input
stringlengths 114
23.1k
| output
stringclasses 2
values | instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
---|---|---|
I believe the arguments of the Republican Party stop short and don't adequately address opposing viewpoints CMV +
+ While I am not a huge fan of the Democratic Party (I think they don't run as efficiently as the Republican party as an organization among other problems), I would call myself a very liberal person and, with no better options, I often jump on the Democratic Bandwagon.
That being said, when I discuss issues with conservative friends, or read about the conservative view points on the internet, they seem to ignore many facts brought up and just proceed on their campaign about how right they are.
The recent case about the Trayvon Martin Shooting is a perfect example. While I agree that both parties acted in very stupid ways, I think the shooter should have been handled in a much harsher way when it comes to causing a dangerous situation by chasing a child around with a loaded weapon. The counter argument presented is that he has a right to defend himself. When I ask what should have happened then if that first punch Trayvon threw would have killed Zimmerman, they feel as if that would be assault. This viewpoint seems hypocritical in the sense that killing someone with a gun is defending ones self, but punching someone in the face is assault.
When we talk about the concept of welfare and funding social programs, the conservative argument is that poor people need to work their way out of problems and carry their fair share of the load. When I ask why they think they are entitled to have paved roads, a police force, fire department, military, or any other government service that isn't abortion, welfare, or school, they act as if though I am attacking god-given rights. Again, anything that doesn't help ME needs to be cut while USEFUL programs should never be touched.
I see these arguments as short-sighted and hypocritical. The thought is never fully evolved and the justifications behind the reasoning are faulty. It's like they cling to these ideas because that's what they're supposed to do, and the reasons are just a means to the end. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I don't think it's detrimental to servers if I don't tip them +
+ My argument is simple. If I tip, the server benefits by the extra cash. If I don't tip, they will at least get minimum wage as required by law. Life might be harder with minimum wage, but people can certainly survive, especially if they make good financial decisions like you're supposed to.
Serving food to customers is part of the server's job description and I'm not required to tip other minimum wage workers following their job descriptions for providing their time and service. An example would be non-commissioned sales associates in stores. I used to work at Best Buy for $8/hour (not exactly minimum wage but pretty close to it) and I personally know how much time we can spend per customer. Most interactions usually last about 5min or less but it's not that uncommon to be with a customer for up to a hour (or more in rare cases). Even then, sales aren't guaranteed unlike a restaurant server.
Over time, price of meals might go up but I why should I care about that? Ultimately there's not a significant difference if a meal is cheap and I tip 20% vs a more expensive meal but I don't tip? You might also argue that employers might fire servers who don't get enough tips as a sign of bad service but I don't think that should be the case. If a server is providing excellent service, I'm more likely to spend more like with dessert or drinks. If I'm getting bad service, I just want to leave as soon as possible resulting in less sale. Even if this system of evaluating servers doesn't work for whatever reason, employers could always evaluate based on customer surveys or by sending out undercover people to eat at their restaurant.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think private schools should be abolished. CMV. +
+ I live in the UK and would prefer a British perspective on this, if possible - I'm not familiar with the details of the US education system.
My problem with private, fee-charging schools is that they help to sustain inequality. As they charge fees they have more money per pupil, which should mean that the quality of the education provided is better. However, a child who goes to a private school and benefits from this education has not done a great deal to earn or deserve it - although they may have passed the entrance exam, their parents also need to be able to afford the fees. So children of the rich have a head start in life that allows them to get even richer, which they have done little to deserve. This makes society less meritocratic and decreases social mobility.
In addition, if rich and powerful people have an alternative to state schools, they do not have so much of an incentive to work towards improving these schools. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Loki's speech to the Germans in Avengers about humanity craving subjugation is correct. +
+ Loki's speech:
"[to crowd] Kneel before me. I said… KNEEL! Is not this simpler? Is this not your natural state? It’s the unspoken truth of humanity that you crave subjugation. The bright lure of freedom diminishes your life’s joy in a mad scramble for power. For identity. You were made to be ruled. In the end, you will always kneel."
Now, I know one of the most overlooked lines in modern film history follows and undoes the effect of Loki'sLoki's speech, but I got to thinking the other night, that he's right.
When in groups, people tend to look to a leader to make decisions for them. I mean we can even go deeper. One of the most sought after things in life is purpose and identity, and though Loki never outright says it, the unspoken truth for most people in this planet is that neither exists. We make ourselves miserable chasing after these fairytales.
Some of the happiest people I've ever met in life are completely selfless and seemingly live just to serve others. They are hard working and they do things just to bring satisfaction to others.
I don't know. Those are my basic points. I have more so if you touch on them in your response I'll happily address them.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Nintendo's "innovative" controller design for Wii and Wii U were ultimately horrible ideas +
+ I would consider myself a Nintendo fan. In my opinion, Nintendo has historically had, by far, the best first-party games of any console. Mario, Zelda, DK etc. will be the series that will forever be tied to society's perception of what a game is. I also believe that the N64 was, when compared to the standards of its day, the best console ever made. That said, they have dwindled to a niche company that is pretty much limited to selling to gamers under the age of 12, and adults who are willing to buy an entire console just to play Smash and Mario Kart with their friends while high (I am one of those people so I don't judge). I have a PS4 too, and would say I spend at least 75% of my gaming time, and well over 90% of my gaming budget on games for it despite adoring all things Nintendo. The reason for this is simple. The third-party support for Nintendo is shit. It's nearly impossible to find a decent game for the Wii or Wii U that isn't first party. And the reason for this is obvious. The wacky controllers. Aside from a limited number of applications that get old real fast, these controllers are awful. How are devs supposed to make a good game for them? Even when playing first party games that are optimized for them and that are stellar in quality, like Twilight Princess and Super Mario Galaxy, I find myself wishing I had a normal style controller in my hands. IMO Nintendo could have created a console that was, in essence, a clone of the PS4/XB1 and been way more successful. Third party devs would make all their games available for it, rather than shit-quality ports that come out much later (ie Watch Dogs). This would, in turn, encourage way more people to buy the console and, more importantly, games for it.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
The US slave trade was the best thing that could've happened to African slaves and their descendents. CMV. +
+ My argument is not that slavery was good for slaves, or that it improved the African by exposing him to the white man, or that they needed discipline or anything absurd or racist like that. It's simply this:
Look at the quality of life of your average African American, and compare it to the quality of life of your average West African. It's not even close, African Americans, as bum a rap as they get in a lot of ways in the US, are way better off than their African cousins. Life expectancy is longer, income is higher, there's better access to food, water, shelter, even for the poorest African Americans. There's basically no metric by which Africans are better off than blacks in the US.
It's not as though, if not for the slave trade, Africa would be in great shape. Sure, it might be a little better, but there still would've been hundreds of years of colonialism stamping it down. Would 12 million additional people (the number kidnapped and brought over here) really have made that much of a difference in the long run? Would anywhere in West Africa be a place that, after living in the West, you'd want to go raise a daughter?
The 40 million or so blacks in America are the 1%. In exchange for a couple hundred years of utterly brutal, vicious slavery in the United States, they're so much better off than their African counterparts that I think that the only rational conclusion is that they're the real winners of the Atlantic slave trade. It was horrible, immoral, unjust by any rational standard, but it was a net win for them. | 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 a feminist simply because I don't see much gender inequality that isn't simply biological differences between men and women. CMV. +
+ The hunter-gatherer developed naturally as complementary roles in society. This led to women's oppression, I agree, but now it seems to be fixed for the most part (unless we are talking about certain parts where there is obvious oppression). I don't really see there to be a difference in the workplace when it comes to wages and work conditions, as well as women in the home, because I see there are getting to be more and more stay-at-home dads and more women assuming men's positions in the workforce and at home.
CMV.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe that if I am going the maximum speed limit in the fast lane (USA), that I should not yield to drivers going over the speed limit so they can pass me. CMV +
+ Drove 7hrs on Interstate 5 to Los Angeles. The speed limit was 70mph. There were quite a few Semis on the way only going 55mph so we stayed in the left lane to pass them all. Several times drivers would be going at least 90mph and flipping me off because I would not move out of their way so they could pass. I did not see why I should accommodate their unsafe driving and have to constantly switch lanes because they are choosing to exceed the maximum speed limit. They should go around me, and if they cannot do so while I am passing a car in the slow lane they should wait to pass me after I eventually overtake the other vehicle. The reason I posted this in CMV is because so many people were upset over my actions. Is this some unwritten driving rule I do not know about?
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Factory farming is immoral. +
+ Hi, thanks for stopping in. Quick preface, this CMV submission is particularly in regards to the U.S.
I have been a vegetarian since a very young age because I am fond of animals. I view the factory farming and agricultural livestock industry as being savage and despicable- I believe there are more cost-effective, and less morally-questionable methods for providing sustenance to our citizens than by breeding and slaughtering livestock. I think the issue is largely cultural and related to the fixation with the consumption of meat products that seems exclusive to the U.S. in my limited experience.
How is the practice of factory farming justified?
| 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 being pro-life, yet allowing an abortion exception in the case of rape, is a hypocritical position to hold. +
+ As we all know from former viable politician Todd Akin (heh), that if it is a "legitimate rape" the body has ways of shutting down the pregnancy....but let's say maybe every once in a while a raped women does get pregnant.
Many pro-life politicians to their guns and still oppose abortion in all circumstances. But many, who are typically pro-life, carve out an exception in cases of rape or incest.
I think this is a hypocritical position to hold. If one believes that the fetus is a child at conception, or very early on in the pregnancy, then I see a disconnect with their view. Surely the life of the baby inside of the women is more important then the depression, anxiety, and anger the woman is going through?
CMV
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe naloxone should be available to anyone over-the-counter without a doctors prescription. CMV +
+ I recently read [this op-ed](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/07/opinion/how-to-stop-heroin-deaths.html?emc=eta1) by an ER doc in New York that argues that the drug naloxone should be made widely available OTC without the need to see a doctor for a prescription, and I honestly couldn't believe that that wasn't already the case.
Naloxone (aka Narcan) is a cheap and relatively safe drug used as an antidote for opiate overdoses. When someone overdoses on opiates, they die because their respiratory center shuts down and they stop breathing. Naloxone works by binding to and blocking the opiate receptors in the brain, as well as displacing opiate molecules that have already bound. This quickly and effectively ends the OD, at least temporarily (depending on the severity) and allows the person to start breathing again.
Overdosing is now the [leading cause of accidental death](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/02/07/100-americans-die-of-drug-overdoses-each-day-how-do-we-stop-that/) in the US, more than traffic fatalities and gun accidents. According to the op-ed, 85% of users overdose in the presence of others. Opiate users, and their friends and family, should have easy access to naloxone OTC so that they can be in the position to save someone's life should an overdose occur.
So CMV. I've heard argument regarding things like clean needle exchanges being policies that encourage drug use, and I think that's ridiculous. OTC naloxone would save lives. It's as simple as that. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:It is better to have a corrupt but tolerant government than an effective intolerant one. +
+ This is in relation to the most recent Indian election in which the Hindu Nationalist Narendra Modi won in a landslide. I can see nothing good in Narendra Modi in the long term. Although it may be true that he has a good economic record in Gujarat he will destroy the religious toleration for which India is famed. It would be far better to retain Congress, who although they are as corrupt as all hell are not responsible for the massacre of Muslim Pilgrims (the 2002 Gujarat riots where up to 2000 Muslim pilgrims were massacred and Modi was accused of complicity).
Aside from this specific instance, is it better to be tolerant and corrupt than effective and intolerant in the abstract? | 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 a moral anti-realist, that is I don't believe there is any objective morality of any kind. +
+ There has not been one theory on objective morality that has satisfactorily answered the ought-is gap by Hume and/or the open question argument by Moore, and hasn't fallen to the naturalistic fallacy or been presumptuous one way or the other (suffering is bad, what god commands is what we ought to do, etc).
I think most people are absolutist because we merely want our morals to be absolute, it really simplifies the problems in life and allows us to have a standard which we can judge everyone, it's our nature for us to like our morality to be authoritative and unquestionable.. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Lazy slackers don't deserve social dignity or respect. CMV +
+ A well-adjusted society rightfully confers dignity and respect upon those who work hard and try their best. For an economy and society to function we need people to put in the effort to do difficult tasks and overcome challenges. This is why we celebrate overachievers and underdogs who perform above and beyond expectations.
However, there are some people who don't pull their weight. Not because they can't, but because they don't want to do so. It is appropriate for society to shun and disapprove of slackers as a way of teaching others, especially children, not to behave in this manner.
Even though they may not be breaking any laws, the lazy should be ostracized as much as criminals because they invite socially bad behavior which if spread can ruin a society from within. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Inflation is not sound fiscal policy. It's just a regressive tax. +
+ I've heard it said that inflation is considered a sound fiscal policy by regulatory bodies. But how can this be so? If the general money supply is increased by, say, 3% each year, with all the "new" money going to the government, how is this any different from the government taxing everyone 3%? Everyone's buying power goes down by 3%, while the government's buying power goes up by whatever everyone else lost. So why is this considered "sound fiscal policy", when it's just a regressive tax, which is generally frowned upon in the first place?
| 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 the Beatles were so great. CMV +
+ I mean, a lot of their songs are sort of catchy, but a lot of them I find are actually pretty terrible. A ton of them are formulaic as well, following basic song structures and chord progressions. Lyrics are rarely profound.
I can see why people like them, but love for the Beatles is so disproportionately high compared to other British Invasion bands like the Who, Yes, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, The Clash, etc. Many of those bands innovated far more.
I can also understand why they would have mass appeal, even today well after Beatlemania (and even with younger people). I get that. But I want someone to convince me why they are that much better, and why they deserve that excessive recognition. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I don't believe that "minors cannot provide consent" is a legitimate argument in support of statutory rape laws. +
+ To preface, I am a teenager. Consider it from the horse's mouth. Also, I am in no way advocating statutory rape or pedophilia, I'm simply saying that this particular argument is illegitimate.
I believe that, for *sexually developed* minors, the argument that minors cannot provide consent is illegitimate. Teenagers have sexual libidos, and do have urges to participate in sexual intercourse.
I realize that particular *repercussions* of sexual activity may be unknown or may not be thought of by teenagers, hence why teenage pregnancy is a large concern. But when I see reddit comments on news articles about statutory rape, the comments seem to simply be "minors cannot provide consent" repeated ad nauseum. It seems to have become more of a catchphrase rather than a coherent argument. Why *can't* minors consent? Why does the threshold for having the mental ability to consent begin at 16-18? I understand it in a legal sense, minors can't legally consent until they turn a certain age, but the justification for that seems to be the same argument, and it becomes cyclical.
CMV, reddit.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Assuming you support trans* rights, there's no reason not to also support Otherkin and BIID. CMV. +
+ First of all, please note that I intentionally worded this CMV in a specific way, *assuming* that you support trans* rights. I don't want to make this CMV about trans rights, and I don't want to hear arguments coming from a place of not supporting trans* rights.
That being said, much of the philosophy around trans* rights is about a person's right to express a self identity and innate feeling of who they are and to (if they wish) change their body to to closer reflect their sense of self. These are, I believe, the core values behind fighting for trans* rights.
These values also support Otherkin (people who consider their "true selves" to be otherworldly creatures) and people with Body Identity Disorder (which causes people to feel like parts of their body, such as their left arm, are alien and should be removed). These people are fighting the same basic struggle as trans* people.
And yet, I've often seen trans* people, and people who are in favour of trans* rights, saying people in these other two groups are "crazy" and generally trying to distance themselves from them as much as possible.
Really, it just strikes me as an example of "shit rolling down hill," like a school kid getting bullied and turning around to pick on someone even less popular than them.
So, I feel like anyone who supports trans* rights should also support people in these groups. CMV. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Its okay to hold back your life and future for an S.O. +
+ Hello, r/CMV! I am a male 17 year old. My girlfriend is 16. I am a senior next year and she will be a junior. We have been together 8 months and things are amazing. Everyday it gets better and we trust each other and love each other. Some of you already have preconceived notions about me and us. One of them being that we aren't in love. I am so insanely sick of this ideology that I can't be in love with someone at this age. I'm almost an adult, why does age really make such a difference.
Anyways she has had a 4.0 all throughout high school and she plans to be a pediatric cardiologist (approx 16 years of college) and I'm not sure what I want to do. My grades are not nearly as good so I fel my options are limited. I'm barely gonna graduate. I would like to go to college but I plan on staying around for a year and then following her and pursuing my available options. Obviously me and her will do tons and tons of planning! Friends and my mom (I don't live with her) have told me that this is a wrong and silly thing to do. I've listened to their reason and I disagree highly, and it's not just because I'm love struck. Reddit, CMV. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Scientology is not that bad, and is on par with any other religion more or less +
+ I've been seeing a lot of hate on Scientology lately, and let me preface, *I am not a scientologist, I have no interest to become one, and I have no strong feelings on any religion or lack of religion that are important for this*. As well, just saying "Well its ridiculous because Xenu and aliens and volcanoes and how would e-meters ever work and spirits and science fiction author, you've got to be kidding me!" is not a viable counter argument, its a religion. Its important to people because they believe in it, it doesn't matter how silly it sounds to an individual, it doesn't mean anything in the larger scope.
Especially with Beck getting awards, seems like all I see is "Well I can't like him anymore now that I know hes a scientologist". I have a vague knowledge of some of the more unlawful things the group does, but this seems about on par with bad things other groups do. We know theres Islamic terrorism, we know that there are militant Christians that do terrible things, and while there are probably some bad members in Scientology, they don't really seem that bad.
They've donated to loads of charities, and generally Scientology organizitons are pretty good about helping out their community and many members, such as Beck, are simply second generation Scientologists. Its been in their lives but its never dominated their lives. They were never brainwashed into believing in it, they just want to.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Sex should be in no regards considered a basic human right when discussing birth control +
+
So Lena Dunham has once again caused another stir in the social justice world by asking twitter why they need birth control. First of all, even as a woman, I find that an extremely childish point of view. To "need" birth control. (I would like to preface this by saying that yes I am aware of the various conditions that birth control aides, and for the sake of this CMV, those are not what I'm talking about here). For all non-medical reasons, no one needs birth control.
I am a huge advocate for safe sex, and the prevention of pregnancy and the spread of STDs through birth control and condoms. That being said, I don't think sex is a basic human right. No one needs to have sex every three days or they'll face death, maiming, etc. Sex is pleasurable and sex is fun and sex can create life. But by no means is it a necessity in the way that many claim it is. Furthermore, claiming that your healthcare should be required to cover birth control outside of health concerns because it's a basic right is absolutely ridiculous.
If you are not prepared to make birth control a priority by budgeting for it, then you need to make the decision to either practice unprotected sex and face the consequences or abstain until you can afford to make birth control a priority. Here are some of the main reasons why I think so:
* Birth Control doesn't have to be super expensive, as low as $15 a month.
* If you can't afford $15 a month for birth control you definitely can't afford a kid and should be able to abstain until you are more financially stable.
* There are other non-penetrative methods for sexual release
* If you can't make birth control a priority for your own personal budget, then why should you expect your health care to.
I know this treads very closely with past CMVs on birth control being included in health care, but in this case I think it's hard to talk about one without the other. I personally think persecuting company's for refusing to provide birth control in their health care package (not that the woman couldn't just buy it without insurance!) is as assine as getting upset if an orthodox jewish meat company refused to purchase pork for their work cafeteria.
I feel like I'm one of the few feminists (and I use that term very loosely) who doesn't believe that sex is a basic human right. CMV?
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Cartoon porn containing minors should be legal, cmv? +
+ I want to begin asserting that I am defiantly not a pedophile, nor do I endorse or encourage the exploitation of children. I hold this view as I believe that this is an alternative for actually exploiting children. For example, if a pedophile was really horny, he could find pornographic material containing minors instead of abusing children and facing jail time, taking up taxpayer money. | 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 "bodily autonomy", by itself, is a horrible reason to justify abortion. CMV. +
+ Bodily autonomy, the idea that everyone has the right to control what happens in their own body, even if it results in a person's death, is a flawed concept.
I would like to claim that if:
1. A fetus is a person with full rights, and
2. A parent has an obligation to care for their offspring earlier than the age of 18,
then **bodily autonomy is irrelevant to the discussion**.
Note: I personally do not oppose abortion; I disagree with premise \#1.
---
[Here's the Violinist Thought Experiment, which is a thorough introduction to the topic of bodily auonomy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion). **The basic claim behind the "bodily autonomy" argument is that even if a fetus were considered a full person with rights, it would still be ethical to abort him, just like it's ethical to disconnect a famous violinist from your kidneys if you don't want your body being used for his life support.**
First criticism: Suppose you're holding a knife at an adult's chest. Would it be ethical to make your brain send a signal to your arms, telling them to expand and push the knife through the person's chest? If not, then there is no inherent right to bodily autonomy if exercising it would violate other people's rights.
Second criticism: Do people have the right to not support their family, and not ensure that their children are fed? Can someone claim "bodily autonomy" as a defense if their own offspring starve to death from neglect?
To wrap this all up under the abortion discussion, I'm essentially claiming that **even if we grant people the right to bodily autonomy, then we still have to make people suffer the consequences of exercising their bodily autonomy**.
---
What this means is that a woman is not responsible for getting a famous violinist sick, so she is not primarily responsible for killing him if she disconnects herself from his life support.
However, if she *made* the violinist sick by having sex, then she is ultimately responsible for the violinists' death, regardless of the presence or absence of parasitic life support.
**Essentially, saying that "I have a right to bodily autonomy, and hence abortion" is akin to saying "I don't care for the consequences of my actions".**
A more persuasive argument for abortion would be:
* Jeremy Singer's utilitarian argument: A fetus has far less consciousness than a living mother, so the lifelong convenience of the mother matters far more than the life of the fetus.
* Steven Levitt's Freakonomics argument: Abortion reduces crime and improves society.
* The economic argument: Real wages in the U.S. have been falling for decades in this country. A child cannot be raised in an environment where the parents haven't been working for at least 5 years with good careers.
**Of all the possible arguments for abortion, "bodily autonomy" is nothing more than an appeal to selfishness.** | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: News interviews with victims should not end with an upbeat statement that God will get them through this. +
+ In many TV and radio news interviews in the US of a victim of a crime or accident or disaster, the segment usually ends with an upbeat statement by the victim that God will make it all right in the end, or the victim's faith will see them through this difficult time. I think this practice should end because it unduly legitimizes religion, and leads the populace to believe the standard advice that should be given to a victim is to tell them to pray or otherwise waste time and resources that they could more efficiently apply to helping themselves.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think adoptive parents who distance children from their birth parents are selfish, bad people. Try and CMV. +
+ Backstory: Okay, so I was watching the Oprah network the other day and Kym Whitley (a D list celebrity with another one of these family reality shows), was going through an experience where he adopted son's birth mother called and wanted to see him. [Please follow this link, scroll down about 1/3 of the page and watch the video](http://www.oprah.com/own-raising-whitley/Preview-Should-Joshua-Meet-his-Birthmother-Video). All her friends were against it. They said you are the real mom and you don't want to confuse Joshua with another mom. She didn't want the birth mom to have any contact because she was afraid that Joshua might one day say 'you're not my mom'.
I don't think introducing another his birth mom is going to confuse him or damage him in anyway. I think the only reason adoptive parents want to distance the kids from the birth parents is for selfish reasons. They said, "she carried him for 9 months, but you're actually raising him." So why should she see him... She doesn't want Joshua to say "you're not my mom" or even feel it, but that's Kim Whitley's problem and hers alone. It's not Joshua's. She said "if Joshua at age 18 wants to find his birth parents, that's on him." Why 18? Why not 14 or 10 or 2?
Some people give up their babies into open adoptions where they get pictures and updates, but then adoptive parents close the adoptions, meaning they move and cut off all contact with birth parents. If kids want to find their birth parents they have to go looking.
I think it's selfish. It's because they want to raise their baby without another set of parents butting in. The other set of parents isn't going to damage your child in any way. They just feel threatened that the child may want some type of connection or relationship with birth parents at some point, and that may usurp their position as parent.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe animal shelters are a waste of resources. CMV. +
+ In a world with limited resources, it seems to me that spending time and money to take care of animals is immoral when those resources could be used to help humans in need. I think that stray animals should be euthanized and disposed of. With the money we save from getting rid of animal shelters we could build more housing for the homeless or impoverished. I don't hate animals, I just think that their lives are worth less compared with those of human beings. I still want to deal with animals humanely, but not at the cost of letting humans go without food or shelter. | 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 it's morally wrong for parents to raise their children with their personal religious/philosophical beliefs. CMV. +
+ I'm a Satanist, and while I know that if I ever have kids I would be happy for them to adopt the same beliefs as my own, I could never in all good conscience indoctrinate them with my views from the very first years of their life. I don't understand how people can be okay with teaching their children set beliefs from their own personal religions/philosophies as if they are fact. To me, that is actively choosing to blinker your child to so many different outlooks and moral stances on life. It's denying them the right to build their own character and ethical values, and undermining their own personal judgement. I think a vital part of growing up and earning your independence is through finding your own morals and beliefs, as searching to find ones which appeal to you not only will enhance your knowledge of the world around you but also is really important in understanding what sort of a person you are. You can take pride in that you took the time and effort to evaluate the countless possibilities to choose how you wish to live your life. I watched a documentary where kids from the Westboro Baptist Church were interviewed, and my heart just broke - because they weren't born homophobic and hateful, they were raised to be that way. It's horrible and I can't understand how people can justify it. And yes, I understand some people will argue they can change their beliefs when they get older. But again, with those Westboro Baptist Church kids, even if they did, they still have to live with the fact that there was a time in their lives when they stood for extremely terrible things. I imagine it would most likely haunt them for the rest of their lives. So who are we to say our beliefs are what should be taught? Cmv if you can! :D | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Alcohol should be legally required to show calories on the packaging +
+ I am speaking mostly from an American perspective. In a society where obesity is a huge problem, there is absolutely no reason to leave off crucial nutritional information on a commonly consumed product. Perhaps an exception can be made for really small time craft brewers, but any product with large distribution should show the calorie content. I can only think of net benefits for society by making more information easily available.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think networking (think business, not computers) is corruption. CMV +
+ I spent a lot of time in the business school as an undergrad and they put a huge emphasis on networking with people to land jobs and internships. I don't see why this is morally acceptable. Obviously there is a level of practicality to some networking- its sometimes better to hire someone you know than someone you don't. But for the most part, its not about practicality, but scratching each others backs. Networking results in the best candidate getting turned away because someone else has a connection. Shouldn't job/internship/school placement be based on merit? We call it corruption when people obtain political appointments based on who they know, why is it ok to encourage this same practice in the business world? | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I have no credit score, and I don't need one. CMV +
+ Though I have borrowed money in the past (student loans and a car loan) I am now committed to a debt-free lifestyle. I paid off my car in 2008, and my student loans in 2011: long enough that both have dropped off my credit. I have never had a credit card.
I believe that most people use debt and credit to finance things that they simply can't afford. A budget that allows one to comfortably pay a $200/month car payment for 60 months can easily save that money and buy the car outright: either saving interest or getting more car for their money. If you can't afford a $25,000 car today, you can't afford a $25,000 car.
Eventualities, emergencies, etc. can be alleviated with a fully-funded emergency fund. A financially-competent adult should have 3-6 months of living expenses in cash to account for unexpected expenses. Borrowing money in times of crisis is the *worst* decision a person can make: incidents that would disrupt a regular monthly budget are also likely to disrupt income, thus impairing the ability to pay back debt.
I know that there are many things for which people consider a good credit score a necessity. I believe that I can achieve all of these without credit, or that they are so unimportant that my aversion to debt makes them unnecessary.
* Car loans. A car is a means of conveyance: not a toy, not a status symbol. A serviceable automobile that can transport a person to and from work can be had for $1000.00 or less with a long, diligent, and dedicated search. Sure: it won't last forever - it only needs to last long enough to save up for a better car. My $5000.00 Toyota Camry has gone 60,000 miles since purchase, and has plenty of life left in it. My wife's $1,600 Subaru has 200,000 miles on it, but it gets her to work and back every day. We save the amount each of us would have in car payments toward a new vehicles every month, so when our cars crap out, we can buy new ones on the spot. Our emergency fund would cover catastrophic repairs, or 1 car replacement, in a pinch.
* Apartment rentals. I've never had a landlord check credit history before approving a rental application. I rent from private parties. I get better rates, better maintained properties, and more attentive service. But if I were to rent from some mega-corp property manager, I would hope that my *lack* of credit would do me more credit than a slew of open accounts. A zero credit score shows that I have enough cash to cover all my day-to-day expenses: that I don't need to defer my spending to pay my bills. I don't know how widespread the practice is, but having rented in several cities and having never been turned down for a rental due to lack of credit, I believe that (were my credit score ever to become a factor) I could simply rent elsewhere.
* Job applications. I understand that, if you're entering finance or banking, that an employer may have a vested interest in making sure that you're responsible with money before employing you. But again, I think that having *zero* credit: demonstrating that you can live on what you earn shows more responsibility and financial savvy than barely paying off your bills each month. I don't believe the practice of checking credit is widespread in employment, so I don't think there's a serious detriment to one's employability in not borrowing money.
* Reward points. Ah, those tens of dollars I'm throwing away every month by not risking 39% interest if my paycheck happens to come in a day late. I'll pass: thanks. My total spending, rent and all, comes to around $2000/month. Even if my landlord took credit cards (which she doesn't), I'm losing out on, like, $40. If I miss a payment by one day, once per year, all my 'rewards' get wiped out. I'd rather pay what I owe and avoid the risk. The loss of the 'rewards' are worth it.
* Home mortgage. This is the issue that gives me the most pause. A credit score definitely influences an individual's ability to secure a mortgage and what rate they will pay. But I don't believe in the idea of a home as an investment vehicle. When I buy a house, it will be a place to live: I won't borrow against it to finance other things, I won't rent it out, and I won't 'move up' simply because I have the capital to do so. Using the [NYT 'Buy vs. Rent' Calculator](http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/business/buy-rent-calculator.html) (and given average home prices in our region, and our current rent amount) it would take about 15 years to break even if we were to buy a house. In 15 years, given our current rate of saving, we could buy the house outright. Renting allows us the flexibility to move whenever we choose, move up or down in home whenever we choose, have home repairs and taxes covered by our landlord, etc. Should we choose to get a home-loan, my bank has a manual underwriting process that takes into account income history, bill payment, and liquid assets into account when granting loans. They gave me my car loan with no credit: there's no reason why they wouldn't do the same for a car loan.
Having a credit score is, fundamentally, about borrowing money. If I don't borrow money, I don't need a credit score. If, in the event of a major purchase like a house, I'm forced to borrow, I believe that intelligent lenders will take my income and assets into account when making the decision. If they don't, I can save money and purchase outright: there is nothing so crucial in life that it *must* be purchased before one can afford it.
CMV.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: There is currently no humane form of capital punishment. +
+ I had a lot of fun with this yesterday so wanted to give a different, more serious, type of topic a shot.
--
If capital punishment is to be carried out, it is supposed to be carried out in the most humane way possible. I feel that the current methods do not fulfill this requirement. The main reason behind my thinking is that, when looking at each method of capital punishment there are ways it can be botched. It would take a while to go through each one, but some examples are:
Lethal Injection: injection of a muscle can cause extreme pain, wrong dosages of medication can cause patients to be unable to move, but still feel the pain
Electrocution: First charge of electricity failing to kill
Gas Chamber: Death due to slow asphyxiation instead of passing out from gas.
This [link](http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/some-examples-post-furman-botched-executions?scid=8&did=478) shows many examples of botched executions that have occurred in the United States. I feel like there are way too many examples, especially when you consider the number of inmates that are executed a year. These botched executions lead to immense pain and suffering for the clients.
**I don't want to discuss whether or not the death penalty is morally just or under what type of crimes it should be granted.** The question here is whether or not any of the current methods of legal execution (Lethal Injection, Electrocution, Gas Chamber, Firing Squad, Hanging) can be considered humane. My current belief is that due to all the complications, that can and do occur, there is currently no method.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The best video game of all time has already been made. +
+ A video game is: a game played by electronically manipulating images produced by a computer program on a television screen or other display screen. Consoles, PC, handheld, mobile. All are pertinent to the discussion.
My view: As a technology-dependent medium, it would stand to reason that video games could continue to evolve indefinitely, but this discounts the most significant element in the formula: the human element.
In the earliest days of game design, a creator's ambition was tempered by the limitations of current technology. Game designers had to craft unique, engaging experiences that captured and excited the player's imaginations. As technology advanced, and the design culture matured, building upon its previous milestones and challenging players' expectations in new, engaging ways, genres were refined. Best practices emerged, and over time innovation was eschewed for proven, market-tested elements. Greater accessibility brought gaming into the mainstream, and for awhile, the industry was blessed with a "golden age" of well-funded Triple A and independent titles competing for the attentions of a captive gamer audience. But it was not to last. The bell curve eventually turned, profit motive overtook the creative process, and game design stagnated. In the current era, derivative tropes define the player's experience, content is excessively monetized to generate further revenue from existing titles, and risk-taking is left to indie developers, whose ideas and properties will be co-opted, copied, or simply bought, and integrated (with varying degrees of success, and little to no regard for their effect on mechanics) into the same dull franchises that overwhelmingly dominate the marketplace.
So my question, CMVers, is this: what evidence is there that video games, on the whole, are better now than every before? Where can the medium go from here? Do better graphics=better experiences? Why should I be optimistic about the future of gaming? | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think most, if not all, sci-fi and fantasy are at the emotional level of an adolescent male. Not that that's bad, that's just where they're at. CMV +
+ First let me clarify what I mean by emotional level of adolescent male: the character arc of the protagonist(s) and crux of the plot is going up against tyrannical power structures (breaking away from parents and rebelling againt authority figures), acquiring power (growing physically and maturing, learning to direct oneself instead of listening to others), and using that power to break the existing hierarchy and free yourself from its power, or place yourself at the top of it.
I would contrast this character arc and story line with a more mature storyline about loss, self-sacrifice, encountering and coming to terms with your own limits, finding unexpected joy and redemption in things like family or community. Stories where the hero has to come to terms with defeat of some sort. Not that 'mature' is better and 'adolescent' is bad, but that these different types of stories speak to different stages in people's lives. I'm not saying that an adolescent story is superficial or poor quality, but just they are different.
For instance, in the past couple years I read *Dune*. I really enjoyed reading it, but the emotional mechanism of the plot turnings seemed to be piling on more and more "awesome!" As in, "He's got the weirding way? Awesome! These freemen are super underground desert warriors? Awesome! He learned to ride a giant worm? Awesome! He totally overthrew the King of the Galaxy while riding a giant worm with the family nukes and pulled off a complicated political maneuver and now he's the king? *So awesome!!* It was great fun and enjoyment while I read it, but in my everyday life, it feels like an escape. It's literature that I can't relate to personally. It didn't change my life, or give me perspective the way that the world is, like say, Ralph Ellisons' *Invisible Man* did. It was a great diversion, and it was thrilling to read, but I can't say that it enriched my life.
I have a lot of friends that are Firefly fans and I recently watched the movie. I wasn't able to get into it because it seemed like the guy Malcolm was basically leading the life of a 16-year-old in his parent's garage. He doesn't want the tyrranical alliance raining on his parade of... smuggling? He's in a ship with all his friends, running around, doing illegal things, but do any of these people have family? Parents that they want to visit? Significant others? Children?
There are other classic sci-fi novels that I think about reading, but it feels like the age when I really would have gotten into this things has passed. I'm 35 now, engaged, into spending time with my folks, my sister, her husband and baby, volunteering, etc. Will these novels hold my interest? | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Transgender individuals have a delusion. +
+ I would like to start this by saying i am fully supportive of the transgender community. I think that as long as you are not hurting anybody you may look and act as you please. Nobody should tell anybody they can't act like a girl just because they are a boy and vice versa.
That said, I believe that when transgender individuals say that 'they are a girl in a boy's body' this can't really be interpreted as anything other than a delusion. Gender is biological. It is an objective statement about your genes. No doubt people will bring up outlying cases where people are born with both XX and XY Chromosomes, and people with genitals differing from they genetic make-up, but as interesting as these cases are, they are not really relevant to the vast majority of the trans community.
Trans people have very strong evidence that they are in fact their biological sex, yet they insist that they are 'actually' the opposite. It would be correct to state, for example, 'I am a boy who identifies more with female traits. I want to be a female, but I am male.' This is an accurate description and I understand that obviously that is a very long-winded explanation which is unreasonable to expect them to recite every time they explain their position, but I still believe that to say you are actually a girl but happen to have a penis, (or XY Chromosomes if they have had an operation,) is delusional.
| 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 care about your feelings. CMV +
+ Frankly discussing the causes, effects and potential remedies of the obesity epidemic often gets derailed because someone starts worrying who might take offense. Same goes for race relations and anything related to women.
Shutting down the discussion because someone might cry about it or shaping the whole debate to not step on toes is intellectually dishonest. Anyone who comes in and starts talking about who might be offended is doing everyone a disservice because ultimately those feelings are only slightly relevant to the issue at hand, be it obesity, rape, racism, or whatever else gets people up in arms. I truly think it is the sign of an enlightened mind to be able to weigh an idea strictly on its merits, and to entertain it without necessarily agreeing with it. Feelings act as philosophical blinders to keep thought in line with mass appeal. That can't be a good thing. 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 encourage parents to mary and stay married, benefits for children should only go to their married parents +
+ Children do best when their parents are married. They earn higher incomes, have less legal problems. Financial incentives are effective in modifying behavior. Providing financial incentives for parents to marry and stay married will increase the number of children with married parents.
The range of financial benefits that only children of married parents would be eligible for could expand based on performance. It could start with just dependent tax credits and could expand to include for food stamps, medical and education.
Since only married couples would be eligible then adopted children would be excluded including children of divorced and remarried couples, same sex couples and those created by donated eggs or sperm.
While some children will suffer because they no longer receive government support, on balance more children will benefit by encouraging marriage.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I honestly believe in the Illuminati. CMV +
+ I have watched way too many youtube videos about the Illuminati and now it makes sense to me. It all adds up together and when they say things like "the illuminati will make people to tell you it's not real" it kind of makes it hard for people to convince me otherwise (trust me, my friends have tried). And BTW I am talking the serious Illuminati stuff like Obama and other celebs have been possessed by a demon, it is a plot by Satan to take over the world, New World Order, etc. Please CMV because it kind of scares me. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I'm not afraid of the government invading my privacy, I'm afraid of the public invading my privacy. +
+ If you haven't listened to it, the Criminal podcast is great. This episode really struck a chord:
http://thisiscriminal.com/episode-fourteen-the-fifth-suspect-1-9-2014/
A random guy is arrested as being a pedophile and the public crucifies the guy, even after he is let go. Sure the State had their part, but what happens to him in the public sphere is sickening
I'm a teacher. In being a teacher, staying private is almost impossible. In 1970 one could pull it off, but not today. Last Thursday students were studying for the final. They mostly fuck around, but I don't want to be accused of not giving them time to take this seriously.
I guess I'm one of cool teachers. So the kids take certain liberties, but since they were never taught limits and boundaries - they were just punished and told to shut up. These 16 yr olds often go too far.
This stuff is only getting worse. Students show me pictures they take of me and other teachers up on Instagram - in an attempt to do what we do here in 'advice animals' or 'cringe'. A parent sees this and things we don't have control, my employer with their rubber spine, ships us off to the Siberia of the district. How soon until we have google glass and I'm teaching evolution and a creationist parent gets huffy.
Well a couple of kids took their phones out and started asking me aloud personal information. The name of my wife, my parent's names, my grandma's name. Then one student called my grandmother on speaker. I know because I heard her answer. I spent the next 10 min chewing them out.
To me this is more damaging than Uncle Sam reading my texts.
As a teacher, the unfounded accusation of pedophilia can wreck your career. I know some teachers who were derailed because a kid didn't like their grade and thought they'd retaliate. So the district; our employer, relocates a teacher to a less public place. People often talk of the rubber room in New York schools. Most, if not all, are there because of this. If they did something criminal, they'd be in jail. But they're there because evidence must be gathered to prove them innocent in the public's eyes.
Convince me that the government is more of a threat than you are. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I'm a cynic and there is no hope for mankind, and we deserve it +
+ Hello all.
This is a plead to get some counters to problems I see with us. Below is a list of things in no particular order that I have problems with, that I forsee causing the collapse of the human race as a species. It may not be now, or 100 years from now, but I believe these all will contribute to a world in which I'm thankfully not going to be a part of. I'm very cynical and I think I've reached a point in my life where I don't want to be. But I really don't see anything in this world that's worth fighting for. So I just exist here, everyone else seems happy around me and good for them.
This is a generalization of things I see being a problem and I know some are very over-simplified, so forgive me that, but counter-arguments or some proof of change on each of these would be a nice change.
**Waste (garbage, plastics, etc)**
There are so many garbage dumps, miles of garbage in the ocean, and polluted rivers, waterways, etc that eventually the earth will be just one big pile of garbage. See Wall-E for an example of my views. Sure we may eventually start a 'cleanup initiative' but it will be too late.
**Pollution (C02, etc)**
Climate change is happening and people deny it's existence. The evidence is there but people don't like to accept things that go against their beliefs, no matter how much evidence you have. Thus our planet is on course to be a planet devoid of any life without some intervention of us.
**Wildlife**
We routinely don't care about animals going extinct. People say 'its just a dumb animal' or whatnot, thankfully there are steps being taken here, but the ivory trade is going strong, tigers are going extinct, rhinos, etc. We just can't help our greed and eventually we'll be reading about the last of each of those species dying off.
**Cultural/Religious differences**
I tell my friends I'm not racist at all, I'm more 'cultural-ist' if that's a thing. I think middle-east culture should change, I feel they're still in the medieval ages like old Christians were. Some Christians still are, but everytime I hear about some father killing his daughter because she was raped is just asinine. Or this morning's school raid by the Taliban for another example.
**Politics and corruption**
It seems each country has it's own political issues. From Mexico and police corruption/drug cartels, Russia invading other countries, Britains pedophelia scandal, Indias political corruption, America's political corruption, Australia and Tony Abott. The people in power just help themselves and do whatever it takes to stay there.
**Overpopulation**
All in all, people are a plague on the world, we don't need this many people. Even if half the world died, thats still 3.5 billion people left. We're really not hurting in the food chain even with halving the population. You and your children (mine included) are not special (to everyone else) and would have no impact on the world if they weren't here.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think there is nothing ethically wrong with beastiality, provided it does not injure the animal(both physically and mentally). Because of this, I don't think it should be illegal. CMV +
+ Country: USA
I hold this view primarily because the only arguments I have heard against beastiality are "Ew" and "WTF?!?!" Other than disgust, I cannot think of any harm that comes from the act. Doing something that people find disgusting is not generally considered unethical(primarily because there is such a wide variety of things people find disgusting.) With regards to things that are considered "universally" disgusting, such as fecal matter and gore, we don't really have much of a choice in facing those, and we allow depictions and acts involving both fecal matter and blood(think of someone having sex during their period), and those aren't considered unethical. At the same time, homosexual acts are considered disgusting by some, yet they aren't considered unethical.
Consent isn't in the equation here, because we hold animals against their will all the time. Plus, if an animal is in heat, or if the animal doesn't bother fighting back, that could be considered consent. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I don't think we should colonize Mars. +
+ I feel like colonizing Mars would be a fruitless attempt at trying to fix a problem. Surely we should work on trying to make our planet more sustainable rather than just trying again on a different planet.
Furthermore, Mars' atmosphere is not inhabitable. We would need to alter a lot technologically and I just somehow feel that we don't have a right to do that to a beautiful planet.
Basically I'm probably a completely naive teenager who hopes that the world will just get better. I'm all for living peacefully and appreciating the world we live in. 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? |
There should be no punishment for illegal hits in the NFL. CMV! +
+ American football is a violent sport. There are injuries in almost every game. As a defensive player, they should be allowed to tackle a player with out worrying about any repercussions. Sometimes, the only way a small defensive back can bring down a large running back is by taking out his legs which could be called for "going to the knees." Also, I believe that most helmet to helmet hits cant be prevented in the heat of the game. I am all for making the game safer, but they shouldn't do that by limiting the way you can tackle somebody. Improved helmets and other safety gear are the best ways to limit injuries. CMV! | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Politically incorrect is the new political correctness. Change my view, if you can. +
+ Once upon a time, politically incorrect meant you could bash everyone equally. Men, women, straight, gay, cis, transgender. It may have been crude, and frequently stupid, but it was at least fair. Everyone was hazed.
Now? The War on Christmas is really the war on Yule, Kwanzaa, and Hanukkah. In the men's rights forum, I've been invited to share my perspectives on female on male rape, as a victim of the crime...as long as I don't ever mention I'm also a sex positive feminist, or criticize the internet war on trigger warnings. About that - I've been told to resubmit my question about historical rape to Ask Historians, but without the trigger warning. The mods apologized for the stupidity of some of their readers, but told me the trigger warning alone was the reason I was getting downvoted so heavily.
Let's think about that. A brief warning for victims of PTSD offended these noble rebels so much, that they censored the conversation. In the name of free speech.
Bullshit. But it's not just about serious issues. It's everywhere.
Only politically correct political incorrectness could find so many reasons to be offended by someone pointing out that there's a kidnapping women trope in classic gaming, which many AAA publishers continue to this day. Only politically correct political incorrectness could demand we shut up about it, and that the exceptions make everything else go away.
I've seen defenses of "Op is a fag." I've been nuked down to troll level for using the word "Cissy." I've seen a lot of white men whine that they should be able to abandon their kids because they didn't want their risky sex to create one, and win upvotes aplenty. I've seen all kinds of condemnation of black fathers for doing the same, no empathy at all from those defenders of men's rights to be found.
I'm sick of arguing with hypocrites. I'm sick of hypocrites upvoting hypocrites, attacking critics, then claiming to be oppressed.
At least when SRS does it, they're being ironic. But apparently, the one thing the politically incorrect lack these days is a sense of humor.
Change my view, if you can, since all I've provided you is with a cathartic rant. Just be aware that "But...but...feminists do it too!" doesn't count as an actual defense. | 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 any reason to allow cellphones, laptops, or tablets in my classroom. CMV. +
+ I am a college literature and composition professor and a lover of technology, but I don't see any reason to permit cellphones, laptops, or tablets in my classroom. It is difficult for me to view these devices as anything but a distraction. Sure, there are a few occasions throughout the semester where having access to computers is helpful, and I do use slideshows, the internet, and the projector nearly every class. We watch movies and YouTube clips and play around with Rap Genius. But most of the time, for the courses and subjects that I teach, I cannot think of any real reasons why the average student would require access to his or her phone or laptop everyday in class, especially for things such as note-taking or calendar apps.
Yes, there are exceptions. Students with learning disabilities, for instance, might require specific technology, and students should have their phones with them in the event of an emergency. I know there are inventive curricula being implemented by professors who are incorporating technology in meaningful ways, but I find it hard to imagine how the majority of these techniques would improve the in-class teaching of literature and writing.
Of course, the real problem for me is that it is impossible to monitor what students are actually doing on their laptops during class. A student may insist she needs her laptop or tablet to take notes, but how in the world can I stop her from surfing the web and distracting not only herself but the rest of the class?
In the last two years, I have found that students are becoming increasingly defensive and stubborn when it comes to this issue. This semester I am teaching adult learners for the first time in ten years, and they are even more rigid and inflexible than college freshmen, even though my syllabus clearly states my policies and I went over my issues with phones and laptops in the first class.
The last thing I want to do is waste class time policing my students or calling them out for being on their phones. I would rather just be cool with students using their devices. I think back to when I was in college and how I would draw in my notebooks during lectures, a habit that was not a distraction for me but in fact helped me to listen better to the professor. But doodling in notebooks or passing notes seems way different than scrolling through Facebook and Tumblr. Is it too much to ask students to spend two hours away from their precious screens? CMV | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Current Gen consoles seem like a waste considering they are similar to both each other and PC's. +
+ I will try to explain myself without sounding like I'm just enticing the "PC Master Race" circlejerk.
In the past, there were significant difference in hardware and software between consoles and home computers. Granted, older consoles used chips often found in PC's (the NES's CPU was based off the design of the one used in the Apple II and C64, Genesis used the Zilog Z80 And Motorola 68K, ect.) but they produced results that greatly differed from one another in terms of processing, sound and graphics. But with this current gen, both the Xbox One and PS4 use the same micro-architecture (x86) in their APU's that are manufactured by the same company, AMD, that is used in current PC's today. Many of both consoles' non-exclusives have also been shown to underperform graphically when pitted against desktops made for the same price as them.
The other point that I feel no longer separates consoles and PC's is their firmware and the need to constantly update it as well as patch games via internet. Again, with older consoles, if I put a functioning copy of Super Metroid in any working SNES, it should play immediately, and that's it. I can understand with the 6th Generation's addition with a UI to adjust the clock, manage saves and other basic functions, but when there were additions like internet browsers, multimedia players, Streaming Video, and other services that added nothing to one's gameplay experiences, it seemed like a waste of resources, and redundant when my computer can do the same things.
And on the subject of online patches, I'd like to give another example concerning cartridge-based games. Sure, there were rereleases of patched games, like Final Fantasy 6 fixing a bug with a character's common skill or one of the Shinobi games taking out the blatant copyright infringing characters or Ocarina of Time's removal of bugs and Islamic references. But most times, the game you bought was the game you got. Now, we have to add storage devices to hold all the revisions of Skyrim, Borderlands, and Halo; a similar issue PC users have to deal with.
Another small point is that of maintenance. Ignoring that older consoles last longer due to simpler internals and arguably more durable designs, 360's are imfamous for their Red Ring of Death errors. And if it wasn't covered under warranty, and you don't have the specific parts to fix it, you may be SOL. And yes, it is possible to for PC's to be totaled for numerous reasons. However, you can more easily test components to see which could be salvaged, and which need replaced, and you have plenty of different makes and models to choose from.
I realize that in this argument, I may failed to avoid the "PC Master Race" circlejerk enticement. But that is why I'm here, to hear the other side's arguments and understand the possible flaws in my thinking.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: US courts should use professional jurors and the selection process should be blind +
+ Update: /u/bighandxyz pointed out that you'd need a ton of jurors to make part 1 of this work, and it suddenly started to seem completely infeasible on a practical level. Most of the other arguments seem to be defending the fact that we should trust uninformed people to make decisions based on their passions because sometimes the law is wrong, and this seems deeply flawed to me. I still think we need better training for jurors about what it means for the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and some of the specific questions that jurors should ask themselves during deliberation to make sure that this standard is upheld.
I also haven't seen anyone arguing against part 2: whether jury selection should be done blind...and I'm very interested if people have reasons why that shouldn't happen.
----------
I know there has been at least one similar CMV, but having read through it I'm not convinced.
First of all, this applies primarily to criminal cases, where the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt". I imagine the same might apply to civil cases, but I haven't thought it through as well. There are 2 parts to this belief:
**1. We should use professional jurors**
A jury is currently selected from a pool of randomly chosen "peers". These people mostly have no experience with the legal system. They got a letter in the mail directing them to report for jury duty. They are ill-equipped to undertand their responsibilities as a juror. This causes many problems, such as:
* Jurors assume the defendant is guilty simply because he must have done something wrong to end up in court
* When the defendant doesn't testify, jurors take this as evidence of guilt despite explicit instructions that this is not supposed to happen
* When jurors are given their deliberation instructions at the end, they are given a specific set of components that make up the crime in question. But they have a hard time understanding what this means in the deliberation room.
* Jurors frequently take irrelevant preferences into account in decision making - whether they like the lawyer, things that they are specifically instructed to ignore, etc.
* Despite any instruction, jurors deliberate based on the question "do we think he did it?" rather than "has the prosecution proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt?".
This is, admittdely, from personal experience on a jury, anecdotes of other friends who have been jurors, and casual reading. But I would be very surprised if it wasn't a widespread issue.
Furthermore, [juries convict more often than judges](http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/judge_v_judge) (who actually understand the legal standards). The reasons for this aren't 100% clear, it seems to be correlated with minimum sentencing guidelines. On the one hand, this could argue that uninformed jurors are better decision-makers when it comes to deciding on the facts. But it also seems reasonable that judges might be right here - minimum sentencing guidelines are a product of politics, and may not be appropriate for a specific defendant, even one proven guilty. Forcing a wildly inappropriate sentence borders on "cruel and unusual". *A jury isn't an expression of the "collective will of the people" if it's only possible to make uninformed decisions.* This would be like saying "voting is an expression of the collective will of the people, therefore I believe the best way to pick a canditade is to arbitrarily require a few people to vote, and not tell them about the policies of any of the candidates."
I believe that professional jurors would be more informed about the sentences connected to each crime. I also believe that they would be better-trained to understand the legal process, to take the appropriate facts into account during deliberations, and to hold the prosecution to the required legal standard.
As a side note, jury duty places a strain on the workforce - people are unexpectedly called away for an unknown period of time. Professional jurors would aleviate this problem, albeit not entirely - it probably wouldn't be a full-time job (you'd still need a big pool of pro jurors to aleviate jury tampering and corruption issues, so any given juror couldn't always be on duty) but the workforce impact would be limited.
The main benefit I see to the current system is that pulling people randomly gives ordinary citizens a view into the legal system. And as a juror, it was a fascinating experience. But I'm not sure that this benefit is worth the price if it means we can't have an actually fair system.
I beleve the best way to assess job performance for these jurors would be a statistical analysis of conviction rates (controlled for things like crime rates). Determing any given juror's voting record would be easy enough, if they are deciding statistically differently than other jurors for long enough, they're out. Admittedly, I haven't thought through all of the nuance of this, and even I can see some flaws, but perhaps they're not irreparable, and importantly, perhaps the flaws still aren't worse than the current system.
**2. Juror selection should be done blind**
However you get the overall pool, the current system of selecting the jury seems flawed. I believe that the defense and prosecution should be able to ask relevant questions and remove jurors that might have already decided the case based on past experience. But I think this process should be done blind - either via questionnaire or via an intermediary. The attorneys shouldn't be able to see the jurors prior to the trial, and they should be prevented from asking questions about protected classes that might be obvious in a current selections (race, sex, age, religion, sex, familial status, certain disabilities). I believe this would be inherently better with a professional jury system, because you'd be selecting from people who, regardless of these things, have committed themselves to judging based on the standards of the law. But even without a pro jury pool, I believe there are ways to get at those key questions in a more case-relevant way - the question is not whether a juror is a single mother, it's whether she'd be likely to ignore facts just because she knows life is hard, regardless of the strength of the case.
**The current system must have other benefits, or maybe I'm not seeing fatal drawbacks of my proposal. 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: Being "door-prized" is the fault of the cyclist, and cyclists should ride out of the range of doors. +
+ Before I start, I don't believe the above in all cases. Here are my two exceptions where I feel it is the fault of the door-opener:
1. When the driver or passengers leave the vehicle when it is not in a proper parking spot. This is an illegal time to open the door anyway. I've seen videos taken in New York of Taxi passengers being like "this is the best spot to get out, even though my Taxi is still in the middle of the road", and then BAM. Door prize. This is the passenger's fault.
2. When the driver opens the door into a **marked** bike lane (without ensuring it is safe to do so). Note: if the bike lane is positioned correctly, it should never be within the door range of a parked car anyway, so this situation *should* never exist, but in reality it sometimes does exist. In the situations where it does exist, I think that since the driver had to safely cross a **marked** bike lane to park their car, it should be incredibly obvious that they need to be careful when opening their door on the way out. That's why in this situation I think it's the fault of the door-opener.
Now on to my arguement. First off, I do cycle on the road in a decent size city from time to time (I used to do it full time), so I am sympathetic to the plights of cyclists. I'm not just an ignorant driver yelling from my spot of comfort.
(When I do ride, I feel like I ride in a very safe, patient, predictable fashion. For example, I don't pass by cars stopped at intersections because I don't feel that it is reasonable for them to be expected to see me. I'll sit directly behind them in line with their license plate, and I'll let them do what they are doing without me making an erratic, sudden, unexpected pass. If I can't get directly behind them, I'll still let them turn right or left or whatever without darting in front of them or near them. Cars have many blind spots and motorists can't be reasonably expected to check all of them all the time as well as monitor what's in front of them *while* making a turn. Not even the best, most-attentive driver in the world could do so. Therefore, I ride the way I do not only to keep myself safe, but to make life easier and less stressful on motorists. We're all in this together.)
Door-prizing is probably the best example of cyclists having an attitude like "People have to watch out for me in *blank* situation! I'm not at all going to help them not make a mistake in *blank* situation just because I'm not legally required to do so even though I could make the same mistake if I was them.". I understand how in the law it is written that a motorist must always open their door only when it is safe to do so. However, I do not agree with this law as I do not feel that is it reasonable to blame a driver for opening his or her door into the path of a cyclist. Here's why:
1. Even the best, most attentive driver can miss a cyclist that is riding close enough to be door-prized. You can shoulder check, mirror check, or whatever. If a cyclist is within only a few feet of that side of your car and coming fast, then they can be difficult to see until it's too late. This is especially true if they are riding parallel with your driver side tires when you are making your checks and then they suddenly turn out to go around you when you go to open the door.
2. Pedestrians are expected to cross at crosswalks. Why? Because a driver can't be expected to monitor for pedestrians that are crossing at every part of the road from every direction, so we put the crosswalks at certain parts of the roads so that the drivers know where to expect pedestrians. Similarly, it's just as reasonable to say, "cyclists, it is illegal for you to ride in the range of the doors because it's not reasonable for drivers to expect you to be on simply any part of the road you want. You have to be where they expect traffic. They don't expect traffic right next to them when they are parked."
3. The cyclist, for their own safety, should not be riding in range of the doors. They are doing something incredibly dangerous by riding in the door range of parked cars. If someone is doing something incredibly dangerous, and someone hurts them as a result, then often the person who hurts them should not be held at fault. I feel this is one of those situations.
4. Door-prizing a cyclist is a mistake anyone can easily make, and it's **much** easier to teach the cyclist not to ride in the door-prize lane than it is to teach the driver to ensure that every single time they open their door they need to spend the 2 to 3 seconds to do their best to make sure no cyclist is about to dangerously pass them (even if the driver is preoccupied, in a rush, distracted by a child wanting to get out of the car, etc.). Keep in mind you're not just teaching drivers, you'd have to teach children too because anyone can be opening one of the doors on that side of the car. Also, I think you'd be dishonest with me if you say that every single time you open your car door you are 100% aware of what's next to you. You're lucky that there was never an irresponsible cyclist those times that you did.
Finally a cyclist might argue "sometimes I need to cycle in the 'door-prize lane' because there's not enough room for cars to pass me if I ride further to the left". In that situation you should simply "take the lane", which means that you ride in the centre of the lane so cars cannot pass you. This is 100% legal; you are still riding as far to the right as is safe to do so. If there are cars parked along the side of the road, then the traffic on that road is likely slow enough that you will have little trouble "taking the lane". If cars need to pass and you'd prefer to not have them sit behind you, you can move over into the "door-prize lane" and **stop** and wait until it's reasonable to move into the regular traffic lane again.
* The hazard of riding near parked cars is incredibly obvious to the cyclist but the hazard of opening the car door is not so obvious to the door-opener because of human nature and what we are taught.
* The cyclist has more control over where he/she rides than we have control over our occasional forgetfulness (or ignorance), especially while doing something as innocent to our brain as opening a door, no matter how hard we try or how responsible and cautious of a person we are.
* The cyclist is **knowingly and deliberately** doing something that is well-understood to be quite dangerous when there are alternatives (even if you are forced into the "door-lane", you can always ride slowly there or even come to a stop if that's what it takes to ride safely), while the door-opener is **unknowingly and accidentally** doing something dangerously that 99.99% of the time is safe and harmless.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Private business should have the ability to discriminate against potential customers. And allowing this would be more effective against discrimination than laws against it. +
+ A few qualifiers:
*Emergency exceptions would apply. For example, a private hospital couldn't refuse a critical patient
*The business would be required to post it's restriction list on/near the entrance(s), on its website, wherever is applicable
I don't believe anyone should discriminate against customers, but I believe they have the right to. A private business has chosen to open its doors and should have the choice of who it will/won't provide its services/goods to.
However, I believe any instance would quickly correct itself. It is a poor business strategy to disqualify a significant portion of your potential customers. Beyond that, a significant portion of your allowed customer base would refuse to do business with you as they disagree with the discrimination.
Individual businesses would have to stop discrimination or risk going out of business. Chain stores would have to act even faster as one restaurant discriminating could compromise the whole chain.
In areas where there were no alternative to the discriminatory business, a demand would arise and a non-discriminatory business would arise to resolve the issue.
**Conclusion...so far**
I'm running out of free time here, but I'll try to continue responding to some comments as I can.
Y'all have damaged my faith in society enough to admit that there are probably at least some pockets where discrimination would at least be tolerated if not celebrated. As a result, I believe there would be a non-zero amount of blatant discrimination to exist. Additionally, I'm sure there would be those who were independently wealthy that wouldn't mind operating a money-losing business as a hobby just to discriminate.
I do feel many of you overestimate the hate that exists and the amount of discrimination that would arise and last. As well as underestimate the amount of effort that would go against these businesses.
However, I still feel that a private business has the right to refuse service to a people or people group. Therefore, I must decide which I feel takes precedence, the right to control a private business or the right to not be discriminated against.
Currently, on a practical level, I'm not willing to argue to change any law for the business owner's freedom, but, in principle, while I think it is wrong, immoral, and bad business to do so, I believe that the owner of a business should have the right to control certain things, including customer base.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
There is little to no difference between Cadet programs and Child soldiers in Africa. CMV +
+ After a brief discussion with my dad, I realized that there is little to no difference between child soldiers in Africa, and the children participating in military cadets program - other than the fact that one child soldier goes to war immediately, and the other waits til they are 'of age.'
Why is it that we think it is unacceptable for third world countries to train their children and teenagers to be killers, when we are doing the exact same thing in first world countries through military cadet programs?
Why are cadet programs viewed as moral, while we frown upon child soldiers?
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Elliot Rodger was not mentally ill or unstable. +
+ When I look at this kid I see someone who had all the trappings of success and wealth but a lack of experiences and an inability to cope with society.
I dont see someone who is mentally ill or who has a neurological defect, but rather someone who is just lacks respect or value for his fellow human beings...and I don't see that as being an "illness"
The system seemed to work as well as it could have too. His comments and posts were flagged by internet forums. He was forwarded by law enforcement and medical professionals to seek evaluation. He was discussed online in videos and blog posts. He was analyzed LONG before any of this happened and much of this did not seem to bother anyone by and large.
He was just an asshole.
Can we see this for what it is instead trying to pathologize this man's conditions and influences?
He was a bigot, a white supremacist, and someone who was incredibly insecure.
Trying to pretend that this guy's amygdala wasn't working or he had a serotonin reuptake problem seems like its skirting the issue that SOME PEOPLE just will not be able to fit in. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I don't think astronauts are any braver than a bungie-jumper CMV +
+ I was watching a documentary the other day about the challenger disaster and people kept referring to the people who died as heroes, and to me that just isn't true, I think 99% of astronauts would do it even if all they did was float around and not benefit humanity in the slightest. To me that doesn't make you a heroes are the medics who rush out into no mans land to haul a wounded guy back to cover or the rescue divers who jump into massive storms to pull people out. I mean are there rich people who play tons of money to go to a warzone and get shot at? | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: If you don't opt-in for organ donating, organs shouldn't be given to you in a time of need +
+ Like I said in the title, I believe that If you don't opt-in for organ donating, organs shouldn't be given to you in a time of need. Those who aren't willing to give shouldn't get. I also feel that those who don't give to charity, should they find themselves in a bad situation one day, shouldn't be given that much help. Simple karma in my opinion.
While explaining my opinion to others, most people I've argued with have completely disagreed with me without actually giving me any reasons as to why. If you can, change my view.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: It is easier for women to look hot than it is for men. +
+ A woman only needs to lose weight and be thin to be found attractive, basically just a low body fat %. A man needs to lose fat AND gait muscle to be found attractive. Even then, the body fat percentage that men need for their muscles to show is less than that of women. Take [this picture](http://i.imgur.com/FwZAX2Q.jpg) for example, everyone would agree that anything much below 15-17% in women is too thin, even at 30% women are hot. Take men now, personally I find 10-12% and 15% hot. Looking at the exercises men and women need to do, men would have to lift weights and eat more calories than they spend and gain fat and muscle (bulk), then eat fewer calories than they spend while still lifting to lose the fat without losing much of the muscle, and repeat. All a woman needs to do is do cardio and eat fewer calories than she spends and she'll lose weight. She can always lift weights too but that's optional.
Also, since I'm doing an edit, it is worth noting that women generally rate men as less attractive than men, source: http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dating/ .
1. This is just about having the right body type.
2. Right body type for what? Who says what's hot? The media. So we're talking about the standard muscular man and thin woman.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:Using crazy parts of the Bible as an argument as to why it bad is a bad argument +
+ Note: I'm not Christian
A lot of times people point out very crazy things that the Bible says as to why the bible is bad. However a lot of people fail to point out that the bible is very old and has been translated a million times. Ever translated something a million times using Google Translate. It come out something different. The general idea is right but part are way off. Same with the bible. The general idea is right but some part are off. Is there something off to this logic or is there something i'm missing about the bible?
| 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 feel the 2000's have been defined by a culture like other generations or decades. (America) +
+ I was watching WatchMojo top 10 Decade Defining Songs. It's one of the silly top 10 channels but my brother and I watch it and it makes us laugh or discuss.
Anyway, they went through the 70's, 80's and the 90's. All of those made sense to me. They were songs that were indicative of those generations. However, when they got to the 00's, I felt a disconnect. They showcased various songs, that, while popular, didn't feel as though they were the face of those generations. And this got me to thinking.
The 50's - Swing, Korean War, Happy Days, a type of golden area where America sat in the afterglow of a victory in WWII, Fear of Communism
The 60's - Peace & Love, The Beatles, Woodstock (more of a transition into the 70's), Civil Rights Movement. A time of experiment for America.
The 70's - Led Zeppelin and Bob Dylan, Bell Bottoms, Vietnam, Watergate, Protests against the War. Hallucinogenic Drugs(lots) and Sexual Freedom
The 80's - Big Hair and Metal. Cold War and the Cuban Missile Crisis. A Growing fear of Russia until the Wall came down. Cocaine. Mtv.
The 90's - A generation coming to terms with growing up and struggling through it. Nirvana and Alice in Chains. Columbine. Teenage Angst.
The 00's - ....? 9/11 and the War on Terror. Blink 182? I don't know. I don't feel as though we are as defined as other generations. This could be because I'm 20 and lived through it. But I feel as though we haven't defined the past generation. The 2000's stand nameless and don't possess definitive qualities as the decades before us. Thank you for reading and please CMV.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I believe that forcing GMO labeling is useless +
+ There is no reason to label GMO food since organic/non-GMO food is already labeled by companies that have an economic incentive to maintain accurate labels. The industry is self policing and is booming. Why fix what isn't broken?
I also think it would be pointless to have to label basically everything in every store as containing GMOs. 88% and 94% of corn and soy respecitvly grown in the U.S. are GMO [source.](http://phys.org/news/2013-06-gmo-corn-soybeans-dominate.html) These are the most common food additives and are found in most processed foods and are fed to livestock.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Spoilers do not have an expiry date. CMV. +
+ Here's something I see on Reddit all the time. A user spoils the ending of a classic film or book for everyone completely out of the blue. When somebody (usually me) tells him to remove the spoiler, he says: "the book/film/play has been out X amount of years. If you haven't read it by now, you probably don't care much about it".
I think this argument is absolutely ridiculous. The argument seems to presume we all have infinite time on our hands. Now I consider myself to have read a comfortable amount of classic texts, and seen a comfortable amount of classic films, but the classic or popular books/films I have read/seen are absolutely dwarfed by those I haven't. I've been on this planet 22 years, but I only read Moby-Dick last year. I only saw Apocalypse Now two years ago. I only read Crime and Punishment a few months ago.
My point is that if it were possible for me to experience every story I wanted to experience, the common argument I have mentioned might have a shred of validity. But as it is, I do not believe there is anyone on this planet who has experienced every popular or classic story that exists, and so everything and anything can be a potential spoiler for someone. So if you post a spoiler out of the blue with no warning whatsoever and try to justify it with "but it's been out X amount of years! You have no excuse not to know the story!" your argument is absurd and by refusing to cover up your spoiler, you're simply being an inconsiderate jerk.
CMV
P.S. - *for the record, there are certain stories whose twist endings are so well known that I can forgive people for 'spoiling' them. I wouldn't spoil them myself, nor would I encourage anyone to do so, but I can understand that they're too much a part of the public's collective consciousness to completely censor. I'm referring to The Empire Strikes Back, Fight Club, The Usual Suspects, Citizen Kane, Soylent Green and The Sixth Sense.* | 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 trust women, CMV. +
+ Alright this is my first time with this.
I've been disappointed time and time again by the women in my life. Now I keep everything to myself and never want to open up to anyone.
*Family*
* I've watched my mother charged at my dad with a knife in an attempt to kill him, but failed. This was over an argument about my father's gambling habits.
* I've seen my mother broke down in tears wishing she could die but was too afraid to abandon me. Both parents are alive, divorced, and are doing much better now.
* After my parent's divorce, my mom would keep tabs on my dad like a stalker. She would know when he leaves the country to visit his family and possibly see other women.
* My elder sister dated one guy strictly for his money.
* I have two female cousins that I grew up with and lived together. They lived a disgusting life style, messy room, poor hygiene, head lice at one point, and their bathroom was pure horror.
*School*
* When I was 7, I was bullied by two girls for awhile.
* When I was 8, two other girls lured, yanked, and dragged me into the girl's bathroom.
* A girl and I became intimate during high school, but that ended quickly when I found out about her secret boyfriend.
* I had a stalker in high school. She knew my birthday and got me a box of chocolate. When I tried to talk to her like a normal human being, she constantly dodges me.
*Work*
* At my first job, my female boss told our team she has cancer. This motivated us to carry our weights when working. We later find out her cancer was already treated since it was in the early stages, and that she was cheating on her husband while on the clock. We got her fired after that.
* One of the female coworker in charge of the shift was found stealing money from the register. Also fired.
*Relationships*
* My first girlfriend cheated on me and I immediately ended my relationship with her.
* My second relationship ended very abruptly. She said she missed me too much (I could only visit her on weekends due to distance). Two weeks later she is already dating another guy.
* I reconnected with an old high school friend(girl), i met her roommates at their college. They invited me to their party and getting things set up. I only had one jello shot at that party, and drove home once everything settled down. After the party, they expected me to help pay $90 for half of the alcohol. I barely knew them and they put this on me.
I know this can lead to a terrible path on life for me with this kind of thinking. But quite frankly I am tired of people, hate them if I must, and that I might as well be alone for a long while.
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" I think any girl or guy that is within the mid teen boundary that goes "bi" are just doing it for attention. +
+ Now i cant say for sure that i'm 100% accurate but every time i hear someone say they're bi i just think they are attention starved only from the way i look at their personality and what i have personally experienced from them. Ex. I knew this girl (not sex specific really) who i could tell had parent issues and liked every single fandom she could to be accepted to as much culture as she could. she complained about how awful her life is all the time. When she said she was bi i just thought bull shit laughed and moved on. | 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 Conservative positions on abortion are inconsistent with their positions on everything else. CMV +
+ Here's what I mean:
The Pro-Life position is: "Life begins at conception and therefore all rights attach, it's a living being and should be treated as such".
However the Conservative position on on children is more in line with "Children are property and have no inherent rights granted to 'real' people".
Look at recent cut backs to food programs. Children who are natural born American citizens are being denied food aid because their parents are deemed to be "lazy" by Conservatives.
If the child is a citizen, the child deserves aid regardless of the status or opinion of the parent.
Likewise, "anchor babies". The Conservative position is: Deport the parents and the child.
If the child is a US citizen, you can't deport them without due process especially for the "crime" of having a parent who has broken a law.
Meanwhile, the Conservative position on government interference is that it shouldn't be involved in the day to day lives of citizens, in particular their health and wellness. Yet, this is direct involvement in the medical affairs of an individual.
Here's what I'm willing to hear: A conservative who holds the above positions and can defend them all.
Here's what I don't give a crap about: A person who claims to be a Conservative but who has different opinions. Newsflash - if you don't strictly adhere to Conservative positions, you are a moderate and therefore irrelevant within the Republican party. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I feel that religions that believe in a god of some sort are not ground for debate in any way and that anti theists of any sort should not spend time debating them. +
+ Hey there /r/changemyview. So, I'm sure you all don't like to hear religious opinions, but this is something I really hold dear to me and my opinions, and I would like to see if someone could change my mind.
I feel that when anti theist or atheistic people debate they are just beating a dead horse. Any religious belief that has a god or some other supernatural being are simply unfalsifiable. For those who don't know what unfalsifiabillity is, it is basically a theory or idea that is impossible to prove it fasle by its nature.
Let me give you an example; there is a theory called "Last Thursdayism". In short, Last Thursday suggests that all things in life and all ideas and memories everyone on Earth has was created last thursday, and none of it happened.
This may seem false, but you can't say it is false.
"But what about George Washington, he was a person!" "I remeber doing something last tuesday"
Last Thursdayism simply suggests that all of that was fabricated to seem as though it happened before last thursday. you can't falsify this theory, you simply can't. Many people will just say that this isn't a good thing to debate about and forget it, I feel that way about religion.
If I say to a christian:
"How did Noah fit all of those animals on the boat?"
they might say "God allowed him to"
If I say
"How did the animals and other creatures on the ship get back to where they are today?"
"God helped them"
But if they ask me
"How do you know that evolution happened?"
I say "Well, first of all, evolution is an ongoing process, but we have evidence to suggest that organisms of all type evolve and adapt over time through natural selection"
and I've heard responses that basically say that since we can't straight up see evolution going on RIGHT NOW then you can't prove it, which is just silly.
Sadly, this isn't even much of a generalization. a lot of religious people will stick to this opinion.
In addition, I feel that unfalsifiable things don't deserve to be debated and that any anti-theist should not spend time debating creationists or religious people.
Also, sorry for using christianity only, I don't know stories from the qu'ran and any other religious book, so I don't want to make shit up.
TL;DR: Religion is unfalsifiable, therefore it doesn't deserve debate and is simple belief.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
[Devil's Advocate] The supreme court shouldn't go making up "new" rights. CMV +
+ Someone I know wrote:
I am in support of equal marriage rights. I'm posting this as a devil's advocate in compliance with guideline VI. :-) How would you approach this position? | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: "All" Indians are corrupt business owners. +
+
I have both been working for East Indians as well as interviewing with them. My experience has been that they are utterly corrupt people who have no morals, driven purely on profit.
My experience has included predatory interview practices where I was asked questions about my citizenship, whether I was living alone in the city/country (i am a visible minority).
I also worked for an East Indian guy who did very questionable moral things such as taking charity money that were donated in the name of helping children. There was also nickel diming and practices which were detrimental to the wellbeing of his clients.
As a result of these experiences, I am fearful of dealing with them in business, as I have recently moved from being a working joe to a small business owner, since I cannot trust for them to either work for me or work with me.
I should mention that prior to these experiences, I rejected these ideas as bigoted and racist. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The current structure of the military, where soldiers are unaware of why people deserve being fired upon, is morally indefensible. +
+
***
Let me preface this by saying that one of the most common points in these types of posts seems to be that there are a few different types of soldiers, and the national guard and such tend to help people. This isn't about those soldiers. This is about soldiers that kill people.
Now, as far as I understand (and if I get something completely wrong, please point me to resources I can read to correct my misconception(s)), most of the time soldiers aren't really sure why they are killing people. So what happens is, an order is given, soldiers get sent out, and they must make a choice: a)shoot people or b)be court marshaled (or c) do their best to make it look like they are contributing whilst racking up as few casualties while staying safe as possible).
Choice a) means the soldier values their non-court-marshaled life as being more important than the entirety of the life of the person they are shooting at to kill. If the person they are shooting at has killed one or more other people, it's a less cut and dry question but as far as I understand, the soldier is unaware of the killcount of the person they shoot at. It is therefore difficult, if not impossible, for the soldier to act in a moral fashion consistently. Soldiers may or may not act morally even if given the choice, but that's a different issue: here, it seems, they are not even given the choice.
Outside of refusing to go to dangerous areas and being court marshaled for it, c) seems like the most moral choice to make but I feel like soldiers shouldn't have to do that--they should be debriefed on the latest intelligence on how many people everyone (or as many people as possible) they encounter have killed before going on a mission and be given strict orders to use non-lethal methods when dealing with everyone else. If this becomes impossible to do while staying safe, the mission should be aborted and re-planned. Commanders who mislead their troops should face some kind of punishment.
So the TL;DR is that soldiers are people, and people killing people who haven't killed others (or have been a direct cause of the death of others) or are unaware of whether the person they shoot at has killed other or not, is immoral and should not be done.
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 the only solution to an inevitable increase in automation, especially after the advent of a sufficiently advanced artificial general intelligence (AGI) is socialism +
+ I believe that sooner or later, because of our economies dependency on innovation, computers and robots alike will eventually reach a point were they are more economically efficient than any human workers ever could be, at nearly every task. This will be a massive problem in our society. even if unemployment only reached 30%, which is a conservative estimate, the effect on poverty and income inequity will be massive. Capitalism, which I believe to be a adequate system under our current technology, would leave the profits from this rise of automation solely with the rich one percent of people, especially with business owners, who would eventually realize that their(the one percent) lack of employing people would eventual lead them with no customer base.
A capitalist economy would eventually consist of a extremely poor large homeless population, a large lower class, a extremely small middle class, and an even smaller elite class that holds all the wealth and power, I believe you can already see some of this today. Entire industries would be run and managed by robots and AI. The effect of self driving cars, which have been estimated by many to be close to 5-10 years away, Elon Musk even predicts that in [15-20 years all cars on the road will be self driving](http://www.engadget.com/2015/03/17/elon-musk-tesla-self-driving-cars/). On the trucking and taxi industry these changes could potentially be so massive as to get rid of 95%(obviously citation needed on that, just a rough estimate that I thought up myself).
Given a sufficiently advanced artificial general intelligence, all intellectual work could become meaningless given the fact that this AI could write poems, solve million dollar math problems, and cure Alzheimer's disease, all hundreds, if not thousands of times faster than an entire research team at standard, a system of helping those who are not only unemployed but **unemployable**. Not everyone has the skills, nor do we want everyone to be, needed to become a robot engineer, or a computer programmer which in the short term, might be some of the only middle class jobs available. A socialist system is the only way humans could still thrive in a world full of robots, as it creates a stable way for the wealth that robots would almost solely be responsible for created to be distributed to the people. The basis for my arguments came from [this youtube video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU) and [This blog post](http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/can-we-avoid-a-digital-apocalypse) by Sam Harris(I know he's not exactly an expert on the topic but he is an eloquent writer).
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: "Boston Strong" is just a scam to sell T Shirts and bracelets +
+ I am in Boston and everywhere you go you see gift shops selling shirts that say "Boston Strong - Never Forget".
I am skeptical of all these type of "causes." I can fully support real charities that sell shirts like Autism Speaks, WWF and what have you. But then there is stuff like the Susan G Komen foundation that has a dubious record where they only give a small fraction to the actual funding of research and the like. They have even gone as far as to sue people for using their copyrighted phrase "For the cure". How they ever got the trademark in the first place is beyond me. But to go after people for using those words as ferociously as they do is disgusting.
And then there is "Boston Strong". cannot tell you how gross I find this. The Boston bombing was a tragedy, sure. But to buy a shirt like that does nothing but glorify the perpetrators of the bombing. Only two people died. There are multi car accidents that kill more people than that every day. Further more, what charity are the proceeds going to if any? These people are just profiting off exploiting people's death. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I am troubled by the prospect of China becoming the next superpower. I think this will be bad news for the whole world. CMV. +
+ China: corrupt, communist, nationalistic, terrible human rights record. If it becomes the dominating power in the world, how could this be anything but a bad thing for everybody. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The downvote button is pointless, and should be removed from Reddit. +
+ http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1c6881/mod_post_so_the_experiment_of_no_downvotes_is/ is a good example of how removing the downvote button has improved the quality of a subreddit, but let me go ahead and get to the crux of the issue;
Hiding comments is annoying. If something is off-topic or inflammatory enough to be removed, moderation should step in to handle it.
"Downvotes=Disagreement" is against most of reddit's policies and most subreddit policies as well, and is also not as useful ("I don't want people to see this") than an upvote ("I want more people to see this"). Upvote what you want people to see, and ignore what you don't want people to see.
I'd also like to make a special note for the AMA subreddits, where unpopular people doing an AMA can be downvoted and have their comments annoyingly hidden. The downsides of downvoting are especially prevalent in these situations.
It also hampers individuality and creative thought by introducing a disincentive to voice an unpopular or non-mainstream idea or stance.
It may sound like a minor thing, but I think the change to remove the downvote would be beneficial.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: In the US, products manufactured in China should be required to be labeled "Made by the Exploited Workers of Communist China" instead of simply "Made in China." +
+ The average wage in China for a factory worker in 2009, the most recent reliable number that I could find, was $1.74. Compared to Western nations, health and safety regulations are almost non-existent. On top of all of this, the government of China is an oppressive, fascist, Communist regime.
If Americans are going to casually perform the despicable, unpatriotic, anti-democratic act of supporting the economy of such a Communist state and the international corporations which are allowed to exploit the workers there, they should at least be constantly reminded that this is what they are doing. Obviously, companies selling Chinese-made goods will not volunteer to move to such accurate labeling on their own, so the government should mandate that they do so.
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 a true education is bought! CMV +
+ It comes to be that these days if you want a real education you need to go to a IVY league school and nothing less wont net you a real job. The real educations come with the ones who have the money. Yale, Princeton, Harvard, Brown being the IVY league schools cost a ridiculous amount of money to attend.
Sure there are scholarships and grants, but if you want the best education you must pay a shit load of money. And to be honest while I think you must buy your education, I think there are universities which come close to this status.
I believe all Education should be for the benefit of mankind and not for the ones with money. Sure there are schools with are not ivy league which come close, and still cost money. A real education shouldnt be for money but for the betterment of mankind.
Schools like Stanford, UCLA are IVY league status and also cost money.Being the term IVY league was a term for a football league, those universities are still a place for higher education.
These days if you want a job, education must be bought. which is stupid in my opinion and prevents the true potential of mankind! | 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 celebrating Halloween is against the teaching of Christianity. CMV +
+ It is taught in Christian text that you should avoid the appearance of evil or evil things. In today's world for the most part, Halloween is celebrated by dressing up in costumes that portray evil. Either they are too sexy; promote witchcraft or violence (all the “scary movies” that come out during this time of year). If the Christian faith tries to avoid even the appearance of evil, as taught by Jesus, then why would they celebrate a holiday like this?
Let me say that I grew up in a Christian faith and as a kid I enjoyed the candy, (which is still the best part of the holiday for most kids) but If I am striving to become more like Christ and follow his teachings, I refrain from celebrating the holiday because of that reason.
Change my View for the sake of my kids. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believed quotas for more women in higher management are pointless and discriminating, CMV +
+ **(Sorry for the mistake in the title, of course i mean believe not believed)**
I believe that quotas for women in higher management will do a good job at getting more women into higher management, because it will be illegal to do otherwise, but that does not change the situation for the better, here's why:
At first, I think it promotes wrong standards of who should be promoted, if someone does better, works better, or fits better in the team, they should be promoted based o what they do, not whether they are female or not. Especially in companies that have few women right now, they might be forced to choose any women over better suited men.
secondly, I think it is discriminating against women and will reduce productivity, the women who got into higher management might be reduced to being a women, thereby encouraging sexism rather than fighting it.
I also think the owners of a company should be free to select whoever they wish to run the company, because they have to trust that person and know the necessary qualifications best, any quota, whether for women, men, or immigrants, or any ethical group are a restriction to that choice.
lastly, I think its more of a cultural problem than just higher management, I think instead of quotas, focus should be on equal salaries and better ways to integrate work and family.
The higher management issue might as well go away from time only, because by now there are more women who are academics who have better grades and are eager to pursue a career, but it takes time for them to reach higher management, which is currently controlled mostly by people born in the 50s and 60s and some 70s | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I feel like our current political system is a corrupt managed democracy that is past the point of no return and nothing short of mass dissolution/revolution can fix it. CMV. +
+ I'm constantly told that both sides are evil and that voting doesn't matter, and to an extent I'm starting to believe it. I am a Democrat and I believe the Democrats are the lesser of the two evils, but they are still politicians that are swayed by big business and lobbyists.
These big businesses in turn use political influence to stifle real political discourse and in turn control everything that is said on the media. For every one voter that actually takes the time to do real research (which is still potentially mired by all of the false, biased information out there), there are ten, maybe more, that listen to what Fox or CNN tell them to believe and think nothing of it because it's all they know. The system does not encourage people to get real education of real issues.
At this point, most politicians are being bankrolled by big business in some way and make their decisions based on this, and if they dare fight, they'll be crushed by a different candidate that is willing to be their puppet. Moreover, I believe any attempt to change this situation by voting is useless, because it is like asking the cat to guard the cream. Why would any politician vote for lobbying reform if they directly benefit from this political bribery, especially when there are hundreds of congresspeople that are just like him that are happy slaves of big business? Why would anyone vote to change 'first-past-the-post' when all it does it give third-parties a better chance at dethroning them? They were already elected, they don't have an incentive to change a damn thing. They just voted to put a lobbyist in the FCC chair, unanimously.
It would take a tremendous voting effort, from an enormous amount of educated people, to even begin to effect any real change, fighting an uphill battle the entire time against the controlled media and stupid, sheep-like single issue voters that will vote one party or another no matter what, and never think to support a grassroots third party candidate, because big business has programmed the majority to vote for their chosen candidates, and don't give a damn about the few that think critically.
Even though I vote, I believe our votes are largely being bought and paid for, and controlled by corporate-driven mainstream media, and our democracy is being managed to give us the illusion of choice when there truly is little hope of any major change that threatens the system. The more I talk to people about the state of things more hopeless I feel.
**TL;DR:** Our political system is being gamed in a way that prevents meaningful change, because the only ones with the power to make changes are paid by corporations to resist it, and the ones that can vote to get rid of those politicians are fed falsehoods through the media controlled by the same corporations. I feel like the only way to fix this is to scrap it all and start over...and god-forbid, by force, if necessary. 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 Christians who oppose gay rights and think that women should be allowed leadership are hypocrites. +
+ * Lets start with the definition of hypocrite:
* Next lets look at Bible(NIV) passages on homosexuality and the role of women.
-Women
-Homosexuality
* Now let me clarify an important aspects of my stance.
I am not against a "Cafeteria Christian" who chooses that all four of these passages are not requisites of their faith. My sole stance is that Christians who condone homosexuality should also condone the idea of women in leadership positions in the church or elsewhere. The reason I see women's rights and gay rights as linked is because both issues are important now and have been for some time and because on some level I believe the teachings of the bible are against both, based on the above passages. Commenters should note that I do not wish to debate Christianity as a whole in this thread, I am only approaching these two aspects of Christianity as linked. The reason for this is that I have no issue with Christians who chose to ignore hateful/backward(in my opinion) aspects of the bible in favor of lessons about love, hope, family, ect...
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Telling companies that are losing money because of piracy to find a better business model is like telling rape victims they shouldn't have worn slutty clothing. CMV +
+ Often people will defend pirates by saying that the artist should react to the changing world and find a better business model, but I've never found this argument convincing. I think there are many similarities to telling women who have been raped that they shouldn't dress so slutty. In both cases, the victim was doing something that made sense to them at the time, wasn't illegal or immoral, and then something that should have been under their control was taken from them. There are a ton of differences as well, the amount of trauma involved is totally different (tons vs. none), the victim has wildly different characteristics (faceless corporation vs. breathing person right in front of you) and the argument doesn't even apply correctly in both cases (incidence of rape is pretty much uncorrelated to how "slutty" the victim was dressed, while piracy is arguably caused by the poor business model of artistic companies), but I think the arguments are similar enough to be in the same category, and if you accept telling victims of piracy that they shouldn't have used a crappy business model as OK, then you must also accept telling rape victims that they shouldn't have dressed so slutty as OK.
Note #1: Paraphrased, I'm defending the right of businesses to try to exist with crappy business models (and the right of women to dress slutty).
Note #2: The analogy doesn't hold particularly well because of the problem I mentioned where dressing slutty does not cause rape, while crappy business model does (potentially) cause piracy. In a hypothetical location where dressing slutty does cause rape, the analogy would hold, and I don't think this changes my argument. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I don't believe that tipping servers in America is in any meaningful sense "mandatory" +
+ While I have never completely withheld a tip when I have received even the most minimal or insulting service, and I regularly tip at or above the expected amount (15% is what I grew up with, but lately I've been told 20% and generally moved toward that) I am continually told that tipping is "required." Typically the arguments made are:
1.) If you do not tip, you are cheap, which I deem to be irrelevant: I have a right to be cheap - TERRIBLY cheap - if I want.
2.) If you do not tip, you are robbing someone, which I deem dubious for several reasons. First, wait staff are guaranteed minimum hourly wages, and while employers (at least where I live) may take steps to discourage them from reporting a deficit, this is a legal entitlement. Second, wait staff, at least those I have known personally, typically make MORE than anything resembling minimum wage overall, so the times when they may make less seem to me more akin to what a commissioned salesperson or taxi driver comes to expect, and I don't see why it should be special (especially considering the relatively low entry requirements). I do not live in an affluent area, and a friend who works getting tips makes more than my friend who works as a manager. Third, and finally, I don't feel an obligation to make up for the stinginess of an employer or someone's selection of a poorly paying job. I don't pay McDonald's employees a tip, and I feel it would be MUCH more appropriate there.
3.) Tipping is part of the cost of the food, which is, legally, not the case. Where a gratuity is mandatory, I seldom feel the need to tip anything additional, which I suspect is why they are NOT made mandatory - I, like most everyone else, routinely tip more when it is up to me to make the determination.
4.) Tipping is socially expected, and therefore MUST be done. This, likewise, seems disingenuous - not farting on an elevator is socially expected, but I frequently encounter it. I've never seen anyone chase someone out of the elevator to confront a farter the way I have seen bad tippers confronted. The people in the elevator didn't even sign up to be in an elevator with a farter, while there isn't a single waiter I know who is shocked when someone doesn't tip.
I once adopted what I thought to be a reasonable rule that I would never tip more than my hourly wage for time I spent at the table. I was pressured into dropping this entirely - even though my hourly wage is solid - and no one could adequately explain why the waiter at an upscale restaurant - who spent no more time at my table nor seemed more knowledgeable than the waiter at Chili's - should be given twice as much money.
I feel as if the entire issue of tipping is fueled by people who value their work more than others for no other reason than they are the ones doing it, and it is the general expectation that they will be rewarded for it. I also feel that there are more just - more *fair* - systems that could be adopted, but that servers and service workers are actively opposed because they are fully aware that while they may have "dry" tables they know full well they make more overall. As a result, I am decreasingly sympathetic towards their "plight" when a customer gets upset with poor service and chooses not to tip them.
Maybe I'm entirely off-base and I'm missing something that is so obvious to everyone else that they won't say it. Maybe I'm missing something subtle. Maybe I'm right. I don't know. I just feel now that tipping is a burden, and that I'm only required to do it because a few people say so, and it makes eating out less enjoyable. Can anyone 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: There is no such thing as a mental illness caused by genetics and 'chemical imbalance' attributed to genetics does not exist. +
+ Even if you have a genetic pre-disposition to schizophrenia, statistically youu probably wont get it and even if you dont have that pre-disposition you can still become schizophrenic. Genetics play a role in your statistical likelihood but considering a genetic pre-disposition does no actual pre-determine anything, it's still determined by your environment.
Likewise a chemical imbalance of dopamine or serotonin can exist but it doesnt follow that you're born with it. Our brains are changing constantly. Whatever you're doing at any time, you're training your brain to be better at it. Through neuroplasticity a certain environment can create a brain which behaves in a certain way, and just like you get better when you practice piano, the more you feel a certain emotion, the more that process is physically occuring in your brain, the more that process is strengthened similar to the physical neurological process of improving your piano skills.
| 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 all drugs should be decriminalised. CMV +
+ I hold this belief because it is not the job of law enforcement to protect people from themselves, only each other. I believe that it is a fundamental right to be able to change your body in any way, unless that endangers other human life (Abortion is complicated and irrelevant to this conversation, don't ask me about it).
I'm not saying people should do drugs, not at all, but I think it should be an educational and healthcare issue.
Also the war on drugs costs many lives each year yet anyone who wants drugs can get them, easily, and from potentially very dangerous people who don't necessarily check how safe they are.
I live in the UK by the way and don't have a great understanding of drug laws in other countries (except maybe the US). | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think zombies are completely overrated threat. CMV +
+ Talking about the 'traditional' slow-moving head-shot zombies, like in the Walking Dead or the World War Z book. In all the media with them, they're somehow this terrible force that has driven mankind to the brink of extinction. And I really, really find them overrated. We have books like World War Z that take the whole War of the Worlds broadcast approach to cast such creatures in a menacing manner, and it just does not hold up in my analysis.
Now, zombies have the following disadvantages over us.
- Slow. I mean, a moderately healthy person could outwalk them.
- Not very dexterous. Want to escape a zombie? Get on top of a bus.
- Stupid. Zero intelligence, only some extremely basic instincts. Easily outsmarted.
- Zero survival instinct. Many animals have a survival instinct. Zombies do not, and will proceed with zero regard for their well-being.
Now, they have a few advantages over us.
- Durability. The only way to stop a zombie is by destroying the brain or destroying it's body in such a way that it can no longer move. Otherwise they will blindly walk/crawl/squirm onwards until they are physically incapable of doing so.
- Stamina. These bastards will chase you until they find new prey, or their legs fall off. Then they'll crawl until their arms fall off. Then they'll wiggle and squirm until they rot away. This makes running away harder than you'd think, since they stop for nothing and require no food, rest, motivation, or water. They are a biological machine that does nothing but hunt people.
Now, as human beings, we have crushed and dominated vast nations of other human beings which are far more dangerous that zombies. It is my opinion that any zombie outbreak would gain little traction and not last long.
- For one, their only way of reproducing is by going toe-to-toe with their top predator. In order to make a new zombie, they must bite a human. Biting by itself is a pretty ineffective way of spreading a disease, and if you have to bite a highly intelligent creature dedicated to eradicating you, there is a problem right off the bat.
- The numbers issue. Traditionally, it's a given that zombies are inferior to humans one-on-one, and their strength comes in numbers. It's always a zombie horde that's the threat, too many to plausibly deal with. The thing is though, in order to reach those sort of numbers, at some point the zombies will be massively outnumbered by us. Humans will have the advantage in numbers, not the zombies.
- Killing them is made tough in a way, because you must destroy the head. However, this difficulty is much lessened due to their stupid nature. A zombie will come at you in a steady, consistent manner. They won't run, won't take cover, they will do nothing to avoid being shot at. For people trained to shoot stationary targets, it's simple. For people trained/used to shooting moving targets, it's a walk in the park.
- The military is more than equipped to deal with them. Large hordes of slow, walking hostiles with zero sense of survival instinct is a bomber pilots wet dream. It's the sort of thing that the B-52 was practically made for, just steamrolling an area with explosives. Any large horde could casually be pounded into a giant crater.
So I cannot imagine a zombie outbreak being any sort of world-ending threat. Would it cause a lot of chaos in the city/region? Yeah, but the danger can be escaped by a brisk walking pace and is easily outsmartable. Unless a massive outbreak occurred simultaneously all across the world, I don't believe it would cause half the chaos and devastation a really bad hurricane or other natural disaster would. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think abortion is wrong. CMV +
+ Here are a few common arguments I see;
**"As with everything else, if you don't think abortions are appropriate, then don't have one."**
That's as simple as saying "If you don't like it, don't kill someone" or "You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide". They're bad expressions to represent a stance on an important moral issue.
Now, I morally disagree with abortion. I think it's outright murder. However, I also understand priorities and the value of individual life(Which is why I oppose abortion). If a mother's life was in an abnormal level of danger, then allow for an abortion. If you don't want to raise a child you never have to.
Many argue that birth is a dangerous undertaking in its own right, and that death is always a distant possibility if a string of unfortunate events align. But you know what has a 100% certainty of death? Abortion. Not for the mother.
**"Disagreeing with abortion is an imposition of your worldview and moral code onto an entire population removing from individuals the rights to make their own choices."**
This argument can be made by anybody at any point for any thing. I want murder to be made legal. What, you don't want murder to be legal? What the hell is wrong with you? Why are you imposing your worldview and moral code onto an entire population removing from individuals the right to make their own choices?
See, what people who make this argument do not get in the slightest is that laws are essentially a moral code that everybody is forced to live by. Every law is an imposition of that moral code on an entire populous, removing one's own choice.
**"The embryo within the time period where it can be aborted is not conscious or thinking"**
... So? If somebody's unconscious can I now murder them? If someone is in a coma with a strong chance of recovery, shall I just pull the plug? If someone is brain dead yet functional, are they *really* alive? The idea is not that "It's not alive yet omg it doesn't even matter!" it's that it holds the potential for life. While at that precise period in time, that cluster of cells may not individually hold the key to life, we know for a fact that embryo can turn into a fetus which can turn into a baby which can turn into a toddler which can turn into a pre-teen which can turn into an adolescent which can become one of us. It *can*. Of course, it also couldn't. It could die. Miscarriage. We could murder it.
But what you would rather - remove any potential for a fulfilled and profound life, or allow that life to unfold in its own right and end in its own time? That's the question you have to ask yourself. The latter is obviously the preferable choice, but that latter has its risks.
I don't think those risks are enough to murder that potential.
Change My View. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I believe that the United States should implement a "Carbon Tax" (a tax on an industries carbon emissions.) +
+ I am a student who has been assigned the debate topic of the implementation of a carbon tax and I am very biased (and almost closed-minded) toward this side of the argument. I personally believe that the US should implement one. I believe that a carbon tax would encourage industry in the United States to move toward more energy efficient practices, and benefit America's energy consumption overall. I wanted to hear what others thought of this issue so I could be more well-rounded on the subject matter. It is important to know that the tax would only apply to industry and would not apply to the every-day American. All points-of-view are welcome and any sources are strongly encouraged. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I Believe Hard Copies Hold No Advantage To EBooks. CMV +
+ I believe that ebooks are the future of consuming literature and in time, hard copies will, although not necessarily be eradicated, take a backseat to digital copies. There is nothing that hard copies hold over ebook. Ebooks can hold many books at once, many classics are free (and many nonclassics as well) and digital copies are generally cheaper.
An addendum to this view is that those who loudly insist that hard copies are the best and scoff at the person sitting in the park reading her Nook are only doing so out of elitism and through that, a false sense of scholarly superiority.
Mind that I'm generally talking about postindustrial countries that have the luxury to afford constant reliable sources of electricity (to charge the device) and the electronics themselves.
Some counterarguments I can address:
1) Battery Life: I think for a "pure" ebook (one that is solely used for reading books as opposed to a tablet like the kindle fire), this is a null point. Pure ebooks that use e-ink have amazing battery lives that can last for weeks depending on use. A couple of hours of charging is little to ask for such a long life span. You could finish many books before the battery runs out.
2) Making notes in the margins: Personally, my device is not very useful for making notes. It's hard to type anything at all. However, this is a simple problem that is easily fixed (and I'm sure other devices already address); touchscreen capabilities, small physical keyboard, etc.
3) Dropping an ebook in the water: This does not necessarily guarantee that the device will stop working. Plus, I'm pretty sure a hard copy has the same amount of danger to water damage as well.
4) This is my favorite counterargument: "The smell of a new book." I actually have no reply. I've always seen this as more of a joke. Is this really a huge selling point of reading books?
One thing I will concede: you don't get the joy of passing on a finished book to a friend. And I wouldn't be surprised if many of your arguments are based on the social aspect of reading as well.
Happy arguing and happy reading! | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Some forms of slavery are ok CMV +
+ I'm going to list a few forms of slavery, I agree with scenario iv)
i) Totally owned, forced to work. Provided with food, clothing and shelter.
ii) A man unable to provide for his family is forced to work 5 days a week and is given benefits that ensure the survival of his family
iii) A man is forced to work 2 days a week and he is provided with access to a social safety net in case his family needs help.
iv) A man can choose where he wants to work, but he has to work for free 30% of time. That money is handed over to a third party by his employer that provides him with a social safety net in case his family needs help
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: Settlements from lawsuits against police departments should be paid at least partially out of police pension funds. +
+ First off, I want to acknowledge that I'm not involved in law enforcement at all, so if any of my assumptions or characterizations are inaccurate, please let me know.
As I understand it, typically when someone is a victim of abuse by police, they sue the city (or state or county depending on the circumstances). Any damages awarded by a jury or in a settlement are then paid by the city. Some or all of the damages are covered by insurance (for which the city obviously pays premiums) and the balances is simply owed by the city.
The problem with this is twofold: 1) The taxpayers are responsible for paying for damages against themselves. Places where abuse is frequent tend to be relatively poor. Saddling a poor city with the cost of an overly aggressive police force compounds the financial challenges of the city and makes poor people poorer.
2) There is little financial incentive for police to rein in potentially troublesome colleagues. Good cops, if they see abuses or potentially troublesome behavior may report it because "it's the right thing" or because the bad apples give cops a bad name. These are pretty nebulous and unrewarding reasons though, especially when facing the daunting prospect of reporting a fellow police officer. Giving each and every police officer skin in the game would create a financial incentive to proactively weed out bad apples. It could also nudge the culture from a blue wall of silence to one of accountability. Both management and the rank-and-file would be involved.
One challenge is that this would create an incentive for police to close ranks after an incident happened and not admit fault so that suits would be less successful. This could be an issue, but only to the extent that it causes them to close ranks *more than they currently do*. And again, I think it would be more than offset by an increased willingness to identify, retrain, and dismiss bad cops before major incidents happen.
Now I'm not looking to wipe out an entire police force's pension fund because of one incident. You could structure it in a number of ways to ensure that hits to the fund could be meaningful without being devastating, and would provide rewards if total damages declined (e.g. increase baseline contributions to funds by $500k and have the pension fund pay 50% of damages up to a max of $1MM).
Note: I'm using "pension fund" as a proxy for "pension benefits". I don't know how the pensions are set up, but the point is that losses paid out of the funds would reduce pension benefits.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: to promote marriage, government should enact policies that reward marriage +
+ Currently many politicians claim to be for marriage but many government policies penalize marriage. In particular, single parents are eligible for more government benefits than married couples.
From http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/hhs/welfare-spending
To promote marriage, TANF, dependant and child care credits would only be available to married couples filing a joint tax return. This will encourage marriage and discourage divorce. Children do best when raised by their parents in a committed relationship, https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/usermanuals/fatherhood/
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Property Taxes are Inherently Unjust and Should be Abolished +
+ So let's say that I save up to put a down payment on a house on a little plot of land. To make things easy, let's just ignore the cost and the amount down, since this is mostly about principles and general concepts.
Now, the place is pretty crappy. I decide to invest a good amount of my own cash to completely overhaul the place. Hardwood floors, granite counters, etc. I put some more money into landscaping the area around me because I want my property to look nice.
At this point, let's take a look at what I'm paying:
1) Money down on the house.
2) Interest on a 30 year loan.
3) Sales tax for all the raw materials I paid for during the renovation.
4) Labor costs if I hire a contractor to do the work, or time from my day if I do it myself.
BUT!
I also now have to pay PROPERTY TAXES! In other words--in the most very basic sense--not only do I have to pay for the actual place that I live, but I have to pay for the RIGHT to HAVE a place to live. And even though I've thrown out my own money into making it a nicer place, I'm now inflating the property's value, and will therefore have to pay even greater property taxes as a result.
At the start of the venture, I owed a nominal amount to the State in property taxes. After renovating (which, by the way, means that the State gained both sales tax from materials purchased as well as the State's share of income tax if I hired someone else to do it), I have increased the value, which means I have to pay even MORE money for the privilege of having a place to sleep.
I really do not understand this. How in the fuck is this legal? How is this even remotely fucking fair? Please change my view--I want to get 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 Laissez-Faire Capitalism is the ideal economic system, is achievable, and would not lead to out of control monopolies. CMV. +
+ The crux of this argument comes down to this: Monopolies.
The main counter argument is that if true Laissez-Faire Capitalism was implemented tomorrow in the United States that 2 or 3 Multi-Nat Corporations would take over everything and we would all burn to the ground under or corporate masters boots. I think this is complete and utter bullshit. The only way (and history is as far as I know completely on my side) a monopoly can form is if the government intervenes and creates corporatist legislation.
This is a compounding issue. If the government has the ability to create sweeping legislation for corporations and business, they have the ability to be lobbied by successful business' to create legislation specific for that corporations success, thus edging their way further in the market creating a monopoly or a quasi-monopoly.
If you can name a **SINGLE** natural monopoly that has ever formed (read: one without government protectionism or corporatist legislation of any kind) I will completely concede this argument and in fact will likely change my entire perspective on economics as a whole.
The ONLY way a natural monopoly could ever form is if a business undercut the rest of their competition so much that their products became affordable to everyone while at the same time developing such a technological advantage in both R&D and production that the quality and quantity of their goods did not decrease because of their massive cut costs to consumers and had such a massively successful infrastructure and costumer support wing that consumer approval of their company would be at near 100%
And I have to say, if that ever happened, I don't think I'd mind so much.
Monopolies exist in their current form because of corporatist legislation like Limited Liability and Indefinite Duration and the governments obsession of perpetrating things like the Stock Market. They would not exist in a vacuum. They **can not** exist in a vacuum. We need a fair economy. The solution is creating an even playing field for everyone and creating a situation where small business can flourish.
This also means creating a system where small business can (figuratively) be shut down if they overstep their natural boundaries. The best way to do that is without any legislation at all, in my opinion, as natural competition will outweigh any form of legislation in the long run.
Taxing the people who create small business ($250,000+) does not fix the problem, it actively hurts it. Taxing the people who already have the big business (millionaires/billionaires) does not treat the disease, it only cures one of hundreds of symptoms. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think the Glass Ceiling argument for the lack of women in senior management/board positions in first world countries is a load of crap. CMV +
+ Wikipedia describes the glass ceiling as "the unseen, yet unbreakable barrier that keeps minorities and women from rising to the upper rungs of the corporate ladder, regardless of their qualifications or achievements." However, this implies that there is a force which restricts women/minorities from reaching top positions even when they are actively aiming to do so. While I believe that men and women are born equally capable, it doesn't seem unreasonable to suspect that social influences and maybe biological differences may shape the type of work they prefer and how they want to live their lives. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe banning marijuana does more harm than good CMV +
+ Marijuana is illegal in the US,( most states ) but there are other countries that use has been decriminalised. Holland and Portugal are two examples, and you could look into why it is so there. The US seems to me as a very conservative country that things like that are rejected but I only base that on my own feeling | 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 I should say something unless I feel its really worth saying +
+ When I'm hanging out with people I don't know too well, I have a tendency to self-censor myself from the conversation unless I feel like I have something that's really worthwhile to contribute.
Especially in a group of friends who are close with each other and are sharing intimate stories or inside jokes, it makes me even more hesitant to speak up since I'm afraid of people not acknowledging what I said or thinking it's stupid. Speaking 1-on-1 with someone or if I have a defined purpose (work or a project) I don't have this problem as much, but it gets worse in groups since I feel like everyone is judging what I'm saying.
Logically speaking I know that if I said something dumb or socially unacceptable most people would probably forget it by the next day. But I just can't convince myself that it's better to try, fail, and get back up rather than never take the risk in the first place.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think seniors should be required to take an annual driving test. CMV +
+ As you get older, your motor skills deteriorate (no pun intended) and therefore your driving skills worsen, making you more of a danger to yourself and others on the road. To combat this, I believe that seniors should be required to pass a yearly driving test to make sure they are fit for being behind the wheel. CMV | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Using italics in an internet discussion forum signals condescension, and is a really rude way to reply to someone +
+ I like to be brief, but it does specify 500 characters. Basically, to give an example:
*Maybe* you're talking about the *preferred gender pronouns* because you *actually* hold a *sexist view*.
I'm not quite sure why it irritates me so much, but whenever I see a comment like that, particularly when things like feminism or gender politics are discussed on here, it turns my stomach and makes me think the person writing it has swallowed a bunch of asterisks.
I'm open to this view changing, it's quite a benign one. It just rubs me up the wrong way and *I'd love to change it*.
| 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 false rape accusations are punished nearly enough, and people who commit this act deserve much harsher reactions than they currently are. CMV +
+ Through googling for what happens when a woman is caught making false rape accusations, I keep coming across a few trends:
* It's never for first time offenders, it's always for women who make 5 or 8 or 10 false accusations.
* The punishment is never remotely severe. It's always "filing a false police report" and the worst sentence I've seen was 18 months, which gets bumped down to ~1 year with good behavior.
There are special situations where crimes are worsened with the context- hate crimes, statutory rape of a 16 year old vs a 5 year old, etc. This should be one of them.
According to [rainn](http://www.rainn.org/statistics), there are about 207,754 cases of rape each year.
According to the lowest figure I could find for false reports (2%) that makes 416 men who are falsely accused of rape, every year. That's more than one every day.
This is a systemic problem and there's no excuse.
Whether it's new laws that specifically relate to false accusations, or not giving these women probation and 6 months in jail- something has to be done.
Rape carries one of the harshest punishments the law has, second only to murder. Accusing someone of that and putting an innocent person in jeopardy of facing that punishment should carry a more weighty penalty.
CMV | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe it is harder to come out and be accepted as bisexual than it is to come out as gay. CMV. +
+ I say this as someone who is bisexual and is having a hard time coming out due to fear or severe backlash. Part of it, I suppose, it because the majority of high schoolers are insensitive pricks with no regard for how others may feel, but that's beside the point. Some misconceptions and myths about bisexual people are
* They're more likely to cheat
* You can't be *really* bisexual. It's one or the other
* They're just lying to themselves about what they really are. They're still in the denial phase
* Bisexuals are sluts. They just want to sleep around with EVERYONE
* Bisexual women only do it to turn straight guys on (and with me being female, this one seems to be the most stupid, IMO)
* Bisexuals are attracted to everyone they meet
Among others. Not to mention quite a bit of this heckling comes from within the LGBT community itself. Really, the only types of people 100% accepted in the LGBT community is the LG part. Don't even get me started on the trans* community. But again, I digress.
I can't accurately say any misconceptions about gay people, so I feel like it's best to leave them out as opposed to saying completely untrue things as if they were real.
So, please. CMV. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think being vegan/vegetarian for a cause doesn't make sense. CMV +
+ Nowadays, most vegans or vegetarians don't eat animal flesh or don't consume anything animal related in order to prevent harm and keep balance in nature. I usually see oversensitive statements regarding how much we should care about animals and how they suffer during food industrialization process. The thing that keeps bugging my head is that in a regular natural environment, the trophic chain is nothing but a true slaughter where the most adapted kill and eat the weaker ones (and I believe that being torn apart by a lion is worse than being slaughtered by a butcher). That being said, I believe there's no reason to bother about veganism since it's natural behaviour of every natural being. Change my view, fellow Redditors. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think that the "wage-gap" between men and women, is a result of men working more hours and being willing to do more labor intensive jobs. CMV +
+ So basically I hear people say that women get less pay for the same work. I don't think this is true at all. I think men and women are paid equally but that men work more hours. I don't think there is any problem with equality in this country based off of the sexes.
This is not to say that women are lazy. It's that men are far more likely to think about their money as more valuable than their time where women think about their time (specifically with family) as more valuable than money. This is obviously not true with EVERYONE but in the general population I believe it is true.
This also accounts for there being more Men the higher up you go. A job like "CEO" or "CFO" or "President" of a company would require much more time spent on the job, and less time spent on family or free time. It's not even that men are more willing to work more hours, it's that they focus less on the time spent and more on the $$$$ coming in. While women focus more on the time spent and less on the $$$$ coming in.
The more labor intensive job is about the fact that men are more capable (in most cases) to do a job like Construction worker, firefighter, or other jobs that require an excessive amount of Physical labor. Warren Farrell shows this [here](http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ArKVUt4fBfQ#t=219) by separating Women and Men and asking questions about jobs they have done in their lifetime. Again, there are exceptions to this but the majority of men are more willing to work in harsh conditions than the majority of women.
CMV
Or you can watch the whole video | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I think all stop signs should be replaced with yield signs +
+ So I have been thinking about this one for a while. There is one intersection in particular on my daily commute that is nearly impossible to avoid. It is a 4 way stop that is in a very high traffic area. 2 of the 4 ways almost never have cars since they go into two apartment complexes. All I can think about is how this problem could be remedied by my solution to switch all stop signs with yields.
Another example, driving around my own apartment complex there are several stop signs. They appear every few hundred feet and I feel require an unnecessary amount of stops that give an unwanted wear and tear on my brakes.
A yield sign operates as a stop sign when there is traffic against it. This allows for unneeded stops to occur and keep traffic moving at a better pace.
I'm sure the biggest complaint against this would be it would make people more reckless on the road. I believe that it would force drivers to be more aware of their surroundings because the amount of cars on the road directly impacts whether or not they have to stop.
Change my view!
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe that Libertarians have no idea how their dogma, especially the "non-aggression principle" would actually work in a real society. Please CMV! +
+ As a disillusioned citizen, fed up with the antics of Republicans and Democrats alike, I embraced the Libertarian movement during the last Presidential election. Granted, my enthusiasm for Libertarinanism was fueled by questionable online sources that portrayed Libertarians as a moderate combination of Republican and Democrat principles. After subscribing to /r/Libertarian, I learned that the conceptual framework of the party was significantly different from what I thought the party stood for.
I have since grown disillusioned with the Libertarian movement because, based upon conversations and questioning of /r/Libertarian members, any question that I posed that had real world implications was not addressed to any degree of sufficiency. For example, the Libertarian non-aggression principle states that the government has no right to enter or seize property. Reality, however, dictates that their are circumstances in which the non-aggression principle does not hold true.
Also, based upon my questioning of /r/Libertarian members, they believe that private security forces are superior to government forces. I completely disagree as sell swords (to use a popular vernacular) are only loyal as far as the dollar goes. IMO, this is hardly a reliable or fair system for governmental and public accountability.
All this being said, I still want to embrace the Libertarians. Please CMV.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: While gender can be decided upon by the person, sex cannot due to genetics and sex, not gender, should be used for medical and other information on forms (as well as gender if necessary) +
+ Gender, especially because of people who identify as transsexuals, can be chosen since they are male/female but identify as the other. For example, a XY who identifies as female is a MTF trans and vice versa.
That being said, sex is biologically deterministic and dependant on the appearance of the Y chromosome. Even if you have multiple chromosomes, such as XXY, or deficient, such as X0, the Y chromosome determines sex and therefore, anatomy. [To this date, there are no functioning uteri in MTF transexuals](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_pregnancy) and FTM transexuals *can possibly* get pregnant.
Especially from a medical standpoint (and one striving for medical school), I don't want to (in the future) determine that the patient is possibly having a spontaneous abortion when all it turns out to be is a ruptured appendectomy (both emergencies, but diagnosis wise completely different).
Forms, especially medical ones, and other ID should have your biological sex on it, instead of gender to prevent such confusion. 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 Don Draper will commit suicide during the final season of Mad Men. +
+ Obviously, spoilers will abound in this discussion.
I think at some point during the final season, Don Draper will end his own life. I think he'll experience some setback he can't bounce back from, a lie he can't get out of, or an existential crisis he can't drink away. Hell, given what we've already seen, maybe all three at once. I think the show has done a lot of foreshadowing over the years to get to this point (look at all the ghosts Don has seen over the years), and in my opinion it's only a matter of time before Don chooses to be with the people he's lost rather than keep disappointing the people he has.
I won't try to predict how or when he'll do it, but I'm sure he will end his life. And I think he'll do it at a relatively young age. We will not see an elderly Don Draper.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |