input
stringlengths 114
23.1k
| output
stringclasses 2
values | instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|
I don't think homeless people should be allowed to have pets, it's selfish and irresponsible. CMV +
+ I've been traveling Europe for the past few weeks, one thing that seems to be fairly common (specifically in Rome) is for homeless people to have dogs. I think that it is extremely selfish and irresponsible for homeless people to have dogs. I understand that homeless people need companions but I find it to be unfair that they pin that on an animal which has no choice. They need to figure out how to get a stable job and save up money rather than get a dog and pay for its food and water everyday. If the dog gets sick, how are they going to pay for treatment and take care of the dog in a fair and adequate way? | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe the taboo surrounding paedophilia needs to stop. CMV +
+ I used to think that paedophiles should all just be put to death and that they were just sick vile creatures.
I was wrong... Obviously they are sick, but that doesn't make them vile or evil.
I also used to believe it was somehow a choice ( I hadn't really spent much time thinking about it ).
As I grew older I had a friend who got convicted of some pedopictures. He got jailtime. This was a very eyeopening experience for me.
My friend that I had known for years, the nice, calm, charming, sane and intelligent friend that I had basically no issues with was suddenly the embodiement of evil (from my old POV).
It forced me to think deeper about it.
According to nearly all studies ever conducted, approximately 5% of the population are paedophiles. When you consider that gays only make up 2% of the population it suddenly becomes very very apparent just how common it is and you undeniably know several pedophiles.
Yet pedo-rape is thankfully a rare occurence. And studies also show that paedophiles show no higher prevalence of sociopathy or narcissism and also apparently no more rape than in the adult on adult rape.
We know that
It's biological in the same way that homosexuality is.
Most are just as good people as you and I.
*But* unlike you and I they have noone to talk to. Noone to help them comprehend why they are attracted to kids.
I try to imagine how it would be, hitting puberty and seeing all your friends be attracted to the girls in your school and you got the same feelings for small kids. Not being able to explore ,experiment, discuss and share any of that process with anyone.
Puberty is a fragile state for most of us, so just imagine how it is for paedo's.
Also due to the taboo everyone just talk about paedophilia as some sort of satan incarnation. So you must feel bad about yourself eventhough you've done nothing wrong.
I can't help but think that a lot of the sexual abuse that has happened could have been prevented if we broke the taboo and made it acceptable to have these urges and we identified and helped these people while they are still young. Help them cope. Help them not give into these crazy urges and not seek it out.
Society should be mature enough at this stage to be able to have serious discussions and debates about ANY subject. Not shedding light on this issue simply leads to these people living in the dark where noone can see and it is much easier to do wrong in the dark.
Obviously if a paedo rapes a child he is vile as hell, but we should not be naive and think that these urges are easy to surpress for tens of years.
Even obese virgins who want to have sex with hot girls can at least watch porn without feeling their consience eat at them. They can hire a prostitute if they want to try it out and even the most unattractive mofo can get pussy.
So yeah: we should break the taboo if we really want to protect the children and help people who cannot help themselves. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:Killing animals for meat is morally fine; it's the conditions of factory farms and their inevitability under capitalist systems that makes meat-eating immoral. +
+ Animals lack any explicit wish to live. They will avoid that which will kill them, but this is not equivalent to the preference "I wish to continue to exist". So killing them is morally okay, as long as no others are harmed by this action (like someone with a pet pig) because no preference the animal has is being violated.
However, if meat-eating is a widespread taste, and it is, then market demand will necessarily and obviously lead to the most cost effective manner of raising and slaughtering animals. And the most cost effective manner of raising and slaughtering animals is one that produces a life of complete and relentless suffering, through cramping, disease, being pecked to death, the frustration of natural insticts etc.
So meat-eating is wrong insofar as it necessarily leads to the inhumane practices of battery farming, and no further. If we could live in a world where people would be content to eat meat sparingly, as a luxury, then meat eating would pose no ethical issue. However, given how economies work, demand for meat directly results in animal suffering.
So, I think vegans, vegetarians AND meat-eaters are generally wrong about the ethics of meat. It is not killing that is wrong, but subjecting animals to lives of unremitting pain definitely is. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: If immigrants must write a citizenship test to become citizens, native-born residents should be forced to write a citizenship when they turn 18. +
+ As a matter of fairness, and as a solution to apathy and general public disengagement from political life, all native-born residents of a country should be required to pass a citizenship test when they turn the age of majority, so long as immigrants are required to do the same.
Not only would this make becoming a citizen more fair, it would make citizenship a right of passage, not just an accident of birth. It would make citizens more engaged and associated with the state if they are required to have a measurable level of knowledge about it.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe that, in some cases, illegally obtained evidence should be admissible in court. CMV +
+ I'm not saying that there should be no repercussions. If a cop wiretaps my phone without a warrant and discovers proof that I'm committing a crime, he should be reprimanded or fired. **However, that evidence should still be usable against me in court.** Just because it was obtained unfairly doesn't automatically mean it's invalid.
Similarly, the [fruit of the poisonous tree](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree) concept is ridiculous to me. If I'm wiretapped and the cop hears me say that I left a murder weapon in a particular location, and they find a murder weapon in that location, that murder weapon should be admissible in court. The flip side of this, again, is that the cop who wiretapped me in the first place should be reprimanded or fired. But the evidence itself is still perfectly valid.
In our current system, it is entirely possible for our government to knowingly allow a guilty person to go free because a piece of evidence is invalidated based on a technicality.
The [exclusionary rule](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule) seem to me to be nothing but a tool used to help lawyers game the system. It's hard to imagine a rule like this being used to exonerate an innocent suspect, or at least, it seems like it would preferentially exonerate guilty ones.
**This opinion only applies if the "truthfulness" of the evidence is not compromised.** So, if the chain of custody on a piece of evidence is broken, and it's possible that the evidence was tampered with, that evidence should not be considered admissible.
When a search warrant is issued, it should be issued to protect the officer from repercussions; its existence should have no bearing on the validity of the evidence.
---
It's possible that my understanding of the way these rules are applied in practice is not accurate; I'm not in any way a lawyer, and most of my understanding of these rules comes from either TV or Wikipedia. If anyone has corrections in this area from the real world I'll be happy to accept them. | 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 transparent pricing will do more for affordable healthcare than anything else. +
+ Healthcare is one of the few services where you have no clue how much you'll pay until the very last provider thinks they gouged whatever they can out of you.
Force every provider, facility, etc. to publish all the costs - hospital stay fees, medical devices, medication, nurse services, doctor fees etc. for each procedure done. Publish it o the internet and on paper at entrance to each facility, hospital, and doctor.
People flocking to cheaper hospitals and doctors will reduce healthcare costs more efficiently than anything else (price ceiling, floors, etc.). Let the providers compete on the pricing, not patients. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Emma Sulkowicz's mattress protest was a defamatory, personal vendetta that falsely accused a man of rape. +
+ When Emma Sulkowicz began her "Carry That Weight" art project, in which she and others carried a mattress across Columbia University campus to protest the university failing to punish a man she accused of raping her, I wanted to believe her. (I saw her interviewed on [Democracy Now](http://www.democracynow.org/2014/9/16/a_survivors_burden_columbia_student_carries) back in September; that's how I learned of her.)
However, now that Paul Nungesser, whom she accused of rape, has sued Columbia accusing Columbia of - I even read the [full complaint](http://jezebel.com/heres-the-full-complaint-in-the-mattress-lawsuit-agains-1699947812/+LeahBeckmann) - I now feel so **stupid** for believing her. I now believe, based on certain key details in the complaint, that Sulkowicz made this mattress thing **all about her** instead of the larger set of mistreated rape victims. This detail suggests that Sulkowicz made rape allegations - **waiting OVER SIX MONTHS to file her first complaint** - out of *jealousy*:
And these details seem to show vengeance on Sulkowicz's part:
And...
My opinion on Sulkowicz now? She's no better than the rapists she wants to condemn. She made things **HARDER** for genuine, credible rape victims with her narcissistic sideshow. She's the reason why MRA's are so hip on places like Reddit. What she did is equivalent to junior high gossip, in making crazy, defamatory accusations against others. Also tantamount to putting a billboard up near a busy highway saying "(Innocent random local citizen's name here) chokes kittens!" I challenge the Reddit community to CMV on this. It's tough, so get your A game ready.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think that the United States needs to draw up a new Constitution/Bill of Rights for the 21st Century. CMV. +
+ I think that for what our nation was when the original Constitution and Bill of Rights were drawn up, it's fine but now that our nation is quite a bit larger, much more technologically advanced, and we now face a new set of problems; we need a new unifying document that addresses our most important issues.
I would imagine that the 2nd and 3rd Amendments would be revised, and new Amendments would have to be added for the sake of Internet laws and regulation. The Founding Fathers were smart men, no doubt about it, but I don't think that any set of laws created almost 250 years ago could adequately cover all our bases in the 21st century. I know that there have since been amendments to the Constitution but I don't think that the government moves fast enough to keep changing things to an old document. I think that it makes more sense to take what works in the original and use that to draw up some sort of modern laws to govern our modern world. Change my View.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think fanfiction is NOT inherently less worthy of recognition as art, than any accepted medium or genre. CMV +
+ While they are almost universally criticised for being infamously low quality, and also treated as creatively bankrupt for not using original settings and characters, I believe that mostly this is just a negative stereotype about the fanfiction format.
It's caused by the fact that most of the works are willingly aiming at a very small niche audience, so the ones that successfully do that, go unnoticed by everyone else, while the bad ones have an universal appeal. (e.g.: Everyone can laugh at My Immortal, but Fallout Equestria can only be fully appreciated by someone who is both familiar with Fallout, and the kind of hardcore Brony that can take emotional, grimdark pony stories at face value).
(note: I'm not a huge fanfiction fan, I might have read 4 novels and a handful of short stories in the whole format.) | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV Overtime should be paid for multiple unrelated employers +
+ Currenty for hourly workers, time over 40 hours per week is paid at time and a half. This is for single and joint employers, but not multiple unrelated employers, see http://www.payroll-taxes.com/articles/qvertime-and-multiple-employers
But the time of a single employee needs to be coordinated since you cannot work two jobs at the same time. So this implies that multiple employers need to coordinate scheduling and all employers should be considered as joint employers.
Having multiple unrelated employers pay overtime will either increase pay of current employees or result in employers hiring extra employees to avoid paying overtime resulting in reduced unemployment.
The number of people who work multiple jobs, about 5% see http://247wallst.com/special-report/2014/01/17/states-where-the-most-people-work-two-jobs/, is about the same as the unemployment rate. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Well-behaved dogs should be allowed most places that children are. +
+ I believe that well-behaved dogs should be allowed in most stores. I understand that, due to health codes, many restaurants cannot allow dogs. However, I think that if a restaurant has outdoor dining and allows children, dogs should be allowed as well.
Dogs require stimulation and socialization in the same way that small children do. In many cities, it is very difficult to find places to take a dog so that they can enjoy time out of the house. Where I live, even leashed dogs are not allowed on the beaches at the public lake. My dog can't enjoy a dip in the water on a hot day, unless we hike 6 miles to a local river/waterfall in the state forest.
I fully realize that you make sacrifices when you have a dog. It would just be nice not to choose between necessary errands (like a run to Target to get household items) and spending time with my companion. And I can't think of any truly valid reasons that he shouldn't accompany me on these errands if he is well-behaved and doesn't bother other people.
Caveats
1) In any store that has shopping carts available, the dog should be required to stay in the shopping cart inside the store. Local leash laws should also be observed at all times.
2) Dogs should, as I said, be well-behaved and quiet. If they cause a disturbance, the owner should immediately remove them.
Believe it or not, I realize my dog is not a child. I only made that comparison because it seems that they share some common traits which lend themselves to possible disturbances (unpredictable, have trouble communicating, are sometimes loud for seemingly no reason). I also realize that there are places where it is wholly inappropriate to take a dog. Perhaps it's just wishful thinking on my part, because I see so many businesses where dogs and humans shop & eat together just fine. I'd love for it to be more common that businesses allow pets, but fully realize that it will never be universal (nor should it).
ALLERGIES: I truly did not realize how prevalent pet allergies are. I have met and worked with a lot of people all over the US, and I know one person with a dog allergy (and even she has to actually touch the dog to have a reaction). I also didn't realize that even trace amounts of dander in the air could cause such severe reactions. I know that pet dander is carried on the clothing of people who own pets, so it would seem that I should be causing allergic reactions all the time. Maybe I am (unknowingly).
So I will amend my original statement to say that I think it should simply be more common that dogs are allowed in businesses and in public green spaces/beaches. (Please understand I was never saying dogs should be allowed EVERYWHERE). It looks like lots of countries and cities are very dog-friendly, and manage to be so without an outbreak of dog fights and pestilence. Europe, California, Portland OR, and Seattle WA are a few mentioned in this CMV.
Also, here's the monster in question if anybody's interested: http://imgur.com/CUwiTN7
| 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 buy the argument that "you can't consent to being harmed." CMV. +
+ My mom was making an argument that (as I understand it) goes something like this:
1. Sane people do not want to be harmed.
2. Therefore, sane people will not consent to harm.
3. Therefore, by definition, someone who consents to harm is not competent to give consent.
3. Therefore, harm is always nonconsensual because even if the person *thinks* they are consenting, they are by definition incompetent to consent, because they are agreeing to be harmed.
(note: this assumes that consent means *informed* consent - we both agree that if you don't know what you're consenting to, that the consent is meaningless in the first place)
She extended this all the way out to suicide: if you attempt suicide, you are by definition mentally incompetent to make life-or-death decisions, because you're suicidal.
My responses to this:
1. This is circular reasoning and therefore completely unconvincing to me because I don't buy into the premise (which is also the conclusion).
2. From a more pragmatic/legislative perspective, who gets to decide what "harm" is? Is it physical injury? X level of pain? Visible marks? Permanent injury? What if I'm really into BDSM and the physical pain of getting spanked (or whatever) produces such a great mental benefit that the overall effect is positive? Would this fall under "you're not really consenting to harm in that case"? Again, how would you measure or judge this?
3. Excluding people who think the harm will ultimately be a net benefit (the BDSM scenario), maybe there is no *rational* reason from a purely self-interested perspective to consent to harm, but human beings do all kinds of things for irrational reasons and yet we don't consider that to invalidate their consent. Why is this different?
Also as a side note, the fact that people who try and fail to commit suicide often claim that they're glad they failed proves nothing. Regret after the fact does not prove that you didn't consent at the time.
Second side note: I know Locke has this whole argument about how you do not have the moral authority to end your life because it's essentially just yours on lease from God and you don't have the authority to total the Almighty's car. So that's nice from a religious perspective, but I'm not religious so it isn't particularly convincing to me.
So...change my view? Is there a better argument that I'm not considering here? I'm interested in opinions both from a moral and a practical/legal perspective.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I believe that people who are religious are idiots and don't trust their opinions. +
+ Please try not to hate me too much for this post, all religious people of Reddit! I recently entered a relationship and just discovered my partner is Christian, while I am a hardcore atheist. I really do want my view to change on this, but I can't get past the idea that organized religion is ridiculous, and that God can't possibly exist, therefore those who believe in this made-up entity are not able to engage in critical thinking.
There have been multiple other posts about religion, but I didn't see one this specific, so...
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The Republican party deliberately thwarts effective government, because they see a functioning government as a threat to the wealthy and powerful +
+ It seems pretty clear that 1% of the people have interests completely divorced from those of the rest of the nation.
What economists politely call rent-seeking, the rest of us call parasitism. When financial wizards who contribute nothing of value for the nation are able to capture increasingly more of the nation's productivity for themselves at the expense of everyone else, that's parasitism.
The first step to creating a healthy nation, just as with a healthy organism, is to fight off the successful parasites.
The successful parasite's first best move is to jam the host organism's immune system, which in our case, would be a functioning government/democracy and progressive taxation. The next step is to drain the health of the organism so that the immune system can't be revived. In our case, this entails blocking policies that benefit the nation, like affordable healthcare and sensible public investment in jobs and infrastructure.
Pretty much everything Republicans do can be explained by the perspective of: They want to destroy the possibility of effective government in order to help the rich and powerful.
Public investment and sound public policies that help the nation and improve the bargaining power of the average worker run counter to the interests of the rich, who like having high unemployment so they can pay lower wages.
This explains basically all of the Republican party's actions and policy positions. CMV!
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Southern California should not exist as a major settlement +
+ I believe this applies to a large number of other regions, but as a California native, I'm going to focus on California.
California is in the middle of a gigantic drought. It sucks. A lot. One of the biggest water things that's been going on in the state for a long time is that we have been shipping water from wetter Northern California to ~~drier~~desert Southern California. If SoCal didn't get water from faraway places, I doubt it could survive without A) dramatic water-saving policies and B) wide-scale application of desalination, neither of which were available when it was originally urbanized.
So to boil it down: we never should have created large-scale human habitation in the middle of deserts that can't support it.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe that coming out as gay pales in comparison to coming out as atheist CMV +
+ I realize that it is infinitely easier to live as a closeted atheist than to live as a closeted homosexual. However, being gay has far more acceptance than being an atheist. Neither is a choice, as a person can't force themselves to believe in a god any easier than they can force themselves to think the Earth is the center of the universe.
I don't believe either is an easy thing to be open about in certain areas of the country, but coming out as gay is a lot more accepted than coming out as an atheist. I think it ultimately comes down to the fact that homosexuality doesn't inherently make the claim that a person's religion is false. | 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 everyone should be fluent in a language other than their native one. CMV +
+ I believe that being bilingual should be absolutely required for everybody because it is extremely useful to know how to survive and live in other places. Another point (specifically in the U.S.) there seems to much more languages other than English being spoken and to be able to communicate without either party having to speak brokenly or use a translator.
Here is an example because I think I went off on a little bit of a tangent up there... sorry :)
An American business is trying to expand it's business to Europe (let's say France). In my opinion being able to eliminate the use of a translator would help increase the bond of the two companies and allow them to be much more cooperative.
CMV
OK sorry for the wall of text. Feel free to ask for me to clarify something. Also I'm on mobile so I might be slow to respond and formating could be obnoxiously wrong. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe there should be a rule change regarding "you can only challenge the OPs point" in terms of changing someone's view. CMV +
+ The problem with this rule is it creates a situation where everyone can just gang up on the OP.
Now you can claim that isn't a problem but there is a huge difference between changing someones logical belief vs having them break their belief due to social pressure.
There is an idea known as the "SPIRAL OF SILENCE" in terms of what you are willing to voice.
The idea is that people are much less likely to speak their mind if they believe they are going against what is socially acceptable. If you speak your mind and suddenly bombarded with negative feedback then you aren't really changing a person's view you are instead creating a situation where people change their views due to social pressure.
I am not saying allow comments where someone simply says "I agree".
I'm saying allow people to agree with the OPs point and then have them state why.
This creates a broader conversation and increases the chances of a real logical change rather the OP simply backing down because of the social pressure.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I'm not fundamentalist or deeply ingrained in Abrahamic/general organised religion in any way, but do not believe that mechanistic science can or will ultimately explain the ontology matter/energy or life. CMV +
+ I've researched many world religions and read many atheistic and religious apologist treatises, as well as browsing relevant sources on the internet to get a glimpse of the philosophical climate of the vox populi.
Having read the philosophical and scientific approaches to thought by notable figures such as Bohm, Dennett, Dawkins, Jung, Lashley, etc., and having read a handful of discussions pertaining to the "universe from nothing" argument (as well as discussions of the phenomenon of abiogenesis), I still don't quite think that an entirely mechanistic cosmology can account for the phenomena of life or existence.
Am I thinking rightly, or are my new-age leanings affecting my rational thought? Would love to see some opinions. Thanks. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: As a high schooler with good grades, a job, good friends, and that's living a happy and safe life, I believe that my parents shouldn't put in an effort to prevent me from smoking weed. +
+ I have been smoking for a couple years now and throughout this whole time period my grades haven't dropped, my general mood has only increased, and i've had absolutely no urge to try any other drugs. Not even alcohol.
My parents recently caught me and are forcing me to stop. I disagree with them, however I respect their authority and I am agreeing to it. In my specific situation, I see nearly no negative to smoking. Only positives. However since i'm stopping, hopefully someone can point out a few things that will encourage my sobriety that currently has no personal motivation behind it.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I should be allowed to play first person shooters when I am 17. +
+ Okay now this post is an issue I have been having lately with my Mom. First let me begin with saying that I am 17, do really well academically, and am a fairly responsible person.
So my Mom found out that I was playing a video game where I shoot other people and freaked out and forbid me from playing them again. Her reasoning behind it was that killing people is wrong and that it's her house so her rules.
1) Why I hold my view
Well I don't think that playing these game makes me a bad person or is unhealthy. I don't want to kill people in real life (Thinking about that makes me feel sick) nor do I see first person shooters as "Killing people". To me the game is all pretend, it's like paintball you shoot people to get the out of the game not to physically kill them. Also its a form of entertainment which is affordable, I don't need any other people (unless I play multi-player), and it's fun. I don't want to play games like GTA where you're purposely doing things that are wrong, I just want to play games where it's good vs. bad.
2) Is there any evidence you can use to support your view?
Well I can't say if there are any studies but from my personal experience I am still the same old me. I've been playing them for about a year now (I thought I was allowed to) and during my time playing them I did great academically, was in honor classes, and held a part-time job as a tutor.
Also the ESRB says that M rated games are for people ages 17+ which I am.
So reddit 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: Consciousness is ultimately a "curse" +
+ Consciousness, as in the human-exclusive intellectual capacity is inherently counterproductive to "happiness", it's a "bad" thing. I'm using quotation marks, because those probably aren't the right words (if there are any), but what I mean should be clear by the end of my post.
Humans are self aware, can reflect, be introspective, create ideas, challenge them, etc, but we can't have much certainty in what we create with our mind. There's always this existential dread. We fear death partly because we don't know what it really means. We don't know if there's a God or how the universe really works or how exactly we or the other humans work. Since we aspire to know, but can't get a definitive answer, it can be tormenting and most of the time it is if one dwells on such thoughts for too long.
There can be comfort in subscribing to one ideology, religion or outlook on life, but often it can be shattered easily, taking you back to the beginning. Besides, doubt is not something easy to get rid of.
Basically, conciousness creates uncertainty, which creates negative emotions and thoughts and is thus a "curse". | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe it is 100% fine to topple a boulder in a park, regardless of how old it is, as hikers featured on CNN (article in description) did. CMV. +
+ http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/18/us/utah-boulder-destroyed/index.html?hpt=us_c2
In the article, it says that the men responsible said that they did it because they did it due to safety issues, since the boulder was unstable.
But I do not think that that should matter. I believe that even if they had just been toppling it for shits and giggles, that is 100% ok.
I do not think that it should be illegal to deface national parks. Who cares? Why should I care?
I feel that it is perfectly acceptable to have a little fun. 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 Atheism is hypocritical and just as narrow-minded and dogmatic as religion. +
+ There is a lot that we know about the world because of science, but we cannot say for sure that we know everything about our own existence. How do we know that beyond what we know, there is not a creator? I think that pushing your Atheist beliefs is just as narrow-minded as any religious belief. Many Atheists argue that Religion is the cause of many of the world's problems, much like Religious groups have often argued that people who do not follow their own beliefs are the cause of their problems. It is a fairly hypocritical viewpoint.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Being fat (not caused by diseases) is wrong and should not be torelated.CMV +
+ Why I hold my view:
* I think being fat is unnatural. It is unnatural and very unhealthy. It's a crime against your own body.
* It is a very selfish act. Being fat may cause inconveniences to others. Like when you are carpooling, there isn't enough space for another person because the fat one is taking a lot of space. Speaking about space, most of the time you get squished sitting next to a fat person in an airplane.
Also, please don't get offended by my post here. I'm trying to change my view because I've been told that my view isn't best to hold. Remember the human!
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
The Arts and seniors are useless to society. CMV, I beg of you. +
+ In previous debates criticizing certain art forms, there have been responses stating that art is useless.
In that case, why do we bother? Painting, dancing singing or writing film reviews aren't vital to our survival. Nor do they make tasks needed for survival easier, like, say, the lightbulb, computer or stove does. I`m going off on a tangent here but if I took almost any of our knowledge back to an ancient civilization I would be able to help it greatly unless it was relating to the arts. Arts are purely subjective, so there isn`t even proof that we`ve improved over the centuries! Why do we care about something that is so utterly useless? Why don't we do away with it altogether so it doesn't take valuable funding from our schools?
Seniors are in the same group. There isn't even an evolutionary advantage to maintaining a population of seniors. Why isn't euthanasia more widely accepted? After a certain age, people lose all their value to the workforce and become drains on the healthcare system.
I'm not saying that I want to be euthanized when I'm 65 or that I think we should throw out the arts. I'm firmly opposed to euthanasia and I love the arts. It's just that from a purely pragmatic point of view, I've never been able to convince my brain.
Note: I`m referring to the arts as in Visual Arts, Music, Drama, etc. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I cannot even fathom the idea of being proud of just being from a place. +
+ Why should I be, "Proud to be an American," or "Support the Home Team", or "Wear my School Colors"? Why is it special that I just happened to be born somewhere, or went to school there because I could afford it and like their programs?
I see a lot of patriotism, nationalism, jingoism, and xenophobia around me, and I'm completely and utterly confused. How is it that people can be so utterly convinced that their specific place of birth is, "Number one, best in the world," let alone think less of other people for not being from there.
I'm unabashedly *not* proud to be from my hometown, my state, my country. It's just circumstance. I'm happy that I was lucky to be born in a first world country with access to basic amenities and some luxuries, but I don't particularly care where that life takes place. I'd be just as happy being Canadian, British, German, Australian, or whatever else.
The highschool and college I went to mean nothing me to other that just being where I studied. When I watch sports, I don't care about the "home team", I cheer for whichever team has the cooler mascot and prettier colors or logo.
And people who complain about immigrants, or outsourcing, only buy *Made in America*, are even more... foreign to me. Like, we're all human, why does it matter that the job goes to someone from your specific homeland?
I see countries and nations as convenient means of governing human society in smaller chunks, and nothing more. I would never, "Die for my country," I would fight to maintain my quality of life and stop other's rights from being violated. I don't give two shits about *my country*, and I can't grasp how people seem to put so much value on it.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Modern popular hip hop is disposable repetitive garbage +
+ Bare with me here. I work out at a gym which plays exclusively hip hop for ambiance over the loudspeakers, consisting mostly of music that has been popular in at least the last ten years. After listening for several months I've concluded that most recent popular music contains a simple catchy beat, club references, and little to no content with a big focus on the common denominator. Every once in a while I'll hear some Tupac or early to mid-nineties mix and it still holds it's own without being annoying as fuck. What's going on here? | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
The most important function of government is stewardship, and Libertarianism is bankrupt because it doesn't account for this. CMV +
+ It's often stated that the most important function of government is security, but I disagree with this - it's actually *stewardship* that is the most important function. After all, what good is keeping the current generation safe if we use up all of our resources doing so, leaving nothing for the next generation?
Conservation of our natural (and intellectual, industrial, etc.) resources is a task the government is uniquely suited for. In a free market environment such as the one coveted by Libertarians and AnCaps, everyone is essentially out for themselves, and are encouraged to consume as much of our resources as they can if they feel it can give them some sort of advantage. No one is tasked with watching out for future generations - no one has the power to make people stop burning oil and burning the rain forests because it doesn't necessarily cause harm to this generation, even though it could devastate our future generations.
The only incentive, ecologically, for stewardship in a market environment is watching out for your direct descendants, but if everyone is only watching out for themself and theirs, there's still a massive incentive to slash and burn the environment, etc. if it provides wealth. After all, if your descendants are only paying one ten-billionth of the cost but reaping the entire benefit, you are still incentivized to consume and not conserve.
Governments, because they (at least are intended to) last many generations, have skin in the game on preserving natural, intellectual, industrial, etc. resources for the future. Additionally, by virtue of being composed of the whole population, they don't have the same "privatized profit, socialized loss" mechanism that individuals have, because they instead balance socialized profit vs. socialized loss.
I can't claim that government always does a perfect job of stewardship, but at least "big government" HAS A MECHANISM IN PLACE that **can** rationally practice stewardship. Libertarianism, by its very nature, **does not** preserve stewardship and thus cannot form a solid long-term basis for a high-functioning society.
**UPDATE:** Thanks everyone for the great discussion! Unfortunately, I did not see any posters give any concrete answers for how a libertarian society can protect future generations, so I cannot yet award a delta. The closest that I came to being swayed is the suggestion that class-action lawsuits could be taken against offenders, HOWEVER, with no proposed way that class-action lawsuits could be taken on behalf of future persons, even this solution fails the test of stewardship.
I feel that the most common response to my post was "current states don't do a good job of stewardship either." While this may be true, it doesn't alter my claim that a libertarian society **cannot** do a good job of stewardship, whereas a state with a relatively forward-thinking leadership could do an effective job. The fact that most current states do a poor job doesn't excuse the fact that a Libertarian government would institutionalize a complete lack of stewardship *as part of its fundamental mechanism, the free market.* FURTHERMORE, I believe that environmental conservation laws, when they have been passed, have been extremely effective at reducing pollution of rivers, reducing smog, improving efficiency standards, and preserving our natural landscape. My conclusion is that IF the political will exists, a strong state can do an excellent job of stewardship, so the fundamental problem comes not from the functioning of the state, but from the mobilization of political public sentiment. Thus, while market-based solutions cannot possibly protect future generations (and I'm still open to being swayed on that claim,) a strong government has a clear way to provide the necessary stewardship, and further efforts should be made at the level of education, organization, and mobilization of citizens concerned with stewardship and sustainability, rather than requiring any sort of overhaul of government. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I do not vote +
+ I'm a 22 year old from Croatia and I find no interest in politics. All of the politicians seem corrupt to me and I simply can not approve any on them by giving them a single vote. In Croatia we mainly have a choice between two parties (left and right) which hold majority of votes. Voting for any other party seems pointless as they usually get only a few percent. And I don't like any of the two main options. We had both left and right party running the state in last 6-7 years and they have both equally disappointed me.
Furthermore, very few people vote in out country, usually only about 30% of population that has the right to vote (18+). It's absurd to me that this system is in place at all, I think that an election should be void if less than 50% of voting population votes. I know this could mean that all elections become void if people don't start showing up. I think that just goes to show how broken the system is, allowing for a relatively small amount of people to vote their party in leading position just because they are manipulated and/or pressured into voting.
I know that I am not making the situation any better by not voting, but I really don't like the system and don't want to give anybody my vote as I don't think they deserve it. Recently I had a talk with one of my friends (she votes) about the topic and I get her point of view, but I still can't find a good enough reason to give a vote to someone that I think doesn't deserve it.
Should I simply do some more research into other options besides two main parties and give my vote to one which aligns with my points of views the most?
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe music is the highest form of art. CMV +
+ Not all music. As with any art form there is obviously good works and total shit. But I believe the absolute purest form of music, the highest grade masterpieces are a higher form of art than the greatest films, the greatest books, the greatest comics, etc.
A film and a book explicitly tells a story, and even if 99 people agree the book is great and one person disagrees, then the book has flaws. The story might not make sense, there could be plot holes, there may be chapters where the writing isn't consistent. This is true of all books, and all films. Even silent films, the story may just not be worth viewing or the acting might be off or the director just chose the wrong take.
Music though cannot be critiqued in this same fashion. Tastes may differ, sure, that goes for all art. But a good piece of music cannot be criticized. At best you can say that the genre is not for you.
Beethoven's 7th has no lyrics to fault the piece, it has no poor pacing, it exists in the purest form of art. Something that can evoke many different emotions depending on the person, and largely ALL forms of music can be enjoyed by everyone in this innocuous way. I believe it's impossible to criticize music properly. | 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 see what the big deal is with Monsanto, CMV +
+ So, i've been having very unsatisfying discussions on this subject with a lot of people. I really don't get why Monsanto is seen as such a danger, especially by farmers. I mean, yes, they are evil and shitty, but why do people work with them?
I am a software developper, and an actor such as Microsoft is seen as a Big Bad Meanie in my industry. I'm not particularly fond of them, so i don't use any of their products, instead i go with open source software such as LibreOffice to get the job done. If i were to crack Microsoft Office and get caught, would i go to the media and blame Microsoft for being the bad guy when i actually stole their property to increase my productivity?
To me, it's the same with agriculture. If you feel branded closed-source seeds are a danger to biodiversity, then you have a large panel of endemic varieties that you can plant, re-plant, and modify as you wish. Why shackle yourself with seeds you have to buy every year, to only one producer who has absolute control over the pricing?
Maybe it's because Monsanto seeds are more productive. Like, so much more productive that it covers the high cost of seed aquisition. In this case, why are people complaining? Again, in every industry, if you want to use closed tech to increase your productivity, then you have to pay for a license and you are not allowed to redistribute the tech because it is patented. Where in this case is Monsanto the bad guy? Do they somehow force agricultors to buy their shit? | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:Voting should require a lincese +
+ It's a relatively simple idea - much like driving, voting should require an obtainable license. You go through a several months-long course, which teaches you about basic macroeconomics, citizen rights and **obligations**, how to spot a politician lying through his teeth, how the government works, taxation and some other mandatory stuff, after which you take a test (multiple times if needed) and only then are you allowed to vote. Now ultimately the courses could not teach the subjects in-depth, but it should be enough to educate voters on what they can realistically expect and demand from the government and their representative.
The ultimate goal is to have a better educated voting base - a democracy is only as good as the citizen participating in it.
Also - this should be by choice and not thought in school. Why? Because the school system cannot guarantee that the student is going to pay attention or remember everything in class. You might say that this a failing of the educational system, but I'd rather take into consideration the imperfect world we live in. That and things given freely and without effort are often unappreciated, having people work for their right to vote would make it much more dear to them.
Some preemptive Q&A:
Then said person probably doesn't have enough time to properly research the candidates and political parties as well, making his vote - uneducated.
Yes, that's the point. You remove people who tend to vote based or no information or with false expectations.
Then they can take it again.
Dunno.
Because the license would, ideally, need to be renewed every ten years or so. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Windows 8 is not the right operating system for me +
+ I recently purchased a new Surface RT and I can't do anything I wanted to do with it. Here are my issues:
1. I wanted to be able to hook my gopro up to my tablet and create short edits of my footage. Can't. There are no decent video editors for this system. Can't download GoPro Studio or Windows Movie Maker, either. I'm pretty much screwed here. I can't even figure out how to upload my footage onto my tablet, though the fault there may lie with me.
2. No GoPro App. There's a GP *Channel* app, but not the one capable of wirelessly connecting to my GP.
3. No itunes app. All my music, which I have actually *paid* for, cannot be accessed via my tablet. It's frustrating.
4. Video/Music. I do not own an Xbox, so these are both effectively useless to me.
5. I wanted to choose a pic for a home screen - not that easy. With my iPhone I can simply hold down for a second on any picture on the internet and save it to my camera roll. It's so easy. But I had to upload all my pics to dropbox (thank god there was a Dropbox App) and download it from there. And no, it's still not in my camera roll.
6. What limited apps they do have, suck. It's like being stuck within the confines of Apple's App Store...in 2007. No popular games, no cool new apps to speak of.
Basically I'm disappointed with the apps available, the incapability of downloading common software, and the overall navigation of the system.
I WANT to like it, I already bought it. I just keep running into walls that keep me from doing pretty much everything I was hoping to use it for.
Please CMV! | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The idea that the US should not spy on other countries and should not develop cyberweapons is ludicrous +
+ A common sentiment in discussions about NSA mass surveillance that I see involves the idea that the US has so much power that they have a responsibility to act benevolently. To an extent, I don't disagree with this.
However, I've come across posts that assert that the US should cease spying on foreign entities, because it's "unfair" or "wrong". These are usually the same people who think the US is too powerful, or whatever. Still other people think the US should completely stop developing cyberweapons like targeted malware.
To me, this all seems ludicrous. Spying has been an essential part of geopolitics since ancient times. Not getting valuable intelligence means Americans losing jobs from badly negotiated trade deals and US military power being taken advantage of (or dismantled piecemeal) through sloppy diplomacy.
As for the cyberweapons argument, it's no different than saying that the US should stop building new fighter jets or missiles. Some people are worried that the US would use these tools on innocent citizens to gather info; that is a legitimate concern. But worrying about the mere existence of the tool is ridiculous. The US cannot be expected to simply let other countries wage cyberwarfare on them and sit back and take the onslaught of intelligence leaks and unfriendly access to domestic infrastructure controls.
What I want to know is what is going on in the heads of the people who think the US government should just completely disengage from signals intelligence activity, or global intelligence and counterintelligence activity in general. It makes little sense to me. No one in the US would benefit from this IMO. Maybe someone can CMV.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
It is NEVER a good idea to partake in recreational drug use. CMV +
+ Obviously medicinal marijuana as well as any prescription drug that can help a patient with an actual debilitating illness is excluded from "recreational", but I wanted to clarify just in case. I don't see any reason why any self respecting person would want to participate in an activity that can permenately alter ones state of mind. The human mind is a delicate thing, and there should be no reason why someone should tamper with the just for a hit of LSD. The literal only reason why someone would do recreation drugs is to participate in a few hours of fun, which I think is no excuse to risk permanently harming oneself. However, I feel I might be a little narrow-minded so if someone could possibly change my view, that'd be great.
Sorry everyone! I accidentally fell asleep. But all of your answers has opened my mind a bit, so thank you for taking the time to answer. I would still never partake, but I think NEVER a good ida may be extreme. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: When abiding by all rules in any competition or game, there's no such thing as "A cheap move." +
+ I have recently seen some rhetoric that suggests that playing to win, and attempting to capitalize on all advantages available to you somehow makes a person a bad or "cheap player." I think this idea is flawed because even moves that are considered cheap, have some level of risk assessment to them, often used in high risk and high reward scenarios. So here is my view: If you are playing a game honestly, and within the rules a win is a win and how you obtain that win mechanically has no bearing on what kind of player you are. You were playing the game to the fullest capacity and adhering to any notion of using only "not cheap" moves only inhibits you from performing at the highest level of play.
I mean for this to apply to mostly every game or competition, I'm open to the idea that there are exceptions, but keep in mind I'm talking about honest and fair play.
| 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 all teachers should be encourage to carry a handgun. CMV +
+ I live in Israel and at least in the area that I live (WB, I am not here to debate that though) after many terror attacks at schools many teachers started carrying handguns, this for example stopped the [Mercaz HaRav massacre](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercaz_HaRav_massacre) and could have stopped the [Ma'alot massacre](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma'alot_massacre).
This practice could help stop many school shootings around the world.
Schools can pay for the purchase of the weapons and pay for the shooting courses and basic security measures (safes).
I do not see any reason not to allow teachers to defend students if the need arises.
This can also help teachers defend themselves against violent students/paraents.
CMV | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Ad block will lead to the end of near-ubiquitous free website access. +
+ I am going to board a plane in a few minutes but just had something occur that sparked this post.
I know many people who use ad block, but I worry if adoption of ad block becomes too prevalent, online ads will be worthless to companies that pay for them. That means that content creators who used to depend on that revenue to live will be out of luck.
So many of the websites that I frequent are free - sports, news, webcomics, YouTube, reddit - because they fund themselves predominantly through ads.
If they are unable to sell ads, how will they fund themselves? By charging users. I don't see other options...
I would like to use ad block because I hate ads! But I like free access to most websites more than mind avoiding or looking at ads. So please, change my view | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The US cannot, and should not, tax corporate income made and kept overseas +
+ Although we, as the United States, need money for investing in ourselves, such as infrastructure or education, we should not tax corporate income kept and made overseas. The idea of income taxes is that you are taxed on your income here in the US, money that is available to you in the US. To tax income overseas seems morally wrong to me. The money made overseas is often used to invest in operations overseas (i.e. new office building, updating technology, creating new systems, etc.). The US should be promoting companies to invest in themselves and their workforce.
Another point is that the money cannot be used by the US operations when being held overseas. As soon as the money enters the US, it is taxed (well, it's supposed to be) because the money can be used here. I don't think it is the US's job to tax money outside of the US.
Should the US be taxing income overseas?
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
If I was raped or sexually assaulted I probably wouldn't report it... Care to CMV? +
+ (throwaway because.)
Preface: I'm a 23 year old woman.
I believe that my life would be far worse off if I reported a rape to if I didn't. This is really really selfish reasoning here, I know, but this is what I think:
1. I watch a lot of bdsm type porn
2. I'm a 'drug user' in that I smoke pot frequently and have done for years. I've also used harder substances in the past.
3. I have previously had drunken one night stands
4. I go out and get fairly drunk semi-often - say once every two months or so I'll go to a club / pull an all nighter etc...
I believe that if I was ever raped, the following things would come out about me in court - now these aren't things I'm embarrassed about but I definitely wouldn't want my family or my employers(!) knowing about this kind of stuff.
I also believe that the above points would make it very difficult to ever secure a conviction, so I'd probably end up further ruining my own life for no reason.
*(I say probably because I'm referring to what I understand to be the most common form of rape, acquaintance or date rape, not stranger in the bush kind of rape.) | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Frequent unannounced fire drills are no different than the story of the boy who cried wolf, and actually make people less safe. +
+ Every time I see a fire alarm go off it seems like people act exactly the wrong way, and I can only think that it's because fire drills are so common compared to real fires that the default assumption is that it's a false alarm. When I'm in class at university and a fire alarm goes off (which is usually a couple of times a semester), no one takes it seriously. The professor finishes their last thought while everyone takes the time to neatly pack all of their stuff, before exiting the building, often using the main exit instead of the nearest emergency exit. Similarly, at my dorm last year they would run unannounced fire drills as often as once a month, it was so common, and the odds of fire so low, that generally people just assumed (correctly) that it wasn't real and sometimes didn't even leave their rooms. Back in high school, there were fire drill quotas, so if the school hadn't done any for a while, they would end up having like three in one week, although in fairness, in high school the teacher and administration made sure everyone followed procedure, so if there was a real fire it would not be a problem in this case, but I still feel like it helps condition people to the fact that fire alarms are false alarms. Finally, about a month ago I was at the mall, and the fire alarm starts going off, but no one reacted, everyone just went about their business as usual.
With these examples in mind, it just doesn't seem like anyone takes fire alarms seriously, and I think people following any of these practices during a real fire would be disastrous. I recognize that knowing what to do during a fire is crucial, and acknowledge that occasional drills are necessary, but I think that unannounced drills are counter productive. If drills were always known about ahead of time, then at least people would know an unannounced drill was something to take seriously. Also I think that drills are way too common (at least in schools and universities, in other places they seem far less common) in comparison to real fires, to the point that a fire alarm in a large public place has a 99% chance of being false.
I also realize that in the event of a real fire, not panicking and creating chaos is probably more important than reacting as quickly as humanly possible, but I still feel like the opposite reaction is pretty bad too. The only way I see people treating a fire alarm seriously is if they can physically see fire, but in that case I think all of the training against panicking will go out the window anyways. After all, experience under non-life threatening drill situations hardly emulate life or death situations.
I realize that all of the examples I gave were anecdotal, but it seems consistent enough over dozens of experiences that I think I can use them in an informal argument such as this.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I don't think democracy is necessarily better than any other way of governing a country CMV +
+ I feel that a lot of people believe that democracy is something that non-democratic countries should work towards in order to better themselves as a nation. I think democracy is associated with liberty and the people being happy and better off. When I was younger I used to believe this myself because that was the impression I got from everyone else around me. Now I've grown more cynical.
I think in theory this is a great idea but in practice it doesn't work because it just gets hijacked by lobbyists, political idealism, politicians not fulfilling their promises, and the lack of people voting. So much so that at the end of the day your government may as well be run by non-elected officials. I don't think it empowers citizens any more than those in Saudi Arabia who can go directly to their prince and make requests about something. In the US Obama promised to close Guantanamo bay, and a lot of people supported him because of it, but now it seems as if he's powerless to do it. I've voted before, and in that election the guy I voted for did the opposite of what I'd want him to do. In recent elections less than 20% of people turned up because it was about something mundane (electing police commissioners), but when we went to war with Iraq 3 million people marched on London and yet no referendum was called. It seems that politicians can pick out what things they want to be democratic about, and what they would rather choose for themselves. Even when stuff is put to a vote, like Prop 8 in California your opponent can just out-money you, campaign harder and win more votes - which seems more like "whose got the most money?" rather than "what do the people want?".
Am I missing anything significant which makes democracy something worth encouraging in non-democratic countries?
(sorry if this is too political for CMV, my first post here) | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Human life has no value. +
+ Kant believed that human life had value because humans have the unique ability to give value to other things by making value judgements about them.
But by this definition, any living life that prefers food to starvation is giving value to food, and thus has intrinsic value. But do we act this way? Do we treasure a snail's life to the same degree that we treasure a human's?
But is the act of preferring food to starvation, exciting things to dull things, beautiful things to plain things really the result of a sophisticated, unique life that thus has intrinsic value, or are those value judgements only the result of simply biological preferences created via millions of years of unintelligent evolution? Modern biology and psychology would argue the latter.
Additionally, you could argue that life does not have intrinsic value but potential value. For example, maybe the value in life is that a person may use their life to discover a cure to a disease and save a million lives. But the problem is, if these millions of lives have no intrinsic value in themselves, then there is no glory in saving them. Thus life can have no potential value if it does not have intrinsic value.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The individual mandate in PPACA (Obamacare) is unprecedented under the Commerce Clause. +
+ The Commerce Clause refers to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” Throughout the years, Supreme Court cases have made numerous interpretations to this clause that have either been restrictive (US v. Morrison) or expansionary in nature (NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Co.)
Either way, establishing new precedent hasn't necessarily been bad during the court's history (the Civil Rights Act was validated as per the Commerce Clause in Heart of Atlanta v. US, and that extended the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment's reach to private businesses.) But the Obama Administration argued that the individual mandate of the PPACA is a valid exercise of the Commerce Clause. It's not.
The 10th Amendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." States such as Massachusetts and Vermont have passed acts of legislation pertaining to healthcare that have been completely separate from our healthcare system as a whole prior to Obama's tenure as president. And that was a valid exercise of the 10th Amendment.
The reason the individual mandate is unprecedented under the Commerce Clause is because it would greatly extend Congress's powers as to let them penalize people for not buying insurance as a condition of lawful standing. As the Chief Justice ruled, it is indeed a valid exercise under the Taxing and Spending Clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1), but it doesn't necessarily parallel with regulating interstate commerce.
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:Stay at Home Parents who claim it is a "hard job" only find it difficult because they are not very good at it. If they were, it would be an extended vacation. +
+ In some cases of special needs children, I know it can be very difficult and unrewarding to be a SAH Parent. But typically speaking, people who are intelligent and hardworking can easily manage a household in a few hours a day, and use the rest of the time to have fun with the kids, like on an extended vacation. **Let it be known: I have no disrespect for people who take advantage of being a stay-at-home parent, since I would do it in a second** if my partner made enough money and was willing to work while lounged around and worked on hobbies all day, after the kids were tended to. Who wouldn’t?? I lose respect for them when they try to tell me it is difficult.
I do understand that it is hard work for some people but that is the result of being lazy, inefficient or...just not very smart. If they were very good at managing time and/or people, they would either still be in the work force, or at home LOVING being able to relax most of the day. If the kids are horribly behaved devils, then that also bodes poorly for the SAH parent. Even though some children have severe behavior disorders, this is not the case most of the time….it’s simply lazy parenting.
Cleaning, laundry, study time with kids, paying bills, managing doctors’ appointments, etc. are things that ALL parents have to do any way. When a SAH parent lists these in the "overwhelming responsibilities" that they do every day, I will ALWAYS mentally knock them down a few inches in my respect for them as a person.
In short, a lot of stay at home parents who claim to "have the most difficult job in the world" are really just not good at anything else. They should thank their lucky stars that they scored a S.O. to support them
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Parents should explain sex and sexuality to children as young as possible, to prevent child molestation and early pregnancy. +
+ I'm talking at least by age 10. Any later than that you're doing a terrible disservice to your child. I'll probably teach my kids about it maybe 7 or 8.
I thin it's very very sad when a 13 year old doesn't know anything about sex.
Recently, there were a question on r/askreddit? What secret would ruin your life if it got out? And I swear like 60% of the secrets were "When I was age 9-12, I did something sexual with a young child or tween. We've never spoken of it since and I hope to God they don't remember."
This is child molestation. [Yes, when kids "explore each others' bodies," that by definition is child molestation](http://www.childmolestationprevention.org/pages/tell_others_the_facts.html) - even if the aggressor is another child.
The simple fact of the matter is, kids have sexual urges earlier than some parents are willing to admit. You have to explain it to them or else you're putting your children at risk for child/child molestation.
When I was in 6th grade at 11, I just felt like it, I locked myself in a bathroom and rubbed my testicles until I ejactulated - had no idea masturbation existed. In seventh grade there was girl who was rumored to have sex with different boys and wanted to have sex with me, or so she said. What if I had had sex with her? Nobody had explained to me sex or anything like it. My parents are lucky as shit I grew up gay or else I may have been a 12 year old father! People need to stop beating around the bush thinking it so damn 'awkward' and just have the talk already.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Severe depression is incurable +
+ I really don't like websites like this- https://www.wemenders.com/en/wszystko-o-depresji/artykuly/myth-4.aspx - stating that depression is completely curable. I'll state both a weak case here and a strong case here for my arguments. I wish I could believe that my depression is curable, but quite frankly if something's been going on for more than a decade without a cure, it's not very likely it's going to stop.
Weak case argument: "Severe depression isn't always curable because people vary, and also because an illness that takes decades to "cure" isn't what we'd call curable - or else we'd call cancer curable"
Strong case argument "Severe depression is not curable at all because of the fact that depressive episodes recur the more they've already occurred along with the severity of their appearance, and because no method of actually "curing" severe depression works more than making people FUNCTIONAL as opposed to CURED. There is an extreme difference between curing something and treating something - chemotherapy can TREAT cancer, but curing cancer?".
A personal example of how people mix up curing and treating: I was considered almost able to be discharged from psychiatric help before my recent spiral because I was functioning fine in everyday life. How did I actually feel? I couldn't feel any pleasurable emotions, and felt like everyday was a chore, albeit a bearable chore. Sure sounds cured to me!
Basically I'd like people to first argue against the Strong case, then if they feel they've defeated the Strong case, argue against the Weak case. Thanks!
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:Scotland as part of the UK is the only thing between the UK and an unbroken succession of tory governments. +
+ As the title says. Here's a map of voting patterns: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/2432632/UK-General-Election-2010-political-map.html
Basically, we need Scotland to keep the tories out. If they gain independence, we'll be subject to the whims of little Englanders and their enviable insight into matters of social welfare and foreign relations.
That's about all I have to say, but it would be nice if someone could show me that some sort of political homeostasis would occur within the "new" UK that would establish a political balance similar to what we used to have. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
The Beach Boys are musically on par with and deserve the same merit as The Beatles. CMV +
+ Most people think of the Beach Boys as the band in the 60s who sung about surfing, cars and girls. What many do not know is that the Beach Boys were competitors with the Beatles at one point. They competed to reach the top spots on the charts and they challenged each other by taking their music to new creative levels. The most famous example is how The Beatles were inspired by The Beach Boys' *Pet Sounds* when making *Sgt. Pepper*. Two recognizable examples of The Beatles imitating the Beach Boys' vocal harmonies are the songs "Here, There and Everywhere" and "Back in the U.S.S.R.".
One important distinguishing factor between the groups is that The Beach Boys' producer was Brian Wilson, a Beach Boy himself. However, the Beatles had an external producer, George Martin. He was known as the "fifth Beatle" but he was not actually part of the group. I believe much of The Beatles' work would be lackluster if not for George Martin. Since Brian Wilson was a Beach Boy, it gives the Beach Boys more credibility.
The Beach Boys moved away from surfing, cars and girls in the late 60s and 70s. Lyrical themes explored in their seminal album Pet Sounds include loneliness, adolescence, identity, loss of innocence and growth. After Pet Sounds, things went downhill for the Beach Boys commercially but they continued to evolve musically. Critically acclaimed albums such as *Wild Honey*, *Friends*, *Sunflower*, *Surf's Up*, *Holland*, *Love You* and *The Smile Sessions* are great examples of their continued musical growth. These albums were virtually ignored in the U.S. at the times of their release because of the Beach Boys decline in popularity. Genres explored in these albums are baroque pop, psychedelia, r&b, and even synth pop.
One song that sticks out to me in particular is "[Til' I Die](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46IQu0yuJzU)" from the album *Surf's Up* because it dramatically contrasts the stereotypical Beach Boy image. Written by Brian Wilson himself, the song evokes a sense of hopelessness that The Beatles would have never delved into. I think the Beach Boys taking on the whole nostalgia act in the 80s and onward killed their image and musical output while The Beatles always have remained the gold standard.
I feel like The Beatles just happened to be at the right place, at the right time and their influence on pop culture made the critics love them even more. I have respect for the Beatles and recognize their talent and influence. I acknowledge that the Beach Boys have released a ton of nostalgic garbage in the 80s and 90s but I do not think that should completely detract from their former glory. The Beach Boys have existed for 50+ years and have influenced many significant artists such as Pink Floyd, Cream, the Who, Elton John, ABBA, Bruce Springsteen, the Ramones, Sonic Youth, Beck, R.E.M., Weezer, Neutral Milk Hotel, Radiohead, of Montreal, the Olivia Tremor Control, the Flaming Lips, My Bloody Valentine, Daft Punk, Air, Kraftwerk, Yellow Magic Orchestra, Saint Etienne, Pixies, MGMT, and Animal Collective. How are they still widely known as that one "fun in the sun" surf band? | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe smokers are a danger to themselves and others and should be treated as such legally. CMV +
+ if someone is violent and we think they may cause themselves or someone else harm we take action.
if someone chose to breath a poison dust everyday and when he was around people he'd blow some dust at them too this man would be considered a danger to the public and could even be called a terrorist.
but when someone smokes a cigarette, none of those rules apply?
now i'm not saying they have no rights, but their rights end when they step on my rights, your right to swing you arm ends at my face.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The second amendment is specifically so citizens can protect themselves from oppression such as we are seeing in Ferguson right now. +
+ So you don't have to wiki it:
The second amendment is often discussed in terms of gun ownership, but it seems very clear to me that the purpose of the amendment is to grant citizens the right to band together and protect themselves and their communities, using deadly force if necessary.
Don't get me wrong, I'm very glad it hasn't escalated to such a disastrous degree. Regardless, I cant help but feel that the Founding Fathers would look at what's going on and say "We give you the right to organize a militia, and you're going to sit there and LET them point guns at you?"
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think pirating movies/TV shows/music/software is theft and should continue to be illegal. CMV. +
+ People made the product - how else will they get money back from making the product? From a financial staindpoint, what's the point of making entertainment if it's not going to make revenue? Who will want to do it, yet people still demand it, just free? | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:"X Privilege" as a phrase is no longer useful and the terminology should be abandoned in an effort to actually solve the issues presented by privilege. +
+ " Insert-Prefix Privilege" Is no longer useful for accomplishing it's goals or reminding people of their privilege. Furthermore in the broader discussions with people unawares, mentioning privilege merely polarizes the argument to the point that discussion is impossible, which is exactly counter intuitive to the goals set by using the phrase in the first place. Also, while I am aware the proper use of the phrase is merely a jab at informing people that their decisions are informed or motivated by anecdotal evidence, the general population and thus the actual vocal majority of people who use "X privilege" as a phrase merely do so to invalidate other parties from offering their outsiders perspective on an issue. I.E. "You can't understand what I'm going through, check your privilege." If people who support privilege as an idea, desire to actually see results, you can't coin a phrase that just upsets the people who you are actually trying to cause change in to describe them because as far as they are concerned, it's all they've ever known and thus you are effectively insulting them. It's not effective.
Please, CMV. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:People who correct others for using "I could care less" are wasting everyone's time. +
+ The phrase "I could care less" is an entrenched idiom in American speech. It's meaning is the same as "Couldn't care less" and there's plenty of explanation of why in blogs, articles, and even the OED. It's been seen in print for over 50 years now, and is almost exactly as old as its sister-phrase.
I submit that people who correct others for using "Could care less" are wasting everyone's time.
Whether they feel they are correct or not, there is no basis for their correction as its been discussed by linguists and dictionaries and those groups have (generally) agreed that it is a permissible term. Discussions around the phrase are fine, if they happen outside of a corrective manner.
I am really not looking for discussion on whether Could Care Less is linguistically or logically correct, and will ignore those arguments.
So while I do really prefer the saying Could Care Less - for a variety of reasons - I can see how others might use it simply because it exists, and not realize that there's another way of saying what they are trying to say.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Using AdBlock is morally equivalent to piracy. +
+ Let me begin by saying that I use AdBlock on every computer that I own. However, I can't help but notice how it is morally (and I'm only arguing morally) equivalent to piracy.
Lets take the example of a content creator on YouTube. It's their job, and their videos are their products. Whenever you watch an ad, part of the amount paid by the advertisers goes to the content creator. By using AdBlock, we are circumventing the price that the content creator determined for his/her product. How is this not morally equivalent to pirating a game/app? In both cases, we are preventing the creator from receiving the monetary compensation they agreed to sell their product on.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe people should be able to chose an area of focus in their education earlier than college. CMV. +
+ As a high school student interested in political science, I don't think it's valuable for me to learn math or science beyond what could be useful in day to day life (how to calculate %'s and the like). Because of this I propose that somewhere in a student's high school career (preferably partway through the 1st or at the beginning of the 2nd year) students should be able to pick an area of focus. This area of focus would not completely limit students, they would still have the freedom to take classes outside of their focus, but the vast majority or their classes would be related to their area of focus. This would allow students to learn more information pertinent to their area of study, and prepare them better for life outside of school. It would also keep students interested in the physical sciences from wasting time learning how to analyze literature, and students interested in social sciences from wasting their time learning trig identities. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The gambling age should be 16. (U.S.A.) +
+ I find it ridiculous one must be 18 to simply buy a scratch ticket. For one, buying a scratch ticket will not directly cause one physical harm. I can see how something, such as cigarettes are illegal for minors, since they make the smoker a massive candidate for cancer, but I don't see the same thing happening for scratch tickets or bingo.
Also, many argue that since gambling is addictive, only adults should be able to gamble. While I agree that gambling is addictive, not everybody who gambling becomes an addict. It would also be better to desensitize teens to gamble by giving them this right when they do not have to worry about bills, college tuition, etc.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: In light of all the social justice movements over race, religion, creed, sexuality, etc. etc, I feel Asians deserve more attention than they get. +
+ This has been something that has been bugging me for the past couple of weeks and I can't seem to shake it. I am an Asian male here in America and honestly I have it pretty good, but for every Asian American like me, I'm sure there's some out there who are treated like shit on the daily merely on the basis of their race and the various stereotypes that come with them.
I feel since movies from the 1980s along with other forms of media, certain stereotypes and forms of subtle racism against Asians has been staggeringly prevalent in not just the US, but media as a whole.
Also every time I see or hear race being brought up in a debate, Asians tend to be neglected in these circumstances.
Also, my main gripe comes mainly from the slew of stereotypes of Asians I witness on the daily, especially in my hometown in Virginia.
People act as if it's okay because "Oh lol! Asians are good at math, great with technology, and bad drivers! It's always been that way and always will be!"
More importantly, I find it kinda bullshit that as an individual of Asian descent(something far out of my control and my future children's as well) that I am automatically put at a disadvantage. I'm not just compared to other applicants in schools or jobs, I'm compared primarily to other people of my racial background.
I kinda get the feeling Asians tend to be higher achievers because we're systematically forced to compete and fight against one another for pursuing similar fields which seems incredibly bogus to me.
Before attempting to CMV, here's two things I would like you to consider when responding:
1) Yes, I do indeed find some stereotypical jokes about Asians funny, but I don't appreciate the constantly regurgitated ones like: we're good at math and we're bad drivers. Put some effort into your humor and stop treating us all like fucking calculators.
2) I do not believe that the "plight of Asians" so to speak should be elevated above others, but simply receive the same amount of attention.
Change my view if you would, because I honestly don't know if I feel right about it fully myself.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
there is no proof(perhaps no way *to* prove) that time exists. CMV +
+ have had an on/off debate with some friends for the past year about this subject. From what I have observed from their attempts at offering "proof"; they do not even consider any other viewpoint than their own when talking about it. I'm optimistic that you all will have open mind on the subject and offer a well formed opinion.
I'm looking for proof(or as close as you can come[depending on your view]). this excludes common responses such as:
'see that clock over there? its moving every second; a second is time. Ha!'
'then why aren't we living in the past/future? we're living in the present and not in the other two because time separates them. Checkmate!'
The closest one has come to offering a convincing viewpoint differing from the one I hold now was something along the lines of the following: me: 'perhaps we created it as an obscure measurement based off of astronomical events.' (daylight = 1 day, then divide into the other measurements). other guy: 'yes time is based off the motion of objects, like the sun, because without time, motion wouldnt exist, motion does exist, therefore time.'
but ive found specific holes in this logic and have disregarded it.
offer something potentially convincing and make sure to maintain an open mind on the subject and offer a well formed, logical opinion.
I would be inclined to say time doesn't exist. CMV | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I believe that teaching abstinence until the age of majority (18) is most responsible. +
+ I think sex ed in America has the same problem as most issues: it's too extreme. People advocate either teaching abstinence-only until you're married under all circumstances or handing out free condoms and birth control and telling kids to go at it because it's their right and it's fun.
Personally, I think any responsible organization ought to inform students of reproductive health issues and explain how you can contract an STD or get pregnant. However, I feel like the risks of sex as a teenager far outweigh the rewards.
Obviously, sexual exploration is a healthy and normal thing, and from experience, it can be quite fun. However, I don't believe that the average high school student has the maturity to weigh this against the multitude of consequences of their behavior. Sure, there is birth control, abortion, and methods of protecting yourself from disease, but they aren't 100% effective. Furthermore, birth control, condoms, etc. are only effective when used properly and responsibly. What did you do completely responsibly when you were 16? Lastly, I think everyone always ignores the emotional consequences of sexual activity and how it can go wrong. I just think if you weigh things logically, the risks outweigh the rewards of young people having sex, and that should be imparted to them.
CMV Please.
| 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 you believe that fat people are entitled, don't deserve assistance with medical bills, or otherwise find them intolerable, you should feel the same way about alcoholics, smokers, and gambling addicts. CMV +
+
Obesity's root cause is an addiction, not willfully deciding to become a drain on society who takes up too much space on mass transit who will be constantly reminded that most people are repulsed by them.
I think that what's really going in is that the OP's of these posts just want to justify their own prejudice against the obese with some kind of rationale, but that their outright hatred goes far beyond what their rationalizations could justify.
Fat people are humans, they deserve love and respect like everybody else. Posters may claim it's about health or resources, but really, imo, they just want 1) to be allowed to hate fat people, 2) fat people to hate themselves. As far as number 2 goes, ***YOUR WORK HAS BEEN DONE FOR YOU, REDDIT.***
A search of this sub of just the word "fat":
http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dzf8x/i_think_fat_and_obese_people_are_gross_cmv/
http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1c5s2j/i_believe_the_obese_arent_entitled_to_the_same/
http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1g2zuy/i_believe_that_its_okay_to_call_people_fat_the/
http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1gtigw/i_hate_fat_people_cmv/
http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1ecozj/i_have_trouble_respecting_fat_people_because_i/
http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1a3tc6/i_think_obesity_is_a_choice_cmv/
http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1juth0/fat_people_have_no_right_to_be_upset_that_they/
http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1gn5gq/obese_people_deserve_the_same_amount_of_ridicule/
http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1e8kb3/i_believe_most_of_the_people_in_the_fat/
http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1g7dwj/i_feel_the_overweight_and_the_obese_are_generally/
http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1jrjpj/i_dont_consider_myself_shallow_but_would_never/
http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1igbwh/i_believe_gonewild_plus_is_wrong_because_it_tells/
http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1jn157/fat_people_should_pay_more_to_take_mass/
http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1jlvp2/fat_people_are_disgusting_cmv/
http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1hkn4x/i_dont_think_people_who_are_only_fat_should_get/
http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1ewv4o/i_think_fat_acceptance_is_terrible_cmv/
http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1g5fhg/cmv_i_hate_fat_people/
About myself, I'm no model, but I'm not obese. I just get tired of watching reddit circlejerk about how fat people are essentially evil and self-absorbed. If it's true that they are, than so are addicts of any kind, and you don't see 3 CMV's a day about drug addicts.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Women should not be allowed in combat units. +
+ The primary duty of the infantry is to carry heavy things over long distances, quickly, on foot. Combat duties are athletic. There are no professional athletic leagues that are co-ed. Not one. If women cannot compete with men on the field of sport, how can they compete on the field of battle?
Women are also slower to heal from injury. The armed forces have different fitness standards for females. Female marines aren't even required to do one stinking pull-up.
I totally believe in the equality of the sexes, but the athletic superiority of men in combat related attributes (upper body strength, endurance, etc) is just a fact.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Tacit consent is philosphically illegitimate. CMV +
+ Preamble:
This post is a child of [this](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1rzvif/the_state_is_illegitimate_because_it_incorrectly/) post. For CMV I recommend that when a clear point of debate emerges it should get it own CMV post.
Terms:
Tacit Consent [wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract#Tacit_consent):
Consent [The Free Dictionary](http://www.thefreedictionary.com/consent):
Philosophical Legitimacy:
This is a very high standard.
Failed attempts at deltas from [parent post](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1rzvif/the_state_is_illegitimate_because_it_incorrectly/)
[philosofreak](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1rzvif/the_state_is_illegitimate_because_it_incorrectly/cdssgxz):
'General will' needs a definition. The conclusion is a non-sequitor.
[philosofreak](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1rzvif/the_state_is_illegitimate_because_it_incorrectly/cdsmfcs):
The guy in the car explicitly consented, ie this is equivocation.
'General will' needs a definition. The conclusion is a non-sequitor.
'General will' needs a definition. The conclusion is a non-sequitor.
[cahpahkah](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1rzvif/the_state_is_illegitimate_because_it_incorrectly/cdsyqpj):
I don't know what 'consent' means here and should be explicitly defined if unconventionally used. As a clue about how to be awarded a delta, my parents don't matter for this discussion. We can limit the discussion to the current moment.
**Good luck CMVers** | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Concerning promotions, pandering to bosses is more effective than being a hard, efficient worker who cares about the job. +
+ I work for a medium-sized service company, and see people who "suck up" to our bosses receiving raises and promotions, and being groomed for higher positions. Some individuals don't do much work at all, but when middle management comes to supervise, these people act absurdly happy to see them and are eager to agree with all of the managers' ideas. To me, this seems hypocritical and unethical.
Meanwhile, I have been working at this job for a year now (I'm the 5th most senior employee out of 35 - there's a lot of turnover) and have put my heart into developing the craft, doing it faster and more efficiently every day, and delivering the best possible product to our guests. But if a manager comes around, I pretty much treat them the same way as I would any other human being. I care about them, but I'm never going to kiss someone's ass or agree to do something that seems backwards, or just ethically wrong, without at least asking why. My managers overlook how much I help the company and how loyal I am to them, and basically treat me like a delinquent because, to them, I "talk back" too much. I feel like I deserve a lot more respect than that, considering that I'm the very lowest paid employee, and at the same time one of the most effective.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: In peacetime, the military should be used as a government workforce [read details] +
+ First off, I'm Canadian and this post is specifically talking about Canada. If you're not familiar with our politics this probably isn't very relevant to you.
This idea was inspired by an incident that occurred about fifteen years ago, where the mayor of my city (Toronto) called in soldiers to help shovel snow and use their armoured vehicles to clear roads for emergency services after a severe blizzard which trapped many people indoors and shut down the city's streets. He was much ridiculed for this decision because it was seen as a waste of resources.
I think Canada's army is an underutilized resource. We're already paying for their room and board, plus training and equipment and so on, while they wait to defend us if necessary. Meanwhile we have things like old bridges that desperately need repair, terrible roads in the Far North, and so on. Why can't the trained, physically strong people who have volunteered to serve their country be used for infrastructure work? Or going even further, why can't the medical airlift teams that saved people wounded by IEDs in Afghanistan be used to save people who have heart attacks in their remote village in Nunavut? I'm sure there are more things than that that the military could do in peacetime, but the ones I gave are just examples.
I think a lot of people in Canada have an instinctive fear of the military, especially left-wing people (and I assure you I'm very left-wing) because they associate it with Americanism and warmongering, but I think that fear could be allayed if they were used in the manner I propose.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: God cannot exist +
+ I mean God as a supreme being/entity who is all-knowing, all-powerful, and created the universe. He is not just another word for Universe
1) Being all-knowing and all-powerful leads to paradoxes. Such as can he create an indestructible wall that he cannot break no matter how much he tried? Or can he create a box which makes it impossible for him to know what's happening inside?
2) How can God be all-powerful and all-knowing in the first place? This goes against every known law of physics. If different laws of physics apply to him and the current laws of physics are constant throughout the universe, where does he live? Where is heaven and hell? If you say he still lives in the Universe, how does matter/energy (following conventional laws of physics) interact with something following different laws of physics?
3) If God is the creator of the Universe, who/what created him? If you have an answer to that question, that same answer could be translated to the Universe. Keeping God into the universe makes an endless chain of one God creating another. We know that the universe tries to be as simple and elegant as possible (as seen by math and science) and thus it makes no sense to include God into the equation
4) If God created the universe for specifically humans (at least according to Christianity), what happens when multiple universe/dimensions are discovered that is impossible for humans to access? Assuming those exist (not a crazy assumption since nothing we know says that cannot exist), why would God create those things?
5) If God created us in his image, why is he considered good when we are a violent species?
6) If God is actually all-good, why doesn't he solve most, if not all, our problems for us (poverty, food shortages, disease, ec). If it is so that we can personally grow and develop, why doesn't he just give us whose traits when we are born to begin with rather than go through all the hassle and suffering.
Basically I'm saying that there are a lot of inconsistencies based around the idea of God. If someone offers a compelling argument, I am 100% willing to change my view.
I might add in more reasons as an edit if I come up with them later
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe "we have to teach to the test" is a lame excuse used by bad teachers. CMV +
+ With NCLB and a focus on test results, I've heard a consistent line from teachers: we can't teach as well because we have to teach to the test. Students aren't learning as much because we're limited in what we can teach.
I call bullshit.
If you are really learning the subject, the test should be very easy. If you're a good teacher, it's very easy to teach the subject in such a way that students learn the subject, and will then do well on the test.
I think NCLB and the emphasis on tests and accountability has made teachers very defensive, and they are hiding behind excuses instead of actually focusing on being better teachers. CMV. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Gender is a useless concept and should not be used. +
+ Gender, as defined by Wikipedia, is "the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, masculinity and femininity."
This notion of gender creates an unhealthy dichotomy between what defines a man and what defines a woman. It forces people to associate with one of two extremes that are not clearly defined universally or objectively. Through traditional stereotypes of masculinity and femininity, gender creates a categorization of behaviors, qualities, and images as belonging either to men or women. Any man who aligns with the female gender or any woman who aligns with the male gender, then, is an an exception to the definition of a man or woman, as defined by society.
Sex and sexual orientation are the only concepts of importance. Although there are some rare exceptions, a person is classified biologically as either male or female. A man who assumes a feminine gendered identity is still a man and a woman who assumes a masculine gendered identity is still a woman regardless of their character or orientation. The problem lies not within people “being born in the wrong skin”, but within society’s narrow definitions of men and women and of masculinity and femininity.
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 believe that criminals are NOT "victims of an oppressive society" and that they are mostly at fault for the situations they are in. CMV +
+ If a poor man needs to eat and decides robbing a convenience store is a good way to make money, he isn't a charity case, but a delinquent. How can it be "ok" for one person to decide they need money more than someone else and that it's not wrong to steal it? Also, I would like to address the argument that poor people, specifically poor minorities, are more prone to commit crimes because they have been negatively affected by an oppressive society. As a Hispanic American who, as a kid was below the poverty line, I do not think that if I were to steal to make ends meet, I should be able to blame anyone but myself. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think that if studies show that 50% or more of violent offenders reoffend, then all offender should be imprisoned for life. CMV. +
+ Inspired by http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1ik6u0/i_believe_that_people_found_guilty_of/
(note: when I say 'violent' offenders I mean people who cause permanent injury, PTSD, death, etc.)
(note: this could be broken up by category as finely grained as possible, as long as there are solid statistics backing up the decision. For example if <50% of premeditated violent rapists under the age of 22 reoffend, they would not be subject to this rule, even if other violent rapists reoffend often enough to be considered for this rule. I believe this is functionally equivalent to allowing parole/release on a case-by-case basis)
Imagine that studies show 51 out of 100 violent offenders reoffend. Then, by releasing them, 51 people are harmed. By releasing none of them, 49 people who don't 'deserve' to be held are held, and 51 innocents are saved. I think this outcome is preferable, even though it potentially violates the rights of the 49.
More generally, I think that when forming laws, practical concerns are the most import thing, with human rights being a close second, and in practice, saving 51 people at the cost of harming 49 is good. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: people actually having a kid should have to jump through just as many hoops to have a kid as adoptive parents. +
+ the way i see it, adoptive parents want a kid but have to have background checks, tons of paperwork and interviews ect ect before
they can even *see* a kid. meanwhile, any crack addict or teen mom or general drunk, if her parts work, can just get a human life, she could be the worst person in the world but as long as she is physically able she can just have a kid? and that's her right and we can't say boo about it?
now this is going to sound very, well, hitler-y, but i think you should need to apply for a license to be able to have a child. you need a license to show you are capable of driving a car but any schmoe can just raise a human? i'm sure you've seen what i've seen, those people out somewhere, screaming at there "little bastards" and you wonder "how can be allowed to be parents?" well i don't thing they should.
could my idea get out of hand? sure, but what idea can't go to an extreme? i just think that we as a species need to take more responsibility for what direction we're headed in.
the reason i decided to post this is i heard a radio lab program about a crack addict woman who would repeatedly get pregnant, and then just drop off the babies at a hospital and walk way. i believe this happened four times, and since she had crack when she had those babies, as soon as they came into the world the first thing they felt was withdrawal from hard drugs, what a way to start a life, or four.
| 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 when Mythology is taught in schools, it should include all religions, rather than just dead religions. CMV. +
+ When mythology is taught in schools within the United States it specifically includes only the myths, legends, and stories of now dead religions. I believe that society and teacher's personal beliefs have pressured the school system into only teaching non popular religions as mythology.
Mythology is defined as: 'a collection of myths, esp. one belonging to a particular religious or cultural tradition.' yet when looking at Mythology in American schools, currently active religions are left off of the list. The purpose of this is unknown to me, be it intended to be non-offensive, or in order to not challenge beliefs held by those in the class, or to anger parents as their children come home questioning the family religion.
I believe that this reluctance to include these religions and myth sets push children to not question what is taught to them by their parents or by society as a whole. In the southern United States where I live it is a part of your involvement within society and your family to accept and participate in the local religious flavor and this could cause issues as well. Instead schools have turned a blind eye towards this part of education where it is almost certain that there will be no universal and fair education on religions and their practices/beliefs from many families.
While I can acknowledge that this could also be a slippery slope should the teacher begin to submit their own opinions or beliefs into the issue, that is a factor with other subjects as well as should be dealt with accordingly, as is done in other classes.
In the end, I think that educating the people about the religious practices and stories/traditions of other people around them will help to encourage a better understanding of others, reduce alienation and discrimination, and increase co-existence within society. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The "offensive nature" of blackface is irrelevant nowadays and people should stop viewing it as racisf +
+ Being offended by someone who had painted is face black is dumb as the original issues with aren't relevant nowadays. When people arent trying to take jobs that could have been filled in by black people and people arent trying to make a caricature out of black peolle then painting thaire face black shouldent be a problem.This used to be a problem that only occurred in the United states but lately there influence effected other countrys making their traditions seem racist. Like in the Netherlands, Japan, Switzerland where painting the face black is still done. A lot of people are butthurt about slavery, but slavery has no link to any of these traditions. This seems just as silly as prosecuting aboriginals or African tribes when they paint there face white for rituals. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think that India has an appalling culture, and a corrupt government that refuses to address pressing issues out of a sense of "tradition." CMV +
+ * We all hear the news stories about the prevalence of rape, repeated rape, gang rape, rape victims being raped at the hospital they're going to after being raped, and being raped by the police they're reporting the crimes to. I know that it's inevitably been inflated, exaggerated, and exacerbated by the media, but give me a break! Does this really happy half as often anywhere else? One never hears about it. Ever. This is sounding more and more like a cultural behavioral trend. Everywhere has them; here in America, they involve wearing your pants around your knees. It's repulsive, but not exactly on the same level. The latest cases I've heard of involved a 6-year-old repeat victim who was ordered to marry her rapist's son (and was raped during the negotiation, again) and a series of western women who were staying at classy, four- and five-star hotels, who were assaulted by the hotel owners.
* India is extending traditionally human rights to intelligent animals. These animals, female animals included, are getting more by way of protection than human women are.
* India uses a caste system that is thousands of years old. Other cultures abandoned this caste system... thousands of years ago. It is a far more extreme version of the classes of society that we see in the west, one that tramples over the very notion of "human rights" by setting people up as being unalterably "inferior." During World War II, the officials of Germany's Third Reich repeatedly expressed their admiration for India's methods of categorizing people, to the point where it was theorized that their own genetically superior ancestors might have originally come from India.
* India practices arranged marriages, as well as child marriage. This happens even in their most well-developed, technologically advanced, and financially endowed regions.
* They drink from, bathe in, pump industrial waste into, and deposit dead bodies in the same river. It is considered "holy" due to reasons of its having been vitally important to the isolated settlements from which Indian civilization grew... thousands of years ago, again. This is how *every civilization on Earth started.* This river is a cesspool--literally, not to mention a mortuary.
* Indian festivals involve celebrations such as blasting brightly colored dyes into the air, which then rain down on the celebrants, leaving a throng of tie-dyed people... fun times, except for the fact that they use hardcore industrial-level chemicals in the dyes. Maybe they're immune to that, after bathing in the Ganges?
* Hindu is heavily divided into sects. Among them are sects which believe that the world is going to be destroyed by fire, and practice rituals intended to bring about said end with all haste; call me weird, but apocalyptic "we'll be better off when we walk the golden world as God's chosen after everybody else burns" type cults are behind the evil of most western fiction for a reason. They're... well, evil, generally speaking. There's at least one Hindu sect which practices cannibalism; they will literally raid the corpses that are dumped into the Ganges. Another sect practices necrophilia.
**I'm told that there is a beautiful, advanced culture in India. I do see that there once *was*, when everybody on Earth acted like this... y'know, thousands of years ago, and we have to evaluate people based on what *else* they did. I don't see that level of sophistication as existing now.** If it's out there, and I'm just missing it, or somehow overlooking it, I'd really appreciate some sign of its still being viable. Right now, this once-regal civilization is looking more and more like a disgusting, disease-ridden corpse of a once-grand civilization. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I am opposed to gay couples adopting children because of potential psychological issues it promotes +
+ Children need both a father and a mother. This is not a new notion; this is an established element of psychology for decades. Many studies measure the impact of an absent father, or an absent mother, and the abnormalities measured as a result of it.
I believe this should be discussed because, in my view:
* Mothers provide critical emotional support and security which should not be deprived from.
* Women who are raised apart from their fathers are at higher risk for early sexual activity and teenage pregnancy. ^[[1]](http://gaymarriage.procon.org/sourcefiles/father-absence-special-risk.pdf)
This evidence is supported by a 2012 study conducted by Mark Regnerus, PhD, who is a Professor of Sociology at the University of Texas, which unveiled that same-sex couples with children raised them with higher rates of difficulties which they suffered in life, including sexual abuse and unemployment (in later life). The conclusion was that "intact biological famil[ies]" had these dysfunctional abnormalities in lower rates, and same-sex couples had higher instances. ^[[2]](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610)
I find many individuals and media companies whitewashing this element of the debate, often dismissing it, yet I find it the very most important aspect, for the well-being of those who may be affected by it.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: If Scotland becomes independent, the UK will (and should) become a smaller power on a par with the Netherlands or Spain +
+ This is a twofer: 1) Scottish independence will damage the UK's global standing 2) The rUK (rest of the UK) should concede this and withdraw from the international arena
The UK is already a small country (in terms of geographical area and population) punching above it's weight. But with the loss of Scotland, the rUK will have a smaller population, area and GDP and so the rUK's reputation will take a hit and the country will be less respected internationally.
Britain has had it's heyday and it's time for the country to take a step back and be replaced by the likes of the G4 nations (Brazil, Germany, Japan, India) and other emerging powers. Therefore the rUK should scale back it's military and diplomatic reach and give up it's UN Security Council seat.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe a fetus is at the very least a living but potential human, and at most a complete human deserving all the rights the rest of us deserve. CMV. +
+ I have been having an internal battle between being pro-choice and pro-life for a while now, and I've reached a difficult part in my ruminations. I know that a lot of people on reddit are pro-choice because they do not believe that the fetus is a human being or even alive. I find that to be in direct opposition to biology, which these pro-choice people so often support in all other cases. How can you say that the fetus is not alive? Biologically, it is 100% alive, and I do not think that there is any disputing that. The question for me is how do you decide if the fetus is a human or not? It has human DNA, so does that not make it a human? I'm really looking for an answer of how you guys believe that the fetus is not a human and not alive. I've looked through some previous posts about abortion, but I haven't yet come across a direct answer for this question. Let me also say that if someone does CMV about specifically if the fetus is not a human or alive, then I will most certainly change my view. So reddit, CMV. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Men should not be allowed to vote on anything regarding abortion. +
+ Before you label me as a feminist or even a sycophant, know that I am a young, white, mildly religious male who often has difficulty in relating to female issues. I'm just looking for answers.
So, as a male, I do not feel qualified to form an opinion, let alone conscientiously vote, on anything regarding abortion, and I don't feel any male should have any say in what happens to a woman's body. There might be a simple/logical reason we (males) are allowed to - that's why I'm here.
I've considered some counterpoints, but can't think of anything that's not an appeal to emotion, which I admittedly have difficulty considering. I've never been a father, but I still don't see that having any weight in the matter.
And also:
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Mechanical keyboards are a waste of money and there's no reason to get them instead of ultra-flat/laptop-style scissor-switch keyboards. +
+ I've pretty much always used ultra-flat scissor-switch keyboards like the Cherry ones ([example](http://content.hwigroup.net/images/products/xl/080832/cherry_stream_xt_corded_multimedia_keyboard.jpg)).
They just have so many advantages over mechanical keyboards in my opinion:
* They require almost no force to activate the keys
* They usually have media buttons like play/pause, previous/next song, mute, volume up/down, etc.
* They are cheap as hell, often $80+ cheaper than mechanical keyboards
* They don't ever break, I've used one for five years and it only broke because I accidentally pulled the USB cable till it broke
* They don't have that annoying click that most mechanical keyboards have (Cherry MX Green and Blue switches have it)
* They are very portable
* Their keys are low-profile, so there's (almost) no room for dirt to enter the keyboard
* They (any ultra-flat keyboards with media keys) are sold at nearly all computer shops and supermarkets
* They are much common than mechanical keyboards, so there are a lot of different models and keyboard layouts available
* It's easy to choose which one to buy as they mostly all have the same features and use the same switches (scissor-switch), the only difference usually being the media keys, the numpad or the size of certain keys like Return
There are only two 'advantages' of mechanical keyboards that I can think of:
* They look prettier, but come on, who looks at their keyboard while they're typing?
* They are easier to clean when dirt does somehow get into them, but people who spend upwards of $100 for a keyboard usually don't let food or other dirt come near it
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: It's perfectly ok for people to look at the nude celebrity photos and they aren't hypocrites if they dislike the NSA. +
+ As we all know, on August 31st, some hacker released nude photos of tons of female celebrities, and also saying that there are more nude photos to come. Just about everybody believes this to be an insane breach of privacy, with Jennifer Lawerence's PR going as far to threaten to [prosecute those who post the images](https://twitter.com/JLdaily/status/506222240375902208). Others have gone on to say that [those who view the photos shouldn't complain about the NSA or privacy](http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2014/09/opinion-lets-make-a-deal-about-those-jennifer-lawrence-nude-photos-ok/).
My view is that there are a couple things wrong with this. Firstly, the distinction between private and public. To me, something is private when it's ownership belongs to an exclusive group of people. In this case, the group was the photo takers and whoever they shared those photos with (Apple not withstanding). When the hacker obtained the photos and released them to the public, the group was non-exclusive, now anybody who has access to a computer can view the photos, and thus the photos aren't private, they're public. Ideally, those photos should belong to the photo takers, and thus those who spread the photos are spreading ownership and making them more public, which is wrong. *I'd like to remind everyone I don't think what the hacker and those who share the images are right.*
Now that the photos are public, it's not a matter of privacy to view the photos. I can still be mad at the NSA for breaching my privacy, however, if the NSA made my information or others public, *I could not be mad at them for solely looking at it, as long as they didn't do anything with the information.* I would still be mad at the NSA, as I am with the hacker, however, unlike my private information, you can't use the leaked pictures to hack into my bank account, or find out where I live, or find out where I go to school.
With that said, I'd like like to make my points a little clearer for easier view changing:
* What the hacker and the people who spread the images do are wrong.
* It's perfectly ok to view the photos.
* You're not a hypocrite if you view those photos and dislike the NSA.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Women who knowingly and willingly have sex or continue relationships with criminals are morally reprehensible. +
+ Whether it's a misconception or not, there's a common idea that for men (perhaps for women as well, but moreso for men), sex and love are rewards for being a good person. It's everywhere in our culture, from the hero who "gets the girl", to the sitcom husband who has to sleep on the couch when he's naughty, and gets to share a bed again when he's good.
The common advice given by women to be more attractive overlaps with "be a better person", and even redpill ideology is about being "high value". The converse of this is when sex is had, a person often thinks they've done something good to earn it.
What does it therefore say when a "bad" person has sex or a loving wife? It's a validation of the person's behaviour. Sometimes it can even be directly linked; see the stereotype of mafiosos having beautiful wives and affairs with even more beautiful women, or the idea that power, confidence and "bad boys" are considered sexy in many contexts and by many people.
A person never exists in a vacuum, and while they ultimately hold responsibility for their own actions, the factors that lead to those actions must also be taken into account. Much like bad parenting is scrutinized, or children are told to avoid other children for being "bad influences", a woman who knowingly validates a man's criminal lifestyle is a bad influence and it's ok, and not at all bigoted.
Also, the saying of "those who don't stop bullies are as bad as them" rings true here. The women who have sex with and love a man are independent, free thinking people in their lives who have opportunities to observe and judge someone's behaviour. Failure to do so is negligent. | 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 the fuel economy benefits offered by hybrid cars is a myth due to a basic understanding of physics. +
+ It is my view that the fuel efficiency of hybrid cars is an absolute myth and that this view can be supported by a very basic understanding of physics. Note that I exclude plug-in cars from this statement.
The manufacturers of hybrid cars make huge claims of offering fantastic gas milage due to their hybrid technology. Their argument is that as the car has a second electric engine, it can run around without using any gas what-so-ever at low speed and for short distances. They state that the gas engine will only kick in when the extra power is needed. This combination of gas and electric leads to the most efficient possible method to build a vehicle. I would counter this view with the following three key points:
1 - In order to function, a hybrid car must have a series of very heavy batteries, a very heavy electric motor and a series of other heavy electric components (eg systems to recover lost energy during breaking).
2 - Therefore, whenever a hybrid car is driven anywhere at any speed, on gas or electric power, it is carrying the weight of all of these components.
3 - A basic understanding of physics tells us that it is physically impossible to get more energy out of something than was put into it.
When we combine these three points, I reach the conclusion that the fuel efficiency offered by a hybrid is a myth. I reach the conclusion that the benefits of driving around on electric power is totally offset by the extra fuel used when on gas to carry around the batteries, motor, etc which would otherwise not be there.
It is my contention that if you were to take a vehicle such as a Prius, and completely remove all of the electrical components, it would achieve a better level of fuel efficiency over a year of driving than an identical hybrid. It is my contention that hybrid cars are developed to sell as a marketing pitch, and that in actual fact a straight up efficient gas car is a much more logical and efficient way to achieve good levels of economy.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Tricky or odd grammar rules, although sometimes useful, should be done away with for casual conversation. +
+ This has been lurking in the back of my mind ever since listening to [Word Crimes]( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Gv0H-vPoDc).
The English language has many [pesky grammar rules]( http://www.jpetrie.net/grammar/#past-perfect) that don’t come naturally to many people. Many of these rules have an underlying meaning behind them and sometimes make sentences less ambiguous. However, I believe that the negatives outweigh the positives by a large margin.
* People understand anyway – It doesn't matter if I say ‘Who’ or ‘Whom’; people will always understand. (Which, after all, is the purpose of language)
* People correcting people (aka grammar nazis)– If someone uses one of the rules incorrectly, it’s common to see someone else correct the person talking, despite the fact that they understood what he/she was trying to say perfectly well. This disrupts the conversation and wastes time that could have been spent elsewhere.
* It feels natural – When it comes to using these grammar rules in conversation, we almost always want to say it the incorrect way. (unless you have been trained in grammar from a very young age) This usually results in a slight pause mid-conversation when we decide how to phrase a certain sentence. We could fix this by making it acceptable to break certain grammar rules when talking casually.
* Interrupts the flow of the conversation – This is best explained in an example. I say “She admired my^1 running down the street” in a conversation with my friends. In a split second, my friends register the fact that I didn't use the word ‘me’, realize that it is grammatically correct, understand what I’m trying to convey and go back to the conversation. This could’ve been avoided if I had used the word ‘me’ instead of ‘my’ despite the fact that using ‘my’ is correct in this situation.
It should be noted that I am not actually in favor of completely throwing out these rules. I just think that we shouldn't be required to use them in casual conversation. We would still use these rules in formal settings, in legal documents and would still be taught in schools. CMV
^1 It is technically correct to use ‘my’ or ‘me’ in this sentence. However, they mean two different things: Using ‘my’ means that she admired my running (this is what I’m trying to convey in the sentence). On the other hand, using ‘me’ means that she admired me (while I also happen to be running down the street). This rule adds clarity to my sentence.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Police Officers Who Cover Their Badges On Duty Are Not Acting Under Color of Law and Should Be Treated as Vigilante Civilians +
+ From the [New Yorker](http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/saw-ferguson):
I believe that there is no legitimate reason to cover your badge while on duty, the only possible explanation is that you are trying to avoid accountability for your actions, and this will inevitably lead you to behave in a way that exceeds your legal authority.
Police officers who engage in this behavior are clearly part of the problem, rather than the solution. If it is documented that a police officer has covered their badge, they should be treated as any other heavily armed citizen would be, their actions should not be covered by any kind of immunity, they should lose any official legal support (from the department or police officers union), and they should be prosecuted like any other citizen would be for any actions they undertake.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with judging others. +
+ Hello again, /r/CMV. Today I want to discuss something that I've found relatively disturbing--the purported 'fact' that the act of "judging" somebody is inherently wrong.
Now I'm not trying to justify or espouse racism, sexism, or any other prejudicial 'ism' that I think we all agree are misguided and based on fallacies of composition. No, what I'm trying to redeem are judgments based on character and weighed against experience.
For example, I am deeply put-off by thug culture and anybody who espouses it. When somebody I just met feels the need to tell me about a violent bout they had with their "friend" the other night, or talk about how many times they've had a gun pulled on them, I instantly judge that they are no enemy to violence and subsequently take on a sort of inherent aversion to their company (i.e. a judgment). Indeed, anybody who is "pro-violence" I automatically dislike. And I don't think there's anything ethically wrong about that.
Now let's use a less extreme example. I have a feeling most people would agree with my former one and that would make it harder to argue against my view. Here's an easier one. My sister has a tattoo that reads "Only God Can Judge Me." Likewise I have heard it said widely that "we shouldn't judge each other." I have pointed out certain glaring character flaws in others and been outright dismissed because "You can't judge me." Once I was physically and verbally assaulted by a female for refusing her romantic/sexual advances on the grounds that I didn't like certain things about her character. Everybody who witnessed the incident agreed unanimously that I was the asshole, that I was malicious/malevolent toward her, and that nobody deserves to be insulted in that way (by being judged in a neutral fashion based on their character traits/flaws). I think this is a dangerous mentality to have and a dangerous prescription to adhere to. We need judgment to tell us all kinds of things about another person and to determine how much (or if) we trust them, what kinds of relationships we want to pursue with them, what kinds of behavior we can expect from them, and certainly more details I haven't included here. To forego judgment would be to essentially live socially (and politically!) blind.
So, /r/CMV , try to convince me that there is something inherently wrong with judging other people based on their character. I hold that there is nothing necessarily wrong with it and even that it is itself a necessary ingredient for social cognizance.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe that the whole uproar over Marius the giraffe, and especially the autopsy and feeding of his body to the lions, only serves to prove how sheltered and mollycoddled a modern child is. CMV! +
+ I should have added to my title that both the autopsy and feeding were done in front of children.
I find it a gross warping of reality when a child is unaware that some amimals die in order for others to live. This isn't some Disneyland fantasy like *The Lion King* where lions and giraffes skip happily over the savannah together. Similarly, even in domestic situations such as farms, animals are inevitably killed or die. This is a basic fact of animal husbandry. I find it great hypocrisy also that these same people who complained and caused a fuss likely went home and fed their children chicken (male chicks are killed at birth, whilst others lead a miserable life before slaughter), beef (male calves killed for being unwanted) or other meat without a thought.
The autopsy itself is a unique educational experience. It is one thing to see and learn from a book, but another thing to see things in the flesh. Many children will, if given chance, revel in the delights of being able to handle all the squishy bits, see all the things like the inside of eyeballs and the like.
But I have often felt more generally that the squeamishness around this whole thing is more indicative of a massive disconnect between children and the world around them. They often experience little of the world that isn't behind their windows, and they're often so ignorant of the basics of life, such as what plants make up their food, or which animals give them what meat, that when reality is presented to them, the fuss which we've had happens. It was not so long ago that children would have done things such as hunted their own birds and grew their own vegetables. Now you've got a generation who believes meat appears by magic in plastic and that potatoes grow on trees.
So, can anyone CMV about this?
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: the ending of Wall-e was tragic [spoilers] +
+ The ship computer, Otto, did everything in its power to keep the humans on the ship where they would be happy. Despite this, the captain followed his naive curiosity into certain death. The humans have degenerated musculoskeletal systems and will not be able to perform the manual labour necessary to rebuild an earthbound society from scratch. Not to mention the scarcity of natural resources and the regular sandstorm that could kill everyone if not destroy any progress building infrastructure that they may make. The robots would be of very limited utility as they are all specialized to work on the ship, not build homes, water recycling facilities, and literally everything else that makes up modern society. This will take a tremendous amount of labour, a sharp contrast to the humans hedonistic life on the ship.
The only hope the humans have would be to give up on Earth and make it back to the ship before the next sandstorm, but that seems unlikely.
CMV! | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: To post, or not to post one's struggles with mental illness on social media? I say not. +
+ I've been through the ringer these last few years in terms of my mental health. Depression, anxiety, suicide attempts, multiple hospitalizations, several medication and therapist changes - it's been rough.
My immediate family and closest friends are extremely supportive, for which I am eternally grateful.
But beyond that, no one else knows. (I don't mind saying these things on reddit because it's annonymous) But at work, I put on a cheerful fascade, and make no mentions of any of it on Facebook. I basically use social media to share funny stories, the occasional article, and lots of cat pics. Beyond that, I'm not comfortable sharing anything else.
But is that the right thing to do? Sometimes I feel like I'm giving a false idea of who I am. I'm only showing the good times, when in fact, the bad times are far more frequent. I value honesty, but also privacy. Plus, talking about mental health problems makes some people uncomfortable, and they pull away. Others see it as attention-whoring. To be honest, that's how I feel sometimes when I see Facebook aquaintances frequently posting updates on their stuggles: ("I'm in the ER!", "Been on suicide watch all week", "Trying out new meds, hope they work! LOL", "I love my therapist, I can tell her everything"). Posts like these result either in lots of likes, or tons of messages of support - and to be honest, I do get a little jealous, and also insecure in my belief that I wouldn't get near that many responses.
So is this really just an issue of personal choice? Obviously people can post whatever the fuck they want - although lots of people post things that maybe they shouldn't. But am I denying myself additional support by not posting? Am I being a click-baiting drama queen if I do post? Personally, I choose to keep these things private, but should I? CMV.
TL;DR - it's right there in the title.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Overpopulation does not exist and any attempts to curb it are immoral and futile. CMV +
+ Overpopulation, by definition, cannot exist. Every species has a carrying capacity. This capacity has many different variables, but essentially it entails access to resources and a sustainable habitat. When this capacity is exceeded, the excess population dies off and the population remains at a sustainable level compared to the amount of resources. A species cannot go "over" this capacity. It is literally impossible because of the definition of the word. You cannot have a population greater than the amount of resources that are available to it. Why would humans be any different? Why would we be the only species able to exceed the carrying capacity?
I think the only reason people are terrified is because they see graphs like [this](http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b7/Population_curve.svg/350px-Population_curve.svg.png&imgrefurl=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population&h=207&w=350&sz=6&tbnid=wZ7rAqJKGO-ROM:&tbnh=71&tbnw=120&zoom=1&usg=__Fia9hekf37zUUn9YszWApu5b_oY=&docid=Rfq_Aji5yK4L7M&sa=X&ei=5e7lUdb2CcTuyAGM5YHQCg&ved=0CDQQ9QEwAg&dur=397) and think "Oh no! Look how much our population has increased in an incredibly short span of time! How will we survive?" The problem is that, by definition, populations increase exponentially due to the simple mathematical fact that offspring begets offspring. It should be absolutely no surprise that we would go from 1 billion to 2 billion people way faster than from almost no people to 1 billion. It is a fact of nature that populations increase exponentially. We could plot a similar graph from 10,000 B.C. to 1 A.D. and see essentially the same type of graph, just with a smaller total population.
Finally, people in the past have made similar predictions and been way off. Ancient Greek philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle griped about the population being too high. And this was when the population was less than 200 million. Tertullian once said, "Our numbers are burdensome to the world, which can hardly support us." Thomas Malthus thought that the food supply would grow at a stable rate. We see now that he was wrong. Food supply has grown along with demand due to new technologies he could not foresee. Paul Ehrlich wrote in 1968 that millions would die in the next decade. It never came to be. To be fair, others have criticized Malthus, Ehrlich, and others, but that is exactly my point. No one can seem to agree on the amount of the carrying capacity. Estimates range from under a billion (which can now obviously be discredited) to over a trillion. UN estimates range from 7.8 billion on the low end to 12.5 billion on the high end. And this is all assuming no more technological advancements are made. I'm not saying that we should automatically hand-wave any estimate of the carrying capacity. All I'm saying is that there are too many variables to calculate to get an accurate answer. We could easily meet our carrying capacity in the next 50 years, or be just fine for the next 1,000.
Now to the practical and moral aspect. By definition, any attempt to curb the population involves a lower birth rate. But how would we implement such a thing? Most people agree that China's one-child policy is immoral, yet this would be the only way to prevent our population from increasing. In addition, the policy only seems to have affected China's sex balance. Their population is still growing due to the underlying fact that it's incredibly difficult to enforce something like this. In recent years, China seems to have grown more relaxed about the policy. We could educate people about family planning, but this only addresses a symptom rather than a root cause. Ultimately, if a family wants to have six kids, nobody is going to (or can(or, in my opinion, should)) stop them. Other than that, no real solutions have been offered. We hear cries of "We HAVE to control our population or we will meet dire consequences!" Yet no solution is ever offered as to how we would achieve such a goal. My opinion is because the only "solutions" offered are considered immoral by most people (one-child policy) or impractical (education.) They simply save face in the public eye by crying about how overpopulation is bad, yet never giving any sort of solution. Because there are no solutions. It's next to impossible to artificially control a population outside of war, famine, disaster, or genocide. These are the only "real" solutions to "overpopulation" and they are both immoral and impractical.
In my opinion, we should focus more on providing food and water to the malnourished and starving, which is the underlying theme in this whole debate in the first place. Instead of focusing on numbers, we should be focusing on providing for those who can't survive regardless of the amount of people there are. That's the true tragedy here. Western governments moan about the fact that eventually there will be too many people to support their citizen's lifestyles, yet ignore the fact that there are already countries who don't have enough, despite the fact that are currently enough resources to support our planet. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
if there is a Christian (Catholic) God; he cruel. CMV +
+ Statement God is not Cruel.
Objection 1: IF he able to prevent hardship, pain and suffering but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Ergo, cruel.
Objection 2: He who does whatsoever he wills and pleases does not work according to justice. But, as St. Paul says: "God worketh all things according to the counsel of His will" (Ephesians 1:11). Therefore justice cannot be attributed to Him.
Objection 3: God created Adam and Eve immortals with a command not to eat of the fruit of good and evil. He gave them the reason "because they would die." How can you give immortals a threat like death, then allow a serpent to go out of it's way to create the downfall of man. God enjoys man only as entertainment, the murders and sacrifices are all just for His cruel amusement. Like a kid burning ants. Egro, God is cruel.
I ANSWER THAT: God can prevent all hardship, but as all seeing and all knowing; he can make judgments that only a God like He could make. He can see that stopping a genocide would bring about a greater evil. Perhaps the lose more souls to hell, which is way worse than losing life on earth.
Since good as perceived by intellect is the object of the will, it is impossible for God to will anything but what His wisdom approves. This is, as it were, His law of justice, in accordance with which His will is right and just. Hence, what He does according to His will He does justly: as we do justly what we do according to law. But whereas law comes to us from some higher power, God is a law unto Himself. God is pure Good, all Good comes from God. All that does not come from God is the opposite of He, Evil.
God is not cruel, God is just. God created us with free will so that we could choose good or evil. God is not a cruel tyrant forcing us to be in accordance of his will. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Insulting someone when I was offering hugs +
+ Well, today I was doing hugs for 1 euro each for a schoolar trip. I has been doing this for two entire days and I'm kind of exhausted about it, but I still have to offer hugs for 1 euro with a wide smile on my face. Long story short, I was walking around with a group of friends (Because if you sell hugs with friends it's more effective and more funny), and then I met this man. I looked him in the eyes and said something like "Hey man would you like to hug us for one euro? It's for a schoolar trip we are doing this year", but this fucker motherfucking ignored me.
He motherfucking ignored me. He got in front of me and sidewalked to the right. He didn't even have eyecontact with me. He did it the most offensive way possible.
"Whatever" I thought. "Man what a son of a bitch" I commented with my friends. I turned around and decided to offer a hug to some old lady.
The fucker that ignored me turns around and said: "What did you say?" he said "Do you want a hug?" I said "You called me a son of a bitch right?" "Yeah" "Do it again?" "What's the big deal? You ignored me the most offensive way possible. I find ignoring more disrespectful than insulting some. You find it wrong?"
The motherfucker then grabs the piece of paper that says "Hug for 1€" that I was holding and throws it to the ground.
Some more things happened but it's irrelevant at this point
I know that it's obviously not correct to do it, but I know that in that situation I would disrespect that man again not only by insulting him. I would even punch him. I have been offering hugs at 1€ for 2 days 8 hours each day and I was fucking exhausted physically and mentally. Is that why I find more disrespectful to ignore someone than insulting him?
Please, I ned external opinion on this. Also, sorry for bad english. It's not my native language.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Joan Rivers suffered from a mental disease that killed her, and society's inability to call it a disease will lead to many more deaths like it. +
+ Joan Rivers, Donatella Versache, Michael Jackson, Meg Ryan, Suzanne Summers, Mickey Rourke, Lara Flynn Boyle, Melanie Griffith, Janice Dickensen... I'm sure there are many many more I can't think of.
Most of these people are supposedly "fashion gurus" whose job it is to tell the populace what looks good and what doesn't.
Joan rivers was a fabulously beautiful woman in her youth, and even in her old age. But at the end, she started looking like one of the puppets from the [old Genisis video Land Of Confusion](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pkVLqSaahk).
This is not treated as some kind of a mental disease in society today. Instead, it is seen as normal and ok that a woman who would otherwise be alive today but [felt the need to go for her 700+ plastic surgery](http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/fashion/joan-rivers-haven-739-plastic-surgeries-e-comedian-joked-new-weekend-article-1.1018711) operation.
I understand that she was OK with it - that's kind of the "disease" part. An alcoholic is OK with being drunk all the time. A kleptomaniac is OK with stealing. A crazy homeless person is OK with sleeping in a gutter.
But instead of society and the people who love her and surround her telling this woman she has a problem and she needs help... she gets constantly hired to comment on people's looks. They tell her she looks great and needs another. And this disease gets perpetuated to other women in society and continues to spread. The people around her, and her doctors who tell her "Yeeah... you need sugery 658 for Sure!" are all enablers that helped cause this death as much as the "doctor" who gave Jackson too much of his favorite drug and ODd.
I have nothing against a person who was injured, say caught in a fire, and getting 700 plastic surgeries to try and remove the burn. That isn't a disease, that is a miracle of modern medicine.
And I am normally for a person's right to choose what they do with their life.
But I also think that there comes a point where you tell the guy with the gambling problem not to go to Vegas again since he lost the house last time.
Is this a disease? Am I just too judgmental? Is it too soon to have this talk? I don't think I am wrong. Change my view.
Joan rivers was a fabulously beautiful woman in her youth, and even in her old age. But at the end, she started looking like one of the puppets from the [old Genisis video Land Of Confusion](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pkVLqSaahk).
This is not treated as some kind of a mental disease in society today. Instead, it is seen as normal and ok that a woman who would otherwise be alive today but [felt the need to go for her 700+ plastic surgery](http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/fashion/joan-rivers-haven-739-plastic-surgeries-e-comedian-joked-new-weekend-article-1.1018711) operation.
I understand that she was OK with it - that's kind of the "disease" part. An alcoholic is OK with being drunk all the time. A kleptomaniac is OK with stealing. A crazy homeless person is OK with sleeping in a gutter. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Assuming the allegations against him are true, the decision to fire Jeremy Clarkson was the right one +
+ It's simple. If I get in a fight in my workplace and send someone (who appears to not have fought back) to the hospital, I deserve to be fired. It doesn't matter how shitty my work conditions are, punching someone in the face after several minutes of cussing someone out is not acceptable behavior.
But then, fans say, he's too important! He's an *icon* and a *fundamental part of the show*; you can't compare his position to a *normal* job! IMO this is stupid argument. Many shows have switched hosts and become equally successful. And simply being famous is not an excuse for acting like an ass. Many a CEO/producer/actor has been fired for this kind of behavior, and I simply don't think Clarkson should be exempted from this standard. Please CMV.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
By allowing Russia to threaten Ukraine with the excuse of protecting the interests of the Russian people in Crimea, we're proving we didn't learn from allowing Germany to threaten Czechoslovakia with the excuse of protecting the interests of the German people in Sudetenland. CMV. +
+ Russia has been playing neo-imperialism with the former ex-soviet republics for a while now. Moldova with Transnistria, Georgia with Abkhazia and Ossetia, and now Ukraine with Crimea.
I believe that this is not different than when Nazi Germany made territorial claims on Austria and Czechoslovakia with the excuse of the large German population there, and then annexed those states.
Maybe my comparison is inappropriate, but even if, I don't believe there is any justification for allowing Russia to threaten Ukraine's soverignty and territory.
I believe that Russia must be stopped and that they remove their troops from not only Crimea, but also Transnistria, Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
Otherwise, Crimea won't be the last of the territories Russia occupies with the intention of incorporating it into the Russian federation, and they will attempt to intervene in another ex-soviet republic in the future. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I believe the WBC is a hate group, shouldn't be allowed to host an AMA on reddit. +
+ I understand they are allowed to do what they do legally, but I honestly don't think they should be allowed to. There should be regulations on free speech. Speech that is hateful, bigoted, and just terrible should be made illegal. I don't think they should be able to host an AMA on reddit, or honestly spread any of their views in public. They are a hate group, simple as that. I understand that maybe laws can't prevent what they do, but reddit (as a private organization) can, and should. They have absolutely nothing productive to add, and they really shouldn't be allowed to spread their hate like that. | 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 cheating is acceptable in the high stress environment that students are placed in today because of higher requirements for entry to college and more and more pressure from society. CMV +
+ I am a senior in high school, and while I dont cheat, I can see why people do it and I don't really have a problem with it. I live in California, and the kids at my school take 5-6 AP classes junior year and senior year. They pay large amounts of money for SAT prep classes, and other resources like this.
When every kid at your school is so far ahead, an average student who works hard to get B's is left behind and can't keep up. So they might resort to cheating to keep up with them. And I feel that this is justified because it can be really unfair for those who work their asses off to get that B, only to have their application to a better college rejected because people keep pushing this envelope of cramming more and more AP classes into their schedule.
So when it comes down to it in my opinion, when someone's hardest and best effort wont get them somewhere because of the unfair competition they face, cheating is justified.
thanks in advance for your replies!
| 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 if an underage person lies about their age to have sex with somebody, that person shouldn't be guilty of statutory rape. +
+ If you are at a club (especially one that is supposed to check IDs to make sure everybody is of age) and you take home a girl there that tells you they are 18, you should be able to legally have sex with them as long as you genuinely believe they are of age.
From my understanding, as the law stands, someone can even show you a fake ID to prove their age and you are still at fault for having relations with a minor.
How can somebody reasonable be at fault for a crime that they not only have no knowledge of committing, but actively try to avoid committing? To me that makes about as much sense as being charged with shoplifting because a cashier forgot to scan an item.
I expect many people might try to argue "oh, well people will just claim they didn't know the age to get away with sleeping with somebody who is underage", however I believe that it is much better to err on the side of not punishing an innocent person here and destroying their lives, rather than attempting to punish an adult for something that was done consensually. Also, it should be pretty easy to tell in most cases whether the accused actually knew the person was underage or not.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The global dominance of the abrahamic faiths is largely an accident of geography +
+ I was at a christmas eve service last night (I'm Unitarian Universalist) and one of the hymns the choir did there, describing the birth of Jesus had it occurred in a Huron (Native American) community got me to thinking:
A) Had a group of religions identical in all respects to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam developed in pretty much any area other than the middle east, they would be no more successful than any of the other relatively minor faiths out there today, depending on what the location in question actually was
B) Whatever other religion had ended up developing in the middle east would likely now be globally dominant
I am not a trained historian, but it seems that the core of the success of the Abrahamic religions is dependent largely on the middle east's nature as both a major trade hub between Africa, Europe, and the rest of Asia, and on the fertile crescent's comparatively ancient status as a settled region.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Once basic needs (food, shelter) are met, there is no correlation between more money and more happiness. +
+ Many of us subconsciously associate happiness with the level of wealth in which we grew up and became accustomed, to the point where we might find it stressful to live and socialize with people who have more money, just as we might find it stressful to live and socialize with people who have less money. And once we settle down in a particular neighborhood with particular friends, we would be unsettled to find that we can no longer afford to live in that neighborhood and have to move.
But that's stress due to change, not due to lack of wealth as such, and, over time, we can get used to change as long as we have and feel confident that we will continue to have food and shelter for ourselves and our family. That presumably means not only that we have a house and a grocery nearby, but also that we have a steady source of income sufficient to put food on the table, and a source of education for our children so that they will be able to follow in our footsteps.
In other words, poverty can certainly cause unhappiness, but, once we are out of poverty, wealth does not cause happiness. We could be wealthy and happy, wealthy and unhappy, lower middle class and happy, or lower middle class and unhappy. As long as we are out of poverty and not in fear of falling back into poverty, we have just as much chance of being happy as a millionaire or billionaire.
On the other hand, I also don't believe that more money brings less happiness. There are happy millionaires and happy billionaires. Not all lottery winners are unhappy, many are happy, once they adjust to the new reality. Again, they may go through the stress of change, but they may also find they like the new reality. Or not, there's just no correlation.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |