input
stringlengths 114
23.1k
| output
stringclasses 2
values | instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|
CMV: The University of California is the best public university system in the world. +
+ The University of California is the best public (or even overall) university system in the US and in the entire world.
[Its nine undergraduate campuses are ranked (among public schools):](http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/top-public/page+2) #1 Berkeley, #2 UCLA, #9 UC Davis/UC San Diego, #11 UC Santa Barbara, #14 UC Irvine, #36 UC Santa Cruz, #55 UC Riverside, NR UC Merced.
Internationally the campuses rank well with [6 campuses in the top 100](http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2013-14/world-ranking): #9 Berkeley, #12 UCLA, #33 UCSB, #40 UCSD, #52 UCD, #93 UCI.
Undergrads can get a world class education at any of the UC campuses.
UC students, researchers or faculty have been awarded close to 100 Nobel prizes. (61 Berkeley, 20 UCSD, 13 UCLA, 9 UCSB, 6 UCSF, 4 UCI, 1 UCR) This demonstrates that world class research is being performed here. UC graduate schools are very highly ranked with many campuses having top 10 rankings in many of their programs, e.g. in 2010 Berkeley had [48/52 PhD programs ranked in the top ten](https://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2010/09/28/nrc-rankings/) which is higher than Harvard. UCLA has at least [8 top ten grad programs.](http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/ucla-graduate-programs-ranked-271643)
The university experience is more than just academics for many, and UC schools shine here as well. Berkeley and UCLA are competitive in many sports, with [UCLA having the most NCAA national championships of any school, and Berkeley having the 11th most.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NCAA_schools_with_the_most_NCAA_Division_I_championships)
While some students might prefer a smaller, more intimate atmosphere for their college experience, this pretty much necessarily excludes public schools from their radar and won't be a good avenue to 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: Debating politics or ethics with family&friends is pointless +
+ A least when it concerns emotive topics such as abortion and the death penalty.
**1** It is unlikely that either side will change their view. So the debate will only breed animosity and poison the relationship. So it's better to just agree to disagree from the start and move on to more productive conversations.
**2** Most of these topics have been debated a million times. There are countless websites where you can follow the arguments of experts and amateurs in writing. They are well written, fully sourced, and peer reviewed. There are also countless videos of verbal debates. The quality of the debate you have with your friends at a dinner table is likely to be much, much poorer than a debate by experts. It is a much better idea to study the material and ask your friends to do the same, then share your conclusion the next time you meet.
| 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 science fiction and fantasy writers should be faulted for taking too long to complete a book. CMV. +
+ It always boggles me when people complain that the writer of X series is taking too long to release the next book. A notable example of this is ASOIAF, but this happens a lot with other series that have large fanbases.
Look, no one is obligated to write books. Authors should be allowed to take as much time as they please. If a writer wants to take some time off, or take an ungodly long time to write the next book, then that's fine.
At the end of the day. the author's goal is to do what he likes (i.e. writing) and make money (i.e. write good books that people will buy). That's it. Under no circumstances is the author ever required to follow the whims of his or her fans, and that includes the length of time between books in a series. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV that communist theory is not scientific. +
+ One reason that I hold this view is because I don't think much of communist theory makes falsifiable claims and in doing so explains too much. Using Marxist theory, for example, pretty much anything that happens can be explained by class struggle despite there being more likely reasons. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:ETHICS: If it's so important, make it a law. If it wasn’t important enough to become a law, why should I care? +
+ I'm not talking about manners or reputation, just ethics in general. take politicians as an example, in order to be successful, they have to do the opposite of every ethical principle out there. successful entrepreneurs, world leaders, people in history books have all got to where they are because they took advantage of other people and put the "ME" before the "WE". It might seem like I'm ranting here, but the Machiavellian school of thought starting with Machiavelli's the prince and going through the tons of books based on it makes more sense to me than all the "ethical" approaches I've seen. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Overall, Android is the superior phone platform, and phones and tablets running Android tend to perform better compared to Phones and Tablets with similar price points on other OS'. +
+ Overall, Android is the superior phone platform, and phones and tablets running Android tend to perform better compared to Phones and Tablets with similar price points on other OS'. Furthermore, Android currently leads innovation thanks to research from groups like Google, ATAP, OHA, and because of its Open Source Nature. TL;DR: Android is the Superior OS. I strongly hold this belief | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Birth control shouldn't be covered by health insurance. +
+ Health insurance already covers far more than it should. There's no good reason why people can't directly pay for routine check-ups, simple medical treatment (e.g. getting stitches), or even for drugs that we can anticipate needing as we age. All these things would be much cheaper if their prices weren't artificially inflated by the unnecessary involvement of insurance companies.
Health insurance should be like all other kinds of insurance: It should only cover costs that are prohibitively expensive, urgently needed, and difficult to predict needing in advance. You don't use homeowner's insurance to fix a broken window, or use car insurance to get an oil change.
So, that's my broad reason for being against health insurance covering birth control (and, incidentally, Viagra too).
But I would go even further to argue that birth control *especially* doesn't belong in health insurance policies, even compared to Viagra. And the reason is simple: Birth control is not medicine. It doesn't treat an affliction. Rather, it just helps women manage their risk of pregnancy. But there are other ways to do that - condoms, pulling out, avoiding sex for the few days around ovulation (or entirely). I understand that its deeply important to women to avoid unwanted pregnancies, but that doesn't justify extending the concept of "healthcare" to birth control. Again, its just not medicine.
One way to change my view would be to convince me that putting birth control on insurance policies would increase women's overall access to it. Most people take this as a given, but its far from obvious to me. 99% of products are bought and sold directly between the consumer and the provider, without insurance companies in the middle. In general, we recognize that that's the most efficient way for the market to operate. That's why we don't see anyone advocating for other highly beneficial things like vegetables and gym memberships* to be covered by insurance. So, why are we so sure that birth control will be more available if it's covered by insurance?
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Social programs are no substitute for a good financial education and throwing money at people who cannot handle money is a waste. +
+ I think the best analogies for my case is the fat guy that keeps going to the gym, but can't drop a pound, because he always "rewards himself with a burger / fries / cake" or the lottery millionaires who win millions then find themselves broke in an year or two.
In fact, let's keep talking about the lottery millionaires, just like the fat guy at the gym, he has poor discipline and self-control. He has money and he frivolously spends them - it doesn't matter if it's 10$ or 1 000 000$ - they will be spent on things that would provide no return on investment (like opening a business or education or heck, even bribing your manager). So you provide a safety net or some other type of welfare program, so now the "poor folk" save 100$ or 200$ or however much the program saves them, but instead of using that money to better their lives on the long-term, they dump them in a new expensive bag, shoes, first-class tickets to a match or what-have-you.
My point is that creating massive welfare programs isn't going to stop poverty, no amount of government interference would ever erase poverty. In fact, there'll always be a large group (dare I say majority) of "working class" who are stuck in their position not because of the lack of hard work or talent, but because they have absolutely no self-control when it comes to spending. And there's nothing other people or the government could do to help them unless they help themselves.
Some people do get out, but they usually do through good use of money. Bottom line is that while some social programs are beneficial ( I would not argue that all of them are) massive social welfare benefits help no one and are a burden on the taxpayers. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I think that the gay pride parades are incredibly homophobic and counterproductive. +
+ I am a bisexual male. Whenever I tell people I am bisexual people say "but you act so straight!" and "My gaydar would never have found you!". The idea of a "gaydar" is extremely offensive to me. Nothing about how a person acts indicates their sexuality, as it has nothing to do with their personality. Unless you see a guy sucking a dick you don't know what his sexuality is.
I hate gay pride parades. They claim to speak for me. They don't. All that they do is tell the world that all gay people like rainbows, weird fetishes, and are obnoxiously flamboyant. Am I not bisexual because I don't fit these stereotypes?
I am fine with flamboyant pride parades. If you want to be flamboyant than go for it. You shouldn't be ridiculed by society for it. I won't hang out with you, and you probably won't want to hang out with me, but that's fine.
Also these stereotypes promote homophobia because disliking flamboyant people is fine. Just like disliking conservative people is fine (not politically conservative but socially). Since they portray all gay people as extremely flamboyant many people assume they dislike all gay people. Being flamboyant has nothing to do with being gay.
So please explain to me why these cartoonish stereotypes of gay people promoted by the gay pride movement is somehow a good thing for gays.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
House of Cards' Frank and Claire Underwood are the best possible example on how a marriage should work. CMV (SPOILERS) +
+ 1) They enjoy each others company (smokes, runs, meechum)
2) They are completely honest about themselves and about what they do (open relationships)
3) They are open to each other's ideas. (constant communication all over the series)
4) They support each other on their goals (tricia manipulation, fundraisers)
5) They respect the decisions each other makes (open relationships, Claire not backing Peter Russo bill, Claire coming out on rape, abortion)
6) There is no pettiness, no jealousy, no lies, no manipulation (All over the series)
7) They trust each other entirely. (Meechum, open relationships)
8) They understand the needs of the other and don't stand on the way of the other, unless it's explicitely something that will go into confilct with what they're after. (Claire's funding from Sancorp Vs Pushing the two congressmen to support Peter Russo's bill)
9) When big differences arrive, they do what they feel its right, and once it's been solved they don't look back. (Claire goes to Adam, Frank doesn't question it)
There are many others, that's off the top of my head.
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 everyone's actions are predetermined and so that ideas like meritocracy are redundant, CMV. +
+ I don't believe there is anything innate within us that makes us different, like a soul or similar. Thus all our actions are determined by both our environment and our genetics, neither of which we have any control over (to a appreciable degree). So although it will be infinity complex to compute what someone will do, their actions are still predetermined.
Also the first philosophy major who comes in here and points out that if our actions are predetermined then any discussion will have nothing to do with the truth and therefore it is pointless to discuss, gets a slap upside the head. | 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 that gay marriage is a problem, and think it should be legalized world wide. CMV +
+ I personally do not find that gay marriage, if legalized would be a problem. There isn't really a good reason I can think of for homosexuals not being married, however I'd be interested to hear some. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Responding to a statement with "that's racist" does not inherently discredit that statement. +
+ This happens all the time online and in real life. Someone says something and another person says "that's racist," which is their trump card that they feel immediately discredits the other person's entire argument.
Let's please ignore inflammatory racist statements. We all know they are bad.
This "that's racist" trump card is played virtually any time race is a component of the discussion.
A recent example is the Mark Cuban situation (let's please not debate that ITT). If you're unaware, Mark Cuban speaking of the Donald Sterling NBA fiasco said that if a black male in a hoodie is walking down the street he would switch to the other side, and if that ~~said~~ side had a white male with neck tattoos he would switch back.
Cue outrage. People respond with "that's racist."
I don't believe that "that's racist" inherently discredits an argument or observation. CMV. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: People who cheat on their spouses can and should, in some cases, be forgiven +
+ There seems to be a commonly held belief that people who cheat on their SO/partner should be dropped immediately with no further contact. I understand that physical/sexual conduct with another person can seem like a betrayal, but in some cases, there are many worse things that can happen in a relationship, which couples seem to be able to work through.
There are a few assumptions underlying the belief that "sex with another person = relationship over" that I don't think hold up.
* **Sex is the most important part of a relationship,** and therefore, betraying it and that agreement mean the relationship should end. My belief: sex is a very important part of a relationship, but not *the* most important part. Immediately breaking up with someone because of something like this seems excessive.
* **Nobody makes mistakes ever,** so when they do, the relationship should end. My belief: obviously this isn't true, and a cornerstone of strong relationships is the ability to work through mistakes/issues together.
* **Cheaters will always cheat again,** so better to end it now. my view: That may be true in some cases, but other than anecdotal evidence, I haven't seen anything to support this claim. [But would be really interested in reading anything scientific about this, actually!]
* **Cheaters cheat because of underlying issues with the relationship.** My belief: if that's true, there are a lot of possibilities - not just breaking up - that could fix the problem, such as ... talking about the problem. Maybe fixing that issue will resolve the motivation to cheat.
Caveat: sometimes, cheating happens because there are parts of the relationship that are fundamentally broken and/or the relationship is too far gone/unsalvageable and/or this is the straw the broke the camel's back etc.
Cheating shouldn't always signify an immediate end to a relationship. In some cases, couples can and should choose to work through it. CMV!
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The Anti-Anti-Vaccination brigade on the internet is stupider than the Anti-Vaccination movement. +
+ My view is inspired by *[this](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/2xkc5x/seriouswhats_your_never_meet_your_heroes_story/cp11gyl)* comment on an AskReddit thread.
___
I am not anti-vaccination, I am very much pro vaccination, you don't need to convince me.
When I say 'Anti-Anti-Vaccination brigade' I mean specifically the people that swarm any hint of an issue with vaccinations in unsubstantiated crap much like the thread I linked. I don't mean people who give well reasoned arguments in a civilised manner.
___
Jim Carry may be an ass, but the way everybody in the thread automatically decided that he is the scum-of-the-earth for that article is ridiculous. Reading the article, most of what he says is pretty reasonable. He's not saying that vaccines are evil, not saying they should be banned, he's mainly pointing out that one case of autism not caused by vaccines doesn't mean that vaccines don't cause autism (completely true), that we should be in favour of more detailed and thorough studies on vaccinations (we should), and we should be suspicious of any study released by a company or organisation that stands to benefit from skewing the results (healthy scientific scepticism which we all should have).
All the people piling on him don't seem to actually have a point.
They've decided that because there are some idiots who have problems with vaccinations, that anybody with any problem with how vaccinations are developed, tested, and deployed must also be an idiot. I don't think I need to point out that that is idiotic.
It seems like the hive-mind of the internet has decided that *vaccines=good* and anything that contradicts vaccines being perfect is the vile vacuous dribble of retarded hippies. Even the dumbest anti-vaxxers at least has some scepticism. These anti-anti-vaxxers just blindly follow the word of the first scientist they find and label everybody with a some problem, however minor, to be *pro-preventable-and-gruesome-death* or *pro-caveman-like-ignorance*.
___
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I have started to believe more in the need of a authoritative surveillance state. +
+ I used to have a very anarchistic mindset, opposing the state all together. While I still believe in some what of decentralisation of power I want absolute suveillance of society. Trackable devices, DNA registries, video surveillance etc. I do mean for everyone and everywhere.
I just don't trust very much in people any more. I haven't experienced any crime personally but reading all the time about what goes on in society, what people get away with. Studying how people often behave, in war- and peacetime. All the atrocities going on, human trafficking, gangrapes, murders etc.etc.
I don't mean absolutely, for example video surveillance or bugging peoples homes but outside in the world, streets, public places, and everywhere in nature(with drones or satelites I don't want nature polluted with tech).
Ofcourse we need harsh penalties for the surveillars who abuse their "powers".
I want very harsh penalties like in the US, and life long consequences for atrocities such as rape.
I do however believe in legalisation of all "drugs" and until then a non-surveilled internet. I understand that's very hypocritical. What I want checked is mainly physical abuse of others.
I live in Sweden. Here everyone gets unlimited second chances and the possibility to become anything they want and do whatever they want with their lives while enjoying free healthcare and really free everything with great infrastructures. Still there are assholes who bitch and moan about unfairness and suck the life out of society and commit horrible crimes. Never taking any responsibilites for themselves.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Men should be able to wear shorts to work, if women are allowed to wear skirts. +
+ I believe that men should be allowed to wear shorts in any workplace that a woman is allowed to wear a skirt.
With the temperatures scorching I believe it is unjust that women are allowed to wear skirts to work but men are not allowed to wear shorts. Especially since some of the skirts that women wear are the kinds with shorts on the inside, it just seems like a biased double standard that is based on sex.
I am not talking about wearing shorts in places wear necessary attire is required for work, but any institution that allows for business attire that permits females to wear attire that exposes their legs, men should have the same right.
Change my view.
Since we can not agree that skirts & shorts are comparable, let's just say the ability to expose your legs.
Women have the ability to expose their legs in the workplace, and men do not. I believe men should have that same ability, and that ability not existing for them, is a bias based on gender. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The Rage Virus from 28 Days Later would have never made it across the ocean to the America's. +
+ According to the black woman that there were reports of the virus in New York before the radio broadcasts stopped. But as we are told the virus is only transmitted by blood or saliva not airborne. And we see multiple times though the movie that it only takes 10-15 seconds for a normal human to turn into the infected. So there shouldn't have been a way that someone carrying the disease was able to make it across on an airplane or boat without infecting everyone else on the vehicle which would cause a crash of some sort. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Fistbumps are superior to handshakes and deserve to take over the role of handshakes when meeting friends or strangers +
+ Although they might seem corny to some, fistbumps (as they will be known in future, with no space between the words) are a physical greeting that are better than handshakes in a number of ways that I will try to explain below. While they might currently be associated with douchebag bros, this is an unnecessary association which will disappear over time and as such will not be accepted as an argument against their use.
Sweaty/clammy hands: Some people are unfortunately genetically disposed to sweat more than others, and having sweaty hands makes a handshake an unpleasant encounter for both the sweaty handed person, who feels shame, and the recipient, who was expecting a dry hand. Fistbumps only result in contact with the tops of the fingers, which tend to be dry for all people, except perhaps some freaks.
Germ exposure: The palm of the hand is used for many daily activities, such as scratching one's balls, holding onto filthy handrails, and squishing flies in a clap. Despite frequent hand washing, icky bacteria is inevitably going to end up on your hands at several points during the day. The top of your hand, however, is rarely used, and is therefore mostly free of germs and microbes that might want to transmit a cold or ebola.
Speed and efficiency. A fistbump establishes a sense of camaraderie and kinship in just a second, whereas a handshake can take several seconds to complete, at a greater personal investment to both parties. In a working environment where you might have to greet many people each morning, a fistbump saves time, which could be spent working on important projects, while still convincing your colleagues that you are happy to see them.
As a side note, a fistbump can be easily followed by a hug if more intimacy is required in the greeting, or can be followed up by a quick sideways high five. Making a fizzling or dissolving fistbump is not in my opinion acceptable, and will not be accepted in any counter arguments.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Paying for elite prep programs negates your right to say that you "worked for everything you have." CMV? +
+ Roommate got into law school recently. He keeps saying that he's really proud because he's worked for everything he has.
I think getting into law school is an accomplishment worthy of being proud of. But, he has wealthy parents who paid for him to go to a incredibly expensive LSAT tutoring school over the summer (like $16,000) and paid a significant amount of money for a private tutor. On top of that, paid upwards of $250 an hour for a private "coach" who not only helped him tailor his entire application (editing essays, formatting CV/Resume, helping him decide on the best internships, etc.) but also helped him organize dates and practice for interviews, and so on.
Again, I'm not trying to take away from his accomplishment. And I don't think there is anything morally or ethically wrong with patronizing these services. However, he didn't 'work' for the money to pay for these services. And further, he was dishonest when interviewers asked him if he paid for a consultant.
So, I don't think it's fair for him to say, "I've worked for everything I have." | 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 want to waste my time on Battlestar Galactica. +
+ My SO and I have been together for a little over a year. Some couples go on dates. We prefer to marathon amazing shows at home, cuddled in bed, where we're not pressured by society and legalities to wear pants.
Generally, we have an uncanny ability to agree on which series to watch next, once we've ended another. He has tried to talk me into Battlestar Galactica since the very first time we met. At first, I politely declined. It's just never seemed like something that would tickle my fancy. He became more and more persistent as time went on. By about 6 months into the relationship, I never wanted to hear those two words again.
Now, to be fair, he knows my taste in just about everything. He is correct in his logic that BG fits relatively well in parameters of what I find enjoyable to watch. I like the sci-fi and the character driven story lines, which he insists are present. I still have no interest in it. I eventually gave up and agreed to give it a shot. I fell asleep within 10 minutes of the first episode. Instead of accepting the fact that the series would never be able to win me over, he says I didn't give it a good enough chance and should try again.
*In the spirit of fairness and full disclosure, I do have narcolepsy, which he equates to the reason for falling asleep. I equate it to lack of interest.*
Some couples break up over lies, cheating, or other seemingly important things. We almost broke up over BG, which is why I am asking Reddit to change my view. Perhaps the great minds of the internet can offer up some magical plot points (without spoilers, preferably) that he just hasn't been able to get through to me. You fine specimens have my full and undivided attention.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe, Politicians in general should have to attend a psych test (and Pass) in order to join a political party CMV. +
+ I recently read The Psychopath Test by Jon Ronson, In the book its suggested that roles like politicians and big business owners are more attractive to certain kind's of people with psychopathic tendency, (not in a violent way). He refers to it as "the right kind of crazy". I was thinking that because most country's have a psych test to enlist in the army possibly to check if the person applying might be a liability,racist, psychopath etc. I believe we should look at politicians in the same way as they can be potentially more dangerous. 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 think sports statistical analysis is pointless and a waste of time. +
+ I'm not a sports guy, I don't care about most events, but it drives me nuts how serious some people are about statistics and the future. ESPN has 24/7 or whatever people going on about whats going to happen with the major teams this year, how well the new guys are going to be after they are drafted, who is going to draft them. Big game coming up? Better watch the pregame where two guys debate for over an hour what they think the outcome of the game will be. Sports are totally unpredictable (which is part of the appeal I hear,) why bother trying to figure it out beforehand, and why bother listening to those that do?
Thanks for the replies everyone!
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Food is close to inedible when the expiration date printed on the container is near, within a couple of days. +
+ Right now, I have a carton of egg nog with an date on it that says "01/05/15". If the date today is 01/03/15, I feel that given the date on the container that the egg nog within is near a point where you should no longer ingest it. It is my opinion that since the contents of the container are near expiration, that the "decomposition" process has begun and should be thrown out.
"Sell by" dates only offer me more uncertainty as to when I should stop ingesting the contents.
**TL/DR: Expiration dates are times when the contents of a container are spoiled. So, I think you should throw them out prior to this date. Additionally, "sell by" dates are worse because you have no idea when the contents will expire.**
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: We should phase out the Social Security System in the United States. +
+ The Social Security system here in the US taxes younger working people and gives that tax money to old people (over 70%) and to disabled/nonworking people. Like other forms of wealth redistribution, money is forcibly taken from one party and given to another, which, when not done collectively by government, is considered theft and is illegal. To make matters worse, most of the older people who benefit from the program don't need the help. They have had their whole lives to work and have more money than younger people who are taxed. Now, I understand that they all paid their share of social security and don't want to be fucked over. But those who pay the tax are going to be fucked over too because the programs funds are projected to run dry soon. If the program fails, all those who put in money won't get anything out; if it doesn't, taxes will increase to cover the losses. Either way, as time continues, those who pay payroll taxes will continue to be at a loss. It will only get worse from here. This is why I think we should phase it out. Say, for example, we lower the amount of benefits people get every year until eventually no benefits are given out. This way, older people aren't entirely screwed out of their tax dollars and those that are working are forced to give less every year.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe being optimistic does more harm than good. CMV +
+ I think all optimism does is it really amplifies disappointments and makes failure all the more tragic. An optimistic person who has high expectations which can may be unrealistic is bound to fail to meet these expectations and thus is more likely to feel sorrowful as a result. In comparison having a pessimistic view means you are less likely to be disappointed and any success you get will be a pleasant surprise. Thus you are less likely to be sad or dejected with this mindset. Think about it if I go in a race with low expectations in comparison to going in expecting to destroy everyone I much less likely to be sad if I do fail. Optimism seems to be just setting yourself up for disappointment.
Further more optimism seems to reduce the joy of actually succeeding. If I already expect to win than actually winning will bring me very little joy as I have merely just fulfilled my expectation. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The Men's Rights Movement (MRM) is oppositional to feminism and has no academic credibility. +
+ I largely agree with the MRM [wikipedia article](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_rights_movement), which seems reliably sourced and accurately portrays the movement.
I believe this is accurate as far as the movement's history and context goes.
This is also accurate from what I have seen. MRM reject ideas of privilege, women/femininity oppression, and patriarchy.
Finally, they have no academic grounding for their movement. Academia largely agree with ideas of male privilege and patriarchy. The Men's right movement does not have an academic background like feminism does.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I think kids owe their parents everything because the parents brought them into this world and gave them life and kept them fed and sheltered and relatively healthy during their childhood. +
+ I think kids owe their parents everything because the parents brought them into this world and gave them life and kept them fed and sheltered and relatively healthy during their childhood. Kids should stay at home (or as close to home as possible) for their entire lives, so that in case a parent has any need at all, the kids can drop what they're doing and help the parents, because they owe them their lives. I believe that kids don't know what they're doing, ever, and that parents always know better than their kids. CMV | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: America will eventually allow bankruptcy for student loans. +
+ The average student loan now being 29,000 dollars and there are approximately 40 million Americans saddled with this. I believe that within the next ten years being able to declare bankruptcy on student loans will be "on the table" and shortly thereafter will become quickly restructured/irrelevant. Once it is on the table to begin with, compromises will become common between politicians unless the population with student debt lowers drastically and stays down. Otherwise, as an active political force and something at the forefront of many young people's minds (which will shape how they view the future), it will just whittle away at the enforcement structure of America's student debt until it becomes irrelevant.
It probably won't be pretty, especially considering how people without degrees would feel about it, but it does look unavoidable due to sheer political force, especially as tuition rises. As someone who spent years as a mechanic, I find it incredibly doubtful that "trade" jobs could ever make up for the drop in the amount of actual jobs as technology replaces need. [This article seems to detail jobs going into extinction and a lot of these are "trade" jobs](http://www.boston.com/jobs/2013/12/30/the-fastest-declining-occupations/PRZVnJg25iIBgJFyv70BxN/story.html#slide-7).
If you need a bachelors degree for a simple office job, and other workers are actually going into extinction, I don't think the younger population will be raised as viewing college as a "special option" and thus will be less willing to accept student loan debt as a central part of the U.S. economy.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Only criminals should be worried about government snooping +
+ I don't believe that regular citizens have anything to worry about. It would be logistically impossible for any government officials to scrawl through your history and know everything about each citizen; they just have this information at hand in case they need catch a criminal.
Even as a self proclaimed "liberal" I don't see where the issue is. This information is going to be collected anyway, logged by every website you visit or telephone provider. I'd rather let the government have access to it in the chances that they can stop a crime. I know it's not the best way of crime fighting but even stopping one crime is better than nothing.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Amorality is the most harmonious secular viewpoint. +
+ I'm going to get pretty abstract here, so bear with me. If we start with the assumptions that there are no greater beings which dictate the purpose of life or human existence, and that the most powerful paradigm is the one which provides the most personal happiness while minimizing contradictions, then it seems that a complete amorality is the strongest secular position. I'll use a simple example to explain why I think so:
A man is faced with the choice: whether or not to gain $1,000,000 and bring about the instant death of a random person he does not know. A moral man would be at a serious dilemma. He must choose between what he believes to be right (protecting human life) and his selfish desires (to acquire money and in turn power/happiness.) The man must sacrifice either his own happiness or his moral principle at this juncture. An amoral man would not be at a loss; he would not think twice about taking the money and would overall be happier with himself for doing so than the moral man.
These points of cognitive dissonance are a serious hindrance to an individual's happiness. No one likes the feeling of choosing between one good thing and another. The person would prefer, whether he knows it or not, to receive one without knowledge of the other. Barry Schwartz talked about this in his book The Paradox of Choice. In the same respect, an amoral man is happier with his life and his decisions than a moral man, who frets over the best way to go about doing things and must worry about both his own selfish interests and his moral principles.
I have come to believe this wholeheartedly, but it seems to contradict with almost everyone's point of view, and I'm not confident enough to assume I'm right and (seemingly) the world is wrong. I don't ruthlessly pursue my own interests and in fact, many people would consider me a good person. I often enjoy helping people I respect and care for, even at great cost to myself, and my circumstances allow me to live more comfortably within the bounds of the law than I would if I were to become a criminal. However, I don't hold any moral principles. My only principle is to maximize my own enjoyment of life, and if someone were to offer me the hypothetical $1,000,000 briefcase, without fear of the legal consequences, I would probably take 1,000 and sleep like a baby afterwards. I don't see how adding morality to the equation of human existence provides more happiness for the individual; to me, it seems to lead to contradiction. A person's beliefs should serve him or her, not the other way around.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe the numbers on the analog clock face are in the wrong positions. CMV. +
+ Here is an outline of my reasoning with MS paint diagrams: http://i.imgur.com/nYffRdO.png
On an analog clock face, the lines are paired with numbers that denote the hour component of the time. The problem with this is that the lines do not represent hours; they represent times when the hour component of the time *changes.* At the line marked "1", the time changes from **12**:59.59 to **1**:00. But then for a whole hour, the hour hand keeps pointing to different numbers (1.333, 1.5, 1.9999, etc.) that don't mean anything about what the hour is. The hour is still just 1. It appears that really the thing that should be labeled "1" is the space in between the two lines.
Whenever the hour hand points at this sector/pie-slice of the clock, the hour is 1. Labeling the lines means that once an hour (at X:00.00), the hour hand points to the right number. Labeling the sectors between the lines means that the hour hand points to the correct number at all times except those of the format X:00.00, when things get screwed up by our habit of treating time as discrete rather than continuous. Still, the lines have a practical interpretation as the times when the current sector/hour changes, and this interpretation *makes visual sense*, unlike on a normal clock face.
I'd also like to respond preemptively to two points that get brought up a lot but that I don't think are compelling:
1. Fractional hours like 1.25 or 1.5 do have an intuitive meaning. When the hour hand points to 1.5, the time is 1:30, which is like one and a half.
Keep in mind that we're talking about the hour hand here. The hour hand points to the current hour. At 1:30, the hour is not 1.5, the complete time is 1.5. The hour component of the time (which is what the hour hand tells us) is 1. If you have a clock with only one hand, then this interpretation makes sense; the hand would just point to what the time is. But when there's a separate minute hand, the hour hand should convey only the hour, not the hour and minute components (similarly, the minute hand should not convey the seconds, etc.). This redundancy in itself is not horrible, but it comes with the price of destroying the intuition about what the hour hand should do.
2. Time is continuous; having big chunks where nothing changes doesn't make sense.
This is a similar point. Time is continuous, but the units we break it up into (hours, minutes, seconds, picoseconds, whatever) are not. Although the time is always changing, these units are discrete. The hour changes only once per hour; the minute changes only once per minute. The function of a clock is not to pick out the precise current time from a continuum, it is to tell you what the current units are, and these units are not constantly in flux.
I would really like to accept and endorse the prevalence of analog clocks in the world; they're functional, ubiquitous, mechanically astounding, and visually pleasing. However, I cannot do so in good conscience while simultaneously believing them all to be intrinsically misleading. I want to believe. Please help. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Adding characters to video games that are homosexual just for the sake of having them cheapens the game, and should be insulting to homosexuals in general. +
+ Hopefully Final EDIT: If I could remove something from a game and it doesn't affect the plot then its superfluous. If it happens to be something that's widely debated right now then its pandering.
So recently a lot of games have been adding homosexual characters to their games, and while not inherently wrong, cheapens the quality of a game as a whole. Sexuality should never come into play, unless it is a core element of the story or lore of a game. By now heterosexuality is still considered "normal" and a basic love arc between two characters of opposite gender isn't something someone bats an eye at. A good story about two gay or lesbian characters can be something really great, especially with the backdrop of a society that abhors them. It makes for really good writing. Now I'm not gay, but I've found some gay character's stories especially touching when it comes to unrequited love. It really strengthens the character and the story as a whole as seen with someone like Dumbledore, or a certain character from A Dance with Dragons. The addition of a gay characters just for the sake of them is just shameless pandering. Politics should be left to the real world. Stories are an art, and should be treated as such. Any pandering would ruin a story, but I guess I picked this one because its such a hot topic and I would like to get a discussion on it. LOOK AT ME PANDER IN REAL-TIME.
| 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 freedom of speech should extend to profanity and swearing should never be punished for any reason. CMV +
+ In my opinion there is nothing wrong with swearing. Ever. I believe that every man, woman, and child should be aloud to use any word he chooses without fearing the consequences of the connotations. Words lose, gain, and change meaning all the time and today's 'fuck' could be tomorrow's 'crap' just as easily as 'cloud' could someday be as offensive as 'bitch.' I feel that words like 'nigger' and 'cunt' only hold power because we give it to them. What is the technical distinction between 'shit' and 'poop'? They mean the same thing, are used in the same context, and there is no discernible difference between them. I believe that if the entire world were to accept these swear words as no different from any other they would lose their potency. Furthermore, I disagree with shielding children from foul language. I don't feel it's a real issue so much as a distraction and I fail to even understand people's opposition to my opinion. 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 coffee and products that have a high amount of caffeine should be avoided for its harmful side effects both physically and mentally. CMV. +
+
I have a number of friends who are extremely addicted to coffee. One of them wakes up in the morning feeling really grumpy and in a bad mood and doesn’t start to function correctly till he has his morning coffee, while for me I am up running as soon as I start moving and generally almost always wake up in a good mood. There are more extreme examples of people who are extremely violent or/and unpleasant unless they have their coffee! For a lot of people one cup is not enough, they would start to feel sleepy in the middle of the day and need that cup of coffee to have energy for the rest of the day! This does not happen to me at all! All I have to do is just get myself in the right mood. Some even get headaches and such, which I almost never experience.
One friend tells me that he needs it to concentrate and cannot study without it. While some of my friends think I am nuts that I am even suggesting that they should quit drinking coffee, I believe that it makes you a weaker person who is dependent and addicted to caffeine! I mean just imagine the amount of money you would save throughout your life if you don’t drink coffee!
So I see this as a huge mental weakness. Your whole day will turn into a roller coaster revolving around coffee if you are addicted to that substance :P
Other negative effects include:
“1- More than 4 cups of coffee linked to early death.
2- Caffeine consumption may raise blood pressure in those already suffering from hypertension
3- Caffeine may cause insomnia.
4- Caffeine can cause indigestion.
5- Caffeine can cause headaches”
So am I crazy? Am I making the right choice by choosing to not drink coffee at all and telling my addicted my friends to stop? 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 feel that wealthy should pay a flat tax rather than the current progressive US tax system. +
+ I'm moving to Singapore in the coming months and discovered that they have basically a flat tax system (much lower rate than US) on income and have heavy luxury taxes on items like cars and brand named clothing. Many employees in my company are relocating to different parts of Asia because their tax burden is too heavy especially in European countries. High taxes seem to be causing an exodus from certain countries which creates loss of tax income. Places like Dubai and Singapore are benefiting greatly from the tax challenges faced in mature economies. MNC have been doing it for years, individuals are starting as well now. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Most professional athletes of physical sports are profesional not because they have more dedication than collegiate and minor league athletes, but because they are genetically inclined. +
+ For those who think they understand the title well enough, skip to paragraph three to avoid text dump syndrome.
First let me state: I am not saying that most professional athletes of physical sports do not have much dedication compared to collegiate and minor league athletes, most pros have a comparable or higher level of dedication. I am saying that the reason most professional athletes are professionals as opposed to amateurs is largely because they were genetically gifted.
Second let me give a narrow definition of professional athlete to avoid the mental gymnastics I see on reddit: An athlete who plays in the generally accepted major league of their respective sport. Because I am American this generally means the NBA, NFL, NHL, MLB, MLS, and by some measures the CFL which may or may not be considered minor league. I don't mind talking about other major leagues, but because I am American I probably will not know them.
Finally, like all generalized statements it can not be said that *all* pros match what I said just that on average *most* do.
Now to the argument. I believe the reason most professional athletes are better than collegiate and minor league athletes is because of being genetically better suited to play a specific sport. Take for example that most NBA players are freakishly tall. No matter how dedicated a 5 foot tall man is the chances of him becoming a professional basketball player is next to none. In fact the shortest NBA athlete in history was 5 foot 3 inches so the chance that a 5 foot tall man can become a professional basketball player is statistically 0% if viewed as a percentage of 5 foot tall pros compared to the population.
Now look at 7 foot and taller aspiring basketball players, if you are 7 foot tall or taller the chance of becoming a basketball player, if you are American, in the NBA is 17%. 17% of of 7 foot and up people in the USA are basketball players. In my opinion this shows that genetics are what gives most aspiring athletes the needed push from being amateur to professional, the dedication is there but the genetics is what makes them great as opposed to good. This isn't just about how tall you are. It is the difference between a 100 millisecond reaction time opposed to a 90 millisecond reaction time. It is the difference between a 5.0 second 40 yd dash and a 4.7. For one particular skill the increase is minimal to moderate, but better genes help improve multiple skills resulting in a moderate to major difference compared to collegiate and minor league athletes.
TL;DR: Because most pro athletes share comparable dedication compared to amateur athletes in minor leagues, the main thing distinguishing the professionals from minor league athletes is better suited genetics. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Taxing Tampons/Pads in Canada should continue, because of a myriad of costs related to disposal and clean-up, and that they're in-fact a convenience. +
+ Alright, I realize there has been a previous thread in regards to this topic, but I didn't find it convincing enough to CMV, thus I find myself posting this.
In the past and today, alternatives exist to the disposable tampon/hygiene pad, which incur a lower cost and are environmentally friendly. The widespread habit of flushing disposable pads/tampons down toilets costs municipalities upwards of millions of dollars, already far more than the products bring in tax revenue.
While not specifically about feminine hygiene products [this article from 2013](http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/flushable-wipes-clogging-canadian-sewers-waste-water-officials-say-1.2430071) cites an estimated cost of $250 million, which is reportedly on the low end according to the consulted municipal officials. Quantifying the specific cost of feminine hygiene products is difficult, but my argument is based on their contribution to the overall cost of maintenance.
That money has to come from somewhere, which brings me to the main issue of the debate, the taxation. Within Alberta, according to [these figures presented on the peition for 2014](http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/flushable-wipes-clogging-canadian-sewers-waste-water-officials-say-1.2430071), individuals spent $58,025,309 on hygiene products, for a total of $2,901,925.45 in revenue.
That means that between the 2,025,805 people buying hygiene products within Alberta, the cost to each individual was roughly $1.43. For the entire year.
For the entire country, these products brought in a mere $36,398,387.
Divided between the total number of reported individuals using these products, it was at a cost of $2.03... literally $0.13 more than a single extra large coffee at a Tim Hortons.
To sum this up:
1. Alternatives exist/have existed for years, making the disposable products in fact, a luxury.
a) [Menstrual Cups](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menstrual_cup)
b) [Cloth Menstrual Pads](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanitary_napkin#Cloth_menstrual_pads)
2. The cost to municipalities justifies the tax.
3. The cost of the tax is insignificant compared to the cost of the damage they cause to municipal waterworks, and the environment.
Thank you for reading, and I will do my best to reply ASAP to each person willing to discuss this. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I think High School is an obsolete institution and it's purpose can be replaced by internet learning +
+
I feel as if most of high school is directionless (read open and exploratory) preparatory education for college/life. However, it seems much of it is pointless and is more force fed book curriculum over actual insightful education that helps foster lifelong learning. I understand that some base education is needed to function in society, but much of that is in elementary/ middle school and at the high school level, much of it seems exploratory and not all of it is necessary. Overall, curriculum seems just to pass tests and get good grades rather than insight curiosity and help make people learners.
this is where I think the internet comes in. So much information is available online today that high school seems obsolete. It is so easy to learn new things that actually interest you and explore; the purpose of high school. Instead of being fed meaningless information that may or may not be relevant for your life, on the internet you can dynamically learn whatever you want and in as much depth as you want. I know high school gives you a good base for further learning but what use is that base if you do not care about it? Why spend the time and energy doing something that is not relevant to you?
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: US Alcohol taxes should be higher. +
+ Currently alcohol taxes in the US are not very high. I think given the social costs of drinking, particularly drunk driving and alcoholism, we would be better off raising them to better compensate for those costs, as a [pigouvian tax](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax). We could lower other taxes to compensate, or not. My view is not about the optimal level of overall taxation.
**The Numbers**
I'm going to just use hard liquor numbers because it's easier to get the tax rate per unit of ethanol.
Federally, a proof gallon is taxed [$13.50](http://www.ttb.gov/tax_audit/atftaxes.shtml), which equates to $27 per gallon of pure ethanol for human consumption. At 0.6 fl oz per standard drink and 128 fl oz per gallon, that's about 12.6 cents per drink. [State taxes](http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=349) vary, but on the whole bring it up to maybe 16 to 20 cents per drink.
[This study](http://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797\(11\)00538-1/fulltext) ascribes a very high economic cost to alcohol consumption, and particularly to rapid consumption. I don't know if their economic cost numbers are fully accurate, but it seems to support the hypothesis that there is a large cost, and that the cost comes in particular from people who consume a lot of alcohol.
So why shouldn't the total tax on alcohol go up to something like $100 per gallon of ethanol?
| 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 there should be a 'fat tax' on certain unhealthy foods, or none on tobacco. +
+ I'll preface this by saying that I am an ex-smoker, and lover of saturated fat, sodium, and sugar. They are the unarguably the most important factors in determining whether food tastes good. I also love nitrates, smoked meats, and please, get that damn bran and germ off my endosperm! I do try to balance it out with whole foods, but I'm not some vegan lunatic, and I don't light up anymore so I really have no bias with this.
If the government puts a huge tax on tobacco because society has to pay for the health care of those who use it, why wouldn't they do the same thing for foods believed to be unhealthy? From accounts I've read, bad eating habits are causing more deaths (via heart attack, stroke, diabetes, et al) than tobacco, and costing society more as well.
I would expect someone to argue that you have to eat, but you don't have to smoke. That's not a valid argument because you do not have to eat McDonald's, Oreo's, bacon, or cheesecake. Granted an optimally nutritious diet can be prohibitively expensive for some, and taxing would make it harder on those individuals. This would have to worked out, and could be with subsidies, possibly even from the tax money.
Another argument I'll probably get is who is to say what food is healthy and what isn't. This can be very tricky. Eggs are a notorious Jekyll and Hyde case. Even spinach could be up for debate with the oxalates and all. I won't claim to have a perfect answer on this one. There is no perfect diet, be it plant based, paleo, Mediterranean. But there is a general consensus that certain foods are almost certainly helping to make us fat. Refined grains, sugary snacks and drinks, fried foods devoid of nutrients. We would have to do it to the best of our ability. Swedish snus is a tobacco product that is taxed in the US, but has been proven with long term studies to have virtually no negative health effects. Things can't always be perfectly fair.
I know there are many obstacles that make this happening anytime soon be unlikely. Very few want more taxes. I don't myself. Nobody wants to pay for infrastructure, but you bitch when you hit a pothole. Remember this is 20% of our nation's total health care cost. Also it was easy to pick on smokers, being a minority, but most of America is obese. The government certainly doesn't help much as it is either. It can be a chore to tell if a whole grain bread is really made from whole grains. I bet the majority of people can't decipher a nutrition label. Stuff like that should be taught in schools IMO.
Note that I don't criticize obese people or look at them as bad people (or smokers for that matter). Its just a cruel trick of nature that we are hardwired to love sugar, calorically dense foods, sodium, and lots of them. Without that instinct I probably wouldn't be here writing this post, and you wouldn't be here to read it.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: When we take any considered action (ie not in the grip of fear or anger etc), we always do so in order to gain a good feeling or to avoid a bad feeling. +
+ It seems to me that the heart of human motivation consists in trying to gain good emotions and avoid bad emotions.
For example, I go to the gym partly because I want the good feeling of working out, partly because I want the good feeling of being more attractive, and partly because I want the good feelings of (potentially) finding a partner who finds me attractive.
Similarly, I do a job to gain money that I can spend on things that I enjoy (good feelings) and paying bills (avoiding the bad feelings of being sued and going to jail).
Apart from when one is in the grip of a strong mood like anger (which I don't want to discuss because it does not involve *EDIT: considered* actions), it seems to me that this is always the case?
Can anyone change my view by coming up with examples of times when people do things, and they don't expect to get a good feeling out of it or avoid a bad feeling?
Thanks!
| 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 there should be a form of affirmative action for academics that is based on (conservative) political views CMV +
+ One of the major policy appeals behind affirmative action is the creation of a diverse environment. A completely homogeneous environment is unlikely to be as intellectually fulfilling as a diverse one. Universities have done an excellent job in creating an environment that has tons of racial, sexual, ethnic and religious diversity. However, it still lacks intellectual and political diversity. People with conservative or right-wing views are [woefully unrepresented](http://www.criticalreview.com/crf/pdfs/klein_stern.pdf) in academia, particularly in the social sciences. Not only does this make people with conservative political views feel unwelcome in the university environment, it threatens the perceived validity of the research done. [This is even recognized by some leftists themselves](http://inequalitiesblog.wordpress.com/2011/02/07/right-wing-study-of-inequality/). Therefore, to make university a more diverse environment we should prioritize student and faculty applicants who are affiliated with right wing organizations, and ensure that peer review panels have at least one right wing professor on them CMV. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:Racial pride is a part of the problem with racism. +
+ Being proud of your race causes a social divide which only increases racism as it tends to lead towards racial exclusion.
I do think that racial pride tends to lead to the thought process of racial superiority and as such is only part of the problem when it comes to racism.
Being proud should only come with an action, not with something you are born with.
You shouldn't be proud that you are Asian, White, Black, or Hispanic. You should be proud of what you have done.
I am not saying that getting rid of racial pride will solve racism but I do think that it is part of the problem. Rejecting shame has nothing to do with having pride.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeixtYS-P3s
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The Caesar's Legion are the superior choice for the Mojave and maybe even the entire Wasteland +
+ I see that the Caesar's Legion get a lot of bad rap from people in both the Mojave and in real life, but I believe that they are the superior choice for the protection of the Wasteland for many different reasons;
**First of all,** the NCR is spread incredibly thin. They control almost the entire west coast of the former United States, and have conquered many great civilizations such as Vault City, the Enclave and the Brotherhood of Steel, but as they began to take more and more land, their forces began spreading thinner and thinner, and now the NCR controls so much land that they can not even protect their citizens from raiders. It is stated numerous times throughout Fallout: New Vegas that the Legion does have the military power to protect it's citizens and trade routes. How can an empire support it's citizens if it cannot protect them? The raider groups of the Mojave would have died out quickly if the Legion took control, but instead the NCR have turned New Vegas into their puppet state and refused to properly attack the raiders from the source, destroying the threat, and putting many towns like Goodsprings in danger.
Their lack of security has also lead to the NCRCF riots and subsequent take-over and raids, which has put the Mojave region in chaos due to the large amount of escaped convicts raiding areas and killing NCR Troopers. This would never happen under Caesar's command.
**Secondly,** the NCR's economy is down the toilet. While the NCR may have forced the Brotherhood of Steel into hiding, they failed to protect their valuable gold supplies, resulting in the collapse of the economy. The NCR dollar is worth less than a bottle cap, which is pretty sad. Conversely, the Legion denarius is worth 4x the amount of the cap, and while this is still low, it is far better than the NCR's dollar. An economy like this can support the citizens properly, and as the Legion presumably still use the gold standard, they can properly manage their economy and not cause it to go out of control.
**Thirdly,** the NCR suffers from extreme corruption, far worse than what occurs within the Legion. Approval of President Kimball is incredibly low, and the country is on the verge of falling apart with him still in office. The fact that he is still the President even with such low approval ratings is proof that the NCR is rife with corruption. Kimball has been in office for 9 years, far longer than he should have been in office with such low approval. The Legion does not suffer from this, as Caesar has developed a cult of personality around himself, and he is virtually loved by all within the Legion.
Now despite all of this, there are still some things that the Legion does that are around the same level of "badness" as the NCR.
**1.** Both the Legion and the NCR use prisoners as slave labour, with slaves being forced to carry stones up mountains at the Fort and slaves being forced to destroy railroads with dynamite in the NCRCF.
The Legion is considerably worse about this, however, as the Legion do take women and children as prisoners.
**2.** Both the NCR and the Legion use conscripts as a major part of their militaries, resulting in many being forced to kill for their countries. However, the Legion does this considerably better, as most of their military are willing to die for Caesar, and ferociously loyal, whereas the NCR Troopers just want to go back to California to see their families.
**3.** Both countries are on the brink of civil war. The NCR has extremely low approval ratings and poverty, whereas if Lanius takes over, his approval ratings will also drop and plunge the country into civil war. Both countries can easily be saved by getting another person to take their place.
I definitely found myself agreeing with Caesar when he said that the NCR was best under Tandi's rule, and she was essentially the Queen of the NCR, ruling for over 50 years and being titled as "President for Life".
Now, i'm not saying that I think that the Legion the best nation ever, I'm just saying that they are the best choice for the Mojave and the Wasteland.
So, please, somebody, change my view.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I don't think bodily functions such as farting should be acceptable to do in front of your SO, CMV +
+ I struggle to find a single couple that's been together long-term that doesn't eventually reach the point of being able to fart in front of each other. I don't think a relationship should ever reach the point where manners are no longer required and something like farting is rude and disrespectful (this of course excludes extreme circumstances such as sleeping or sickness). It's the same as not saying "please" or "thank you" or any other amount of manners expected of a person. It's an unpleasant bodily function (of which we have many that our partners never see if we can help it) so why should I be expected to handle my SO's gas? | 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 most of the well upvoted posts on this subreddit receive upvotes simply because they are widely held opinions amongst Redditors. CMV. +
+ There are a ridiculous number of posts about racism, rape and 3rd wave feminism that reach the number 1 spot on this subreddit. It seems almost reserved for them. I would attribute this to people upvoting opinions they agree with rather than ones they think are interesting or would genuinely like to see a refutation of. This seems an unspoken form of circlejerking and is not conducive to a varied and interesting subreddit. CMV on the title or the previous sentence. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Automation will not be a problem in the future +
+
Let my clarify my point; I am not a believer in the notion that one day robots will be doing all the jobs and responsibilities required within the workforce while we, the humans, struggle to find a job. Instead, I simply don’t believe that automation will take off on the widespread scale that some people are speculating. In this Youtube video [Humans Need Not Apply]( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU) the narrator believes that all jobs, not just simple manufacturing jobs, will be replaced by robots. He relates our perils to that of the early 20th century horse that was replaced by the automobile. But I think this comparison is crude and does not take into the account of economics.
Let’s say his vision comes to fruition and the people with unskilled jobs are given the boot. And for the sake of generalization, let’s also assume that the number of people receiving minimum wage is roughly similar to the number of unskilled laborers in the US (if you don’t agree with this generalization I apologize). According the 2011 study from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, [73.9 million people]( http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2011.htm) work for minimum wage salary which represents almost 3/5 the number of salaried workers in the US. So back to the matter at hand. Let’s say that they are let go from their jobs due to the fact that automation would be cheaper for business owners. We now have roughly 74 million people out of jobs. Yup, I’d say that would put us in the very least a recession, or possibly a depression. These 74 million people would be unable to acquire the skills necessary to be hirable in the dwindling workforce due to a lack of money to receive an education.
So now let’s assume that these 74 million people without jobs will go into a super saving mode in order to be able to buy food and keep whatever shelter they have over their heads. I don’t think the government will be able to provide substantial welfare to almost half of the work force. According to [Labor Market Information]( http://www.dlt.ri.gov/lmi/laus/us/usadj.htm) the workforce in August of 2011 was 153,724 Americans and the workforce in July of 2014 was 156,023 people. Pretty similar numbers, so let’s stick with 2011 since that’s the date of the BLS study. If we add the current unemployed with the newly unemployed due to automation and divide that number by the labor force (73.9+13.8)/153.72 we would get an unemployment rate of 57%. Yikes I doubt the economy is doing great right now with almost 60% of the population unemployed. Even if the robots are cheaper and banging out products day in and day out, who is going to buy the merchandise? The United States GDP would be in crumbles! Businesses would go out of business due to a lack of cash flow and even more people would be unemployed. It would be a nasty cycle that would keep pushing more and more people out of jobs and onto the streets.
Now, I think that the only way this level of automation would work is if our society converted into completely socialist society and shared the wealth and products of the robots equally. But I simply don’t see that happening. It would be possibly the largest undertaking by the Government ever to create a working and efficient socialist system based purely on handouts. Plus I can’t ever see the government allowing automation to take away the jobs of so many Americans. When Tesla began to put pressure on regular auto dealers because of their superior product, New Jersey, Texas, Colorado, Arizona, and Virginia all prohibited the sale of Tesla’s in their states. If those states will go to those measures to protect car dealers, I would bet money that the Federal Government would do a good deal to protect the jobs of 60% of the workforce.
I simply don’t think that automation will change our lives as radically as the folks at /r/futurology would like you to believe. Sure, automation will come into effect in the future, but I don’t think that it will be the problem that some have been making it out to be. So, if you do believe this is a bigger issue than I do, 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 believe that colleges and universities should only offer degrees in classic fields, and that everything else should be taught through on-the-job training. CMV +
+ It's time for all of those who majored in business, communications, engineering, marketing, and all that other nonsense to justify their decision.
There was a time when colleges and universities were for people who wanted to study literature, philosophy, mathematics, history, chemistry, and biology. This gave people with an interest in these subjects the time to work on furthering these important fields. Someone studying philosophy would be expected to come up with philosophies of their own based on the knowledge presented by those who came before. Someone studying biology would be expected to create their own hypotheses and to experiment on them. Someone studying literature would be expected to read books carefully and to extrapolate theories based on what they read. This was considered important work in society. I feel that it still is important work in society.
The problem is that other majors have turned colleges and universities into diploma mills for people who are hoping to get middle management positions. They are no longer places for education, and now just places for people to complete one more step on the way to the real world. How much about actual business does a business major learn without working at an actual business? What does an engineer really learn that cannot be taught in a two-year degree and a lot of time working at an actual engineering job? What do communications majors actually learn in their classes?
Schools are so focused on making sure that everyone gets their super special degree, that they have lost their focus regarding the other (in my opinion, more important) majors. Now English and history majors are taught with an eye towards teaching middle or high school. Chemistry and biology students are busy learning about everyone else's experiments without doing any of their own. Philosophy students are fortunate in that their professors are mostly of the old school, and therefore do allow them some freedom of thought, but they still have to deal with mass memorization, and the fact that their department is being slowly but surely eliminated from many universities.
If we reverted to treating colleges and universities as places where people were actually expected to study and come up with new ideas, then we would have a stronger society. The memorization of what is past is wonderful, in some regards, but it is better to constantly be innovating. I feel that innovation goes far beyond simply creating a new technology. We have to be innovative in thought and feeling. We have to be able to come up with new ideas surrounding old problems.
The best way to do this would be to allow colleges and universities to nurture the minds that are naturally inclined towards critical thought. They can't do this if they are focused on pumping out diplomas for people who would be better educated in the field. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The word gif is pronounced "Jif" and anyone is says otherwise is simply incorrect or doesn't understand how words work. +
+ I hear many people, even people who are educated in technology and media who pronounce the word "gif". It bothers me *a lot* when it is said this way, as it is said from ignorance. However, what bothers me even more than people simply just saying it wrong, but are the people who argue and defend the use of "gif" saying that it is a popular/known word and many(most) people say "gif", thus, it is correct to say gif. My problem with this is that it doesn't matter if literally every single person except the creator of the gif called it gif, it would still be wrong. It initialism, and as such, the author can say how the word is pronounced. These people not only pronounce it wrong, but don't know how words in general work. 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 no topic of opinion should be taboo to discuss, even in "polite company". +
+ As it stands, there are many topics of opinion which are taboo to discuss. Many of these topics have to do with sex and sexual behavior, and especially unconventional forms of sexual activity or orientations, such as Zoophilia/Bestiality, Incest, Necrophilia, Pedophilia, and so on, though other restrictions exist.
I think taboos exist to suppress unpopular viewpoints. No one wants to hear from someone who thinks that, say, necrophilia is okay. But people still hold those unpopular viewpoints, and, without discussion, who is to say they are not right?
I freely admit, there are some topics that I am squeamish about (corophagia, for example). But I shouldn't feel that way, and I wouldn't stop such discussion. And, I do admit that some topics need to be discussed carefully (such as letting young children know about death). But though care may be necessary, an outright taboo is completely overkill.
Note: I used "topic of opinion" to avoid issues about discussion of, say, military troop positions and so on, which are not matters of opinion but of information - and such information is important to be kept secret. I do not believe this applies to any matter of opinion. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think that "he" as a default pronoun is completely acceptable and does not pose a threat to women/feminism. CMV +
+ It's short, widespread, and the vast majority of people don't pause for a second to think about it. "Xe" and the like are silly and there is no reason to adopt them. | 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 OK to pee in the shower, and should no be discouraged at a young age, CMV. +
+ By young age, I mean around the time you switch from baths to showers. This of course varies from person to person.
I think that it is Ok to pee in the shower because in theory it saves water. why use the toilet, flush, and then hop in the shower, when you could have so easily used the drain with running water right in front of you?
To address the gross factor, I know there are plenty of people grossed out by this idea, and thats fine. If you don't want to pee in the shower then don't. Nobody is going to force you or anything.
I don't think this behavior should be discouraged because it doesn't hurt anything. In fact, it's efficient, even if just by a little.
CMV | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe that the dropping of two atomic bombs on Japan was justified and was better than the alternatives. CMV +
+ Throughout the last months of the Pacific conflict, the US navy and air force were carrying out heavy bombing campaigns against Japanese targets, such as Tokyo and Kyoto. These included firebombings and incredibly destructive attacks on mainly civilian targets. Some historians speculate that up to 400,000 Japanese civilians were killed in two months of firebombing alone. The US would have continued these bombings in the event that they did not end the war with the bomb, or through some other means. The dropping of the bombs signaled the end of the war, and therefore, prevented even more civilian casualties. Therefore, it was completely justified and should not be as controversial as it is. Change my view, I'm open to any angle or argument, just try to stay as un-biased as possible. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:I belive that men over the age of 30 who have sex with a minor should be castrated. +
+ I know this is a touchy subject and most people will go with the capital punishment law, however I currently believe that we let these guys off too easy and they will think it's okay to do again and again Honesty if some sicko did this to your child and caught them what would you do? I'm only 23 and this subject angers me greatly
I chose the age of 30 because I believe the age gap between 30 and 17 (or younger) is too big
I feel like this should be only done for sexual crimes because I don't think anybody could possibly get turned on by murder I could be wrong though.
I belive castration would be a suitable punnishment because you wouldn't really be able to rape a minor with out a penis. | 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 can't parallel park, you shouldn't be allowed to have a driver's license. +
+ Parallel parking requires an awareness of the geometry of your vehicle, its turning radius, the sensitivity of its acceleration and brakes, and the ability to combine these skills to maneuver in a precise manner. These are all skills which are integral to the general safe operation of a motor vehicle, and I feel that if you cannot demonstrate them, you shouldn't be allowed to drive regardless of whether you will ever actually have to parallel park in the real world. These skills become even more important when driving an unfamiliar vehicle, and in my state a basic drivers license allows you to drive a vehicle or vehicle+trailer combination up to 13 *tons.* I feel it is a massive risk to public safety to allow someone to drive a 26 foot Uhaul, with significantly reduced visibility and unfamiliar geometry, who can't even parallel park their own car which they are familiar with.
So, Reddit, 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 employers are within their right to terminate employees who bad mouth them on a public forum such as Facebook or Twitter. CMV. +
+ I believe that as an employee, there is an implicit responsibility that you are a member of the organization both on and off the job. When you bad mouth your employer, you become a liability, not an asset. Moreover, it shows that you have very little regard for conduct/interest in moving up the organization.
Note that I don't agree that statements that are verifiable (e.g. unsafe labour practices) should be grounds for termination. I'm saying things like "omg I hate my boss, he's a retard and I hope he dies today" should be subject to employer action.
CMV.
Because there has been some confusion -- I'm more interested in the ethics of it all rather than the legality. Should companies be allowed to do this? | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe falsification is an inadequate demarcation criterion. CMV +
+ For the uninitiated, in the philosophy of science the demarcation problem considers how to distinguish science from non-science. Karl Popper, a 20th century philosopher, suggested that the line separating a scientific theory from a non-scientific theory is whether or not a theory is falsifiable. He also suggested that falsified theories be rejected for newer, unfalsified but falsifiable theories. I think this is inadequate, and that a theory should be measured by its successes rather than its failures.
I believe this for two reasons. First, I believe that the way science is actually practiced should be taken into consideration when discussing the demarcation problem. I believe that this is by evaluating the successes of the theory rather than judging it based on a falsification criterion. Secondly, I believe that the falsificationism principle cannot keep up with where science is taking us.
Consider the first point. When factual evidence is uncovered that undermines a well-established theory it is often rejected outright. If it is not rejected, the theory is modified slightly to accommodate the new facts. Therefore, the theory stands on its previous successes rather than succumbs to falsification attempts. This is not to say an established theory is never replaced or superseded, but I do think this demonstrates that too much import is placed on falsification, when in reality science is hardly ever practiced this way. Most science is done within the scope of a theory. I would argue that a really well established theory is in practice unfalsifiable. It can only be amended or superseded.
So how is a scientific theory established anyhow? By its successes! You can argue that this is semantic -- that any success of a scientific theory is its passing a falsification test, but in practice I think that scientists pay a lot more attention to how successful predictions of a theory have been rather than to what degree it has failed falsification tests. These are not one and the same! Consider how general relativity was established. It predicted a few major things that distinguished it from competing theories such as the precessing perihelion of mercury and the deflection of starlight during an eclipse. When Arthur Eddington established that starlight did indeed bend during an eclipse, the theory gained widespread support. Forget the fact that there was much that remained to be tested. It was the successes that gained it support.
Finally, I think that falsificationism leaves little to no room for inductive reasoning. I think that this has historically been very important in science, such as in the discovery of relativity, and I think that it's importance is only growing. There is plenty of science that can't pragmatically be falsified because of technological or temporal constraints. Consider the question of quantum gravity. Because of technological limitations, theories of quantum gravity will be untestable for the foreseeable future. If falsificationism had its way, those studying the quatum gravity problem from a theoretical perspective would be on par with priests and mystics. So what separates String theory (a theory of quantum gravity) from religion? Its success, of course! It is the only theory, per my knowledge, that can definitely combine quantum mechanics and general relativity in a logically consistent way. Whether or not the theory is correct remains to be seen, but because of its success its status should be squarely in the domain of science.
These are my views, anyway. CMV | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think Language/Journalism/Arts majors require less critical thinking than STEM majors. CMV +
+ One clarification before this begins: I fully understand that people grasp different concepts more intuitively than others. I'm not discussing people's ability to excel in these majors. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Ted Cruz is not a serious candidate, he's just being used by republicans to make the actual candidate seem less extreme +
+ Ted Cruz seems to take such extreme and often ignorant stances on big public issues that, while his small following is fiercely loyal, there's no way the Republican Party thinks he actually has a chance of representing them in the battle for the presidency.
Instead, in a savvy marketing move, they convinced him to declare first so that their favored candidate will be much more appealing to the masses. They might lose the favor of some voters on the far right in this process, but those voters are still going to vote with the party rather than turn democrat AND a comparably more liberal Republican candidate could grab enough of the swing voters to win the race.
Also, by doing this and turning voter/media attention towards things like global warming, where it is obvious the government is going to have to officially acknowledge science at some point, they are able to divert attention away from more actively-fought-over issues like campaign funding reform, banking reform and net neutrality.
This is very analogous to the way I remember the PS4 vs XBoxOne launches, where (perhaps unintentionally), in the weeks leading up to the launch, some of the most public arguments focused around XBox's inferior DRM policies and didn't talk as much about tech specs, where PS4 had them beat. Neither side cared too much about the hardcore gamers because they were loyal to their brand and/or did all the research to make their decision, but the "swing gamers" would be more easily swayed by marketing. Then, right before launch, Microsoft said "oh, because of your feedback, we're going to drastically improve our DRM policies" which basically took PS4's most public argument off the table.
On a side note, this really scares me because it seems like an effective tactic and I haven't read about it in any articles/blogs yet (granted I haven't read a lot about this in general, but still). | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:Nuclear weapons are the only thing keeping the world from going to complete hell +
+ With how close the world has come to annihilating itself because of leaders who've been a bit trigger happy (Cuban Missile Crisis) I truly believe nukes are pretty much the only reason the world isn't in major conflict right now.
The Cold War for example. If the US and the Soviets didn't have their nuclear arsenal, what reason would Stalin, Khrushchev, etc have for NOT invading the rest of Europe? They could've easily done so and not much the US could've done to stop them.
Our greatest and most terrifying weapons are pretty much our salvation and force us to cooperate even if we don't like each other. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe elderly people's dificuties in understanding technology is down to stubbornness and laziness, and not a generational gap issue. Please CMV +
+ To clarify, by technology I mean relatively simple things like using the internet, or connecting up a new DVD player.
I think using technology, such as a computer, now days to achieve typical goals is incredibly easy. I do not understand how anyone with an open mind a willingness to learn cannot achieve simple things like using email, or performing a google search in a very short amount of time.
I believe elderly people have formed an opinion about technology being difficult to learn and thus do not want to invest the small amount of time to learn how to use it. I believe they want to hold steadfast to this ingrained belief as somewhat a matter of pride.
I do not accept the argument that younger people have 'grown up with it' as the technology seems so intuitive and easy to use. Many elderly people I know have taken up new hobbies once in retirement (eg: woodwork, gardening, etc) and excel at it without having grown up doing it.
This view point makes my job very un-enjoyable at times. I find it very frustrating teaching elderly people simple computer tasks and then getting blamed when they do something incorrectly.
I would like to change my view so as to better understand the elderly people I work with and to be able to teach computer usage more affectively as well as not let my frustration get the better of me.
Please CMV! | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think the studying the arts in high school does not help prepare students for the "real world" CMV +
+ I am having this argument with a colleague of mine, he is the one that holds this opinion. He thinks that focusing solely on studying core classes such as mathematics, social sciences, and history is much more effective than wasting time with arts such as theater or music. He argues that the real world application of the core classes should be the only thing that is taught in schools as it is what gets you "real jobs." Thanks in advance and 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 Believe That Iran's Nuclear Program Threatens Israel: CMV +
+ Specifically I don't believe the comments of Netanyahu on the recent deal with Iran. I don't believe Israel has a need to 'defend' itself against Iranian nuclear ambitions, nor do they espouse the 'wiping off the map' or physcial destruction of Israel. Whether they oppose the coalition in power is a different question.. I don't think they are threatening Israel, and I think Netanyahu is fearmongering.
'But the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told his cabinet it was a "historic mistake" and that his country reserved the right to defend itself.
"Today the world became a much more dangerous place because the most dangerous regime in the world made a significant step in obtaining the most dangerous weapons in the world," he said.
At a later news conference, Mr Netanyahu said Israel would not be bound by the agreement.
"We cannot and will not allow a regime that calls for the destruction of Israel to obtain the means to achieve this goal.
"Israel has many friends and allies, but when they're mistaken, its my duty to speak out."' | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I do not believe whether it is my responsibility to care whether a potential hookup has a SO or not. +
+ All the responsibility falls on the person with the SO, and unless the people who were to hookup have a relationship in which it is known that they should look out for each other and make sure they don't do anything to fuck up their relationships, then the person without the SO should not care about the other person's relationship.
Of course, with specific personal relationships it varies depending on how much you're supposed to look after the other person and other factors, but as a general baseline i think that if the other person is into it, you do not need to worry about their other commitments or relationships, because they are making the conscious decision to hook up with you. This came to mind because as a straight dude, if I hypothetically want to hook up with a hypothetical girl and she has a hypothetical boyfriend, the hypothethical boyfriend might try and fight me although I believe I hypothetically did nothing wrong and all the blame goes on the hypothetical girl for not respecting her hypothetical existing relationships.
| 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 people who are for socialism are people who hate hard work & ambition, and also do not understand the implications of taking incentives away from self-made entrepreneurs. CMV. +
+ In a perfect world, I want every starving child to be fed, every single human to be happy, and every person to come into existence to be honest, loving, and caring. In a perfect world, I want socialism.
But **we don't live in a perfect world.** Seeing that I look through the lens of **reality**, I know that most people (yes, even though who for socialism) are only looking for their own self-interest. We need police because criminals exist, we need firefighters because fires will still happen, and we need a capitalistic society because we're no longer creatures who simply just survive and replicate, but rather creatures who create change. Without rewarding the entrepreneur, we are punishing ourselves as a society. If we say that employee #2 deserves as much as the creator of the company (even if employee #2 does MORE work), then we're basically **removing the incentive to start a business**.
As an entrepreneur myself who risked my life-savings to start a business with my friends, and have succeeded, it angers me that people look at me like an enemy and call me selfish for not paying my employees just as much as I take in, even though I took all the risk. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I don't see the joy in raising a mental handicapped child CMV +
+ Whenever I see parents that are taking care of their children who have been diagnosed with extreme cases of mental disability, I often ask myself "Why?"
In social situations it really only seems to be an astronomical cause of stress. Bathing the child, always making sure he/she isn't hurting him/herself. It literally never ends. To me, the joy of raising a child is watching it grow from an 8 pound crying/pooping machine into a functioning adult who has no limits to his/her capabilities. This dream is severely dampened with a mentally handicapped child.
The other issue I find, is that a lot of these children are also incapable of really expressing their emotions, and often cannot even verbalize what they want besides grunts and tantrums. Obviously this perspective is probably wildly different when the child has half of your genes, but to me it definitely seems harder to love this child. Especially when the child is a huge stressor. You can also say goodbye to a relaxing retirement.
I want to make it clear that I **have the utmost respect for parents who raise a child like this with unconditional effort and love**, my request is that you show me the light in such an arduous task.
| 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 "nice guy" stereotype has been grossly over stigmatized +
+ Everyone is familiar with the phrase, "nice guys finish last". It's a common aphorism that's been used for at least all of my lifetime. It was generally used to dismiss why someone who is generally seen as a really genuine guy who gets the butt end of the stick. The honest man gets peace of mind, the dishonest man gets ahead. Lately, terming yourself the "nice guy" gets you a lot of flak because some how its been attributed an extremely negative connotation.
The connotation I'm describing is the belief that people who are nice are only doing so because of their ultimate ulterior motive to lay with anyone they are nice to. It assumes that their actions are purely manipulative and that they expect an action/reward sort of relationship out of people. I think this is a rude oversimplification of nice guys.
In actuality, these people just have a faith in people's integrity. They are the ones that are sure to be quick and helpful about repaying a favor when someone does them a kindness. These people aren't morons though--they don't assume sexual attraction to be a favor (as pop-culture would tell you). The issue at play is that they are not exactly socially well-rounded, so when they become involved with a girl in a platonic manner emotional attachment comes easily and quickly. This attachment only grows as the girl sees them as a closer friend because of how much time they spend together and how many favors the guy is willing to perform for them (the notorious "such a great friend" line). Meanwhile, because of the nature of attraction, the man's constant desire to please is sure to seat him in the also highly stigmatized "friendzone".
So the situation that arises is the man unawares finds himself with a woman whom he thought a strong bond of companionship and mutual feelings was blossoming when in fact she has not the slightest romantic interest in him.
The man isn't expecting to hit a favor quota and receive the adoration of his adored--he is simply deluded into the idea that the more time he spends with her, the more she will realize or have the chance to realize that he is the one she has truly loved all along. Generalizing him as an asshole who is only interested in women for sex won't help him shake his fairy tale mindset. People assume he only had sexual interests from the start, which I don't believe is true. They then instantly shame him for even having those interests which only furthers the problem. So reddit, change my view
tl;dr: nice guys are confused or naive individuals that need a wake up call, not conniving manipulating assholes that deserve to be ostracized.
(Bracing myself for ad hominem)
| 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 birth control should be mandatory until you can prove that you can support a child, CMV +
+ I find it is the poorest of the poor that have the most children. They end up living in horrific conditions, usually don't get a good education and end up perpetuating the cycle of poverty. Along with poverty comes other social ills, including crime.
There are already way too many people in this world.
I submit that every single female child should get an implant before puberty (until they can find one for males, in which case all males should get one too). The implant would be removed when the person could provide proof of their ability to support a child/ren. We are required to provide proof of our ability to pay for pretty much everything these days (if we want to get a loan etc) so why not have to provide proof that you are able to support a child.
Of course I know that life happens and that things are not always hunky dory. People lose jobs/have accidents etc etc and sometimes end up poor even after a pretty good beginning BUT it is a fact that MOST people will end up in the same income bracket as their parents therefore why don't we legislate for more stable families?
Once you have had your child, you would be re-implanted with the birth control until you can prove again that you can afford a next child.
Just as an aside, the reason I started this CMV is because of something someone posted on FB earlier. http://imgur.com/a/1WTnB This family is living the poorest of poor lives and needing construction material to make their shack bigger. The little one he is holding needs a wheelchair. I have one child and a decent job and I am struggling. He has four. What quality of life do these kids have? | 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 a minimum wage job paying 15K a year is more than enough for a single adult to live off of. +
+ After seeing this thread, http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1p79z3/725_an_hour_amounts_to_15080_a_year_for/
I couldn't help but wonder, why is it so hard to live off of 15k a year? Without going too far into my personal life I will tell you this, I am a college student whose parents passed away when I was a freshman, they weren't wealthy by any stretch of the imagination, in fact we were considered to be under the poverty line. I received a little under 40k from life insurance after paying their outstanding bills etc. I receive scholarships that pay for 100% of my tuition, but I still need to pay for all of my living expenses. I have budgeted to only spend 12-14k a year and I live QUITE comfortably. I live in a nice neighborhood in a large house with my own room paying ~$500 a month on rent. I pay ~ 400 every 6 months for car insurance and ~ 40 a month for my phone bill. Living near campus costs me extra money and I still need to pay for books, health insurance, food, dental etc. but I am getting by on around 15k a year. Why is it that everyone says 15k is a "starving wage" yet I feel very comfortable? Not to mention, this is assuming you get no benefits at all in your full time job and have no chance for advancement or a raise.
Please help me understand, is there some expense that I am missing? Am I just too young and naive?
Thanks.
1. 500 is just my rent, I pay an additional ~$50 a month for utilities, more in the winter.
2. I know for a fact I only spend 1k a month because I have a brokerage account with about 8k in liquid cash and the rest in a diversified portfolio that has earned me about 6% yearly on average (some years were better while others much worse). From that account 800 is transfered automatically monthly, I only allow myself to xfer 200 extra if need be, but try to avoid it.
Thanks again everyone!
I have to say, if there's one thing I've learned here, it's to remain in the Midwest! I will admit, I underestimated how much it costs to live elsewhere, and 15k definitely does not cut it. Although, I don't believe raising the minimum wage is the appropriate course of action, but rather ensuring that full time workers receive benefits that will ease the cost of living. Also, provide some sort of incentive to hiring full time workers, through either punishment for skimping on hours or tax breaks for providing full-time positions. Obviously I don't have the answers, or else I would be in office! But I agree, minimum wage is not a feasible wage to live off of without benefits. | 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 those interested in the nature of truth should study Physics rather than Philosophy. +
+ By truth I do not mean factual statements such as "Brett Favre used to be a quarterback for the Green Bay Packers". Obviously, neither physics nor philosophy are useful for collecting trivia type knowledge. Also, I concede that philosophy has better tools equipped to understand moral truths. However, when it comes to understanding and discovering general characteristics belonging to existing things, I believe that physics is superior to philosophy. Here are a few reasons why.
* Philosophy, since it is not experimental in nature, merely reorganizes knowledge and does not produce any new knowledge.
* Descriptions in mathematics are less ambiguous, more strictly logical, and lead to greater insights than descriptions in English or any other language.
* Ideas in physics are much easier to test.
* Philosophy has no defense against counter-intuitive truths such as "objects have a probabilistic rather than a defined set of characteristics". Hence, any study of truth within philosophy will be limited by our own imaginations or intuitions.
* Newtonian mechanics, Big Bang, quantum mechanics, and relativity have done more to revolutionize our understanding of truth than any theory in philosophy.
CMV!
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Defining racism/sexism/anything like that as "power plus prejudice" is incorrect. +
+ 1. It's completely arbitrary. I have never heard any reason as to why the "power plus prejudice" definition is preferable to the simple "prejudice" definition that was not circular reasoning. The only real reason I have heard is that one cannot be racist against white people or sexist against men because those groups have power, therefore "power plus prejudice" is a better definition; however, this reason requires that "racism/sexism equals power plus prejudice" is true in the first place and is thus a fallacious argument.
2. It results in an inconsistent definition of what is sexist/racist, even when the same person holds the same views. The premise for this is that power must be taken in the context of immediate social surroundings, because people do not meaningfully interact with every person in the country on a daily basis. If a lot of people across a country share exactly the same views, but they do not interact with each other in a meaningful way, the views do not have power regardless of how many people share them, on the grounds that to have power, an idea must have structured support, and to have structured support, there must be interaction between believers of the idea. Therefore, by defining power as an idea's influence in an immediate social sphere, we can actually evaluate whether or not it is sexist/racist since it requires power to be racist/sexist and requires interaction and support to have power. Additionally, because individuals do not have power without support (just like ideas), and their support comes from their immediate peers, I come to the same conclusion. Note that this is the part I am least confident in, so attacking the premise that power should be considered in immediate social spheres is probably the best way to CMV.
With that in mind, here's a hypothetical situation. There are four groups, group A, group B, group C, and group D. These groups are far away from each other and do not naturally interact. In groups A and B, 90% are men and 10% are women. In groups C and D, 90% are women and 10% are men. If sexism equals power plus prejudice, the situation plays out like this (theoretically).
In group A, all the men believe that women are inferior, while the women believe everyone should be equal. This makes the men sexist, since they are prejudiced against women and that prejudice has the support structure it needs in order to have power.
In group B, all the men believe that everyone should be equal, while the women believe that men are inferior. This does NOT make the women sexist, because their views are prejudiced but the prejudice does not have the necessary support to have power.
In group C, all the women believe that men are inferior, while the men believe that everyone should be equal. This makes the women sexist for the same reason the men in group A are sexist.
In group D, all the women believe that everyone should be equal, while the men believe that women are inferior. This does NOT make the men sexist for the same reason that the women in group B were not sexist.
Now, by moving people around, inconsistencies start to show up. If we moved a man from group A (who is prejudiced) to group D, the same views that were once considered sexist now are not. This is because he used to be in a group where his prejudiced ideas had support, but now that he is in group D, where the idea that everyone is equal has majority support, the idea no longer has power and is therefore not sexist. The same principle applies if we moved a woman from group B to group C.
Meanwhile, the opposite can also happen. By moving a man from group D (who is prejudiced) to group A, his views that were once part of a great minority (and were therefore not sexist) are now part of the majority, hold power, and are therefore sexist. The same happens if we moved a woman from C to group B.
Assuming that such inconsistencies are undesirable, the view that sexism equals power plus prejudice must be rejected in favor of the original definition (any mindset that is prejudicial against someone based on their sex). This allows consistency in what thoughts are considered sexist, which will give a stronger platform for social change that more people will agree with, since everyone can feel that it's working for them. While society as a whole can be considered sexist, that does not and should not have any bearing on an individual's capability to be sexist.
I know that was long-winded, but I had been thinking about this for a while and wanted to share everything to see what I'm missing. So, CMV!
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I believe Doxing officers is the right way to go when the law itself protects them when they clearly are abusing their power. +
+ First of all, I am not very informed on the whole Ferguson situation and I'm not taking a stance. But in light of events like officers pointing guns at peaceful protestors or at media, I have been overcome with rage everytime I see cops get away with behaviour like this. Even worse when I came to the realization that these sort of thing probably happens every day, and it isn't until today's era that we can finally have proof thanks to cameras being everywhere. Now, I understand the power of doxing and how it puts not only the subject in danger but their family aswell, I believe it is the best kind of "ultimatum" to get these cops to admit their wrongs and be judged fairly by the law. This question was triggered by the specific case of [This thread](http://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/2e3ifo/ferguson_cop_points_assault_rifle_at_protestors/). Upon further investigation of that case, I found out that he was removed of his duty after the incident. I think seeing from the past, that's where it would die, but I am glad nowadays people are Doxing those cops and hopefully they will realize that the only way to have their own and their family's safety assured would be to willingly face jail time and/or serious sanctions.
On the other hand, I know Doxing is wrong, it just feels right in these cases.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
The universe is all a big nothing and nothing we do is ever going to matter in the grand scheme. CMV. please. +
+ Okay I believe in God , and an afterlife. I've always been comfortable with the fact that after we die our spirits will live on..... until i think about ETERNITY. I mean going and going and goi............That shit BLOWS MY MIND every time i think about it and I get increasingly depressed to the point where ill have a panic attack and have to start talking myself down. It is especially apparent when i smoke the reefer. I have to be around something to distract me from feeling like none of this shit matters. Sometimes i wonder if the people that run the world, (oh yeah im a conspiracy head too), know the truth about this and they create these mass distractions such as War and Jobs and shit to keep out mind occupied, because having alot of free time to think will lead most of us to realize this. CMV. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Sexual assault isn't largely different than any other type of assault. +
+ Any assault on a person is awful. I'm not trying to minimize rape or sexual violence in any way. But I don't think that holding a person down and assaulting them with your fists is much different than assaulting them with your genitals.
Any attack against an individual's autonomy is an offence to the person.
I'd, perhaps, go so far as to say the long term emotional (aside from (and/or) physical) damage from a gang-rape is comparable to a gang-assault.
I certainly don't want to take away from victims of sexual violence, but I feel that victims of physical violence are often ignored.
| 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 United States ought not to switch over to the metric system. CMV. +
+ I just don't see the point. The whole system we've established seems fine to me and the hassle of switching isn't something that is easy to deal with. The only arguments I've seen is that we are being forced by the other countries. If the units can easily be converted, then I don't see the point in having the country not just stay the way we've been for 200 years. The metric system doesn't seem to be all the hype it's given. If you're from a different country, please explain why you like having metric. I'd gladly accept anyone who can 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 we are living in the best era of humanity, thanks to fossil fuels, and it is all downhill from here. CMV +
+ By "era" I mean roughly a few centuries. We are somewhere within this era, unclear if beginning, middle or end.
Fossil fuels are "stored sunlight energy", from the past few billion years, which we are now burning through in a few centuries.
Fossil fuels are great not just because of the energy the give us for free, but also the ability for very light and space efficient "energy storage". An airplane can carry lots of usable, light energy in the form of fuel, which it couldn't with batteries.
While many like to point to technology, democracies, modern health care and other such things to credit the huge increase in our standard of living the past few centuries, I think those all pale in comparison, or are caused by, the discovery of fossil fuels.
I think climate change is somewhat beside the point. In the really long term, I don't really care if you flood some cities, send some species to extinction, and reshape Earth's geography a bit. It's sad, but we can get over it. Just reshape humanity to its new world, and get used to it. It is still nowhere near as bad as losing all our free energy, which we use exactly so we can live in whatever conditions Earth throws at us (i.e. heaters/air conditioners).
I think all renewable/sustainable energy efforts, while nice, will never give us the quality of life we enjoy today.
"Live", sustainable, sunlight energy will always be no match for fossil fuels.
Batteries suck, and always will. The chemistry is quite clear, in that gasoline stores far more energy for its weight than any comparable "technological" solution. Though nuclear energy can certainly win, it is far less "usable" - fit a "nuclear engine" on an airplane. (I might be wrong here - what do "nuclear submarines" do?)
Uranium will deplete just as fossil fuels will.
My only real hope is nuclear fusion. From the little I've heard of it, hopes are not very high.
This might be more of a scientific question than a "view"...
(In case anyone is worried - I'm not really depressed or worried by any of this, just... "Oh well...") | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: There is no actual basis for moral agency, personal responsibility or willpower, we are all victims (or beneficiaries) of circumstance. +
+ As every decision/thought anyone has ever made has relied upon the state of his/her brain in a certain situation, no-one is responsible for what they do (or think).
The Libet-experiment proves our experience lags behind the processes in our brain, so our experience (which is all we are) just sits around and justifies the actions of the body. This is all well understood in psychology and neuroscience.
Why does it matter? It matters because we praise and punish people on the basis that their experience is directly linked to their behaviour. I would say they are causally linked, as in that experience may be a factor in making your next decision, but as this experience itself was also a result of a previous decision, the causality chain goes down to the formation of your nervous system (and of course further back to the big bang).
So should we try to make a society in which people have no restrictions on their actions? No of course not, but we should take into account that behaviour is not a result of choice, and that things like addiction or other destructive compulsions are not the domain of ethics, but more of logistics.
In other words, we should be sympathetic to everyone regardless of their actions (so also Hitler, convicted pedophiles, junkies and fat people),and take their suffering seriously, but be pragmatic in keeping us all safe and comfortable.
What I would like is for someone to explain to me why I should take concepts as pride, guilt, or willpower seriously. This comes up a lot in every aspect of life and has always bothered me.
It's late here in The Netherlands, so I'm not sure I will reply today. Tomorrow I'm all over this. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I don't think it is the responsibility of the younger generation to maintain contact with the older generation +
+ I called my grandmother for her birthday the other day. I had not spoken to her since Christmas. We aren't very close, and she doesn't cross my mind in my day-to-day life.
When we were talking the other day, she mentioned how she thinks about me often and wishes I would call her more. I laughed it off, but she kept bringing it up again, as if to say it were entirely my responibility to maintain our correspondence. It put a little damper on the otherwise pleasant conversation but, as of right now, I don't feel I've done anything wrong. Please change my view.
For those that will argue that the older generation, on average, isn't as familiar with modern technology (email, cell phones, etc.), I will remind you that the land line telephones and regular post mail that the older generation grew up with still work just fine.
1) I'm busier than she is so it makes more sense for me to call when it's convenient for me. This is easily solved by voicemail, email, or writing a letter.
2) We owe a debt to the older generation because they took care of us growing up. Well, right off the bat, my grandmother and I live in the United States and a good chunk of my paycheck goes to Social Security and Medicare. I believe, as a person, I'm obligated to be civil when treated civilly. I am always courteous in my conversing with my grandmother. If anything were to happen in her to the point that she would *require my help*, meaning difficulty moving furniture, getting around, etc., I would be happy to help. But she doesn't *require my help* to pick up a phone or write an email. This is something she is more than capable of doing herself and has decided it is not her responsibility, while complaining about it.
My view remains the same so far. Tradition is not a good reason for doing anything in my opinion.
coffeemanic gets the delta. Thank you all for your opinions. Have a great day.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The rest of the developed world has cheap and effective healthcare because US citizens pay the lion-share of drug and medical device R&D costs while the rest of the world enforces price controls and reaps the benefits at a discount. +
+ As you can see from [this article](http://www.mackinac.org/2901), the US accounts for 45% of the world's development of new drugs. The UK is a distant second place at 14%. [According to the NBER](http://www.nber.org/digest/may05/w11114.html), there would be a 30-60% reduction in R&D projects if the US were to [similarly control pharmaceutical prices](http://newshour-tc.pbs.org/newshour/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Pharmaceuticals-1.jpg) by cutting them 40-50%. [The US Dept. of Commerce](http://www.ita.doc.gov/td/chemicals/drugpricingstudy.pdf) (Page 12 of PDF) estimates that prices controls in other OECD countries result in a loss in pharmaceutical industry revenue of $18-27 billion *per year*, which would translate into $5-8 billion per year that would be spent on R&D.
Considering the US develops 45% of the world's new drugs, a 30-60% reduction in new drug projects would result in a 14-27% reduction in the *world's* new drug projects.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I think that unless you have dependents, all "inheritance" should go to government services +
+ The idea is that as long as nobody is dependent on you(eg. You have children that are minors or other people who you are similarly responsible for) that your finances and most of your assets, when you die, should go to the government for specified services - namely things like healthcare or education.
The logic is that the people your inheritance would be going to didn't really do anything to deserve that money, and so your assets would go to more humanitarian usage helping those who need it, in welfare programs or in boosting health or education budgets.
What this would do for me, in my mind, is help reduce wealth inequality while allowing for a slight improvement in certain services.
CMV
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Rational thinking is actually rationalization +
+ Most people, most of the time, rather than form an unbiased opinion (if such a thing even exists) about a certain issue, actually form their position due to emotional reasons - a gut feeling, if you will.
This is most evident when, for example, two people with differing views discuss politics. Each person will justify their opinion on ostensibly rational grounds. However, most political discussions end with both parties saying what amounts to "Your arguments are less convincing than mine." There is some "meta" reason causing the person to be more open to certain arguments than others, and that meta reason, which is the *actual* reason for the person's opinion, is not rational. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |