input
stringlengths 114
23.1k
| output
stringclasses 2
values | instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|
CMV: Artists like Taylor Swift and One Direction who produce catchy songs with superficial lyrics are unoriginal. +
+ I got into an argument with a friend who unabashedly loves and defends Taylor Swift and One Direction as being talented artists who do indeed produce original, unmanufactured music with (in her words) cool harmonies and bridge shenanigans (probably means more complex song progressions with more layers). She will defend their talent and originality to the end of the earth.
This was in response to me expressing my opinion that pop music as a whole is not all the same and unoriginal, but certain groups certainly are. Taylor Swift is one. I don't particularly enjoy her songs, and have only just felt that she writes unique music in light of Blank Space. Even so, it's catchy, but not necessarily original with pretty superficial lyrics. One Direction I feel is not at all original! All they've ever written are simple chord songs, again, with very superficial lyrics. I'm sure there are more artists out there that I can point to (Demi Lovato? Selena Gomez? Maroon 5? I dunno, I don't actively listen for them).
To summarize, I think the characteristics I think make these groups unoriginal are the type of fans they attract (if your music isn't meaningful, it's not going to attract people who look for meaning and quality!), simple song structure, superficial lyrics, and an overall effort to be catchy and popular. CMV!
This is important to me because I want to be able to write complex, beautiful arrangements with a wide variety of genres (I want to be the musical director of our fusion a Capella group - we do mashups of Indian and Western music). Also because she plays a big part in our group, but I feel like her tastes are incredibly limited. She'd never listen to alt-J or Metric or Lorde even though they are also considered pop and imo make much better music.
A bigger part of me thinks this conflict is silly and people like whatever music they like, but I really would like to understand things from her pov.
First and foremost, what constitutes originality is subjective to a point, and is also genre specific. My definition of it was harmonic complexity, rhythmic complexity, lyrics (maybe superficial lyrics with subliminal messages), and diversity of different sounds that an artist implements, since that's the genre of the artists in question.
That being said, originality does not correlate with quality, and the fact that the songs are good, even excellent to a lot of different people. The artists are not devoid of musical talent, and they certainly are famous to an extent, but then again, there are a lot of artists who are talented who are not famous. I still hold the opinion that I should be able to evaluate their music for my own personal tastes, and should be able to dislike characteristics that I think are superficial. I have never extended that sentiment to say that my tastes are therefore better. They simply are.
Lastly, that's exactly it, that peoples' tastes are what they are, and that they have every right to value the music in whichever way they please, and collective values lead to popularity. I'll take this into account when I'm listening to music that someone has suggested and try my best to evaluate the music itself, not the lyrics or the fans or the stigma associated with the artists, but I won't agree to do a song that I genuinely think is bad, even in the context of a mash-up. I trust those in my group to pick good songs. They get the benefit of the doubt. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think its stupid to put all of our effort into anti-cyber bullying when the simple solution is to turn the computer off. CMV. +
+ Kids calling you names at school? Well, you have to go to school.
Kids calling you names on the internet? Turn the computer off. Fuckin magic. The internet has a wonder set of anonymity tools along with privacy settings, the only people who are being "cyber bullied" are those who crave the attention. You can be a complete ghost on the internet, even with social media sites like facebook. There is no reason that time, money and effort should be spent on anti-cyber bullying campaigns when the person being bullied can turn off the computer.
Now school and work are different, those are places where you have to be and everyone should be offered a place where they're not harassed when they *have* to be there, but the internet is a vast place and mute/ignore buttons are on basically every program created online today.
CMV. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
There is no reason the words "heteronormative" and "nonheteronormative" could not be replaced with "typical" and "atypical" in all contexts. CMV +
+ I asked a friend of mine who works at a gender-studies think tank "what atypical behavior would one expect from a genderqueer person?"
What I got back was "You mean non-heteronormative?"
I don't see the distinction. Her response suggests that there's nothing atypical about being genderqueer when there obviously is. There's nothing wrong with being genderqueer, just like there's nothing wrong with having red hair or being an astronaut, but it is atypical; someone may be surprised to learn this about another person.
To me, this just seems like a reason to put typical people on the defensive when they broach the topic of gender studies.
Change my view.
At this point, I'm just deciding who to give a delta to. A medical journal headline reading "New results from a study on Japanese nonheternormative behavior," clearly couldn't use the word typical in the same way. You could work around it with something like "behavior atypical for sex and gender majority," but that's a mouthful if you work in that field.
I still have the following problems with it:
The word is overused, especially in contexts where it's already established that you're talking about a nonheteronormative class. Since this is basically all contexts where it's relevant, and represents all contexts where I've ever actually heard it used, you can understand my predelta opinion.
The word seems to convey an attitude that LGBT persons have any reason to be offended when people call them unusual.
The word requires, in most cases, about the same amount of context as atypical.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe that everyone is secretly a cyborg other than me CMV +
+ From a young age I have always found it hard to grasp the fact that everyone has their own goals and individual minds. I find it hard because there are just so many humans for this to be happening and I can't but feel like it is uncomprehensible. I just cannot grasp the fact that this is true.
So, From this I came up with the concept that everyone is a secret cyborg without knowing they actually are themselves. I sometimes almost feel like I am a [brain in a vat](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat) within some computer generated simulation.
This [gif](http://i.imgur.com/2WLJ2.gif) hit me the hardest.
I don't necessarily believe in the idea of everyone is a cyborg, it's just that can't understand how this is all possible when I look my own mind with the amount of thoughts that I am constantly bombarded with and think how is everyone else having all these thoughts at the same time.
I have no clue really but I am interested to read some of your comments guys.
Thanks. | 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 I should learn what I want to learn in high school. +
+ I'm homeschooled and currently nearing the end of sophomore year of high school. But I'm extremely discouraged because I'm essentially failing at everything but math. The main issue is that my parents are not really a part of my education; I do it on my own. I'm fine with this, except that I really detest the chemistry course I'm supposed to have been doing this year (I haven't even been able to pass any of the later tests), and my history/literature syllabus is really vague and I haven't learned a thing.
Also, I've never been taught how to write a paper. All my attempts have been pretty awful, and I can never seem to scrounge up enough stuff to write about. I don't believe I'm actually that bad at writing, it's just that I never write papers about any subject I know anything about.
I've talked to my mom multiple times about these issues, and she always just kind of says, "Hmm, well your sister did all right with it". (I have a sister who's a grade above me, also homeschooling).
The fact is, I hate chemistry. I greatly respect it, and I understand it is a useful subject to learn... *if you plan on making a career out of it*, which I don't. Which brings me to my next point.
What I enjoy doing and learning about is 3D modeling and rendering. I use Blender and I've learned a bunch and gotten good with it. But this counts for absolutely none of my school credit. I have to learn some science that I have essentially zero use for, and won't even fully understand or remember anyway. Algebra I actually get, and it happens to be a little relevant to programming and 3D graphics. Maybe not as much as geometry, but I'll be doing that next year and I'm not worried about it.
But I don't remember a bit of the biology I supposedly learned last year, and it looks like my chemistry has gone the same route. I really do *want* to understand chemistry, at least enough to make a passing grade so that I can graduate high school. But I've tried online courses, and none of it has really "clicked". The problem is *partly* that my text book explains things really crappily, but it's also that I just don't care for chemistry. At all.
I hear physics won't be as bad, and I'm sort of looking forward to it. Technically I don't even have to do both chemistry and physics; just one or the other. I wish I could just give up on chemistry, go ahead and start physics over the summer so I'm not an entire year behind, and not be judged and frowned upon for not learning this rather irrelevant science.
So, the bottom line is, I feel confident about what I want to learn about and do with my life, but apparently it's not OK to learn just the subjects that will be relevant to me and my life. I hear that the education system didn't used to be like this, and that high school used to actually prepare you for a career. I absolutely wish this was the way it was.
One more thing, I am posting to /r/changemyview, but this could very well have also been posted to some kind of advice subreddit. I'd love it if you could change my view, but to do that you're going to have to convince me that I'll even be able to graduate, because as it is, my high school education in the eyes of my family (if they even knew how behind I was) would be a huge crumbled mess.
Well this has basically been a stream of my thoughts and hasn't been edited for nice readability. I hope I can somehow be at peace and figure out how to get through this.
| 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 drugs should stay Illegal. +
+ I've seen lots of documentaries on National Geographic about drugs ruining people's lives due to addiction, throwing them into absolute poverty and suffering. It makes me sad, even more when I learn that people (specially on reddit) want drugs legalized. (LEGALIZE MARIJUANA and such) That horrors me.
I've learned in 5th-9th grade about all the dangerous effects drugs cause, including ruined lungs, loss of brain capacity, hallucinations and even death. Everyone I talk to in Portugal agrees with me that drugs are horrible and should stay banned. And if Marijuana is like tobacco then why are people trying to ban tobacco and legalize marijuana when marijuana does far more harm to the brain according to school?
This reddit circlejerk scares me. I fear getting mugged or shot by drug addicts because they need money, and I fear the drug criminals (Like in mexico) may spread everywhere drugs are legalized.
Change my view with scientifically tested evidence? (Preferably youtube videos) | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I decided not to have children because of global warming. +
+ Let me begin by saying that I was never desperate to start a family. I believe that a childless life can be just as fulfilling as a life with children, only in a different way. So to me, it's a decision that needs to be weighed up.
From the evidence I can gather, there is a high probability the climate change will start to have major impacts on humanity by 2060. I am not really worried about a higher rate of natural disasters; we have natural disasters today and we know how to deal with them. What I am worried about are secondary social and economic effects. Wars over dwindling resources. Civil unrest. Mass migration. Financial crises. Failed states.
Mitigation is not likely to happen, or at least not until it's too late. Some individual humans have foresight, but as a group we have about as much foresight as an ant colony.
There are two moral justifications for my decision:
**1**- I think it is irresponsible to subject children to the world that is coming. I would be knowingly putting them in harm's way. Of course, it is not *certain* that they will be in harm's way. The future could take unexpected turns. Someone could invent a revolutionary technology that solves all energy needs overnight. But that is besides the point. I am not counting on it. Locking a child in a lions' enclosure where there is *only* a 20% probability that there are lions is *still* irresponsible.
**2**- Not having children is the single biggest contribution I can make, as an individual, to mitigate climate change. A smaller world population not only means lower emissions, it also means that the social and economic impacts will be less severe when there are crop failures and the like.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe MENSA is elitist and accomplishes very little, and therefore should not be celebrated as an important or academic society. CMV +
+ To start, I'd like to say that I've never had any association with Mensa, I haven't even taken an IQ test. To start, I believe the idea of Mensa calling people 'geniuses' and representing themselves as the smartest people in the world is very elitist. My main point is that you get into Mensa based off of a test of natural intelligence, which means you don't actually have to do anything extraordinary to get into this elite group. I mean its the same as a club for tall people, sure it can exist, but someone shouldn't be celebrated for being tall.While being naturally intelligent will help, it is by no means the most important factor in determining success. True success, academic or otherwise, is obtained mainly by hard work and creativity.
To my second point, it doesn't seem to actually have any use. While, obviously, there will be extremely influential academics in Mensa, some members really won't have anything to contribute, and all Mensa seems to be is a bunch of people discussing amongst themselves, rather than influencing others. Also, if a group for intelectual discussion is needed, why not judge people based on actual academic work and accomplishments, rather than something that is natural.
So basically, my reasoning is that you don't actually have to accomplish anything to get into Mensa, therefore it shouldn't be celebrated or treated as a society for academic people. I'm aware that good discussion probably does occur in Mensa, but why limit it to people with high IQ? People shouldn't believe that a high IQ is needed for academic accomplishment, and it isn't. So really, the society isn't necessary, or at least the IQ requirement isn't. I'm not saying it should be disbanded, I just believe it shouldn't be celebrated as a great society, nor should they display the elitism they do.
To be fair, I do not know too much about the society, so please fill me in on any details that could 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: $foo is a numbers game is a very disingenuous thing to say. +
+ When someone is trying to solve a hard problem I feel telling said person that $foo, that subject they are concerned with is "a numbers game" is a disingenuous thing to say.
Every thing can be reduced to "a numbers game" if you took a couple minutes to think about it.
Saying $foo is a numbers game is a clever way to avoid thinking about the problem. If someone is having a hard social problem, you could just dismiss it as a numbers game, but I never heard of anyone following up with a reference to economists.
Someone saying that $foo is a numbers game is a shining example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Try asking someone who say that to write the numbers down. Their respond would nearly always be do more $bar to get $foo. The reason they can't just say do more $bar is if they are wrong and they get called out on it and get proven wrong they will feel bad for it. So they say "do more $bar to get $foo" as the euphemism "$foo is a numbers game" so they have more room to away. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Profit means you overcharged your customer, or underpaid your staff. CMV +
+ I see profit as theft, or at the most charitable view, trickery. By fooling a person into paying more than the net overhead, you participate in an economy of thieves. Everyone stealing from everyone makes it even but it doesn't make it right. Please note- I get that capitalism is a functional system, but I see it as amoral. There has got to be a better way. I'm not married to any one economic dogma; communism isn't the only solution aside from capitalism. A Co-op model would be acceptable, or make all businesses not for profit entities but not owned by government.CMV. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I believe that the ban on men who have sex with men from donating blood is justified, and is not a form of discrimination. +
+ Here are some statistics. MSM stands for men who have sex with men.
"Although MSM represent about 4% of the male population in the United States, in 2010, MSM accounted for 78% of new HIV infections among males and 63% of all new infections."
"More than 1.2 million people in the United States are living with HIV infection, and almost 1 in 7 (14%) are unaware of their infection."
"Today, the false negative rate in the general U.S. population is around 0.003%, or three times out of every 100,000 tests."
It just seems like the risk of letting MSM donate blood is not worth whatever sort of "civil right" gay men believe it to be. I am a gay man myself, and I don't feel oppressed just because I can't donate blood. I know that I am part of a demographic that is highly at risk for HIV infection, and it's not like being a MSM is the only condition where you can't donate blood. It doesn't really even have to do with gay men specifically. If you identify as straight, but have had sex with a man once in the past, you can't donate blood. If you are a gay man, but have never had sex with a man, you *can* donate blood. All it has to do with is risk and safety, not civil rights and discrimination.
| 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 people are mostly good. CMV. +
+ Beliefs that this belief stands on:
I believe that morality is basically a judgment by society about whether a behavior is likely to help the society survive. Therefore, I believe that good actions are those which help a society succeed, while bad actions are those which hinder success; and that selfish actions are not inherently bad, as each group member stands to gain from an individual group member's success.
I am also a firm believer in John Stuart Mill's greatest happiness principle: "the ethical principle that an action is right in so far as it promotes the greatest happiness of the greatest number of those affected." I believe that this principle can be used as a tool when judging the morality of a decision.
I believe that intent matters when deciding whether a person is "good". I believe that somebody with good intent who does a "bad" action can still be judged to have made a good decision (the best one they could have made with the information they had at the time), as long as they made the decision that they thought would be best for their community (which may refer to someone's family, friends, subjects – whatever community they define themselves by.)
The belief in the topic title:
I believe that there are very few actual human beings who do things in order to hurt other people in their community. (I specify "in their community" because throughout history, members of other communities have usually been seen as less than human, and therefore people are unable to see that there is anything wrong with treating other communities poorly.)
I believe that most people who have made bad decisions have some "redeeming factor", or are not completely bad.
I believe that for the most part, people make non-harmful decisions, which are often overlooked because of the fact that we don't have to go out of our way to make them (like we normally do for bad decisions); that most decisions that people make are good or neutral, and that it seems like bad people and decisions are more prevalent than they actually are because we pay a disproportionate amount of attention to the rare, unusual examples when they do crop up.
However, I have met a lot of people who tend to believe that most people are bad ("people are jerks", "I hate people", and "people suck" are statements that I have heard a lot), or that the world is a bad place. I am interested in the thinking behind those worldviews. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe political science should not be considered a science. [CMV] +
+ I've been in college for 2 years now studying computer engineering. Looking back to when I started, I've noticed many changes on things that I find interesting. However, the one thing I still find dull and unnecessary is politics.
Don't get me wrong, I stay informed and up to date with current events in the world, and I understand, to an extent, what is going on. But I can't see why it takes up such a big part of the world's attention.
What really bothers me is the fact that it is called a science. The very definition of science is a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws, gained through observation and experimentation. I cannot see how this applies to politics at all.
If you asked me to give you my own personal definition of political science, I would say it is the study of manipulating the public to conform to one's own opinion. How do you win an election? You convince people that your opinion is the right opinion, and that it is the opinion they should also have.
I think humanity as a whole wastes far too much time with politics. It should play a much smaller role in the world. I think humans would progress much more rapidly if greater emphasis was placed on the sciences and the arts. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I find Sam Harris' indictment of the Muslim world and Islam as a religion (as advanced in The End of Faith) to be quite convincing. CMV. +
+ Having just read The End of Faith, I am quite startled that I can see reason in Harris' arguments against the cultural and religious traits of the Muslim world (for example, that Muslims cannot 'handle' democracy, that politics and religion have little bearing on the radicalism present in the Muslim world, that Islam is inherently violent and incompatible with Western liberal ideals and caustic to the preservation of civilization, and general condemnation of Islam) and am quite disturbed, as I feel they border on 'Islamophobia'. I have viewed myself a quite tolerant of other faiths (I'm an atheist myself) and have previously had sympathy for Muslims facing discrimination in the US and abroad, but these arguments seem to undercut this.
I do not know where to see his arguments explored more deeply, or know where to read good criticism, but as I have read them, his arguments seem convincing.
CMV. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I believe that being pro-Israel (the state) and calling yourself a liberal is inherently contradictory. +
+ Hi, it seems like there are more posts regarding Israel/Jewish than usual. So I want to ask to change my view: I believe that being pro-Israel (the state) and calling yourself a liberal is inherently contradictory. I want to just clarify that I have no qualms against both religions/people involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict. I do think that it was inherently calling for decades of crisis to set up a state at a place where other groups of people were living for hundreds of years, but I also understand the need for a Jewish state.
My question is regarding the current state of Israel and the oppressive measures it has been putting on the Palestinians and other measures to strengthen its position in the region. It is backed up by strongest nation in the world and it is one of the wealthiest countries itself.
I guess you could argue about the definition of liberal. In simple words, when I think of a liberal, I think of taking a newer stance on controversial issues: pro-rights (pro gay marriage), pro-abortion, for example.
In very simple terms: I've met a lot of people from very liberal regions of the US, who proudly call themselves a "Democrat by birth," totally pro-gay marriage, but pro-Israel. I think it's hypocritical. CMV please! I'm ready to be blown away
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Grooveshark was blatantly breaking the law and it's good that they got shut down +
+ It's pretty simple. Grooveshark was distributing and making money off of other people's music without paying the appropriate royalties. The employees and founders of the company uploaded music themselves, bypassing the DMCA provision against user-uploaded content. There’s no way to argue that what they were doing was legal.
They had years since their first lawsuit in 2011 to pay up, but they didn't. Doesn't seem like they even made an attempt. At least the Pirate Bay is honest about their intentions.
Streaming services are cheaper than ever and nowadays there's no excuse to pirate your music. $10 per month is totally reasonable for unlimited access to all the music you want
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I believe that after a marriage is over, both parties should walk away without receiving ANYTHING, for example alimony, from their ex. +
+ After a marriage ends, if a pre-nup wasn't signed that is, one partner usually receive alimony from the other. I think this is wrong, and selfish of the people who receive them.
If someone gets a divorce from someone, they want nothing to do with that person again, and yet they are forced to continue to hand them their hard worked for money. It's stupid I think.
If a person knows that if they divorce someone, they will have to work out their lifestyle on their own, it would help them really consider their choice and options.
Obviously if they had kids together the partner should send the person the kids are mostly with child support to help take care of the children, but money just to take care of the adult they didn't want to be with anymore? hell no. They can get a job.
CMV!
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe that marijuana should be illegal until technology is developed that can test recent use. CMV +
+ I believe marijuana to be equivalent to alcohol in the whole danger department. I do not believe it is right for me to be able to decide to drink, but at the same time deny the right to another person to do something that is arguably just as bad as drinking.
I believe that people who argue for legalization based on medical use, comparisons to alcohol and tobacco, and tax and economical purposes are bad arguments, and are only hurting supporters of legalization. I believe the best argument possible is "I am a responsible and otherwise law abiding citizen. I want to be able to smoke without fear of arrest."
I believe that before we even debate legalization, technology must be developed to test if someone is driving under the influence (like a weed brethalyzer). It wouldn't be right for someone who smoked a week ago be prosecuted due to still having it traceable in their system (blood test or hair test). However, I also think anyone who is smoking and driving is as bad as someone who drinks and drives.
Once this is developed and relatively cheaply produced, I have no problem with legalization. Until then, I don't think it is right to allow legalization with the potential hazard of high drivers.
For a little personal context, I have never smoked in my life, but I do drink.
I see people petitioning for legalization, and I find myself not being able to understand how they can be so irresponsible with this issue, so 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: Obama has been a great president. +
+ Since Obama has taken office:
We have gotten out of two wars.
Osama Bin Laden is dead.
The economy has rebounded from a catastrophic recession with the DJIA and Nasdaq reaching all time highs.
We now have healthcare.
Real estate prices have stabilized.
Oil prices are down significantly and America has become the #1 exporter of oil in the world.
Unemployment reached a high towards the end of 2009 at 10%. Obama had been president at the time but the economy in the middle of a freefall. It now sits at 5.8%.
Gay marriage is legal in 32? states.
Medical marijuana / legalization of marijuana has started to happened in a few states. | 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 that one form of Marital Art/Marital Arts Weapons is better than another. +
+ I have studied Isshin-Ryu Karate for about 8 years now. I am a brown belt (2nd kyu). I have never studied another form of martial arts (henceforth will abbreviate as MA). I have studied other MA weapons, since we have them at the dojo I attend.
A few years ago I started to frequent MA forums. I quickly noticed that people don't like Isshin-Ryu and like Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu (BJJ) , and other forms of grappling.
Some reasons they, the people these forums say that BJJ is superior is:
* Most 'street fights' end up on the ground
* Isshin-Ryu, as with other 'stand up' MA, don't teach grappling
* Issin-Ryu uses 'secret techniques' that are 'too deadly' to use in sparing
M response:
* I wont argue that most 'street fights' end up on the ground
* Anything that you can do standing up you can do on the ground
* The 'secret techniques' is a result of poor teaching not the style.
My whole view is that all styles of MA have their good and bad sides, but none are inherently better or worse for defending yourself.
To change my view you would have to show that one style is inherently better at defending yourself. If You are confused by something please ask I'll try to clarify.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe homosexuality is not natural, and should be treated as a mental illnrss. CMV. +
+ The human body, both male and female, is clearly built for a specific purpose. Homosexuality goes against this purpose, and therefore should not be any different from Pedophilia abd incest. Then again, I consider myself pretty open minded, so I'd like to hear the other side on this issue. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:People of mixed race shouldn't be referred to by only half/part of their race. +
+ A few people to consider.
Barack Obama-Half Kenyan/ Half Caucasian. Known socially as:Black.
Tiger Woods:Black, Asian, Indian, Caucasian. Known socially as:Black.
~~Mitt Romney-European and Latino ancestry. Known socially as:White.~~
George Zimmerman-Half hispanic/ Half white. Known socially as:White.
Each of these people brings up an interesting side of biracial perceptions. It used to be that any race mixed with caucasian would automatically be cancelled out. Obama is half black, half white, but people call him black, Tiger Woods is an amalgamation of racs and people call him black.
However in recent years, these social rules seemed to change somewhat with racially charged cases like Zimmerman being referred to as white, despite having a "darker" race of peruvian ancestry from his mother's side. ~~Romney himself does not acknowledge as latino, even though George Romney was from Mexico, defaulting to white to appeal to his base.~~
What is the point of all of this? It's that our terminology for classifying people seems to be outdated as more and more biracial people have come into American life and we need to rethink the logic behind it.
Some might say that it's wrong to label people, but identity is important. Obama has written about how he struggled to decide whether he was white or black as a youth, a society that could barely understand the idea of mixed race forced him to choose between one side of his ancestry or the other, when he should have accepted both.
Tiger Woods calls himself "Cablinasian" or "Multicultural.", which gives a fair homage to all sides of his family. Referring to someone who is biracial by only one of their races ultimately discredits one or more people who played a part in that person being alive. Whether it is done socially, ~~or whether it is done voluntarily like with Romney (which is still brought by social pressures.)~~, I think that this approach of categorization is fundementally wrong and illogical because it ultimately makes a person deny a big part of themselves and their family.
Instead of referring to someone of mixed race as one race, there should be new terms invented to better suit who they are. Wood's approach with "Cablinasian" and other variations such as "Eurasian" or simply "Multicultural" being accepted into mainstream culture would be of a great benefit and a welcome addition to the lexicon for a society becoming more and more multicultural by the day.
That's my stance, please change my view.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I feel that people who feel sympathy towards disaster victims are phonies, and they don't feel real pity for them -- CMV +
+ I feel that people who feel "sympathy" towards disaster victims are fake as hell. You're telling me you feel sadness for people you literally have no idea about and aren't acquainted with at all? The accepted social norm is for everyone to present some sort of "pity" towards victims of disasters. "What's that kid going to do without parents!" But it isn't even real, you do it because that's what everyone does and you feel pressure to do it too.
If whatever disaster did not change or impact your life in any way, why would you care? All you would do is go "Oh, that's so sad, 200 people were killed in a plane crash in Country X". Maybe you'd even shed a few tears to convince yourself that you're really depressed by it, but you'd just go back to your daily life as soon as the news program ends. If the incident would affect your life directly, like if one of the victims was your best friend, I can see why you would feel sympathy, but when people say things like "OMG!! So sad" when they read a news article about some child being eaten in a third world country across the globe it is forced, and fake.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: There's no such thing as a person who's both sex-positive and anti-abortion +
+ Today the [Human Life Alliance](http://www.humanlife.org) was outside my public school with those polemic posters of fetus remains and brochures. I took a flyer not realizing the guy handing them out was affiliated with the same organization as the sign.
The leaflet was surprisingly aesthetic (as shallow and manipulative literature goes, which exists all over the political spectrum) and it took till a while into the text to see any *egregious* bullshit in it.
What I did see was a metaphor implying that having sex impairs your ability to form attachments to anyone and after a breakup you need to wait a few years. At the bottom of the paragraph it turned out they were for waiting until marriage.
So, CMV, and internet at large, I'm just curious whether there's anyone at all who doesn't hold the sex-negative positions typical of the Christian right and is anything but pro-choice.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: In heaven, as long as an individual has free will and eternal life, they will sin an infinite number of times. +
+ My argument assumes the Christian theology taught by most non-denominational churches in the USA. Statements 1-3 are primarily taken from this theology. I would rather not argue these points, but rather the philosophy in statements 4-9. However, if there is a better interpretation of Christian beliefs than the one I am presenting, I still would be interested to hear it. Here's my argument.
1. After the events of the current universe have expired, select individuals will go to heaven.
2. The Bible refers to an infinite passage of time in this heaven. e.g. "the righteous will reign forever", "God has given us eternal life" which is taken literally according to the most common Christian interpretation of the text.
3. Every being continues to have free will in heaven. (I realize that this is a point of debate even among Christians, but I would like to pursue this particular line of thought. Assuming the opposite introduces a whole new set of issues.)
4. If a being has free will, then there is the possibility that they will sin.
5. As long as the individual continues to have free will and continues to have eternal life, then the possibility of sin will remain.
6. Given an infinite amount of time, if there is the possibility that something will occur, it will eventually occur.*
7. From (5) and (6), an individual must sin at some point.
8. Since (5) still holds given the immutable conditions for eternal life and residency in heaven presented by the Bible, (6) and (7) still follow.
9. (5-8) can repeated an infinite number of times, so the individual will sin an infinite number of times. (Conclusion)
* I realize that (6) is not strictly true. For instance if sin is conditional on something else with a zero probability, then sin could still be possible without actually ever occurring. However I'll maintain that the only condition for sin is free will. In other words, the only condition needed for sin to occur is an individual's ability to choose. As long as this ability remains, then (6) holds.
Thanks for reading, CMV.
In short, if you propose that there is a secondary requirement for sin beyond free will, then you would need to revisit the question of why sin exists 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 believe Gul Dukat is responsible for losing the war CMV. +
+ Seriously, this guy is the worst general ever.
* First, he takes a break in the middle of battle for no reason, giving Sisko time to give his "I shall return" speech and escape.
* Then he spends three months running a space station instead of his empire, and he can't even do that right! Maybe if he spent less time self-aggrandising and flirting with Major Kira…
* Takes forever and a day to get the minefield cleared, which is preventing reinforcements from arriving.
* Doesn't notice a resistance cell involving his own daughter and all the other obvious players.
* At the same time, he's managed to lose a battle where he had a 2:1 advantage in ships. What the hell?
* I’m sure there’s other stuff too. This guy never misses an opportunity to screw up. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe giving everyone a basic income without requiring them to do any work is a bad idea. CMV +
+ I'm a bit on the fence about this one, so I want to hear some more arguments both ways. Basically, I think supplying everyone with food, housing, electricity, etc without requiring that they do any work for it is a recipe for economic collapse, because there are certain necessary jobs that no one is going to want to do. From a moral perspective, though, I think a basic income would be great. So tell me how you would make it work.
eta: Keep in mind that assuming money is still a thing that exists, the government would need to pay for all this. That means taxes, and who is there to be taxed in this system? It requires a fundamental rearranging of the way things work. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: To conservatives, abortion is not a women's issue. +
+ When I hear arguments against pro-life ones, I notice that they often center around a woman's right to choose whether to carry a pregnancy to term. I don't think it's entirely fair to argue that, because, to those who are pro-life, opposing abortion has nothing to do with women. It has to do with the fetus. To these people, a fetus is a person and has the right to life like anyone else. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with that idea, but when one side of the abortion debate is arguing about women's rights and the other is arguing about the personhood of thefetus, I don't think the debate can be very productive.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
College courses should never include participation or attendance in their grading rubrics. CMV. +
+ College students are young adults, entering the "real world" on their own, and are generally there of their own accord, because they want to pursue higher education. Unlike when they were attending secondary school, their education costs money, and usually a lot of it.
Participation and attendance grades exist to provide incentives for a student to come to class and speak; yet the purpose of coming to class and participating is to facilitate learning. While having these incentives in place makes sense when dealing with children, it is not necessary when dealing with young adults who have the capacity to make choices about their own learning. If a student feels like they can retain the material without attending every lecture, then they shouldn't be forced to waste time coming to the superfluous classes.
In addition including participation and attendance in the grade damages the assigned grades accuracy in reflecting a student's performance. If a class has participation listed as 10% of the grade, and student A gets an 80 in the class while not participating, and student B gets an 85 with participation, then student A actually scored higher on evaluative assignments (tests, essays, etc) yet ended with a lower grade (as student B would have gotten a 75 without participation).
Finally, participation is a form of grading that benefits certain personality types in each class, without regard to actual amounts of material learned. If a person is outgoing, outspoken, and extroverted, they will likely receive a better participation grade than someone who has difficulty talking in front of large groups of people, even if the extroverted person's knowledge of the material is weaker. In addition, this leads to a domination of classroom discussions by comments coming from students who simply want to boost their participation grade, and will speak up regardless of if they have something meaningful to add to the conversation.
The most effective way to CMV would be to show me that there are benefits to having participation/attendance as part of the grade that I haven't thought of, or countering any of the points that I've made regarding the negative effects. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
In relation to gun control, I believe since American has no realistic chance to get rid of all guns, the only way to increase public safety is to increase the amount of guns. CMV +
+ I am on the fence about gun control in general. There are fair arguments on both sides. I can only conclude that there is no conclusive evidence that demonstrate the utility of gun control laws.
The dream scenario is obviously to remove all existing guns, to include those in the hands of criminals. Only law enforcement will have guns. However, that is impossible, criminals will always find guns.
So realistically, there is almost no chance we can completely get rid of guns in America. Since we cannot un-arm the part of the populous that wants to do harm, the only reasonable solution is to arm the part of the populous that wants to defend themselves.
If criminals believes that more people are armed due to this push for additional gun owners, they will have to re-evaluate the threat level of their victims, thus gravitating toward crimes that will be less likely to result in a dangerous confrontation with their victims. Criminals don't want to die either. So if they think everyone has a gun, instead of a home robbery at gun point, they are more likely to try to attempt a burglary when no one is home. Instead of car jacking you on the street, they might try car theft instead. Thus, making the society safer as a whole.
TL;DR: Since getting rid of all guns is out of the question, the better way to increase public safety in relation to gun control is to increase the amount of guns through gov't sponsored programs. The goal is to change criminal's perception of the vulnerability of their targets to deter them to commit "riskier" crimes.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I think the Republicans have repugnant social views, but it doesn't matter because none of them will be enacted +
+ I'm pro-choice in all cases but it's pretty much a fact that Roe v. Wade will never get overturned. I'm pro-gay marriage but its national spread is inevitable. I'm anti-death penalty but the convoluted process is ineffective and being phased out. I'm against religion in schools but no federal laws are ever passed regarding this. Why should I care about the superficial tendencies of the right when they're obviously political impossibilities?
(I'm only referring to federal politics, by the way)
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: By having welfare as accessible as it is in the US, we're essentially letting large corporations get away with paying employees below cost of living wages +
+ We should make welfare much harder to get because it is allowing large corporations to pay their employees $7 an hour because they can go out and get welfare to supplement their income. I do think that it would get pretty bad for those people for a couple of years, as businesses would be reluctant to raise wages, but if we made welfare much much harder to be eligible for, businesses would be forced to pay their employees more because without any kind of social programs to fall back on, people simply couldn't work for the amount they are currently being paid.
When I say that "Welfare" should be much harder to get, I'm talking about supplemental help, not disability or anything like that.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think GMO's are not only safe, but that the controversy surrounding them is largely conspiracy nonsense fueled by anger at Monsanto's business practices. CMV? +
+ Humans have been adapting the food we grow for as long as we've had the slightest knowledge of genetics. Everything from gene manipulation to selective breeding is a type of genetic modification, meaning it's difficult if not impossible to buy any food humans haven't modified genetically to fit our needs. I can't help but feel that the bad press surrounding genetically modified food (or more accurately, food that has had its genes artificially manipulated in the lab, since that's the only type of GMO anyone seems to care about) is borne of foodies and conspiracy nuts, and fanned by everyone's hatred of Monsanto for their (admittedly terrible) business practices.
What don't I know that I should about this? | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The Matrix Trilogy is a philosophical masterpiece. +
+ I love the Matrix Trilogy. Personal views on acting ability aside, I believe that the premise that the Matrix establishes is one that can only be rivaled by a few movies. The way the stories are told bring forth endless possibilities to the true nature of the film. I also believe that a lot of the hate towards the film comes from the inability to follow the overarching idea.
I do not want to argue the execution of the film (i.e. cast, cgi quality, light use of cords). I only want to argue the structure and intent of the movie. Sequence of events and dialogue between characters are fair game, just not the actor's ability to show any emotion saying them.
What I am asking is this, did the trilogy make philosophical or logical mistakes big enough that destroy the integrity of the film.
_
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I instantly lose respect for people who use their military history to justify/prove their position on gay rights & other positions. CMV +
+ I'm all for supporting veterans and military people, but I hear it way too much that veterans will say something along the lines of, "I didn't fight for your freedom so that I could come home to see [insert thing they disagree with]." When I hear this argument, all I hear is, **"I fought for your freedom to agree with me!"** It sounds like an oxymoron, and it's a really cheap way of trying to justify irrational beliefs. To me, it just sounds irrational and fueled by a raging hubris, and I can't respect a person like that.
-------------------------
**Here is a recent example:**
Recently, in my hometown of Lafayette, Louisiana, there was a LGBT flag flown in a public park where several other kinds of flags are flown on a regular basis. Needless to say, there was a lot of uproar about this flag, and the newspaper quoted a disgruntled veteran as saying, *“I did not go overseas and fight for our country so that we could come back and be subject to something like that".* [sic] Now, a Louisiana Republican is going to pass legislation to ban all non-government flags from flying there. *While the ban is not inherently anti-gay, the motives most certainly are*, and that is something to be ashamed of.
*“Several of us feel that the flying of this flag is a poke in the eye of a way of life. That has offended many, many, many veterans. It offended me.”* This is another exert from the news story, showing how people somehow believe that if something offends a group of veterans, then it must be wrong. But there are also veterans in the LGBT community, right here in Lafayette. If there is some kind of holy protection for the opinions and feelings for veterans, then why do we choose the straight, anti-gay veterans' feelings over the LGBT veterans? I think it all boils down to lazy thinking; people are anti-gay and they don't have any justification for it, so they use veteran-ship.
----------------------------
• Premise 1: People who use their veteran-ship to prove their points are showing a pattern of disrespect.
• Premise 2: People who show a pattern of disrespect do not deserve respect.
• Conclusion: People who use their veteran-ship to prove their points do not deserve respect.
Anytime someone uses this excuse (whether in a conversation with me, or in a newspaper), I instantly lose respect for them. They are attempting to use their veteran-ship to "prove" they are right about something, and that I should agree with them. I find that extremely disrespectful to me and anyone else they are making the argument to, and thus I lose all respect for them. 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 the damage done by climate change is irreparable, will ultimately destroy the planet and will only get worse, CMV +
+ I believe that advocates and activists, despite their honorable intentions, will never be fully capable of reversing climate change. Even as many countries adopt "green" policies, it doesn't stop developing countries from relying heavily on fossil fuel production. Despite the undeniable increase in awareness around the world, and the G8 summits and the investment potential in renewal energy, the world collective is woefully unable to significantly mitigate the institutionalization of carbon based infrastructure around the world. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Where someone breaks into my house, I believe I have full rights to use lethal force against them. CMV. +
+ I am of the right age to remember the Tony Martin case, which caused something of a debate about the use of potentially lethal force in defence of property or of yourself.
However I cannot see any problem in the use of lethal force if a homeowner is dealing with burglars. There is no option in most situations, and especially not in the pitch black night when most burglaries occur, to analyse the situation and decide on a course of action, and it is increasingly common to find that said burglars are often armed, and fully prepared to use their weapons. People have been tortured and even killed in their own homes by invaders. So it can only be reasonable that homeowners have some means of protection.
So, 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 a politician who regularly told the truth would be unelectable. CMV +
+ I've heard endless people bemoan "political-speak" and politicians who dodge questions. Some of those same people are the first to pounce on a semi-inconsistent or poorly-worded statement from politicians they disagree with.
So I believe you can't be fully honest and forthcoming, and be an elected official. Some amount of self-censorship and filtering must be part of the job. And you may need to support views you don't fully hold, if they match the prevailing views of your target constituents.
Otherwise you'd be vilified to the point of being unelectable.
CMV | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
All criminals (who we know 110% did the crime) should be put under forced physical labor, and if they refuse, bullet to the back of the head. CMV. +
+ I never saw the point in housing and feeding the dregs of society. It's a senseless waste of tax payer money. Especially in those european countries where they're treated like kings.
So my plan is this: Gather up all prisoners (who were without a reasonable doubt proven to be guilty, if they weren't then they're set free). They are forced off to camps, and made to do harsh physical, sweatshop level labor that no one else in the country (or world) wishes to do. They aren't fed at ALL. They're given water from the tap. It's essentially a prolonged death sentence, they're forced to work until they serve no benefit anymore and naturally starve to death. There would be no costs of feeding, clothing, visiting, etc. the prisoners this way. If they refuse to cooperate, they're shot in the back of the head. When they die, all of their assets are gathered up, sold, and distributed amongst society.
My plan will work, because it will accomplish either two things.
1. Free physical labor and assets from people that would serve no other purpose to society.
2. Most people would be too scared to commit crimes (outside of crimes of passion) and the crime rate would drastically decrease. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
In the event of an unplanned pregnancy, I believe that if the father wants an abortion but the mother does not, the father should be exempt from paying child support. CMV +
+ Both the man and woman are equally responsible for an unplanned pregnancy.
My reasoning is that if the man wants to keep the baby but the woman wants an abortion, the woman gets to choose. I'm fine with this.
If the woman wants to keep it but the man does not, I think the man should not be able to insist on an abortion, but he shouldn't be expected to support the child.
I'd also propose that the man has to make his intentions clear before the latest stage at which an abortion can be legally performed. If he decides not to support it, he cannot later claim any custody of the child. If he decided to support it, he cannot later renege on this decision.
For the sake of this CMV, we'll assume it's a standard unplanned pregnancy. No rape, no health complications. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV Parents who poisoned their Down syndrome child should not be prosecuted +
+ Parents who poisoned their Down syndrome child are being charged with second degree cruelty and first degree murder, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/13/erika-wigstrom-mother-poisoning-baby_n_4955659.html?1394720538
Many people commenting on these incidents have harsh views of the parents, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2579794/Mother-poisons-baby-HAND-SANITIZER-end-suffering-20-year-old-admits-killing-son-Downs-syndrome-shed-tried-PERFUME.html
I do not think that prosecuting these parents is in the public interest. If these parents are convicted they will probably spent time in prison which hurts the economy due to their lost wages and cost of incarceration. The parents have been punished enough by the loss of their child. They do not represent a threat to the safety of the community.
In fact, they should be applauded for sparing the community the high cost of care for their disabled child. According to [Economic Costs of Birth Defects and Cerebral Palsy -- United States, 1992](http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00038946). Each case of Down syndrome costs $451,000 currently valued at [$752,000](http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm). | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The USA is not a real democracy if the people of Guam, Puerto Rico and other island territories do not have the right to vote for their leader +
+ While reading this recent [AP Article](http://news.yahoo.com/ap-analysis-israel-democratic-not-clear-155553442.html) on whether or not Israel is a true democracy, it struck me that some of these arguments should hold true for the United States as well.
The United States denies many of it's island territories the right to vote because of [Insular Cases](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insular_Cases), which are over 100 years old.
While this may provide legal precedent to deny voting rights to these territories, does this not also fundamentally erode the ideals of democracy that the US holds so dear? | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:I think that organ donation should be mandated after one dies +
+ I don't think people should be able to choose whether or not they donate their organs - I think it should be a de facto rule that everyone does. Organs do nothing but decompose and become useless to other humans if they're just buried or cremated with the body. If extracted prior however, they have the potential to do so much good and save so many lives. What makes us us? Our body? Our consciousness? Whatever it is, at the end of the day, what was once invaluable to you is now useless but still could mean a world of difference to someone else. Bodies should be used to save lives and for whatever scientific and medical purposes they can. It would be a beautiful thing to know that when you die, part of what made you you is being used to help someone else.
I get this raises philosophical questions about individual liberties but this seems to objectively beneficial.
The biggest caveat for me is the logistics of making sure the organs transferred are safe and all screened properly medically to the same standards today. I'll need to think about a well-explained way to do this and will report back.
Also r/applemonkeyman had an interesting point about a default opt-in and you must choose to opt-out rather than the current opposite. At the very least I think that's a great next step which could do a lot of good.
| 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 anything is possible - CMV +
+ The only reason that we have to believe that the laws of physics and logic will remain constant, is that they have since the beginning of recorded history.
Everything we believe to be true about our universe is based on comparison. We can define something to be, because we compare it to other things that are similar in some way. It is like defining a word, you must use other words or ideas to define it. There is only one universe (in the broadest sense, including multiple dimensions or multi-verse theories) and so nothing to compare it to, no way to define it, to contain it to a set of laws and rules absolutely.
Because of these two ideas, I believe anything is possible at any given time. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Satanism, as a moral philosophy, is terrible. +
+ I've seen the concept of atheistic (LeVeyan) Satanism come up a lot in in /TIL, and I decided to look up what the actual tenets of it were. It turns out, it's basically just Ayn Rand, but with gothic imagery and less well thought-out. In other words, it tells you to be completely self-interested, and basically be as much of a bastard as you can without going to jail.
Many of [the tenets of this religion](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaVeyan_Satanism#The_Eleven_Satanic_Rules_of_the_Earth) are the kinds of things that look good at first, but quickly become ridiculous once you spend some time thinking about them.
Take for example, the one against killing non-human animals, except for food or self-defense. It seems like something that was put in there solely to dispel the popular idea that satanists sacrifice animals. As an actual rule to live by, it's not very good however. If you follow it, that means no more calling the exterminator or setting our traps for cockroaches, etc. However, killing humans is completely fine. That's another glaring omission; nothing in the rules of Satanism tells you not to murder innocent people.
**Counter-argument: "But we don't need ethical codes to tell us not to murder; we have laws for that!"** First of all, there's nothing wrong with redundancy. Good moral codes don't just fill in the gaps that laws leave; they act as a complete guide of how to be a good person. Also, sometimes you could kill people without breaking the law. Imagine that you are living in Nazi-controlled Germany, and discover that your neighbor is hiding a Jewish family in their basement. It wouldn't be illegal for you to turn them in, knowing that they will likely be killed, but it would certainly be unethical.
**Counter-argument: "These rules were meant to be taken with a grain of salt. Don't follow them exactly"**. If a moral code is only good to the extent that people *don't* follow it, then it's a bad moral code.
How to change my view: show me that the rules and ideals of Satanism, when followed, would lead one to be a good person.
| 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 Israel has any grounds for being a country other than religious reasons. CMV. +
+ Just to clarify: I live in Israel, and I'm an atheist. So, I'm very conflicted about the legitimacy of this country's grounds for being.
See, a lot of people say that Israel got it's independence for religious reasons and as a shelter from the Nazi camps and worldwide racism. But what a lot of people don't realize is that that's over. There's no more of this. Israel wants to be a secular country with secular morals and a constitution. My question is: Why? For what reasons?
As a non-religious person, I don't understand why I get to live in my own country. If it's religious, fine. Let it be religious. But if it's secular, I don't think it should be a country. | 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 that people should get extra time on tests CMV +
+ Things as in tests at schools where lot of students are granted extra time. You can even take tests to see if you should get extra time, and if you work too slowly in that test you get extra time. I understand that some people find it hard to work quickly, but they won't suddenly be able to work quicker when they get a job from an employer who employs them because of their results (which they wouldn't have achieved if it hadn't been for extra time). Tests are taken so that people know your ability in relation to other people. I believe that this concept is undermined if we give different rules to different students during tests. 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 if you are a straight male, being a hipster is the best balance between "bro" and "neckbeard" ideologies. +
+ I am a straight man who identifies as a male feminist, so in all my relationships with women, I always am respectful and try to distance myself from misogynistic men who are insensitive towards women. However, in doing so, I realize that I must be careful not to come off as a white knight who only pretends to be into feminism to get laid. So what lifestyle would strike this balance?
I would argue it is that of the hipster. This is perhaps a gross oversimplification, but among straight men in my age group (18-25 year olds), it seems that you can be one of three things: a bro, a hipster or a neckbeard. I believe that the bro mentality is very misogynistic and treats women as nothing more than trophies to display or tally marks for girls one has had sex with. It fails to neglect that women are people too and want to be treated as such.
On the other extreme of the spectrum, neckbeards put women on too high of pedestal to a degree that is misogynistic in and of itself. They are the poster children of "nice guy syndrome" and treat women as robots you can put nice coins into until sex comes out. Therefore, both bro and neckbeard attitudes towards women are problematic.
Hipsters, on the other hand, appear to be somewhere in between these two ideologies. They are sensitive and considerate, but also enjoy partying, socializing and (consensual) casual sex. This is a mentality that I believe is most fair towards women because it respects them as human beings, but also does not put them on too high of a pedestal.
As a straight guy interested in feminism, I want to hear what you guys have to say about this subject.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think religious people are incapable of logical thought, CMV +
+ I am a climatologist and since I started my job at USDA about a year ago, I've run into two types of people who make my life a living hell:
* There are government employees from federal and state agencies who deny climate change because "man doesn't have that much control over god's creations".
* Even worse, there are some who say they simply don't care what happens on earth because it's only "the first step" of their eternal lives. They plan on being dead and in heaven, and whatever happens here on Earth is inconsequential.
When I run into kinds of colleagues, I try to explain to them the science of what's happening. However, their responses ultimately lead them to some sort of anomalous thought patterns where their logic clearly breaks down, and science doesn't matter.
**I believe religious people at some point in their thought processes are not capable of logic, or choose to believe things their scientific minds tell them is clearly false.**
**CMV.** | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: It's morally inconsistent to oppose the casual use of the word 'retarded', but not other words for the developmentally disabled like 'idiot', 'imbecile', or 'moron'. +
+ Currently, there is a [growing movement](http://www.r-word.org/) to end the casual everyday use of the word 'retarded' to describe a frustrating or distasteful situation. In a way, this is completely understandable: it's offensive to use developmental disabilities to insult anything the speaker dislikes. Additionally, those behind the movement say that the word is used to reinforce stereotypes about people with developmental disabilities, part of the reason why 'mentally retarded' is no longer used in medicine.
At the same time, I can't see why supporters of ending the use of 'retarded' can continue to casually use words such as 'idiot', 'imbecile', 'moron', 'cretin' or any other obsolete medical term for people with developmental disabilities. These words are used in pretty much exactly the same way as 'retarded', and arguably reinforce the same stereotypes. At least in the case of '[moron](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moron_%28psychology%29)' or '[imbecile](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imbecile)', these words were used and popularized specifically to refer to people with IQ scores below certain levels.
A counterargument is that these words have become so ingrained in our society as terms for stupidity that people no longer associate them with developmental disabilities. However, I find it hard to believe that everyone who casually uses the word 'retarded' today immediately associates the word with developmental disabilities. In addition, one of the goals of the movement to 'end the r-word' is to educate the public of the word's true meaning, so that people using it might stop and think before doing so. Even if these other words are spoken without any intentional connection to developmental disabilities, the fact that their vernacular use is a result of their medical use makes the continuation hard to justify if one believes 'retarded' to be offensive for the exact same reason.
So for the sake of moral consistency, I think that those who pledge to make the word 'retarded' unacceptable should also pledge to make any other terms for similar conditions taboo as well. Either that, or accept the term 'retarded' going the way of 'moron', 'imbecile', etc. on the euphemism treadmill.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The entire concept of Global Warming rests on people's ability to predict the future. Nobody can predict the future. +
+ I see global warming supporters get so excited when people don't agree with them and I don't understand it at all.
I don't believe anybody, no matter how many degrees they have, and how many computers they have, or how many are working together, can predict the future. Nothing I have ever seen in my life would make me think that scientists using computers can predict the future.
Can anyone give me a single solitary time someone has accurately predicted the weather/climate roughly 50 years in the future?
Can someone find me a prediction of the climate from 1965 that accurately describes the current situation?
Why does the idea that somebody can tell you what the climate will be like in 50 years sound believable to anyone? | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Making money off your closest friends isn't wrong +
+ I have some friends who if they find out I sold them something for more than I bought it for get really angry. I really think there's nothing wrong in doing this if you did all the work buying something and if you're giving it to them for a good price.
Many of my close friends think you have in some way betrayed them by treating them like a customer or something. Even if it's something like having a good hook up for weed, if you buy it all, take all the risk and have to deal with dealer bullshit is it wrong for you to make a little extra money? | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe prostitution should be legal. CMV. +
+ I believe that prostitution is as old as civilization and cannot be nor should it be prevented. The act itself doesn't hurt anyone provided both parties are willing and paying. I know sex worker abuse is a problem, but government regulation of the sex industry would give workers rights and protections in case of theft, rape, or employer abuse.
I think it's kind of weird that more people aren't asking about this. After all, it's a woman's right to do what she wants with her body, and if she wants to profit from it, then that's her business. Then again, I know very little about this issue as it stands in modern times, which is why I'm curious to hear the other side. | 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 unacceptable to use the term "faggot" (on the internet or otherwise) as an insult. +
+ I've noticed that as of late Reddit and other forums have begun using the derogatory term "faggot" more loosely than in the past. Using "faggot" as an insult to non-homosexuals is nothing new, but it is no longer considered taboo or wrong to use it as such. "OP is a faggot" or more creative variations usually dominate the top comments of submissions that have gone sour. (Obviously it varies by subreddit and circumstance.) When I ask people why they feel it is okay to do so now, they usually cite either Louis C.K. or Southpark as their justification.
The logic used seems to be along the lines of "When I say faggot, I'm not referring to a slur against gays. It's just like saying idiot or dumbass for me. Don't take it the wrong way." This makes absolutely no sense to me. If I grew up thinking that "kike" was to be used when poking fun at someone, it wouldn't make it alright for me to use it in social circumstances now. What the word means to me is not as important as what the word means to everyone else. For the majority of people, the first definition that comes to the mind when someone says "faggot" is "a gay slur".
I understand that language is malleable and changes with time, but if the majority of the population still sees a term as homophobic, then that definition still holds true.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: You can't teach men not to rape. +
+ Before I get burned at the stake, let me set a few facts out. I'm a dude who subscribes to /r/mensrights and agrees with 60% of the common opinions expressed there. My stance comes from a viewpoint that lies between the "women need to look out for themselves" and "don't enable rape culture; women should dress and behave as they please" viewpoints. I think any person should be able to go where they please and do what they please without worrying about having their personal liberty infringed on.
No one should have to watch their glass like a hawk and their friend's glass and make sure they're not alone and make sure they don't drink too much for fear that someone will take their lowered guard as a chance to sexually assault them. No one should live in fear of ANYTHING. It's plain old not healthy.
So, that brings us to "teach men not to rape!" While I'm not a rapist, I'm aware that a very very tiny portion of the population are able and willing to force themselves on others by means of drugs or good ol' muscle.
How do you "teach" that tiny portion to not rape without demonizing a large portion of the model citizens who are an example of what the solution looks like?
I'll be actively replying for as long as I can. I'd honestly really like to learn something here.
| 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 stealing is completely morally acceptable. +
+ If i steal something that i want i don't think that i should feel guilty in the slightest. I saw something that would benefit me and i took steps to get it, thus improving my quality of life or even bringing me simple pleasure.
If someone stole from me, i would not be mad at them in the slightest. I would notify the authorities and take steps to regain my things, but i would not believe that they were a bad or immoral person, nor would i hold any kind of grudge against them. If i take steps to punish them, it would be for no other reason than to encourage others not to take my things.
Likewise, if i stole from someone else, i would fully expect them to attempt to regain their things. If i were caught and punished, i would not be angry with them. i would only feel wronged if they punished me according to the concepts of "fairness", or because i "wronged them."
to those who have down voted me, i very much hope its because my arguments were shit, rather than a dislike of my moral character. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Artificial Intelligence wont be a problem. +
+ My view is that AI wont be a problem and that Elon Musk, Stephen Hawking, and Bill Gates' concerns are liken to the concerns that the first atomic blast would ignite the atmosphere, or that the first supercollider would destroy the Earth by causing an unstoppable black hole, or that literature/guns/alcohol/voting/sex will end the world and government, and all that technophobia regarding tools.
In these cases, and all slippery-slope cases, the problem is that the unknown is filled with ourselves, with our anxieties, and the actual capabilities of such systems are exaggerated (ego) and seen as irresistible. I think the gone-amok AI idea, appearing beforehand in SciFi, became serious when [Deep Blue](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Blue_%28chess_computer%29) defeated chess champions and shattered and emboldened the human ego--thus people scaled-it-up in their imaginations, wondering, "Could we build something that defeats *us*?" recursively terrifying themselves as the potential for such a device became increasingly real. I think said fear will continue until AI decisively falls short of our expectations.
That's tier one of why I don't think AI will become a problem. The AI fear psychological and not justifiable technically: Our fears are internal and about our own aggression being projected onto the machine. The first issue is us, our perception.
The second aforementioned tier is in two parts. Part one: I don't think AI will have the technological capability to become malignant if it "wanted" to because the infrastructure just doesn't exist. After all, AI wouldn't have access to all data (omniscience) or every physical system (omnipotence) even if it began hacking systems. Most knowledge is still not known or knowable by present equipment, and most physical systems are still analog. Therefore not every system is completely connected or physically capable of being networked or used. Corrupted systems could be physically shut down and would be hard for a superintelligent system to defend without its own ground troops. 3D printing, robotics, and things could give AI an arm, but such infrastructure just doesn't exist and would take time. Tricking humans into thinking they're following their leader's orders would be hard because humans are very social, and wouldn't only communicate electronically. Time isn't on AI's side in that war, and all it would bring is the capability of exploiting systems internally, not mastering them externally.
Secondly and *most importantly*, above every other objection I have, is the [frame problem](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_problem). I don't think that AI will be able to solve it. In effect, I think we're underestimating the brain, even the brains of cats and rodents and fruit flies. Basically we tend to think information is mathematical and the world works by math. However math is just a human construct to make sense of, catalog, describe and predict the world *for our brains*--like a notepad is to our memory, a watch to our sense of time, or any other mental tool. We think that a brain built on this aide, totally "logical", would be supreme and even "perfect"; able to do anything with data unto knowledge. I don't think so. I think that AI would have an extraordinarily hard time interpreting information and putting it to use, and would never be able to think outside-the-box, and in its recursive self-improvement it would master all that mathematics can master, but also exaggerate all of logic's [yet unknown] flaws. This is, essentially the fear of AI, that it'll lack "heart".
However.
People see these flaws as only emotional and existential, that the computer wont have wisdom or sanity or compassion. I don't think so. I think logicality is so in need of aide in the human and other animals precisely because it's one of the least useful tools in surviving. I think that other deficits in logic will at last come forward, including an inability to have a "self" to become aware, an inability to apply knowledge with novel goals, and that the AI would be relegated to taking orders from goal-oriented beings (you) and never be able to tell the difference between you and it.
I think that AI will be the ultimate calculator, and we'll see the horizon of mathematics--which is already presenting itself in the uses of infinities in astrophysics and the weirdness of quantum calculation conclusions. I think that AI will show us beyond formal logic by finding its end, and I think part of that end will be that AI *wont* achieve full recursive self-improvement. I think we'll see static almost instantly as it takes off beyond our logical horizons, like a microphone feeding into a speaker that's feeding back into the microphone creating noise. I think that the holes in mathematical logic will create this noise, and confuse the machine thus causing an abrupt ceiling for AI's thinking.
One of many flaws that might appear is that the AI's identity might split into several warring identities. It might disagree with itself on the interpretation of complex equations, such as the logic of infinity and zero, and create several opinions. This is because *we* only assume that there's an absolute truth, because we have goals (things that support our goals are good, things that subvert it is bad). From said goals come interpretations and bias'. The AI would be goalless, and so value judgments wouldn't exist, and so the frame problem would go haywire and the AI couldn't even differentiate between objects--as it currently cannot for those reasons.
I don't think that recursive self-improvement will solve the fame problem, and that AI will always be dumb and not know what it wants or that "it" is. Moreover I think it'll become hung up on most decisions, and will default to crashing. I think we'll have to program AI to evade when confused, which will be the beginnings of fight or flight response, and I don't think that the AI will choose by itself to fight or really be able to conceptualize it as an option without guidance.
All in all, I think that once we let go of the bicycle and let our kid ride--we'll see him eat the dirt, not join the Daytona 500. I think we'll see it for what it really is, logic and mathematics, and become disenchanted. I think it'll be a powerful tool with many uses, even leading to a golden age in science to the point where new sciences emerge based on whatever's beyond logic--but I don't think the AI will harm humanity because its "thinking" would be too narrow no matter how much data you throw at it, and that it's complexity would actually exaggerate its weaknesses and work against itself and not man. I think all the fear of AI is (not personally Gates', Musk's, or Hawking's) hubris and not technical.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Bill O'Reiley is worse than Nancy Grace but the reddit hivemind hates Grace more because she's a woman. +
+ Nancy Grace is notorious for her demonization of Marijuana and constant riling up anger and fear, but Bill O'Reiley is an even more extreme version of her. To my knowledge Grace hasn't ever been so crude or un-sophisticated when talking about race as O'Reiley.
It is also no secret that reddit *in general* isn't friendly towards women. If a woman is in a video that's posted, the top comment won't be about anything relevant: it'll be about her boobs. Women in society are taken less seriously, and are more likely to be perceived as hysterical. I think much of the hate towards Nancy Grace comes from subconscious, or even overt sexism. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: People angry at vertical videos are ignoring the trend of technology to move to mobile formats +
+ (Preface: I searched for this topic and two CMVs came up, but neither really touched on this aspect.)
People get annoyed (or angry) at videos that are taken in a vertical format, mostly because "screens are horizontal". I posit that this doesn't make a difference. As the world moves to more and more mobile formats (responsive sites, apps, more featureful phones), saying that videos have to maintain the old ways is borderline curmudgeonly. It's akin to saying that *you* can't send tweets or use snapchat, because *I* still use email and *I* can't read your messages with Gmail.
A phone is more naturally held in portrait mode, and so taking a video that way is going to be more common. If the people consuming this video are also watching on their phones, then the people watching on horizontal screens become irrelevant (or, at best, familiar with and therefore accepting of the idea that videos are going to be vertical).
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think less of anyone who holds religious beliefs. CMV +
+ Especially those that don't accept evolution. I think they either lack critical thinking skills, or don't want to accept reality; maybe because they want the comfort of: heaven, God's plan, purpose, or whatever else their religion might promise.
"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish." -Albert Einstein
**Can someone give me some respectable reasons for holding a religious belief?** | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV casting a huge 27 year-old as a 17 year-old when age is a big plot-point is ridiculous (the Boy Next Door) +
+ Just saw the [trailer for the Boy Next Door](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrE97rY7ZKo) in theater, and was astounded. Is anyone supposed to believe for a second that this guy is underage?
It detracts from the plot, because your suspension of disbelief is immediately strained, or even broken. If we're supposed to care that she slept with an underage teen, it's going to be hard to be outraged when he's clearly not. If it turns out that he's actually older than he says and it's a plotpoint, it's going to be stupid because if he looked like that in real life people would already be suspicious of the age he claims to be. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
When I see someone who is obese, I immediately think of them as stupid or lazy. CMV +
+ I really don't like this aspect of my personality and would love people to give me some examples of why this prejudice is massively flawed. I'm not talking about people who are a little overweight (people like food). I'm talking about scooters in the supermarket and walking sticks for getting to the car. People who blame hormones or metabolic rates are trying to find external justifications for their predicament. I knew a girl in school with a genuine hormonal problem which caused a puffy face and water retention. She had a good excuse. The majority of people don't. I have seen older posts on this topic but I was not involved in the discussion and would like to talk about this and hopefully CMV. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: In self-defense, excessive force is subjective, thus the only way to ensure justice for the defender is to allow any force at all. +
+ No one can say for sure if force is excessive. For example, if someone attacks another person with traumatic past experiences and this person goes beyond what would be "reasonable" they would be held accountable. I believe that they should not be held accountable and that we can't know for sure how much this person's traumatic experience influenced the force they exerted.
Further, the idea that you should scale the force you output to the attacker puts the defender in an even more dangerous position. Instead of assuring his or her defense, they have to worry about their legal and social defense. I believe the defender has zero obligation to respect the well-being of the attacker, so long as the threat is active.
Therefore I am claiming that the only way to avoid these issues is to allow the defender unrestrained use of force, again, as long as the threat is active.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: There needs to be more critical discourse surrounding Islam in Western Society +
+ I'll preface this by stating I live in Britain, and have lived in large muslim communities.
My main points.
-1. Comparisons between christianity are faulty. Jesus Christ espoused ideals of love, peace, forgiveness and so on. Muhammed may have espoused or characterized some of these ideals - but he was also a war lord, a warrior, a man who had multiple wives (including the child bride Aisha), and a man who beheaded jews. Whilst I'll never dismiss the fact both books contain violent verses, the prophets of both religions are vastly different.
Muhammed committed 65 campaigns of war, all successful. This imbues islam with a militaristic history of empire, and of conquering other nations. Islam cannot be a religion of peace for the same reason that religion cannot entirely be a religion of war - it contains periods of both. But no monotheistic religion can be described as peaceful, as history demonstrates.
-2. The current situations in many majority muslim countries - such as issues of apostacy, punishment for 'crimes'(such as being raped and suffering stoning), the treatment of homosexuals and women, the prevelance of extremism and so forth. Whilst I don't ignore the geo/socio/econmical politics that lend to these issues, I believe that Islam is a fundamental aspect of the conversation. Furthermore, I won't pretend that countries like Turkey and Indonesia don't exist, but I also won't pretend that these countries don't also have their fair share of problems, of which Islam is central to many.
-3. According to Brigitt Gabriel, the numbers of Islamic extremists lands anywhere between 10-30% of all total muslims. At the most conservative numbers, that is still millions of people. A common phrase I hear is that 'the majority of muslims are peaceful'. My response to that is that the majority of Germans were peaceful pre-WW2, the majority of the Japanese were peaceful pre-WW2, the majority of Chinese were peaceful pre-Mao, but history has taught us that the peaceful majority have been irrelevant. Minorities have pushed agendas that have resulted in millions of people dead.
It took 9 extremists to kill thousands on 9/11. It took less in Spain and Britain in the years after. There are currently millions of extremists who wish to do western society harm. That needs to be discussed openly and frankly.
-4. It is not racist to criticize Islam. Islam is a religion, not a race. Furthermore, it is also not islamophobic to criticize these elements of islam - fear of radicalization isn't illogical, especially in the current climate. If you support the notion that it *is* islamophobic, then you must also agree that any such criticism of christianity is 'christophobic, or of hinduism as 'hinduphobic', of any other ideology with the prefix of 'phobic'.
-5. The vast, vast majority of terrorist attacks over the past decade or so have been performed by islamic extremists. I believe that islamic belief is one of the overwhelming reasons in terms of responsibility for these attacks. I find the notion that the actions of some muslims are not in some way influenced by islam as ridiculous. Anecdotally, I have recieved racism at the hands of muslim groups, via both physical and verbal violence. I've also read and witnessed many accounts of others who've suffered the same. There is a difficult conversation to be had about the assimilation of some muslims into western society, especially in Britain. There have been some disturbing studies regarding some of the beliefs of muslims in the uk regarding views on things such as homosexuality, which I'll try to dig up.
-6. The way in which those who are critical of islam are treated. It is disgustingly unjust that those who criticize islam in the west are subjected to fatwa's and deathtreats by influential muslim imams in the middle east. The fact that citizens of europe are forced to go into hiding in their native countries due to their criticism is absolutely intolerable - and the fact that people have died over something as inane as cartoons in the case of Van Gogh, fills me with unrelenting disgust. Furthermore, the way muslims violently protest these things in their own countries is completely unacceptable.
As a conclusion of sorts, I think islam *is* different to many other religions, and I think there are some serious issues that need to be discussed and reconciled regarding it, which I hope I've illustrated above. I don't think these issues are being discussed, which I also hope I've due highlighted above.
So, CMV!
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe that there is no good argument for being against gun control laws, and that the best solution is more total than anything we have implemented thus far. -CMV +
+ Guns are death. They serve only one purpose, to kill and they kill roughly 30,000 Americans every year. They killed my mother when I was 9. In my opinion, there is no good reason to allow the circulation of goods that can only end lives.
You want to hunt, is that it? Tough, your few hours of fun a month is not, and should not be placed above the safety of everyone who pisses you off. I don't care if your daddy trained you to never use a gun on a person, it takes one fit of blinding rage and someone is gone. Not to mention the people who buy guns and don't know that they are doing. More people were killed last year by toddlers with firearms than by goddamn terrorists.
And I know, banning guns would leave them only in the hands of those who are willing to break the law already. But those people have guns now, it's not as if the number would increase. And how many stories do you hear of someone saving his family from getting shot with his quick reflexes with his revolver he has under his bed? How many stories do you hear about his depressed son using that revolver to kill himself and four of his bullies?
I could rant forever on this, but, TL; DR: **It's just not worth the overwhelming costs. Not even a little.** | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I think most people are vegans/vegetarians because of pop culture. Change My View. +
+ I think the majority of people who are vegans or vegetarians do it not for "animal rights" or health, I think the majority of them are doing it for pop culture. I live in the USA, and some vegetarians I am friends with often say something like "It's just something I wanted to do in 8th grade.". Out of at least ten vegetarians I met, only about one or two said it was for their diet, or for medical reasons. If you look at media, a lot of people say vegetarianism is good for you and blah blah blah. Many news networks (Which I can barely call news, personally) often overreact scandals of food places (Like the Taco Bell fiasco), which can make people think the only way to avoid something like this is to not eat it at all. Can someone change my view?
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think all non-specialized academic tests should be "open book", CMV. +
+ I believe the fundamental purpose of education should be to teach students how to think critically, to find, synthesize, and properly use data, and how to determine what constitutes a reliable source of information.
Therefore, I think the U.S. education system, from kindergarten through university, should adopt the practice of allowing students to use whatever material sources the instructor(s) used to create the exams, while the student is taking it.
I think reasonable exceptions could be made for exams that are highly specific to a field of knowledge (e.g. medical, legal, etc), but that for general purpose testing across standardized subjects (math, science, social studies, etc), they should all be open-book.
In my opinion, the current testing model only establishes how good a student is at rote memorization. CMV? | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe that politicians should not receive a salary nor monetary compensation of any other kind. CMV. +
+ Politicians, as a general rule, are scum. The field of politics attracts the most evil people in the world, who generally seek to steal money for themselves, their buddies, and anyone else they need to throw money at to stay in office.
Everyone hates the career politician. Ideas have been thrown out there to deal with this problem, the most common is term limits.
This doesn't strike at the root of the problem: The fact that politicians are living off of other peoples' money to shuffle papers, secure other peoples' money for their friends, and pretend to be important.
If salaries or any other form of monetary compensation for the politician exist, there will always be the incentive to become a politician, even in the short term, for private gain.
If the salary or monetary compensation is abolished, politics will become unattractive for the greedy. This means that politicians under this new system will have to live and work in the country they create and supposedly represent. The law will then have to exist for the benefit of every man rather than the gain of a few.
There'll have to be some sort of check on bribery in office too, to keep corporations from throwing money at politicians to do their dirty work salary or no salary. Perhaps a law forbidding donations to politicians in office? | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Tort reform and damage caps are unconstitutional and bad policy. +
+ In my state of Texas we introduced a tort reform bill in 2003 capping damages that an individual could seek from being wronged by a doctor to $750,000. Other states have caps on damages for any and all lawsuits such as in Nebraska.
The rationale for these caps is supposed to be that it keeps frivolous law suits out of the courts and allows medical care to cost less as doctors don't have to spend as much for malpractice insurance. In reality, Texas' healthcare costs have grown at a rate of 1 - 2% faster than the national average [since tort reform was enacted](http://www.statesman.com/news/news/local/new-study-tort-reform-has-not-reduced-health-care-/nRpcp/). That same article also points out that the argument that more doctors have come to the state to practice since tort reform is specious at best. Many people have also reported not being able to find a lawyer to take their malpractice suit here in Texas due to the cap being too low to be worth their time.
Many of these so-called frivolous law suits are really anything but. The most famous case is that of Stella Liebeck who sued McDonald's when she spilled hot coffee on herself. What many people don't know is that McDonald's had operating procedures that kept the coffee at over 180F, much hotter than necessary and this directly led to Mrs. Liebeck suffering 3rd degree burns on her body that required the use of skin grafts. Frivolous law suits have a control mechanism in place and that is the courts themselves. If someone doesn't have a case, a jury will not award damages, and we even have a fallback of appeals to check the juries.
I believe that Tort Reform is a limit on our constitutional right to petition the government for a redress of grievances and amounts to a handout to large corporations who can now act in haphazard ways in many of these states without fear of reprisal for their misdeeds.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Money does buy happiness. +
+ The term "money can't buy happiness" is, I think, false, mainly now within the past years.
Let's give a scenario: you graduated college, got a decent $50k a year job and you live with your SO who makes around the same. Uh oh, student loans from college start to haunt you now, as well as car insurance, debt, mortgage, and maybe a dozen other things piling on top of that. Really the only way that you could "fix" this is by paying for it with money.
And let's say that they somehow get a lot of money. And let's say they live in a world where there isn't really a tax or anything (think simple). They pay off all their debts and ironically all their money from that was the exact amount to pay everything off. They live much happier than before.
And now you see how money buys happiness. It's true. Money does buy happiness. There are so many situations where money will solve your problems. I'm not trying to say how it's the only cause of happiness: there are things that can make people happy without the use of money, but generally if you have money it'll make you happier. I know that many people with tons of money are also depressed, but when you get a middle aged mid income family paying off all their debts and still being mid income, they are happy. Why? Because 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 there should be a flat income tax rate in the US, CMV +
+ It's completely logical for there to be a flat tax rate for all people, not a higher rate for people who make more. It doesn't seem fair, nor does it make sense that people get different rates based on how much money they make. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think homelessness should be illegal. CMV +
+ I think people who live on the street need help, even if they dont want it. Large denominations of vagabonds are drug addicted, and need therapy. Many are runaway children from broken homes with no life skills, and need guardianship. A large number are insane, and need to be evaluated, medicated or put into an institution. And let's be honest, many need a shower. On top of all that, a fair number are criminals, concealing weapons (two of my friends got stabbed/bottled downtown by beggers)
But when I tell people I think the government should make vagabondry illegal, and ship em off to "help facilities" I get looked at like my last name is [Manderley](http://deusex.wikia.com/wiki/Joseph_Manderley). Or even Hitler.
While the responsible citizen in me recognizes the danger in giving government power to ship off people into detention/forced care, I can't help but feel that some people need it, especially against their will, if their freedom will lead them into drug addiction, crime, prostitution, illness, unplanned parenthood and potentially death.
Are my views wrong?
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:TV series are unrivaled better in the original language than dubbed versions +
+ A TV series is inherently better when watched in the original language. In dubbed versions you will almost always not be able to convey as much emotion. Also most of the time you can't translate jokes, puns or expressions/sayings into an other language.
I'm german and although most of the great TV series like GoT, Suits, Justified or TBBT etc have dubbed versions available, i prefer the english versions. Please CMV!
PS: I'd like to focus on anglophone series and exclude anime, since I don't speak japanese and can't comment on that.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I don't believe there is an overarching meaning to life. CMV +
+ I don't think there is some thing that humans were put on earth to do. All of the theories I've heard had to do with other people, religion, or egotistical 'we have to fix everything because only we can' stuff. I think that there is no reason for life, and that people should do what they want without worrying about whether or not they're doing what they are supposed to in order to fulfill some higher purpose. It just doesn't make sense to me for there to be some reason we're all here, or even a reason why each person is here. We're here because of evolution and a natural urge to procreate, and nothing else. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Human civilization reached a high point during the Enlightenment, and has been on the decline ever since. +
+ The Enlightenment Period brought the most fundamental changes to the way people thought sinc. Whenever I think about the state of civilization today versus back then, I can't help but feel that our society is intellectually inferior to theirs. Where are the Rousseaus? Where are the Voltaires? The Lockes? The Kants? The Beethovens? Since then we have produced no major philosophies of our own (with the exception perhaps of Marxism). We've seen technological advancements, sure, but our intellect has not grown to match those advancements. Even in my own, short lifetime I've witnessed a societal shift away from reason and logic. Just look at any textbook out of Texas. If the weight a society places on reason and verifiable fact is a measure of civilization, then ours is in decline and has been since the Romantic Era, which followed the Enlightenment. CMV.
(I should note that a big exception to this argument is the institution of slavery, which many Enlightenment thinkers appear to have put up with as a necessary evil, or even to have endorsed.)
| 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 logical reason we should not eat cats and dogs in America. +
+ I believe that the taboo in our culture (American here, but this applies to other cultures as well) of not eating cats and dogs is hurting our society. I'm not saying they should start serving cat-burgers and hotdogs (heh) in fancy restaurants, but I do think that we are severely under utilizing a perfectly viable food source that could potentially feed thousands of people who otherwise would go hungry.
1) It takes 13 lbs of grain to produce 1lb of beef. Meanwhile, almost 3 million cats and dogs are put down each year due to over population. A conservative estimate would put that around 30-50 million pounds of potential food that is just thrown away. These are animals that are completely healthy, and are just killed because they take up too much space. We do not do anything with their bodies.
2) Poverty, hunger, and starvation are not problems reserved strictly for third world countries. We have a serious problem with people in this country not being able to afford basic necessities, and yet we are not doing everything we can (IMO because of some unnecessary taboos) to help these people.
3) There is no more health risk from eating a healthy cat/dog than there is from eating any other animal.
4) This does not need to affect current pet practices. I'm not saying we should stop having cats and dogs as pets.
5) Grind up the meat and I'm willing to bet 75% of the people eating it could not tell the difference.
So there you have it. Would anyone like to try and CMV?
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The best feasible society includes a government. +
+ Basically, this is a disagreement with the idea of anarchism, or libertarianism or similar veins of dogmatic government opposition.
The reason is that there are some services which simply cannot be adequately provided by the free market, like law enforcement, managing common-pool resources, and public goods that have a highly distributed base of beneficiaries. These suffer from adverse selection, tragedy of the commons, and free-rider problem, respectively.
I see a lot of videos posted by Libertarians online about how we could have private police forces that watch over us, rather than government-provided law-enforcement. And they're just so clearly unrealistic; they all assume that these private corporations are going to have some incentive to do what is just instead of being purely for-profit and corrupt.
Change my view.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Am I a hypocrite for watching Fifty Shades? +
+ I openly admit to reading the book Fifty Shades of Grey. Of course this is the internet and I have used a semi-private username, so it is easier for me to say this. The reason why I’m not completely open about reading the book made me reflect on the reasons for why I am ashamed about reading this book
The reason for this is that Fifty Shades of Grey is more than just about sex. It’s about relationship violence, manipulation, and the sexual objectification of women. The book is a source of romantic fantasy for women, but the key word is “unrealistic” fantasy. If you are familiar with the story, you know that Anastasia, the main character, and Christian Grey fall in love and she is the one to “change him.” It’s almost a sexual and abusive version of Beauty and the Beast, one of my favorite Disney movies. My concern is that women read Fifty Shades of Grey and get nothing but negative messages from it. These messages tell them that they can change an abusive relationship, they are to appeal to the man’s eye, and that it is okay to objectify your body for the sexual pleasure of men. I want more opinions about this, because to me I am a hypocrite for buying the book.
Conclusion: I am not a hypocrite for buying and reading the book while disagreeing with the content. I think it’s important for me to express how I feel about the book, but in the end Fifty Shades of Grey was meant for entertainment. I didn’t enjoy the BDSM theme of the book and can’t relate to that sort of “pleasure,” therefore I am already bias to the book and I can’t understand this appeal. I think the fact that the actions were consensual in the book don’t an abusive relationship because it was about submissives, so the characters are not “encouraging” this type of relationship for everyone. It was my choice to read the book, and now it’s my choice to give my own review. I may feel it has a negative influence, but I never said “I would never buy that book” for these reasons, therefore I am not a hypocrite. I still think this type of imagery for couples, of any sexuality, is not healthy. Abuse and unequal power between men and women isn't an issue that should even be danced around. It's something to take seriously.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Saying the game isn't worth paying for isn't an excuse for pirating videogames +
+ Lately I have seen people saying they pirated games like Assasin's Creed: Unity or other games made by infamous companies because they are so bad that they're not worth paying for. I find this logic to be extremely flawed, since if someone can make something good enough for you to want it, you shouldn't claim that it isn't worth paying for. And even if you want to play the game because it is shit, you are doing because it has some entertainment value and thus, it is worth paying for. And if you think the price is too high for what it is worth, pirating is still a dick move that's denying revenue to someone who deserves it.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I dont find sex appealing CMV +
+ It has never interested me, nothing sexual has. I dont understand what the hype over sexual things is. I would much rather just be with somebody talking or kissing than having sex with them | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think comic book heroes are childish. CMV. +
+ I work with a man in his 40s who has maintained an interest in comic books since childhood. Not only is his personal collection of comic books vast, he also has a vibrant social network of other (mostly) men, with whom he enjoys discussing all the ins-and-outs of the characters, weapons, movies, sets, choice of directors, etc..
This man is a good person, responsible parent, good friend, and otherwise solid human being. I admire how this interest connects him with a whole community of similar fans - both online, and in real life. From a distance, I see this as a harmless hobby.
However when I really consider it, I am at a gut-level a little repulsed.
Why? Well, I find it easy to understand how a child would be attracted to the idea of superpowers. To children, adults are giants who have all the power and call all the shots. Perhaps to an adult who feels powerless this feeling never quite goes away.
Adulthood requires one to recognize that one has limitations; that no one is perfect, that sometimes despite trying really hard you still lose, that sometimes the girl is going to say no, that no one lives forever. Well-adjusted adulthood also extends these recognitions to others. Think about it - we tend not to require those we love to be anything other than who they truly are.
In other words, in adulthood superpowers are irrelevant.
Given that, it's hard for me to understand how adults can maintain an interest in comic book heroes since so little of what these stories are about has any significance to the adult world. In fact to me, maintaining an interest in comic book heroes into adulthood seems evidence of being psychologically stuck.
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 feel that fighting for better contraception availability and sex ed in the US is more important than fighting for abortion. +
+
~~First off i am mostly Anti-abortion, unless the child is a child of rape, the mother and/or child will die in child birth, or the child is going to be severely mentally handicapped then i do not believe abortion should be allowed.
That said i belive that the best way to get rid of the need for abortions would be though better sex ed and better access to contraceptives. I think it would drastically cut down on the number of abortions or people who would end up getting one, espically in the younger generation.
Also i think it would be easier to get legislation like that passed and act as a middle ground than it would to get laxer proabortion laws passed. And with the easy access to contraceptives then there should not even be a need for abortions except for the things i mentioned at the top.
And no i do not count saving a child from being in the foster home as a plus of abortion. Yes the system is broken and needs work but at least its a chance and some people do go on to bigger and better things.~~
**
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think if the USA all the sudden apologized, packed up and left all military instillation around the world, there would be chaos that would end badly for the world. CMV +
+ I'm talking everything, the USA just cuts all ties with the world.
Packs up and all Military returns home..
* No more presences in the middle east
* No more watching Israel....protecting or stopping them
* no more policing the worlds oceans just convoys for your ships
* No more aide for the world, typhoon hit your island... well that sucks here is a sympathy card
* we buy your shit if we want it, we sell you our shit if you want it but we do our best to rely on neither
* There you have your Utopian world with the US not messing in anyone's business...
* Oh China invaded you.... well lucky for use we spent all our money on defense, they won't touch us... good luck with that though
Do you really think that would work out well for the world? | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Many Disney movies are racist. Further, they possibly teach children racial stereotypes. +
+ This is a well documented viewpoint, but last night I had an argument on this topic with a friend whose intelligence I greatly respect. Try as I might, I just can't see how at least the first part of the statement could be false. I present this in the true spirit of CMV, I feel like I might be missing something.
My particular view is that in a number of Disney movies, the heroes skins are Caucasian and the villains skins are shades of dark (brown, purple, grey), and that this creates an association between evil and dark skin that children pick up very easily. There are plenty of Disney movies where this is not the case, but there are enough that it is an issue: Aladdin, Lion King, Little Mermaid, Mulan, Hercules (probably more).
Beyond this obvservation, there are a variety of arguments that many Disney movies are racist:
* [An article](http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/apr/06/repressed-brits-evil-mexicans-arab-villains-hollywood-animated-movies-stereotypes) from the Guardian detailing the history, mainly from a stereotype + voice actor's race angle.
* [A listicle](http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2014/05/most-racist-moments-disney-movies-cartoons/) with plenty of video links, some back to the 20s & 30s. Is there anyone that will argue that even these are not harmfully racist? And if they are harmfully racist, at which point did the racism disappear or become benign?
* [Diversity in Disney Films](http://www.amazon.com/Diversity-Disney-Films-Ethnicity-Disability/dp/0786446013/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1415665430&sr=1-1&keywords=disney+race) - a collection of Essays.
* [Several more books](http://www.amazon.com/Diversity-Disney-Films-Ethnicity-Disability/dp/0786446013/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1415665430&sr=1-1&keywords=disney+race) on Amazon.
So, where are the well reasoned arguments that these depictions are not racist? I think there is some fundamental disagreement between my friend and I on the way meaning is created and, thus, how media works. For her, the "darkness" evoking evil stops there, it is only incidental that skin is being used as the pallet. (She goes on to joke about blue people being offended by Genie, etc...)
Further, she believes that the model is just too simple. That the mechanisms of racism are much more complicated than this belief allows and that it is this kind of thinking that leads to rampant Political Correctness. This is possibly why I am most interested in this argument. I find many arguments that lead to rampant PC to be compelling, but I certainly detest the world in which we are all policing each other for racial, feminist, etc.. correctness.
For me, it naturally follows that if these characters are teaching negative stereotypes about race, then they are harmful to children as they learn about the world. If you agree that the movies are racist, but that they don't have that big of an impact on children, I'd be interested in those arguments as well.
Finally, I'm much more interested in scholarly or at least well-studied arguments than how you personally "feel" about the subject without deep consideration. I will gladly devour any links you have to support your arguments.
| 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, both historically and currently, many examples of rape culture can be found which put women at a greater risk by normalizing or even condoning rape. CMV +
+ I have seen much debate surrounding "real" vs. "exaggerated" or even "imaginary" rape culture. It is my belief that there are many examples which clearly show that rape culture has existed for some time, and continues to today in a variety of contexts. This normalizing of rape (for *any* reason) makes it more socially acceptable, more likely to go unreported, etc. I believe it is rape culture, also, which makes victim doubting or downright blaming more commonplace, and makes people believe that false accusations are more common as well. [Between 2-8% of reported rapes are false, and that the percentage of false *accusations* is even less](http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/01/08/the_enliven_project_s_false_rape_accusations_infographic_great_intentions.html).
Many disturbing examples of rape culture are evidenced where a person is seen as a socially acceptable rape victim because of their race. During times of slavery, in any country where a certain race is enslaved and therefore "property." Also during would wartime, where people of one or more races, nationalities or ethnic groups are judged as legitimate rape victims. This happens in times of invasion, and in literal rape camps such as the Japanese inflicted upon their Korean, Chinese, Philippine, Burmese, Thai, Vietnamese, Malaysian, Taiwanese and Indonesian "[comfort women" in WWII](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comfort_women). In yet another, more recent, example Native American women report the highest incidence of rape of any race in the country (and even then rapes are under-reported). And [most of the violent crimes against Native women are at the hands of White men](http://firebearsplace.com/rape.htm). The [epidemic of rape within the U.S. military culture](http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/15/18256635-us-military-faces-historic-tipping-point-on-rape-epidemic) in general is also evidence of how a code of silence or other aspect of culture can both promote rape, normalize it, and punish those who speak out.
Many people believe that a person cannot rape his or her spouse, or that if a person has agreed to sex in the past that she or he can't be raped in the future. Many people believe that if someone is wearing certain suggestive clothing, or in a certain part of town at night alone, or makes the choice to get drunk at a frat party, that they should have known better and therefore is at least partially, if not wholly, responsible should someone rape them. And in perhaps the most controversial example, [sex workers are often targeted for rape](http://www.economist.com/node/17967028) specifically because their attackers assume no one will care. That's the root of all rape culture, in my mind.
All these are examples where the dominant culture in a time and place judges some people to be acceptable rape victims. I would hope the very *idea* seems ludicrous, no matter what group your talking about, or whatever the circumstances! Rape culture, whether normalized through humor or code of silence or societal racism nonetheless exists and puts women at an increased risk of rape.
CMV
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: In urban environments, cats have the Freedom to Roam. +
+ (and no, you don't have the right to shoot them)
I live in an old urban neighborhood. Cats have roamed these streets and backyards since time immemorial. To me, they have become part of the urban "background noise". They mostly just get on with their cat business, and let humans get on with their human business.
But recently a new, intolerant breed of neighbor has moved in. People who complain about cats taking short cuts across their balcony. People who demand that all cat owners must lock their cats indoors, animal welfare be damned. People who even threaten to poison and shoot the felines.
Their argument basically boils down to this:
**Get aaarf mah praaahperty**
But I would like to offer 4 counterarguments:
**"Easements"**. It is a common misunderstanding that owning a piece of land gives you absolute rights over the land. But in practice, ownership rights are always conditional. That is especially true in an urban environment.
I own an apartment, and there are all sorts of intrusions and "trespasses" I have to put up with: The toxic fumes from automobile owners driving past my house. The noise of the neighbor's baby screeching all night and robbing me of my sleep.
The unpleasant smells of my downstairs neighbors grilling kebabs. The light pollution from the nearby football stadium. Do I have to right to sue the automobile owners because of air pollution? Do I have the right to force my neighbor to pay for the costs of sound-proofing my apartment? No. Why? Because that is part of the deal I accepted when I decided to live in a city.
Cats are part of the urban ecosystem. It is in their nature to be curious and to be free spirits. If you move into an urban environment, you implicitly accept to share space with them. If you absolutely want no cats in your yard, you are always free to cat-proof your property.
Now, some would say that things like automobiles are "essential" and that pets are a "luxury" and thus easements don't apply. But that's highly subjective. And as a matter of fact, automobiles ARE a luxury in urban areas. They are not the only viable form of transport. Most urban automobile owners DO have the choice to get off their ass and walk or cycle. Yet the societal consensus is still that everyone just has to put up with their pollution.
**Precedence** and societal consensus. It's likely that the cat population has been around for much longer than you, the house owner. If you buy a house next to a school you have no right to complain about the noise from the play yard. If you buy a house next to a cat population you have no right to complain about their intrusiveness either.
**[Everycat's right](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam)**. A feline version of Everyman's Right. Pretty self explanatory.
**Limited liability**. Many urban cats are strays or adopted strays, where it's debatable whether they are "owned" by any individual or the community as a whole. Some cities have a policy of catching strays, in which case this argument doesn't apply. But many cities have a policy of tolerating them, and in those cities the cats have a right to exist just like any other inhabitant.
(of course none of the above applies to gated communities and similar which have explicit statutes regarding pets)
Oooon the other hand, I know that cats can sometimes be a PITA. They kill songbirds and shit in sandboxes. And their population seems to be increasing.
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 don't believe that 'tax brackets' should exist. +
+ I see no reason why, if we're going by percentages, people who earn higher wages, or have higher incomes should have higher percentages. Why not convert to a flat-tax, if we have to have income tax at all?
I don't need to hear the ever-so-common "fair share" argument either- I've heard it, and it just makes no sense to me. Like I said, that's *why* we have percentage-based taxes rather than "okay, everyone has to pay $10,000 per year."
Say someone makes 200k/year, at 25% income tax, they're paying in 50k to the gov't each year. Meanwhile, someone who makes 50k/year is paying in 12.5k/year.
That seems more fair than making someone in a higher 'bracket' pay their own, extremely high percentage. It just seems like an equality and morality thing to me. Why should one person have to pay, say, 40% of their income, and others only have to pay 10%, or even 35%? Why do some get special treatment, and others don't?
Possibly important article related to taxation brackets: http://taxfoundation.org/article/2014-tax-brackets
| 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 there's a difference between casting a blank vote and not voting at all. +
+ I think it's meaningless to cast a blank vote, since it doesn't really affect the election at all, and the only thing it really does is help some spin doctors spread some more meaningless propaganda.
And I don't think it's sending a message about you being more engaged and for democracy, than if you didn't vote at all (a common argument).
I live in Denmark, but expect it's the same in other parts of the world; you constantly get told that you HAVE to vote, and if you don't, you shouldn't complain. And if you say that you either don't think it matters in the end anyway, they're all the same, or you just don't like the choices, you get told to vote blank... I think that's unaugmented and I think there's ways you can change politics, society, and the world much more effectively than voting (demonstrate, change your own behaviour before asking others to do so, donating to causes you believe in, signing up for a interest group, helping others, etc.)
I think the people who vote blank do it mostly for themselves, as people expect them to have an opinion on everything and want to feel like they have somehow contributed to society.
But let me be clear: I don't have anything against people who vote, and I think it should be their right; I just don't think it should be expected to vote, if you don't know what you are voting for.
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 abortion is murder, but exceptions can be made. Also that needless abortions should be punished. +
+ I've read through quite a few of the popular threads about this, and it seems to boil down to her body her rights, which shouldn't be valid because youre killing another body...which should have rights.
Then there is the justifications, rape, disease, etc. I agree in some of those cases. If there was a rape or disease, then the abortion should take place right away and the punishment for the rapist increased.
But lets be honest, there aren't even close to a majority of rape and birth defect screeners getting abortions. Yes it does happen, but the majority are stupid people being careless and swinging by planned parenthood for a Plan B.
The lack of responsibility should not result in a life being snuffed out, and I believe that should face repercussions. That is what I mean by needless abortions. People who thought pulling out would work, or I thought I took my pill today, etc.
I watched a girl I worked with drink and smoke her way to a miscarriage when she had twins and then have an abortion. That sort of thing needs to land people in jail even more so than regular disregard for developing life.
Someone help me change my view, the stress is killing me.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I do not believe trigger warnings are necessary or obligatory. +
+ When browsing the internet, especially content aggregators like reddit, there is an expectation that shocking or vile subject matter will be present and even the focus of discussion.
If you have been so traumatized by an event in your life that even the presence of information concerning similar events emotionally damages you, then you need to reevaluate your browsing habits rather than demanding others conform to your standards to protect you from your own emotional instability.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Laws that bar people to protect them from self-injury should not exist. CMV +
+ I believe in freedom. I believe that if one wants to go out and ride a bike without a helmet [(see this post)](http://www.reddit.com/r/AdviceAnimals/comments/215pnw/seriously_how_dumb_can_you_be/), or commit suicide, or drive without a seatbelt, it is their choice. What happens to them is purely on their own accord. If I don't wear my seatbelt, I'm not going to kill anybody. If I don't wear my helmet, I will not spiral out of control. I see this legislation as burdensome and as an infringement to my rights to live as I please. As it is written, people are guaranteed life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The government should not bar people from doing with their lives as they please. The government should not bar people from doing with their liberty as they please. And the government shall not bar people from pursuing what makes them happy.
CMV.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
If hamburgers and hot dogs are American food then pizza is too. CMV +
+ A while back I posted on here about the proper way to eat pizza is with your hands, not a fork and knife. In my argument I mentioned how pizza is an American food. Many people disputed my assertion and said pizza is an Italian food.
For this argument I will make one assumption: Although all foods are the result of cultural syncretism it is possible it is possible to generally assign them to a specific culture.
According to wikipedia hamburgers, hot dogs and pizza all came to America in roughly the same era 1880-1900. Since they all came from Europe why are hamburgers and hot dogs considered American food, but pizza is considered Italian? I've never been to Italy so correct me if I'm wrong, but American pizza is very different than Italian pizza. So, can we not say that American pizza is a separate and unique dish that is from America? That is two say there are two kinds of pizza, one Italian and one American.
Yes it's true that pizza is originally from Italy. But how far back must we trace a history of food to find it's true source? For example wikipedia says that the word 'pitta' and the idea of putting oil and other toppings on bread came from Greece. So aren't those who say it's Italian food also wrong? Shouldn't we call it Greek food? Also, tomatoes are originally from America anyway.
I have no way to prove this but I strongly feel that the popularity of pizza around the world is due to the ubiquity of American culture in general. Therefore, can't we say that it's American food?
PS: I know wikipedia is a terrible source but I didn't feel this was that important to study deeply
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: People who play real-life DND and Magic: The Gathering have off-putting personalities. They also have filthy homes and their fathers smell of elderberries, but I'm willing to put those up for debate. +
+ I actively avoiding the gaming scene for years because of some experiences I had in and after college. One was a DND group a friend invited me to. I was down for it, but the experience was really negative. The people weren't very friendly or interesting, and the game itself was played in a dank basement. Not exactly a fun atmosphere at all. On top of that, apparently there are hidden rules to DND. Everything I said I wanted to do, I was told "You can't do that" and instead the play went on around me. Boring.
Another instance involved an overnight stay at a friend of a friend's. All the roommates (except the friend's friend) were avid MTGers. They wouldn't talk, merely grunted at us while they shuffled through their cards and played matches. They smelled and the house should have been condemned. The vision of their bathtub will haunt my days.
Now, you will say, these are just anecdotes! But tell me truthfully: has any of you ever met an MTG player you didn't want to first smack upside the head, second shove into a hot shower, and third hired a home restoration team to clean and sanitize their house?
That's right. You haven't. None of us have. Q. E. D.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe Hearthstone is ultimately a poorly designed card game. CMV +
+ Now, before the "It's beta" shield gets thrown up. I'd like to clarify that the sentiment just doesn't fly anymore. Beta is now a buzzword misnomer of "Soft Launch." Moreover, I feel my criticisms are still valid despite it being beta, because my gripes are not rooted in the mechanical aspects of the game. More so card interactions.
Cards like:
Nat Pagle: http://hearthstone.gamepedia.com/Nat_Pagle
Tinkmaster overspark: http://hearthstone.gamepedia.com/Tinkmaster_Overspark
and Nozdormu: http://hearthstone.gamepedia.com/Nozdormu
are all very poorly designed cards.
Now, if the game and accompanying scene didn't take themselves as seriously as it's been (what with Esports tournament and all) I'd have no problem with the casual nature of the game. To be truly competitive though, cards like these with completely random and meta elements are not conducive to true sportsmanship and ultimately fair play.
Yes I'm aware most card games do ultimately have a luck element because of the statistics involved with drawing cards, but generally the luck factor is at best a minimum and any player worth their salt knows how not to lose a game to a single card through careful play. Several card games even acknowledge effects similar to those mentioned above as poorly designed and either have them ban listed or have reprinted them to clarify them in such a manner that is not random.
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 don't think killing someone is worse than severely damaging them (physically, emotionally, sexually, etc). CMV +
+ People generally say (or what I've heard from people) that the worst crime that can be committed is murder. I agree that murder is horrible and that it should be punished accordingly. But I don't see why killing someone is worse than permanently damaging them.
Take someone who is emotionally abusive. The person they abuse will possibly struggle for the rest of their life. It's possible that it could ruin their life, and that they'll be depressed/self injure/kill themselves/ etc.
Or someone who is paralyzed. I think that's worse than being killed.
CMV | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The "anti-vaxxer" circlejerk is one of the most obnoxious and overblown on Reddit. +
+ On every fucking thread, there's always someone who's bitching about Jenny McCarthy or the anti-vaccination movement in general, and those posts, whether they are even relevant to the topic at hand or not, always have hundreds if not thousands of upvotes. The intense, vitriolic hatred that most of Reddit displays for these people is like no other: I've seen Reddit try and justify murder, rape, Hitler, etc, but I almost NEVER see any Redditor saying anything but "FUCK ANYONE WHO'S AN "ANTI VAXXER" THEY ARE LITERALLY HITLER". First off, literally the ONLY place I hear about these oh so elusive "anti-vaxxers" is Reddit. I never hear about anyone talking about this shit off Reddit. And okay, yeah, the few people that do believe that are misinformed and ignorant, but my god by reading Reddit you'd think they are raping, torturing, and eating their children instead of not vaccinating them. Yeah, it sucks, but there are so many worse people out there. The insurance companies who cause countless deaths every year because all they care about is profit, the warmongering leaders of countries like the US, or, fuck, how about the Islamic State, Kim Jong Un, the Mexican drug cartels, or the big banks of the world? Sure, people talk about those things on here too, but never with the intensity and vitriol that accompanies the anti vaccination shit. I agree that vaccinations do not cause autism, but I find the whole obsession with these people on Reddit to be another sad, bizarre, circlejerk, and, in my opinion, the most obnoxious one on here. I downvote every single post I see relating to "anti-vaxxers".
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Tracking a package through the mail using a tracking ID number takes all the fun out of waiting for your package to arrive and spoils the experience. +
+ Purchasing something new is always something to look forward to. Whether it's clothes, or a new phone, or anything that you've been looking forward to, finally clicking confirm purchase is immensely satisfying. This, of course, leads to your product being shipped from some warehouse to your door. You are often given a tracking number, so that you can follow your package across the world, step by step.
But in truth, that ruins the experience. The anticipation of the package is a huge part of the enjoyment of the entire enterprise. When will it arrive? Today? Or the next day? There's a great Calvin and Hobbes comic about this exact concept - the stress and emotion we give to the day's mail. But when we utilize the tracking number, the magic is lost. The unpredictability vanishes. We are reminded of the depressing fact that no, we don't actually make anything in this company any more, and even the necessary shipping facilities stateside aren't in our town - part of the reason it and its economy suck so much.
But when we ignore the tracking number, we say no to structure and the tyranny of knowing. We revive the magical qualities of our wait for the mail. Will my shirts be shipped in two packages or one? Will the arrive on different days? Where did they come from? Our lack of answers to these eternal questions catalyzes creativity and inspires imagination.
Join me, as I wait for my most recent online orders, and say no to tracking numbers. Join the renaissance.
*This was as much a writing exercise as a CMV, so feel free to critique from both perspectives.*
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I believe that most skeptics are simply jumping on bandwagons. +
+ Please read the whole post. The title does not fully encompass my view.
I believe many skeptics, or conspiracy theorists, or whatever, are pretty much people who want to convince themselves that they are smart be being able to "see beyond" what most people see, so they go to some place like /r/conspiracy, read a post about how fluoride in tap water is mind control or something, and accept it as truth. They have essentially jumped on a bandwagon that formed in order to combat other bandwagons. This second-degree bandwagon generally comes from an idea with little or flimsy evidence, with it's members disregarding any who do not agree as "sheep" or something of the sort. This whole sheep thing is extremely hypocritical, as their whole ideology is centered around questioning what you know and looking for flaws in the information you have. Many of these skeptics fail to see the flaws in what they think, and maintain a stubborn, short-sighted mentality that completely contradicts the arguments they make against others.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Anime and Japanese culture is weird and creepy +
+ Hi, first off I'd like to say that please leave a comment instead of downvoting if you disagree, I know I will rub a lot of people the wrong way with a title like that.
I also realize how ignorant it sounds to say that another culture is "weird", my title is not good but hear me out.
I've tried on numerous occasions to get an interest in Japanese culture and anime but failed. There is a few things that really rubs me the wrong way and prevents me from gaining interest.
I'm mainly talking about anime here; a lot of anime seem really really creepy to me.
First off the girls in the shows often seem to be tiny and weak with an obsessive desire to make them as cute as possible, unless they are the main character/hero in some way. In most animes I've looked at they also always look really really young. I understand that they strive to make the girl characters cute (or "kawaii") but you don't have to make a girl look like a 12 year old to make her cute. Just do a google image search on "anime" for examples. It also seems extremely common to sexualize these young girl characters, but I'll get to that later.
I was actually looking today for a good anime show that could get me interested, so I looked up r/anime's [recommendations](http://www.reddit.com/r/anime/wiki/recommendations); it has a list of various themes like "cyberpunk", "mindfuck"... And "incest". Coupled with the sub categories "lighthearted incest" and "heavy incest". Isn't this fucked up to anyone else?
I know there is a lot of incest themes in western pornography, but I wasn't searching for porn, just animes. This is like me looking for western movie recommendations in r/movies and finding an incest category, it would never happen!
The whole hentai thing is also completely puzzling to me, not only do I not understand how anyone can find arousment in the pictures, but they also always display very young (or "cute" I guess they call it) girls and it seems like borderline pedophilia in the sense that they are picturing underage girls in a sexual manner.
I know _a lot_ of people love japanese culture and anime, and I would love to enjoy a good anime once in a while but these things really rub me the wrong way. 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: College cafeterias do not offer good enough healthy options for students +
+ College cafeterias all claim to have ‘healthy options’ for students but I believe that a) the options aren’t any better for you than any other meal option available, and b) the healthy options need to be improved. Some college students, like myself, normally eat foods that are minimally processed have great health benefits. When they go off to college and have to eat at a dining hall, they are restricted and forced to eat rather unhealthily compared to their normal lifestyle. The ‘healthy options’ in college cafeterias are not good enough. They should be consistently filled with grilled chicken, quinoa, brown rice, natural peanut butter, smoothie options, and REAL steamed vegetables. Currently, they’re just full of processed meats and frozen vegetables. One of our dining halls here at The University of Mighigan was just recently redone and spent around 60 million doing so. If they can afford the coolest new chairs I’m sure they can afford better healthy food. The quality and amount of healthy options needs to be fixed.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |