two months? 5 months? Does something magically occur when all fetuses grow souls? And if you think there are certain characteristics that make a human being that normally occur at a certain period, will you generalize and incur the risk of that being developing them earlier than others? Tell me exactly the point where abortion goes from a procdeure to excrete human matter to murder? | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I completely agree with Joseph Heller's quote "Certainly so many countries cant be all worth dying for". +
+ Here is the complete quote:
“What is a country? A country is a piece of land surrounded on all sides by boundaries, usually unnatural. Englishmen are dying for England, Americans are dying for America, Germans are dying for Germany, Russians are dying for Russia. There are now fifty or sixty countries fighting in this war. Surely so many countries can't all be worth dying for.”
― Joseph Heller, Catch-22
Let me know if further clarification is required. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:Magicians that use camera tricks or excessive stooges are not good magicians and are not "doing magic" +
+ Title is a bit confusing as I know no one can really do any magic, but I feel that camera tricks and excessive stooges are the lowest of the low in magic. (by excessive stooges I mean more than 20% of the people viewing the trick live are in on it and are actors.)
* It cheapens the trick, anyone could perform any magic trick if camera tricks or 100% actors are allowed.
* Working out how the magic trick was done is half the fun for me (and I think most people). Knowing it's all faked with no interesting trick is a waste of everyones time.
* There is suspension of disbelief, not only for that magician but then for all magicians. If I see a good trick now I'm more likely to believe it's just just a camera trick which cheapens the whole event. It even spoils the fun for magicians who do magic without camera tricks as people suspect it might be.
* It's just not cool.
| 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 catcalling should be considered flattering, not mysogynistic or rude. CMV. +
+ Throwaway account. No, I myself am not a catcaller. But I don't see why it bothers females so much. It's a compliment, isn't it?
But apparently that makes me a mysogynist, so please, CMV. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Lolicon is harmless and should be legalized nationwide. +
+ Lolicon (in my definition at least) is described as sexual attraction to typically hand drawn underage girls. It is similar to CP but as it causes no harm to any child I feel it should be legalized.
Before I make a few points on why I think it should be legalized nationwide I will say that it is already legal in my state and a few others.
Lolicon is typically a form of hentai that involves underage girls/boys. As I stated above it is comparative to CP but since it causes no harm to a child (which is typically the largest argument against CP) it should be legalized.
It is a little absurd that you could be arrested and tried as sex offender for viewing images of FAKE little girls. First off, you can't even prove the age of the girls drawn unless the author states, so beforehand so it is up to the court to decide if it's actually CP or not. This is bad news because a lot of people have a bias and think its disgusting.
Nobody should be arrested because they have a harmless fetish (keyword harmless).
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Guns don’t provide self-defense, harm more lives than they save, and should be illegal for civilians. CMV. +
+ I support the legalization of marijuana and gay marriage, because whether or not I will partake in these things, they do not affect me. People can smoke, and marry whoever they want, and I will never be influenced by this. This logic does not extend to guns. The fact that the American population is armed to the teeth with automatic rifles certainly puts me in potential risk. What reason is there for anyone to own a gun?
The United States is known for its lax gun control laws, and encouraging gun culture, at the same time approximately 11,000 gun murders occur in the United States every year. Compare that to countries that have strict gun laws and discourage gun ownership: in the UK the gun homicide rate is approximately 50. This shocking difference proves, despite popular opinion, that controlling guns works. And although it is impossible to get rid of all guns, we can at least start solving the problem today. Stricter gun laws = less gun-related murders.
People argue that they need guns for self-defense, however owning a gun puts you in more danger than not owning one. Let’s say for example that someone attempts to enter your home, and you raise your gun at them, they also might have a gun. There are two potential outcomes, the invader flees or he fires, in which case you will return fire and both of you will have life-threating injuries or are dead. Guns are not a deterrent, they put the home invader in a fight or flight situation that facilitates potential gun violence. Don’t forget that both the home intruder and the home owner are in high pressure situations where their judgement might be impaired by adrenaline, a reflexive twitch of a finger is a possible outcome. Why would anyone want to even create this risk? By abstaining from guns, a rational intruder who enters your home has no reason to harm you, and proceeds to loot your home for which he will be later reprimanded by police. Yes, not all home invaders are rational people, but the extreme minority of cases were home invaders initially seek to harm the home owner is negligible to the amount of unnecessary gun violence in the majority of situations where non-violent invaders are confronted with guns. The fact that crazy people are carrying guns in the first place just proves why we need stricter control.
Some argue that guns are necessary for hunting, or can be used for recreational purposes. The simple answer to this is that the risk is not worth it, the potential threat that guns create outweighs any of the potential uses. A killing machine is not a toy, if you want recreation then try airsoft or paintball, or call of duty. Hunters can learn different ways to hunt: trapping, crossbows, there are plenty of ways for people to continue their rural hunting lifestyle without the use of guns.
The 2nd Amendment argument is useless. Just because something exists as a law doesn’t make it more correct. Anything could be written as an amendment, but they are obviously meant to be amended.
“Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” A phrase that I see everywhere on reddit. But in reality, the problem with guns is how easily they can be used to murder masses of people. Nobody should have that power. Although people will always be able to kill other people, a knife (or any weapon unlike a gun) is much more difficult to operate. A psychotic murder can’t enter a school and kill dozens of kids with a knife. People say that the Sandy Hook Elementary massacre could have been prevented if an armed guard was there. But the best solution would be to make guns illegal, and prevent the murderer from acquiring those weapons in the first place.
The American idea to use more guns to protect people from guns is a disgusting, illogical, cyclical process that creates more risk and causes more human suffering. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I don't think women are objectified in comic books. CMV. +
+ I think the sexuality and physique of an idolized, athletic female body is often portrayed, and is exaggerated in comics, but I don't think the characters are made to be objects at all. The most iconic superheroines like Wonder Woman, She-Hulk, Invisible Woman, Catwoman, and what have you, all have terrific character build up, and by that definition alone they are not made to be mere objects in comics.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
The expectation that service workers be tipped is exploited to the point that it is now a form of cooperate welfare. CMV +
+ I am not saying the act of tipping, but rather the expectation that restaurant servers, barbers/stylists/hair cutting people, cab drivers, etc has been exploited to the point that businesses are now able to justify paying their employees below poverty wages.
I have worked in food service, and consider myself a rather generous tipper. But lately I've gotten to the point where I'm thinking to myself "I am paying you to drive the cab...why would I pay you again." or "I just paid $28 for you to spend seven minutes giving me a trim and buzz." I know that I'm not paying the actual employee and that I'm paying the business. I tip because I know the employee is generally getting shafted by their employer, and it makes the experience a little more personal, especially when being waited on.
I am not numb to the fact that giving a good tip is a way of telling someone "I appreciate your effort. Please remember this when I come back the next time so I can continue to get good service."
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
It's not necessary for the human being to eat meat. CMV +
+ We do have this option, but I really don't think that we need it, since we can substitute mainly all nutrients with other sources. Change my view. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I think it's morally ok to kill an animal for food, but I'm a vegan because I hate the way animals are treated, for such food.. +
+ I'm been stuck with this debate with myself for months now, and I can't think what is the right moral path..
I've always thought that killing an animal for the right purpose, food and not fun, is morally right because there animals don't understand death, like a human does. They will have the same wonderful life, in the wild, even if I kill it or not..
As for producing animals, in order for food, I also think this is ok as long as the animals are treated right, and fair.
That's why i'm a vegan right now, because I hate how the main meat sources we have come from horrible people who treat animals with un needed cruelty, or atleast it seems like they do.
Any pro and con arguments would help me out a lot, thanks! | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:The United States should embargo Japan for its inhumane whaling program +
+ The Japanese government has been committing horrible acts off their coasts and in international waters, specifically whaling. Many organizations such as the United Nations have urged Japan to back off its whaling practices which are not only inhumane but also damaging the ecosystem. Yet, the Japanese have been able to slip by under the ruse that it is for "scientific purposes." I don't want to come off as some raging environmentalist, I really am not. But the Japanese government just has continuously lied and cheated the system all for some meat from animals that have proven to be quite sentient, almost near human capacity. Therefore I believe that the best response is for the United States to place an embargo or trade restriction on Japan in order to cause some sort of change. The US is the best actor for this due to the large trade relation between the two nations. The embargo would urge Japan to ease off its whaling and solve the issue at hand faster and more efficiently than any other way. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Suicide is an act of weakness. +
+ This comes from a person who has seen family members kill themselves, and try to kill themselves. I was also clinically depressed as a teen due to a medical diagnosis. From what I can tell of the issue; suicide is a decision a person makes when they give up.
I realize that is a HUGE oversimplification of a very very complicated issue, but let me clarify my point. Suicide is related to mental illness yes, but I understand it is a choice. Mentally Ill people have chemical imbalances in their brain, but I don't think that makes them incapable of free will. They still actively chose to kill themselves in a specific way or fashion with all factors considered.
A way I see it is; a drunk person is still liable for any crimes they did while drunk, even though there is an imbalance of chemicals in their brain. (Although I am unsure if that is because a person chooses to get inebriated, while a mentally Ill person is born with it)
Since they have chosen to kill themselves, why don't they choose to actively improve their situation? Call me an optimist but I sincerely believe that if a person tries with the best of their ability, they can improve how they live. Now a mentally ill person may not think like that at all. But that doesn't change that they chose to die over choosing to strive for a better life.
Suicide is weakness in my mind, because it is a choice. And when you have a choice between turning everything off, or 'beating the game', and you consciously choose to die, you are a quitter and that is weak.
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 don't like living in America, and I want to leave. Please CMV. +
+ I'm a 19 y/o male living in the Pacific Northwest. I am really tired of living in America for several reasons.
* 1) Healthcare is screwed up. I am fairly healthy, and I cannot schedule a Dr. appointment because I have not been to the doctor in a long time. Because of regulations implemented by our healthcare reforms, I would have to go through the process that every new patient goes through, and this would cost $$$ and take weeks. I have bad eyes, and I need new glasses. My University schedule won't allow me to make an appointment at the eye doctor covered by my parents insurance, so I will have to wear old glasses until I can squeeze in a check-up in a visit to home. I can't just find an eye-doctor and get looked at. Fuck.
* 2) Our education system is terrible. I was lucky enough to be homeschooled by my parents, and have easily kept up with, and surpassed my peers through my first two years of college. I was about the top 15 in my school at the end of my sophomore year. Students who spent 8 hours a day, 7 days a week, for 14 years were dropping out of intro classes because they didn't have the study skills and prior knowledge.
A large portion of the school year here is spent preparing students for specific standardized tests, instead of teaching them real-world skills.
Also, education here is extremely expensive. I was lucky enough to have two of four years paid for, cheap rent, scholarships, and generous parents, and I will still have > $10,000 in debt when I graduate. Then, I have to find a job, which brings us to . . .
* 3) Our economy, which is terrible. I know Europe is suffering to, as well as the rest of the globe, so this isn't going to be solved by leaving America, but we are run by greedy politicians that put us deeper and deeper into debt, while unemployment goes up and up. I work at a grocery store, and a massive amount of people rely on government programs to buy their basic food and toiletries. This is sad.
* 4) I hate the culture, especially among the youth, here in America. I know I would likely find this same culture anywhere else in the world. It's full of people obsessed with sex and the latest celebrity gossip. No one has serious conversations, and most stay glued to their phones.
I might sound pessimistic here, but I really am lucky to be living in a (somewhat) free and safe country, and I've been blessed withe great parents and friends. I would just like some perspective as to why America isn't as bad as it seems to me. Change my view! | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Cheesecake is a pie +
+ Sure, I get it. It even has "cake" in the name. But come on...
1. It has a crust. Cakes don't have crust. Cakes are, ostensibly, all crust... thick, spongy crust.
2. It has a filling. While some cakes have a thin layer of flavoring or two, you know what usually has filling? Pie.
3. Cupcakes are cakes that fit in your cup. What sane person would make a cheesecake that fits in a cup? ( [These people](http://www.chefscatalog.com/product/20098-cheesecake-pan-mini.aspx?sourcecode=FW2GGP245&cod=US&ccd=USD&gclid=CN_ViZT4mr4CFYlafgodcSgASA) are clearly insane.)
4. You can frost a cake. No one frosts a cheesecake.
| 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 Grading System we use in schools today (A, B, C, D, and Fail) is complacent on behalf of the teaching community. Allowing a student to proceed to higher material without having earned an “A” is counterproductive to the mission of education. CMV +
+ So I would like to discuss the Grade System we use in schools and why we use it. Why do we even have the Grades B, C, and D as passing grades? How can we allow a student (most often children with fragile minds and egos), to risk discouragement at higher levels of study when he has not completely proven himself at a lower one?
Any grade lower than 100% means that the student did not fully understand all of the material being presented. I’m not saying that every student should be failed unless he got 100%, but what I am saying is that anything less than 100% does not prove to me that you understood everything I taught you.
Currently, the Grades of A are typically given for students who demonstrate over 90% mastery in a subject. This 90% is a subjective number, not determined by any science of knowledge retention, but by a de facto schooling convention it’s a good ‘high enough’ number that still rewards the student for near-mastery because it allows for temporary lapse of logic and statistical testing error.
But as we move down the list to B, C, and D, the student is either 1) showing lack of effort to learn the subject matter or 2) demonstrating that learning has not taken place. I find it unfathomable that schools allow students to graduate with D as a passing grade (sometimes as low as 70% of the material). The D is outright proof that the either the school or the student has not done his job and I believe that grade level does not merit advancement or praise. In my opinion, the student has not been served well by the schooling system and is simply being ushered out, and set up to fail.
By letting an underperforming student pass, he/she will be at a large disadvantage in the next level of school, where the material is harder and where the student is expected to apply concepts that they learned in previous levels. We need a schooling method that imparts no shame in doubling down on a class.
TL;DR:
Students should only Pass if they get an A. Anything less and they didn’t learn all the material presented. If you let them move forward with a B, C, or D you’re encouraging complacency, which digs them into a hole for their future. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I can't help finding neural implants creepy +
+ I realize they have hugely rewarding and potentially useful applications, such as restoring sight and lost limbs. There's an enormous amount of wonderful benefits. I just find it unsettling that nobody seems to be asking serious questions about the ramifications of it yet and, when they do, they're labelled as simply being paranoid and anti-progressive. Also, saying 'well if you don't like it don't get it' just doesn't cut it in my mind as substantial criticism. Imagine someone saying they didn't want a mobile phone; they'd be made destitute in a heartbeat.
The thing is, I know this is an inevitability and that we're not that far away from implants becoming the norm. I just want to consider where it's taking us and it seems like this is a question that isn't being asked often enough. Visions of being wired directly into a forum (such as this one) where my thoughts are policed by the community (Redditors downvoting daydreams...) is my personal idea of hell.
Prove me wrong (if only for peace of mind).
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |