input
stringlengths 114
23.1k
| output
stringclasses 2
values | instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|
CMV : There is no valid reason why the life partner (house sharer, kid sharer, all important life decision sharer) should be of the sex I am sexually attracted to. +
+ **PLEASE CHANGE MY VIEW, CAUSE I AM ABOUT TO ASK MY BRO SOMETHING REALLY WEIRD :S**
Right off the bat, I am a 20 years old **100% heterosexual** male student who has no real life experience whatsoever, but I think my POV is still worth a read.
Current trend in society : Most people decide they want kids and a house. Also, most people in society decide they want a singular sex partner(SO) at least at the point in their life when they decide it's time for kids/house/savings.
**Now, for a reason I can't seem to understand, these 2 people have to be the same person according to society.**
Guys, generally, biologically, and sociologically have more in common with other guys and the same goes for girls.
**Why should I limit my options of life partner to the half of society I have much less in common with, when it comes to making all the life decisions I have to share with a partner?**
Ideally, if it was socially accepted, I'd raise my kids with my most compatible bro so that I am the most possibly fulfilled by the way my kid has been raised. I would share my house with my most compatible bro, so that I have the smallest possible amount of compromises to make(No feminine decoration ; other things like prioritizing garage, backyard and living room over bedroom, kitchen, bathroom ; etc..).
Now if the most compatible person you can find(your bro) happens to be of the sex you are attracted to, well good for you. But, without any study to back my claims, (excuse me on this one I really don't have time this week in particular) I think the previous sentence applies to a minority of the population. (Even if that is false^(my whole post only concerns me and a small portion of society), it doesn't change much to my overall argumentation.)
A lot of the arguments I can find against this also apply to disagreeing with Gay marriage (Kids NEED a paternal/maternal figure, women and men both have qualities and should complete each other, etc..). So ya, if these reasons aren't valid against gay marriage, then they aren't valid against BRO-LIFING, let's fucking call it BRO-LIFING.
**PLEASE CHANGE MY VIEW, CAUSE I AM ABOUT TO ASK MY BRO SOMETHING REALLY WEIRD :S**
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Division I athletes should be paid minimum wage +
+ There are 460,000 NCAA student-athletes and none of them receive monetary compensation for playing their respective sports. A University of Texas football player is valued at $513,922 but lives $778 dollars below the federal poverty line. These athletes need to earn money in college but do not have the time between sports and academics to hold a job. It seems to me that universities should pay their Division I athletes minimum wage so that players can focus more on academics and less on financial matters.
http://www.ncpanow.org/research/study-the-price-of-poverty-in-big-time-college-sport
http://www.ncaa.org/student-athletes
| 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 human beings were not meant to be monogamous. CMV. +
+ I believe that human beings were not meant to be monogamous, and I don't understand why society looks down on polygamy or 'open relationships'. I do realize that some people would agree with me, but the general public believes in monogamy and looks down on swingers/polygamists.
From a purely natural perspective: I think that animals(human beings included) are instinctively inclined to reproduce for the survival of the species. The best way to accomplish that would be to have multiple mates. Also, from an evolutionary perspective, more mates would mean more DNA combinations and genetic possibilities.
From a societal perspective: I honestly am not sure why monogamy is the accepted way of life. I know in history kings would have multiple wives and certain religions are in favor of polygamy. People seem to see people who have multiple partners/spouses as promiscuous. I realize there's a risk of disease/pregnancy, but as long as sex is practiced safely, this is practically not a concern. I think that socially people need security and a sense of control. They want to know that their relationship isn't going anywhere, but often that turns into a sense of ownership. How can you own a person? This is 'my' husband or 'my' wife and no one else can have him/her! It seems possessive and an inferior way of thinking.
From a family perspective: I know when it comes to children, a standard 'family unit' is what's popular, but why is a one mother and one father family the best way to raise a child? Wouldn't multiple mothers or fathers be better? Isn't the saying, it takes a village? Even with societal standards, many families don't have mother/father families. There's plenty of single parents or gay parents and it works well for many people.
From a personal perspective: I think that it's completely natural to be attracted to more than one person. It's actually quite ridiculous to think that one person can fulfill another person's every need. Everyone has their strengths and weaknesses. What one person might fulfill for you, another might be bad at and vice versa. I realize this post is going to come of as highly sexual, but I really don't even mean it in that way. I mean mostly emotional relationships, but yes, sexual included. As long as everyone included is happy and honest, what's the problem? Many people are in polygamous relationships and don't even know it, but many of them are happy. There's lots of people out there being cheated on with no idea, and they're content with the attention they are getting from their SO. If only it weren't looked down on by society, these people might actually be able to talk about these relationships and find happiness.
I really do want to agree with the rest of you, so please, change my view. Also, be gentle, long time lurker first time poster. I think I followed the rules, but if I messed something up, just let me know. | 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 a majority of "Obesity Rights" groups are perpetuating an unhealthy and dangerous mindset CMV +
+ I have no issue with people who are obese, and I used to be quite large so I understand some of the struggles that they suffer through, but I fail to see the positive in many of these groups which pass themselves off as real civil rights groups ( NAACP for example). I think in the recent pass they have often rushed to defend behavior and lifestyles as being "ok' when they are in fact incredibly unhealthy. I'm not asking for us to be model, in my opinion the majority of glamour models are too small anyway, but that is another topic. A recent example is some of the groups surrounding Christina Corrigan's death. Granted some of these support groups are acting with responsibility and asking only for a fair trial.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Unless it is expected, you should never play any music or any sort of video unless every one around you is okay with it. +
+ Everyone, at one point or another, has had to deal with someone listening to something and that something is very obnoxious. I believe that if you don't have headphones, then you're just shit out of luck.
As for the first part of my title, it is referring to things like clubs or parties. If you go somewhere, and you're expecting music, loud or not, you shouldn't complain even if you don't like whatever is being played.
Lastly, if you're in a shared house or apartment, if your music, video, game, or what have you, is loud enough to be heard through the wall, you should just be courteous enough to turn it down.
Please, CMV.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Gentrification is not a negative event and people should not be attacked for supporting it, CMV. +
+ I'm a white college student that lives in an area of Philadelphia that is being gentrified by the college that I attend. Apartment prices have been rising, new buildings are going up, and the variation in businesses is rapidly increasing. Soon the neighborhood may even get a grocery store that's not a 7-11 or a bodega.
It's become the hot button topic on campus to attack the university for pushing out people that have lived in the area for decades, but I struggle to see the justice in it.
I remember growing up in Hamtramck, Michigan, when christian and muslim arabs (seriously hope that's the right term) began to move into my predominately white catholic neighborhood. There was a big uproar about these poorer immigrants ruining the neighborhood, but that's wrong and xenophobic. However, [Spike Lee](http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/02/spike-lee-amazing-rant-against-gentrification.html) raging against a different group of people moving into his homogenous neighborhood is met with acceptance.
I can respect that racism still exists, and that being born poor and black in the inner city is very hard to overcome. However, I don't see separating neighborhoods along racial or economic lines any help to anyone. Areas of the city, such as Germantown, that are not undergoing gentrification appear to be worse off in that they are further separated by local resources and services.
Finally, how would gentrification cease to exist? If there's a housing shortage and I'm a contractor building apartment buildings, I'm not going to build an apartment in the center of the city on a high priced lot so that some college kids can pay me $750 a month in rent and I can make no money. I'm going to buy a lower priced lot right off the main city, knock down the decaying building sitting on top of it, and build the apartment there. Will the city subsidize keeping neighborhoods homogenized? I just don't see it as preventable due to our free market.
Anyway, please CMV and try not to be too hostile towards me. I'm here to learn, not here to offend anyone.
**TL;DR:** I like that a grocery store is popping up in my neighborhood because it's running the local check casher out of his lot. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Business owners should be free to choose who they hire based on any criteria. +
+ All possible freedoms should be provided to those who take the time and risk to build a business.
Seeing as businesses are created to gain profit, it would be unwise for a business owner to make poor decisions in his/her hiring process. So, though it may be morally wrong to discriminate based on things such as race, gender, or religious affiliation, it should be up to the business owner to decide if these are important factors which will impact the overall performance of the applicant within the company, not the government.
While it may be unfair to those who are not hired based on their race or gender or religion, it would also be unfair for the business owner to be forced into hiring someone he/she does not want representing the company.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Their is no shame in pirating "The Interview" because of how poorly Sony handled the situation. +
+ Sony blundered the response to The Interview and then took a last minute turn because they saw a way to make a huge profit from it. While I don't think this was an intentional marketing gimmick, I also don't see a problem in pirating a movie they initially wanted to shelve indefinitely until they were shamed into releasing it. The company should be deeply embarrassed by how it acted during the situation, and I don't think they should be rewarded monetarily for the way they acted, even if they eventually did the "right" thing by releasing the film instead of indefinitely shelving it.
Even though Sony spent millions of dollars producing the movie, they handled the whole fiasco so ineptly that the President, the media, and the internet basically shamed them into releasing it. There should be no shame in our part for downloading a movie if one doesn't want to support the studio for their mismanagement.
| 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 school zones (specifically around high schools) should be removed because they aren't protecting anyone who needs protecting. CMV +
+ Every time I drive through a school zone and slow down to 20 mph, I get agitated that I'm wasting time. Since it's not likely to change the rule, I'd love someone to change my mind so I'm not annoyed every time I drive through.
Basically, school zones around high schools aren't helping anyone. As it was originally explained to me, the idea is that we slow down to watch out for children running in the road. If a high schooler is dumb enough to run out in front of a car, let's let natural selection do it's job (I kid...).
I understand that an elementary school in a neighborhood may have a lot of 1-3rd graders walking home that might be dumb enough to get hit, and that we should slow down there, but other than that all school zones seem to do is slow down traffic or cause people to get tickets.
I know that no politician would ever stand up against this law though. The risk, for their career far out weighs the benefits ("Think of the CHILDREN!"). | 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 trust insurance companies one bit and thus never plan to get insurance. CMV +
+ First off, I live in a country that has a public health system, so I am not referring to health insurance in this.
I just dont see how having insurance is better then paying for something out of your own savings. I feel in the vast, vast majority of cases you would save money this way. I feel that having insurance for a very, very unlikely scenario is just the same as gambling.
I also feel that insurance companies will make it as hard as possible for you to make a claim and will try and reject you as much as possible (eg: 'Act of God'). I feel that government bodies who are supposed to regulate and monitor these such things have no teeth and dont make it any better. Even if you were to try to claim insurance for something very expensive, I do not think they would pay you.
I believe the amount of claims that you would make during your lifetime will never exceed even half of what you pay for insurance.
Everyone tells me I should get it so obviously there is something in it. I just need to 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 trust people and/or find them boring if they don't drink or have tried any drugs. CMV +
+ I think that people that do not drink, have not tried drugs, or not have the desire to try any drugs to be untrustworthy. Someone that won't put themselves in a vulnerable situation means they have something to hide, and won't want to do these things in fear of exposing their true self. Plus, it shows to me that they don't have fun.
I know that there are certain people that choose to not do these things because a loved one abused them, or had a bad past with them. This is would only apply to people that want to try them, but don't because they're afraid of having the same issues of abuse. This however means they are still controlled by the substance instead of being in control of it. With that said, I don't trust them because they can't control themselves or their actions. An exception would be if someone had
As far as health goes, I'm not saying "everyone should go out and get smashed twice a week." But, going out every couple weeks isn't going to kill you. It's the people that don't drink at all that concern me. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: "Planet" should not be part of the Triple Bottom Line (People, Planet, Profit). +
+ Many companies use the idea of the Triple Bottom Line to validate their corporate social responsibility. However, I'm not sure what the planet has to do with this. In the context of the global climate change we talk a lot about preserving the planet, but our planet has seen much worse conditions than we are able to create. Planet Earth will be here millions of years after our species has either become extinct or left the earth for other places in space. We are not concerned about the planet, we are concerned about what this planet will do to us humans. Saying you care about the planet is really saying you care about people. For the Earth it doesn't matter if we are here or not. So therefore the Triple Bottom Line creates a false sense of social responsibility and the Planet should be removed from it.
Update:
Most of the commenters seem to agree that "Planet" is a metaphor for long term sustainability, social values etc. as where "People" is a metaphor for shorter term goals. Although I do think it's not a strong metaphor in this sense I do now see how "Planet" fits the alliteration.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Handguns are for killing people, and no one has a reason to own a handgun unless they intend to kill someone +
+ Handguns are for killing people. There is no other real use. They're impractical for any kind of hunting, for one. They aren't terribly accurate except at fairly close range. Their only real benefit is their portability and their easiness to conceal. This makes them perfectly designed specifically for killing human beings. In a pinch, maybe a 9mm can stun a bear for a few seconds, but if you're carrying a pistol, your intended target is definitely not an animal. It's a human.
And I don't buy the argument that they can be used for target shooting. Target shooting is practice for killing people. Why do you think that the human silhouette target is the "default" handgun target?
In any case, I believe that the only reason anyone would own a handgun is because they intend to some day kill another human, either in cold blood or in self defense.
| 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 those who do not support animal rights are either: misinformed/ignorant, weak/apathetic, or selfish/bad people. CMV +
+ Objectively speaking, the biological process of detecting pain exists in virtually all advanced animals, all the way down to some invertebrates through the neural process called nociception [SOURCE](http://ilarjournal.oxfordjournals.org/content/33/1-2/25.full). Animals are also conscious just as we are [SOURCE](http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf). Since all advanced animals, including humans, have both the physical biology of pain detection, plus the capacity for subjective experience through consciousness, there is no doubt that they are able to experience the unpleasant sensation of pain. This truth is why I have decided to give up the pleasures of eating meat and dairy; avoid animal products; and (even as a neuroscience major) refuse to participate in, or support harmful animal testing. I believe those who do not are ignorant of the truth, too weak or apathetic to make these simple life changes, or they do not care out of selfishness. I'm aware these thoughts border on unhealthy misanthropy, which I want to change. So please change my view! | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
We need to psychologically castrate everybody CMV +
+ I am of the view that we would be WAY better off, as a race, if we had ourselves *psychologically neutered* at birth (or at least at the onset of puberty).
Hormones are sneaky little mindfuckers. Our *biologically programmed* obsession with sex muddles our minds and distracts us from more important things. And this obsession is not just with sex, but aggression and dominance too. It's a whole bag of influences that *we really don't have much control over and we certainly didn't agree to*. It lurks in our subconscious, coloring our perceptions, bending our values. Like a sewer leak under a floor, it seeps up through every crack.
We are all under the influence of a powerful drug and this drug has an agenda. And that agenda ain't one of peace and sanity. Not one little bit. Quite the opposite, this drug wants you to obsess over spreading your genetic heritage. It wants you to establish a territory and fight off your neighbors. It wants to you play these *violent* games in every realm of your life : social, academic, political, physical - *everywhere*.
Do we really need this insanity in our world? Wouldn't it be great if we could clear our heads and pay attention to something more important than *fighting and fucking*?
Now you may say to yourself, "Heh heh, this may hold true for hormonal teenagers but I am a person of self-control and clear-thinking. My hormones do not influence me this way". Well you're quite probably wrong, and there's a gigantic advertising industry betting a billion dollars every day that you're wrong - and it has a sexy+dominating car that it would like to sell you.
We as a society need to put down the breeding-and-dominance crackpipe for a while. We're past that animalistic shit. We don't need it and we're better off without it. Above all we need sanity. So yes, chemically castrate the population.
Go ahead, Change My View.
--------
SUMMING THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST. EXPECT THE LIST TO GROW.
1) It cannot be accomplished with our present technology without damaging our health.
2) It will make sex less fun.
3) These compulsions are an intrinsic part of us and to remove them makes us less than we are.
4) These compulsions form the foundation of our value system.
5) Cutting off my balls seems wrong.
6) It would be rude to do that to everybody (assuming that they are opposed). | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Renting a person is morally equivalent to buying a person. Employment is slavery. +
+ It is said that slavery is bad because a person has to keep his will subservient to a master. His "owner" can literally make him do anything and if he does not, he is punished and will possibly die of starvation.
On a broad scale, I don't quite see how this is any different from the concept of a job. One Has to work in order to live, and one Has to do the bidding of another to earn. Yes you can leave a job, but if you want to avoid starvation you practically always have to get another job. Just like slavery wouldn't become ethical if one could choose his master, I don't think the ability to choose one's employer makes employment ethical.
CMV.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: No politician who has made it to high ranks has gotten there without corruption being involved at some level. +
+ First let me define corruption, as this is important. I'll use the Wikipedia definition: "Political corruption is the use of powers by government officials for illegitimate private gain."
I'm halfway through season 4 of The Wire and it's really showing me how corruption works in the system, and it's fascinating. I know it's just a show, but you can tell the creators wrote this from dealing with it first-hand. At this point I'm convinced that no member of Congress or any President in recent history (especially since Citizen's United) has gotten there with clean hands. [Obama even admits it.](http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-nobody-has-clean-hands-on-campaign-finance/article/2536980)
When put into this perspective, it gives me a little bit more respect for SOME politicians. Let's use Obama as a convenient example. Yes he made a deal with Big Pharma to pass Obamacare. Yes he appointed Tom Wheeler as the head of the FCC. There's no doubt that this is shady. But when presented with the alternative of *not passing Obamacare at all* or *not winning the Presidency* (cable lobbies donated heavily to Obama's re-election campaign to give him the funding he needed to win), you can see why some politicians bend their moral compass a bit. They can lose the battles but win the war...and that's what matters most.
Which brings me to the ridiculousness of campaign finance laws. This is the root cause of the majority of the problems in our country. The fact that only the candidates that suck enough corporate cock can even be on the map should be priority number one for our elected officials to reform. Obama in his AMA said we needed a new amendment for it. There are some good (well, decent) people in DC that want to get it fixed, but there's many more people that don't. If we want to solve the problems in Washington, reforming campaign finance should be priority number one.
Too bad we're too worried about the poors and the muslims and the [insert scapegoat here] to deal with it.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think that Yoko Ono is one of the most untalented, uninspired, uninspiring, overrated "artists" of our and any generation. CMV +
+ I've heard some of Yoko Ono's cover songs and contribution to songs and art and I believe her wharbling screams do nothing more than detract from something that was better before she ever touched it.
examples of her music that i'm referring to:
http://youtu.be/bfZvHuh7wKM?t=1m4s - singing 'we're all water' - one of the few songs she actually sings.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdZ9weP5i68 - "singing" for an art piece.
http://youtu.be/h9kgu71d81U?t=1m15s - contributing to 'memphis tennessee with Chuck Berry and John Lennon
I believe she broke up the beatles and turned John Lennon into a boring hippie. change my view. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe people who choose to become police officers have at least some small desire to commit violence. CMV +
+ Let me be clear. I do not think all cops are corrupt or bent towards hurting people for racial or classist reasons. I do however think that anyone who signs up for the type of work police officers do has to be more than just okay with the possibility of violence. I think somewhere in their hearts they want to hurt the bad guy for the greater good. I simply don't buy the argument that they never want to have to be violent, but (sigh) circumstances being what they are call for it.
Violence is a major tool in their trade, but they're not allowed to say that is it one of the many reasons they signed up to be an officer. Let me reiterate that I do not hate cops and am quite happy I live a country with a strong and mostly non corrupt police force. I just think they like the idea of being violent for the state. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Muslim Terrorists are Wholly Righteous, CMV +
+ Islamic terrorism was born not because Muslims 'felt' like they need to terrorize the West, but because the West had been meddling in their affairs for so long that such thing seemed necessary if they wanted to keep their autonomy from the Western powers.
Muslim world was nearly untouched by Colonialism. Iran and Ottoman Empire were extremely powerful during the expansion of Colonialism era so when Ottoman Empire fell and Iran became a British puppet, Muslims found themselves subjugated by people from hundreds of miles away who used to sell them canned sardine and now claimed they owned them. The unwarranted superiority complex of Western people towards Muslim beliefs did not help either.
So I think, with all the destruction that it might have caused, Muslim terrorists are completely righteous and they deserve to defend their beliefs and culture from the West. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: If the police shoot someone who resisted arrest, it should be nearly impossible to indict the involved officer(s) +
+ To be clear, I am not saying that if you resist arrest that you deserve to be killed. I am saying that due to the below reasons, if you resist arrest and are killed, the police officer(s) involved should not be indicted unless there is substantial evidence proving beyond any doubt that the officer intended to murder the suspect.
- The officer has no idea what the intent of the person resisting is, or how far they are willing to go to avoid being arrested.
- The person resisting made a choice to resist; They should be aware of the potential consequences of that decision. No one forced them to commit criminal acts, and no one forced them to not comply with the officer's orders (which is breaking the law).
- The officer doesn't have the option of just letting the person go. At this point, I really wish they did, but they do not. They are not trained this way and society in general doesn't want the police to just let people go if they resist.
- The officer only has seconds to decide what threat the suspect poses. It's perfectly reasonable for them to assume that the person intends to kill them.
- How often does someone just give up on their own when resisting? It may have happened before, but it is very rare for the suspect to just stop if the officer get injured, or they decide that it has gone too far.
- It simply isn't practical to expect the police to "shoot to wound".
- The bottom line is that the officer has the right to do whatever they have to do to ensure that they get to go home to their families at the end of the day.
| 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 any potential human cloning is unethical +
+ Now, I fully understand cloning of human beings is illegal in a majority of countries but a comment thread in [this](http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/32k6p0/worlds_first_cloned_camel_becomes_six_years_old/cqc82kj) thread got me thinking about the ethics of cloning.
I posted these questions
Another point against cloning is the problem of overpopulation in various portions of the world. I certainly don't see any ethical reasoning that would allow for cloning with all the negative situations that could arise from it that I have mentioned or haven't mentiond
Please, Change My View!
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Parents shouldn't rely on Ipads and Cell phones to entertain their children. CMV +
+ When I was a child, I was just fine playing with legos, barbies, and play doh. I don't condone the use of ipads and cell phones to entertain children. I see it all the time. In grocery stores and the mall, kids start acting up and the parents just shove an ipad in the child's face. There, problem solves. I'm not saying this is bad parenting. It's just lazy parenting. The parents could stand to take a break from shopping and pay little more attention to the kids to figure out what's wrong instead of just taking the easy way out.
True, there are apps on there that are especially suited for children and help them learn, but children will get addicted to these things. I mean we, as grown adults, are inseparable from out technology. We shouldn't be forcing this addiction on children. They're too young to be so dependent on technology.
On another note, there has been research done that concludes that Ipads affect a child's development negatively. They're less aware of their surroundings compared to when they're playing with normal toys.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/toddlers-obsessed-ipads-hurt-development/story?id=18855537
Other research suggests that using an ipad too often could lead to underdeveloped muscles because this kids are staying stationary for a long time, only making use of their fingers. (http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2013/11/14/red-flag-doctors-warn-tablets-can-actually-hurt-a-toddlers-developing-body/) They suggest that children shouldn't use an ipad for more than 15 minutes at a time! I know I've seen kids use them much longer than this! | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Celebrities should not request that the public respect their privacy. +
+ I always see celebrities complaining about being in the public eye and having to deal with the paparazzi. I think that if you make to decision to have your face publicly displaced, you should be willing accept any criticism that come with that. Like everything in life, with good comes the bad. I trade less free time for a stable living condition. Celebrities trade the fame they have for a lack of privacy. It just really seems like a fair trade off for anybody who decides to take advance of their fame.
| 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 sales are a better judge of music's quality than any critic. CMV +
+ Music is, of course, completely subjective. However, we as a culture allow the quality of music often to be defined by what critic's say about the matter. We (I include myself) hungrily devour and debate year-end lists and make sure we've heard and have opinions on the year's "best" records. The history of rock and roll is lined with Radioheads and Lou Reeds and Sex Pistols, all due to this climate of circlejerking critics, both professional and amateur.
Music that sells well, however, is often regaled to the sides of music history, like so much wallpaper. Led Zeppelin is honored, sure, but is certainly not "cool". Flamboyant, blockbuster acts like KISS and Guns N' Roses are treated like pond scum. Top-selling rappers like Ludacris, Eminem, and Lil Wayne are adored to be sure, but never as honored by critics as their record sales would indicate. Mainstream country is ignored and even reviled. Nickelback was the best-selling rock act of the last decade and is also the most hated.
Please understand that I am not a fan of many of those artists; I just think that, if we are going to pretend there is a universal definition of "good" music, should we not be looking to the music the most people are listening to? Isn't the objective truth that which most of us believe? | 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 some form of psychotherapy (CBT, logotherapy, etc) can help anyone dealing with depression. I think there are cases where people's lives just suck and it's out of their control to fix them +
+ I like the example of [this thread](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2dws0q/cmv_i_think_its_more_cruel_to_falsely_give_the/) about problems one might think are simple to solve and yet have so many complications behind that they are truly hopeless situations: suppose you have someone who's deep in their 20s or 30s and has had no social experience at all. No friends, no parties, no interesting stories to tell... nothing. This man has no social value whatsoever, and would be seen as a weirdo by anyone who finds out about his lack of past, or be treated with pity as the OP said (disregarding the age the OP chose to represent this point-of-no-return). This person has crossed a temporal limit after which if he has not at least achieved some of these milestones, he's going to be treated as a lesser by normal people. He's unable to change that, and the best he can do is hide it from the rest. How effectively he can hide this is of no interest: I'll assume that truth finds a way.
One suggestion for this person is to try therapy. Perhaps he can train his social skills and anxiety. Perhaps he can leave his depression behind if he believes what he's done so far had a purpose. I contend that that's not true.
For one, it is not true what one has done or will do will have any meaning or will be of any importance. Nor it is true that by setting a goal, a desirable one, he will be able to reach it (e.g. the example of the old asocial man). Furthermore, if one is only to set goals that are reachable, one can find that these goals are unfulfilling, trivial. If one can't reach a fulfilling goal, why try anything else? It's just a chore. So there's no meaning to what that person does other than the effects of inertia in one's life (which seems to be what drives the most basic living things).
Cognitive-behavioral therapy would focus on making this person forget that the aforementioned attitudes towards the socially stunted exist and work to acquire the skills necessary to thrive in a social environment, if that's what the person wants. The basis of this form of therapy, as far as I am concerned, is changing maladaptive thinking by addressing the patient's falacious and irrational beliefs. A problem with this is that subjects like the example given exist: it is not an overgeneralization, or even if it is, the percentage of people that have a negative attitude (either rejection, mockery or pity) to people like him is so large that thinking of reaching for someone who *doesn't* in every day life is unrealistic. One can make the patient focus on what he has going on in his life, but missing such an important piece of it would make this strategy look extremely condescending (who wants to live like an automata, only working, sleepying, eating and not much more?). The cause of the problem, the person's stigma, will never be erased.
I can point out more obvious examples, like someone who's horribly disfigured, someone who has ALS, people who live in an oppressed soceity, etc, but for the sake of the discussion I don't want to reach these extreme examples.
1. I didn't mean the title to imply I don't think psychotherapy can't help anyone. Perhaps because I'm not a native English speaker I made this mistake, but I tried to say that it won't help just about everyone.
2. I know there are other reasons for depression besides standard of life. I'm referring to the cases where these sorts of therapy are recommended, that usually deal with that.
| 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 bringing up rights when discussing policy is unproductive. +
+ I'm not a fan of the way policy discussion takes place and feel it could be more productive.
Let us start off with abortion. I am completely pro choice but I don't like the way discussion in some cases takes place. For example, I saw a post on two x that didn't really refute any restrictive abortion policies but just stated the right to bodily autonomy as an argument against them. I don't feel like stating that is a proper refutation. I think that if we were to look at something like sex selective abortion policies it might be more obvious what I see is wrong with those arguments. Imagine if they were having a debate in India. One person brings up all this data about the problems with unrestricted sex selective abortion and the other person simply said that those policies shouldn't be allowed because it was their right to an abortion for whatever reason they wish. This would be bad because the discussion is far too nuanced.
I think that there are problems that arise from hiding behind this argument. The fundamental reason I would consider it bad is this. Rights are a human construct. A bunch of people got together and decided that guaranteeing certain rights would be best for the people. It seems perfectly reasonable that they could've been wrong and that guaranteeing those rights in certain situation are bad. Not trying to suggest whether or not they are. They could be though so arguing that something shouldn't happen because it is your right is a terrible argument.
I'm not trying to suggest all discussion that takes place is like this. When talking about gun rights there is a lot of fruitful and important discussion using data, statistics, and other relevant factors. However, there is a small group of arguers who would refute arguments from the other side by simply saying that it is their right guaranteed by the second amendment.
I think that rights are not relevant in policy discussion.
| 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 human brain is essentially a machine and because of this free will is an illusion CMV +
+ I believe that the brain on a very basic level just receives input and gives output.
Furthermore, I believe that if all input to the brain could be controlled (and the structure of the brain better understood) then the output could be predicted.
Basically, I believe free will is an illusion because our brains are wired in a certain way that will only allow us to respond in one way, even if we take some time deciding on that way. | 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 recent fixation of the western world with "terrorism" is a modern rebranding of McCarthyism and the red scare. CMV +
+ In the 50's, the US dove headfirst into one of the greatest moral panics it has seen. the second red scare brought with it a mentality where leftism and communism were considered to be dangerous and anti-american patterns of thought. under the banner of preventing the domestic spread of communism, many unconstitutional acts of government went relatively unchallenged. right wing groups accused anyone who had philosophical disagreements with them of being evil and dangerous. certain groups such as actors and teachers were targeted in particular and risked a plethora of unconstitutional actions against them.
i see parallels to many of these things in the anti terrorism actions of america today. the NSA is carrying out a blatantly unconstitutional mass surveillance project on the US population, people are being held in prison indefinitely without trial, our airports have a massive practice of security theatre, and anti middle eastern racism is rampant all in the name of preventing the ill defined and incorporeal "terrorist threat". even on this very sub, there are several posts that show blatant political moral panic such as "I believe Islamic extremism is worse than other forms of religious extremism," "I believe, political and economic factors aside, Islam is fundamentally a religion that teaches violence," and "I believe that the US Government should have authority to see our files, tap our conversations" in the first couple of pages.
it seems to me that the government has glorified the "terrorist threat" in order to circumvent constitutional limitations in the same way that it glorified the "communist threat" in the 50's for the same reason. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The festival of Passover commemorates a foul, grievous, and premeditated, crime by God. Such a god is unworthy of worship. +
+ [Exodus 12:14](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+12%3A14&version=NASB) establishes Passover as a festival to forever remind the Jewish people of their alleged escape from slavery in Egypt.
And [Exodus 12:29](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+12%3A29&version=NASB) tells us that:
And why? Because Pharo would not release the Hebrew slaves. And why would he not? *Because God made him want not to*. We are told: in [Exodus 11:4-8](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+11%3A4-8&version=NASB)
So Pharo is warned of what will happen, but he takes no notice, as we are told in [Exodus 11:9-10](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+11%3A9-10&version=NASB) that he will not:
And the promised mass murder ensues.
God sets up the slaughter of many, many children (including the children of other slaves!) *just to make a point*. A God that would do such a thing is not a God that modern people should have anything to do with.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: AMD CPUs and GPUs are less practical and more prone to failure than their Intel/Nvidia counterparts. +
+ After multiple hard failures of AMD products in 3 laptops and one desktop of mine, I am convinced AMD products have a sooner fail rate than Intel and Nvidia. I have had a Radeon GPU fully melt to my MB before and it was not due to lack of air circulation. That whole machine was AMD from top to bottom and it ran nasty hot...even after checking thermal paste and adding additional fans.
In my experience, I have not had a LGA1155 or LGA1150 socket CPU overhead...even on a stock CPU fan. I've never had to add additions fans...even with a high powered Nvidia GeForce GTX GPU installed. The machine runs at a same temperature.
I also feel like AMD builds are too rigid. Intel and Nvidia build appear more forgiving and interchangeable.
I am studying to be and A+ tech. It would be horrifying to remain so biased when dealing with customer's machines. I'd rather like to lose this look of disgust when I see an AMD based machine.
Please change my view.
Thanks | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Submitting a ballot for annual elections should be compulsory, and Election Day should be a federal holiday to facilitate this. +
+ I live in North Carolina's 1st Congressional District, which was recently declared the [Fifth Most Gerrymandered District in the US.](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/05/15/americas-most-gerrymandered-congressional-districts/) Gerrymandering is a vile practice that gets a lot of attention because it amounts to drawing congressional lines in a manner to disenfranchise certain groups of voters. In our case, we are gerrymandered in order to concentrate the liberals that live nearby into a smaller area, and make more congressional seats available for conservatives. But there is another similar mechanism that is harder to point to, but I believe exists nonetheless: Poor-Voter turnout makes a population less appeal-worthy for politicians.
For example, suppose I am running for office. There are a number of events and places I might choose to campaign at. I would want to find which events and places will get me the most votes. So, I calculate a few things:
1. How many people are in both places? For example, lets say Venue A is a shopping mall in one area of town, where I could expect to shake 1500 people's hands and ask for their vote. Venue B is another shopping mall, where I could expect to shake 2000 people's hands and ask for their vote.
2. What percent of people in both places are likely to vote? Let's say in Venue A, about 90% of people vote, whereas in Venue B, only 50% of people vote.
Based on this, my best shot at getting votes is to go to Venue A and try to get about 1350 votes, whereas Venue B will only give me a shot at 1000 votes.
Unfortunately, the example I give often travels along lines of socioeconomic status, race, religion, and serves as a reason for politicians to attempt to appeal to likely voters over non-likely voters, disenfranchising entire populations due to the actions of a subset of that population.
One way to solve this would be to require everyone to vote, and I believe the best way to do this would be to hold Election day as a National Holiday. Employers would be required to verify their workers had voted if they wished them to work on that day, citizens would be required to go to the polls (unless they had already submitted a ballot through absentee), and submit a ballot. Non-compliance would be punishable by a fine of $25 or 0.25% of annual income, whichever is greater, to be paid when filing your taxes for that year.
Each ballot measure would have an answer box "Undecided," as well as an answer box "I vote for none of these." Any non-filled out section would count as "Undecided." Should "I vote for none of these" win a majority (51%), then the position would be vacated by the current official and held open and unfilled until a special election could be held. Special Elections would not be compulsory: compulsory voting in this manner would only apply to one election per year.
I had a similar[Previous Post](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/31ss9y/cmv_showing_up_to_the_polls_and_submitting_a/) that died due to my inactivity... I'll do better this time. I am here and ready to have you CMV!
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: (US)Minimum Wage is Unnecessary and Affects the Economy Negatively +
+ Before I begin, I'd like to commend those who are apart of the labor force who work their ass off to get by with minimum wage. It's an amazing thing, nevertheless; I respect those of you, if any of you reading this are challenged to live off of it.
Now to my view on the MW matter, it's an artificial ideology that should only be increased or manipulated in *any* way artificially(by the fed) in cases of an extreme change of the economy or the market. It should be eradicated to the point of only increasing or decreasing based off the economy at that point in time.
As of now, it's the federal government stepping in and increasing the state MW. It *should* be there as a measurement of the inflation of currency and state of the market and to avoid any unfair affairs that would ensue based off a complete ridding of the MW. By increasing it, we're inflating the dollar, and thus, not **actually** paying our workers more for what they already do.
Based off that statement alone, we can infer the offered pay of jobs what that position is worth. Flipping burgers at a McDonalds is **not** worth $11 as a lot of politicians might make it out to be. It's a job that is easily replaceable by automation. As previously stated, by increasing the wages of lower tier workers, we're not helping them. The dollar is being inflated and so is worth less. They essentially have what they already have. Just in bigger(yet proportional) numbers.
Furthermore, our businesses will be the most affected by the increase of the MW. Having to pay more for a worker for doing the same job from before is a terrible business move. They will have to lay off more workers in order to compensate for their deficit **just** based off labor cost.
I've left out a lot of details in the debate over MW so keep in mind, this isn't even scratching the surface. These are observations everyone can make obviously, but on an in-depth level there could be some positives to increase. Feel free to criticize my lack of in-depth knowledge on the matter. Thanks for your time!
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
[MOD POST] Please refrain from downvoting comments you disagree with. +
+ This especially applies to posts and OP comments. CMV cannot function without people posting and discussing their honest opinions. We can't change views if there are no views to change, after all. Despite our efforts to maintain the subreddit as a forum of open-mindedness and free discussion of all topics, there are already many concerns and difficulties associated with posting a controversial opinion to CMV. It's tough posting an opinion knowing it's going to meet waves of opposing comments, even when those comments are expected and welcomed.
**The threat of getting downvoted should not be one of those deterring factors.**
The mods and the community at large are of the opinion that *downvoting comments neither changes views nor encourages delta awarding*, regardless of the quality of a comment's argument. It simply deters and discourages any further attempts to continue discussion. If you find a comment that does not seem to be in good faith (eg. trolling, lying, soapboxing), report the comment and/or message the mods to bring them to our attention. Acceptable usage of downvoting is to downvote a comment that isn't related to the conversation taking place. If you're talking about religion and someone starts talking about their favorite basketball game, go ahead and downvote it. Downvoting based on opinion or misinformation just hurts the ability for people to change views.
We understand that CMV allows people to discuss opinions and beliefs that are mean, biased, misinformed, or just plain wrong, but we do so in the context of allowing them to improve their way of thinking. We encourage you to allow them to speak their views in this constructive context by refraining from downvoting comments, both from OP and other commenters.
Thank you for your consideration for keeping /r/changemyview going. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe antitheism is ultimately a destructive force and that people should be able to worship any fictional deity they choose. CMV, Reddit. +
+ I know how harmful religion has been throughout history, but I think that trying to convince people that their deity doesn't exist is harmful to society as a whole. Religious people ought to be more tolerant of those without faith, and atheists need to be more tolerant of those who do choose to worship a deity.
For the record, I'm a pantheist, as I feel that spirituality is a natural part of our universe - hence why humans evolved enough to develop the concept of gods in the first place and other animals haven't. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I don't believe the environment should have to necessarily be preserved. +
+ This is an opinion of mine that most people seem to disagree with, so maybe I need to be convinced.
**1. What is a successful species?**
A successful species is the one that exploits its environment most efficiently. Growth (general reproductive success) is a response to an exploitation of the environment. As such, humans are the most successful large animal species on Earth.
I don't think human beings should sacrifice some of this success for the environment. No other animal would self-inflict population control.
**2. The inherent value of the environment.**
This touches on whether the environment is worth preserving or not. As a species, we're at a point where we depend on the environment for survival. Therefore, the environment has utility. The environment also has aesthetic value for most people.
**3. Is there a moral obligation to sustain the environment?**
No. This is a whole different CMV, but I don't think morality is the ideal method of determining whether or not a population/society should do anything. On an individual basis, morality is useful, but it has extreme subjectivity. I feel that, although not perfect, utility is often the more reliable system for societies. No system of value will avoid subjectivity, and all can be twisted in the same way.
**4. My point.**
I use the word "necessarily" in the title because if the solutions we develop allow us to continue to exploit the environment in order to support the growth of our species, then so be it. I don't believe, however, that the environment on Earth will be able to support the growth of humanity indefinitely. Therefore, a more ideal solution is to create synthetic solutions. I don't think it's TOO far fetched to imagine generators creating the perfect atmosphere for human growth, synthetic food being healthier and tasting better than traditional food sources. Gardens in place for aesthetic purposes.
I know this is probably a very scattered/incoherent point of view, I'm still thinking about it. In any case, thanks for reading and CMV if you can.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: There is nothing wrong with using the I-V-vi-IV chord progression +
+ You may have heard a song by Jon Lajoie called "Please Use This Song". Here's the link to it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuQt9N4Dsok . I'm mentioning this song because it works perfectly with the point I want to make.
That song is about the commercialization of music, but the ironic thing about it is that it's really really great. It's a well written and even better produced song. But... it uses the universally hated I-V-vi-VI chord progression.
People bash that chord progression because they say it's easy and it's used in a looooot of popular music. I believe they have it backwards - **the reason songwriters use it so much is because it sounds really good**. If something sounds really good to most (Western) ears, why not use it?
Besides, I would argue most people can't even recognize a chord progression in a song. People can recognize a bass guitar, keyboards, violins etc. when listening to a song but chord progressions are a relatively abstract concept, especially if they're expressed as numbers and not as particular chords.
I would, however, like to point out that I am not a music major or a professional musician. I am merely an amateur singer/songwriter with a very limited knowledge of music theory. So please, change my view and tell me why I should strive to avoid using the I-V-vi-IV progression when writing my songs.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:Pizza should be measured in inches, 8", 12" 18" instead of S, M, L. +
+ I'm getting tired of these advertisements that are selling large pizza's for $5.99, but it is really only a 10" pizza which is a medium at best. The size of a pizza is related to its area, which for regular pies is \pi*r^2. Since the size grows as the square of the radius, a small increase in a pizza's radius can result in a large increase in the size of the pie. An 18" pie is 20% larger then a 16" pie. My point is that when places like Dominos and Pizza Hut sell you S, M, L pies, you have no way to know what you are getting. They should put their sizes in units that are convenient for determining the actual size of the pie. What would be so hard about that?
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Victims of child pornography should be able to monetize said product +
+ Victims, former children, who were forced to participate in making of child pornography should have a legal option to monetize the material that resulted from the crime.
Basically, state would create a monopoly. Possible effects:
* Victims would get a financial compensation, which is only fair. They would also have much better means to pay for the medical care to deal with possible mental health issues.
* The material of those willing to participate would flood the market. Effectively lowering the amount of child pornography being distributed against the will of other victims who wish to remain off the internet.
* Victims distributing their material would have a great advantage on the market over criminals producing new child pornography. This would make said criminal activities much less rewarding.
* The mere existence of a possibility to legally posses child pornography would make costumers prefer pornography distributed by victims. Resulting in yet another incentive against the making of child pornography.
Anticipated objections:
* *More accessible child pornography results in more pedophiles*. First, that is not a fact, but a mere theory. Second, there is a reason to believe the overall amount of accessible child pornography would lessen over time. Third, is child pornography that hard to obtain right now?
Thoughts?
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe Occam' s Razor to be an extremely naive concept CMV +
+ I feel Immanuel Kant summed it up perfectly "The variety of things should not be rashly diminished."
While principles that require extremely complicated devices can be put under more intense scrutiny, I don't believe that all aspects of these should be completely written off.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Saying "Global warming is real and we're causing it" is vacuous and deceptive. +
+ "Global warming is real." treats global warming as a thing that either exists or doesn't exist. This is how 4 year-olds think about the Boogie Man. If he's real, we're in trouble. (Remember South Park's ManBearPig?)
A more appropriate way of putting "Global warming is real" is "The globe is warming." After all, when we observe that fewer people have jobs than before, we don't say "unemployment rise is real," we say "unemployment is rising." I suspect the reason climate activists prefer "Global warming is real." to "The globe is warming." is because the former makes people scream "AAAHHH" while the latter makes people wonder "How much? How quickly?" And the answer -
~1.5F over the past 100 years - does not sound like a crisis.
"...and we're causing it." Implicit in this claim is the idea that a rise in global temperature must have some discernable cause. When climate activists say things like this, they talk as if it is natural for global termperature to remain constant. The mere fact that the globe is warming is presented as a sign that something has gone wrong with the planet (e.g. The Earth "has a fever," as some like to put it.), and we can determine what caused to problem like a doctor identifies diseases based on syptoms.
But the fact, as I understand it, is that there's no compelling reason to think that 1.5F of warming over 100 years is anything other than the climate just doing its thing. If anyone wants to [play hockey](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy#National_Research_Council_Report) in a comment thread, I'm down. Global temperature change is not an abnormality that demands an explanation. Rather, it's just a result of chaos in the climate system.
The only defensible meaning of "we're causing it" is "we're causing the globe to be warmer than it otherwise would have been had we not burned so much fuel and cut down so many trees." Again, the more accurate way of putting things is *explicitly quantitative,* which leads people to follow-up and ask "By how much?" Scientific organizations like the IPCC have basically said that humans have caused *most* of the warming since ~1950, meaning we've caused somewhere between 0.5 and 1.0 F of warming over about 64 years. I suspect that climate activists want to conceal this from the public in order to give it a much more troubling sense of what the "consensus" is.
So, I think the statements like "Global warming is real and we're causing it." are intended to frame the issue in a non-quantitative way, since the numbers aren't on climate activists' side.
Feel free to challenge me from either a linguistic, political, or scientific angle.
*P.S.* I understand that there are plenty of more substantive scientific claims being made by climate activists like James Hansen, about how maybe some of the heat trapped by human-emitted CO2 is now being sunk into the deep oceans and so on, but what I'm really taking issue with here is the exaggerated and grossly oversimplified rhetoric presented to the general public during political discussions like those you'll see on news channels.
| 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 US government has no right to charge me property tax. CMV +
+ The US government, to encourage people to move out west, gave away land for free, thus giving up any claim the government itself had on it; all you had to do was get there first. Based on this, combined with the fact that they actually stole the land to begin with, gives those first white settlers sovereign claim to the land since they A) Claimed it B) were given it by the US government at the time C) made the dangerous and often fatal trek to the land, then did all the work to make it profitable and establish civilization and D) were able to protect it and keep it from both other white men who wanted it and the Native Americans they stole it from.
TL;DR: You didn't want it, so I made it beautiful and you want to charge me rent? Please change my view!
Special thanks to /u/ZJM555 and /u/Cacheflow for pointing out that it is the State, not Federal Government that charges property tax. I still do not see any right to charge tax on property other than the sheer might of their military and police force.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
If someone of one gender can "identify" with another gender and be legally recognized as such, then the same should hold true if I identify myself as another race, etc. CMV +
+ First off, I've got nothing aganst anyone of any particular lifestyle, I just dont understand the legal mechanisms at play.
So gender is a biological trait. Its objective. Its not a matter of opinion. If you have one set of reproductive organs, for example, then you are a member of that gender. How you feel doesn't change that.
I do not believe there is a counter-argument to this line of thinking which would not be extended to race, or any other biological trait.
In other words, what makes gender subject to change based purely on the way the person feels, but not race?
It seems to me that "sex" is objective and not a matter of opinion.
In other words, your "sex" is what you really are.
Your Gender Identity is what you think or feel that you are.
Is this correct so far?
So in cases when an individual is, for example, a male, according to their sex, but they feel as though they are female, or in other words, their gender identity is female, then why would we recognize the Gender Identity as being more valid than the sex?
And how would your argument not be able to be applied to race or other biological traits. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think the "classics" in a given art are overrated and not appreciating them does not necessarily mean you don't truly appreciate the art form. CMV. +
+ Allow me to clarify what I mean. I'm big into movies and literature (storytelling in general) and I'm always told that I need to understand the classics of those arts in order to really appreciate how far they've come. And while I do understand that many of the classics were huge milestones and paved the way for new advancements, I find that I really enjoy more modern works much more. Sure I enjoy many classics, but I didn't think Hitchcock's Vertigo was all that great, and I think Wilde's Dorian Gray is too hyped up. I find that modern art can offer much more than the somewhat more simplified classics and that I don't necessarily need to see where these tropes came from to really understand them | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Organ donation should be 'opt out' rather than 'opt in'. +
+ As it stands where I am (UK), if you want parts of your body that can be salvaged at the event of your death to be used to help sick patients, you need to go out of your way to fill in an Organ Donation form. You must check boxes to specify which parts you are happy to be used, sign and have a referee sign also. Once this process is completed you are given a donor card, to be kept on your person, (as well as having your opinion registered on a nation-wide database) that will give to go-ahead to doctors if you end up recently-deceased in a trauma room, *without the need to contact relatives for consent*.
Since this process is 'opt-in', a great many people never bother with it. When these individuals go past the point of no return in A&E, the medical staff are obliged to seek consent from family members, as they rightly should, before removing any viable organs for transplant. However this takes time and when it comes to organ transplant, ~~minutes~~ hours can make the difference between a viable organ and medical waste.
I understand why individuals should be given the choice as to what is done with their remains after they have died, and I agree that they should be given this choice. However, I believe that, "yes I am happy for my body parts to be used to help others", should be the default position of an individual and that if they have any issue with this, an option given to 'opt out' of organ donation, either completely or partially. I feel like this would prevent body parts going to waste and streamline the donation process.
I think organ donation should be 'opt out', not 'opt in'. Change my view.
I am however going to say, that after four hours, my view at this time remains unchanged. Thanks for all the input. I'll come back later and review the arguments. | 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 understand why anyone would drink 2% milk. +
+ Whole milk, my dairy drink of choice, is by far the tastiest milk, though it has a lot of calories and fat that I can understand some people would want to avoid. Skim milk also makes sense to me because, even though it doesn't taste nearly as good as whole milk, it's got about half the calories and none of the fat. But choosing 2% over whole milk makes no sense in my mind. The calorie difference is there but it's not very significant, and the taste difference is huge! How does one justify that? You might as well go all the way health-wise when you're already sacrificing that much flavor.
I talked to a friend about this and he brought up the point that some people were raised on 2%. I think that's just sickening. The parents shouldn't even have that in the house, and if they do, they should also be getting whole milk for their kids.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I'm fairly ashamed of this, so please help me CMV. I believe that the vast majority of parents, no matter how tolerant and loving, would not choose to have a gay child. +
+ Maybe I shouldn't be making claims about what "the vast majority of parents" believe, so let's just say, *I* believe I would not want to have a gay child if I could actually control that. I do not hate gay people, and there are several gay people whom I personally admire. Them being gay doesn't bother me. But when it comes to my own (unborn) children... I wouldn't want them to be gay.
Consider this thought experiment:
When a child is born, the parent may select each and everyone one of his or her genetic features. I believe sexual orientation is largely determined by genes, so this is one of the features to be chosen by the parents. What do you choose? Straight, gay, bi, trans, something else, or leave it on "random"?
I know I would choose straight. I imagine, though I have no evidence, that the vast majority of people would choose the same. Not all of those people would be gay haters.
So why is it I feel this way? Can somebody CMV?
Part of it is the fact that one day I want grandchildren, I guess. I believe in adoption but somehow I'm a sucker for the idea of having your genes continued. Maybe my preference for straight children is born out of natural selection? There's no evidence for that, though (that I know of).
There's also the issue of me not being able to relate to gay children, and vice versa. For example, how would I talk about boyfriends to my gay son?
Lastly, there's prejudice. I suppose you could call my views prejudiced. I'm sorry for that, but this is just the way I feel. But I'm worried about the hateful, hostile kind of prejudice. The kind that people like Matthew Shepard fell victim too. I wouldn't want my gay children to live in a world that was possibly hostile to them.
To be clear, I would love my gay children, very dearly. Just like I would love children of mine who, by chance, were born with mental handicaps. But, like mentally handicapped children, no parent *wishes* for one beforehand. See what I mean? | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I Believe the Death Penalty in the United States Should Be Abolished +
+ 3,049 inmates are currently awaiting execution in the 32 states that still allow capital punishment in the United States, why is this the case? Trials seeking the death penalty often cost anywhere from four to ten times the amount than a trial that does not seek the death penalty (and results in life imprisonment instead), and the taxpayers are held responsible for these costs. States that have abolished the death penalty are able to use these funds to support local police, fire departments, schools, etc. instead of deciding whether or not a crime is punishable by death.
I have seen arguments stating that the death penalty serves as a deterrent for the heinous crimes punishable by death, but this is simply not the case. According to the FBI crime reports, the Southern United States has the highest average murder rates, even though 80% of executions take place there. While the northeast, which accounts for less than 1% of all executions, had the lowest murder rates.
In regards to the rest of the world, the UN secretary general, has called on member states that still use the death penalty to abolish this practice, stressing that the right to life lies at the heart of international human rights. I believe this is the case, despite how terrible the crime is. It isn’t like they won’t be spending the rest of their lives in a monotonous routine behind bars anyways. Change my view.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I think Home Owner Associations (HOAs) are good and everyone should live where there is one. +
+ One of the main goals of an HOA are to help maintain or even increase the value of the homes in the neighborhood by preventing people from doing things that would lower property values.
Home owners associations don't have to be expensive for the residents that live under them. They can even be free.
I think Home Owner Associations (HOAs) are good and everyone should live where there is one. 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 purpose of the federal government is to protect our human rights.... that's it. +
+ The federal government only needs to protect our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This means that things such as murder, rape, and theft are illegal because you are infringing on someone else's rights to live, own property, and pursue their dream life. Everything else should be inherently allowed by the FEDERAL government.
Then, per the Constitution, each of the 50 states would have complete democratic freedom to decide on issues such as minimum wage, abortion, gun rights, wage equality, marriage equality, etc etc etc. Basically, everything else. People could move freely to the states that reflect their personal morals. States that adopted policies that led to economic depression or social injustice would likely change their policies because people would move out.
So why does the federal government get to control so much? Why do we GIVE them that power?
I am of course speaking of the United States as that is the only country I have lived in, feel free to give opinions/examples using other countries.
Change my view.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I believe society can put a cap on company profit percentages without being communist. +
+ Or more laymen's terms: We can stop companies from making 1 billion percent profit, for virtually no reason, and without being "communist" as they say. Capitalism does not mean "con artist".
Point being, I think it is vile and corrupt for someone to take a piece of sand and sell it to an unknowing person as a 5 lb. piece of gold. Who would do that you say? EVERYONE. The profits that most corps. make these days are insane, which is exactly why we have monopolies ruining the US and ruining the world. But in the midst of it all we have all these people (who I am struggling to not call idiots) who claim that putting a cap on profits would be "communist". How the hell is that communist? Especially in the face of this disgusting abuse of power?
It's like saying "Let's not kill that guy running down the street murdering people at will, because that would be hypocritical" Wait, what?!?
I'm not saying everyone should make the same pay, and I didn't say we should develop a damn cast system, I'm just saying cap these damn monopolies so they don't turn us into slaves, is that communist? I say not. You should say it's the opposite of communism.
CMV!
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think thiefs and charlatans are in their right to do what they do and if someone falls for it this person deserved it for being too stupid. Please CMV +
+ By the laws of the nature, the fastest wins over the slow, the strongest wins over the weak, and the most importante, the smartest wins over the dumb. If a predactor is hunting you, you have to outsmart it and hide better than it can search, or use the enviroment to your bennefit. The same think aplies when you're the predactor: you need to be better than your prey if you want your dinner. And if you can do it, so you deserve it. And I think it aplies to basically everything in life that there is about protecting yourself or what you have.
For an exemple: Once I was walking by the beach and a guy on a bike passed close to me, very fast, while I was distracted talking to my grandmother. He pulled my camera out of my hand so fast that at the time I noticed what just happend, he as already dissapearing between the cars and turning over a corner behind a building. My grandmother blamed him for being a bad person and stealing things, but I only blamed myself for being an easy prey. I was distracted, and he came unnoticed and made a very precise moviment to take the camera out of my hand while riding a bike at a high speed, and also take the better way out so he could dissappear quickly.
I believe every person who wants to be free and own things must be able to protect it. [But I can't do it myself, so I think it makes me quite hypocrite.] Please CMV. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I think that atheists are just as illogical as they think theists are +
+ Just as a disclaimer, I would like to say that I am agnostic, and have a bachelor of science in both biology and political science.
Atheism - the doctrine or belief that there is no God; disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
--- According to dictionary.com
So here is my problem. I often hear or read atheists criticizing theists because the have "faith" and "believe" in something that is not proven and may not be able to be proven. (I am not saying that all atheists are like this, but some are.) It is very hard for me to reconcile these arguments because, in my opinion, atheism is based on the exact same thing - faith and belief.
Don't get me wrong, as a scientist, I have studied extensively and I know that evolution is the mechanism by which life has diversified on earth, the big bang, etc. I also do not think that science, in any way, precludes the possible existence of a higher power.
Simply put, there is (currently) no way to prove or disprove the existence of deities, and to me both theists and atheists are different sides of the same coin.
Ask questions if I have not explained anything clearly enough. And again, I am not here to belittle or to insult anyone's views, just an interesting that I think about a lot.
Thanks y'all. CMV
Also I will be replying as fast as I can. Thanks.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think incest is not as big deal as society thinks it is. CMV +
+ I think that incest between people in the same age category ( so not relationship involving parent/ grandparent and child ) is not as harmful as it is often described. Assuming both parties are willing and consenting and they do not want to have offspring (to avoid mutations is gene code) I do not see why is it so wrong. Especially if cousins or brother and sister ( two brothers/ sisters ) meet later in life and do not know that they share the same blood. Do not get me wrong, I do not think we should consider it standard relationship, but is is really so repulsive as we think ?
P.S. I do have a sister and I am not attracted to her at all, even though i am bisexual but I just do not understand stigma connected with incest . | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: It is perfectly legitimate to use adblocking software and in fact everybody should be using it. +
+ Adblocking software is frowned upon by some because it deprives sites of the ad revenue that keeps many of them going.
However, adblock software has become an important and even vital part of using the internet safely.
Ads are a prime route for [viruses and other malware](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malvertising). It's impossible for the user (and frequently difficult for the site running the ads) to determine which ads are legitimate and which are dangerous. Blocking ads wholesale is a layer of protection against such infection.
With this in mind, until ads become or can be made safe, adblocking software is a prudent step for anyone using the internet.
Is it fair to block all ads based on the misdeeds of a few providers? Maybe not but it's prudent.
| 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 the public education system in the United States is purposely sabotaging American children with standardized testing through the No Child Left Behind Act. +
+ [From Wiki:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Child_Left_Behind_Act) The Act requires states to develop assessments in basic skills. To receive federal school funding, States must give these assessments to all students at select grade levels.
Everybody knows the problems with standardized testing, however teaching to these tests is the primary focus in my son's elementary school. Here is a great article about them, that I primarily agree with. [11 problems created by the standardized testing obsession](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/04/22/11-problems-created-by-the-standardized-testing-obsession/)
Basically your children have to do well on these state determined standardized tests so that the school and the administrators can get their funding. My argument is that this pressure on teachers is ruining the education experience for children. From being a parent and talking with many of the neighborhood children I have learned that the children have very little time for recess or lunch. Physical Education is only 3 days a week. The standardized testing lasts all day. Not only that but field trips are basically non existent and classroom sizes are 30+ children per teacher. I would assume that the children who are good at learning by sitting in a chair all day and getting taught at aren't at a major disadvantage, however children that learn with their hands and through doing are basically fighting boredom all day. This along with the authoritarian form of punishment discipline and obedience training has me seriously considering homeschooling my children. Please CMV.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: "Civilian Blending" is an unstoppable strategy. The U.S. can't defeat IS without enormous and unacceptable civilian casualties. IS is going to win. +
+ This is part view, part prediction. So it's certainly fallible and i hope to be proven wrong in the near future.
I'd like for IS to be destroyed but i think that's an unrealistic expectation.
[This is a decent look at IS.](http://www.vice.com/vice-news/islamic-state-full-length)
They are well integrated into the areas they have captured. They are not universally hated by the surrounding civilians. They are not treating all civilians like prisoners or slaves or hostages. They have *plenty* of members, recruits and sympathizers across enormous amounts of land.
My view is that "Civilian Blending" is an unstoppable strategy designed to survive intervention from nations like the U.S.
No *individual* country that respects, or is bound by, international law can defeat this strategy.
**Civilian Blending:** When a militant or terrorist group embeds into a civilian population in order to protect themselves from formal military retaliation.
With successful use of this tactic there is minimal distinction, visual or otherwise, between the militants and the civilian people and infrastructure. it's all shared space. militants are often near children and innocent civilians and live within the cities among the people.
**Goal:** To become as indistinguishable as possible from the civilian population to minimize the effectiveness of airstrikes and long range attacks.
**Tactics:** Don't wear uniforms, store weapons in civilian areas such as Mosques, Hospitals, Schools, vital infrastructure, etc. Use residential civilian infrastructure like apartment buildings for militant activity, use mass local propaganda and law enforcement to keep the civilians from fleeing, recruit *willing* civilian martyrs, encourage civilians to hide and assist militants for money, use the inevitable civilian deaths to recruit more militants from the local population, etc.
**Outcome:** Accurate recon becomes incredibly difficult and highly susceptible to errors. High civilian to militant death toll is inevitable in all types of operations. Major mistakes will also happen that result in mass civilian deaths. Extremely high value targets will be impossible to kill without killing innocent people in Mosques, churches, schools, power plants, water treatment plants and other vital infrastructure protected by international laws.
**This will leave the U.S. with very limited options...**
**Option 1:** Contain them. Full victory is impossible without mass civilian deaths and breaking international laws. Let IS have what land they have already taken. Perhaps liberate small towns that overwhelmingly want to be liberated. Contain them and get into a prolonged conflicts along their borders. targeted airstrikes while we arm their neighbors to keep them from spreading.
**Option 2:** Fight them. Accept the civilian deaths. Eventually be stopped by the International community and accused of war crimes.
**The civilian blending tactic ensures that the international community *will* start to see war-crimes against civilians.**
* Prolonged asymmetric warfare tends to makes the "powerful side" into the bad guy. The weak side just has to survive because it can't win.
* The US will kill innocent civilians in numerous ways; by accident, on purpose as acceptable losses, and by killing the willing martyrs. That's just war, but it won't be accepted and the US will be condemned for each death deemed by the world as avoidable.
* There will be anti-US protests across the world.
* The media will begin to frame this as "US vs innocent civilians".
* America will have to re-explain itself over and over." Why are you still there, why isn't IS defeated yet?, why did you bomb that school? Why is the civilian death count so high? Didn't we go in there to protect these people? But instead we bomb their kids?!"
* The body count will be reported as "2,000 Iraqis/Syrians dead, *mostly civilians*, 100 US dead, *all soldiers*." and people will discuss how evil the US is more and more every day.
* People will say "If some invading force was on my land i'd shoot them too, why is the US over there anyways?"
* The civilian body count will be in the thousands, or tens of thousands because this terrorist tactic works extremely well.
* People will quickly forget why the US is fighting in Iraq and accuse the US of "indiscriminately targeting civilians".
* The US will be called on by the UN to explain why the civilian body count is so high.
* IS will wait patiently, laughing its ass off because the big dumb animal fell into the trap AGAIN...
* The US will pull out because of the international and internal political pressure.
* IS will have an enormous recruiting tool from having survived a war against the US.
* Genocide, land grabs, sharia law, ethnic cleansing, suicide bombing, assassinations, kidnappings, general violence and evil begins anew in Iraq and the US is called for to intervene.
But maybe i'm wrong.
Maybe this is what brings peace to that region.
But personally i think IS has/is going to win. Might as well redraw the maps.
The US can temporarily force them into hiding, at enormous cost to the US, but there is no way to actually permanently defeat them without unacceptable brutality.
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 think Definitions of person-hood are arbitrary. +
+ I have been struggling with this for a long time as a Christian. I would love to say I am pro-life, but the definitions of person-hood have been too arbitrary for me.
I feel as if the argument that as soon as their is a unique composition of DNA from a sperm and an egg is a person is a flawed argument and that it is just an arbitrary point. Some people call it "the point of no return" because you have to act upon yourself or external variables need to go into making a egg and a sperm connect but the point after that it is all nature or what have you, and that makes you a person. A unique set of cells subdividing with its own unique set of DNA. I would like to call that a potential person, but I struggle calling that an actual person because everything has potential. And because of my Calvinistic background, if a set of subdividing cells never makes it to some state that it can sustain itself, I feel as if that was predetermined to begin with. It was still actions of doctors to dismantle the set of unique cells, but it was going to happen any ways. My father has pointed out to me that it does not matter if it has a soul attached to it already or not and that since it is the start of life or the "no turning back" phase, that it is considered murder. I struggle to believe that.
But I also struggle to believe anything else because it would also be an arbitrary point. Does it become a person when its heart beats? Does it become a human when its 1st brain synapse fires? How do you define Person hood?
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think women should have to sign up for the Draft in the US. CMV. +
+ I'm not saying they have to be eligible for service on the front line or anything like that, but for hundreds of years women have been fighting for the right to be equal.
I don't understand specifically why they don't have to sign up for it like American men have to when they turn 18. I think it's wrong to force men to sign up while their female counterparts don't have to worry about a draft being enacted.
If they had to sign up, knowing men are biologically more physically gifted than women, I think we could make certain exceptions for them to work in offices, factories, and other parts of the military instead of putting them out into battle.
Change my view. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: There's no such things as paranormal creatures or events or intelligent life (at least close to Earth) thus we're essentially alone in the universe. +
+ When I was a young nerd I loved reading about the unexplained and paranormal. Basically bigfoot, aliens, loch ness monster, Jersey Devil, John Titor, all that good stuff. Those of you familiar with Fortean Times, Art Bell or any of the "Big Books' by Paradox Press will know what I'm talking about.
But as I've grown older, wiser, more cynical and the world and the universe has grown smaller, I realize just how much of all that stuff is crap. Whereas before I was a Mulder, now I am a Scully.
It's not as if I had a complete belief in the paranormal/extraterrestrial before but I was at least open to it. But as I got older, famous photographs began being exposed as hoaxes, holes in stories of abductions appeared and common sense kicked in. With as much as the Earth we've discovered, we've never come across a sasquatch skeleton or corpse? How is the loch ness monster still alive, what would it mate with? Why do we always assume there are advanced aliens with incredible technology that visit us? What if WE are the most advanced beings in the universe, or at least around us, and if there are any aliens they're just weird one-celled organisms or crustaceans?
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Social media has made America's generation's Y (1980-2000) and Z (2000's-today) more vain and obsessed with appearance. CMV. +
+ With the creation of MySpace in 2003 and Facebook in 2004, the computer-savvy American population began to change how they communicated, whom they communicated with and, most importantly, how they appeared to others. What was once created for University students only has now spread to older generations, down to high school, middle school, and now even some elementary schools. Children are, from a young age, interacting with technology and social media where the ideals reinforced largely surround appearance and popularity. Maintaining a social media page (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Tumblr, LinkedIn, etc) focuses on how many friends or followers one may have, which type of pictures they allow on their profiles, which pictures and filters they will publish to give off a certain impression to others, and more. It is frightening to think how important a role image will play in the upbringing of generation Z …"style" has become something expected of 10- and 11-year-olds, and sexuality is being experimented with at a much earlier age with the rise of sexting and selfies.
While I do believe that the new generation of social media has allowed us to expand our networks and connect with individuals that we would otherwise not have access to, I think that in many facets our appearance has become of utmost importance. Even recruiters now look at our LinkedIn profiles or Facebook pages to see if we are an eligible candidate for a job, and parents have a new way to monitor and spy on their children's social lives via their pictures and pages.
While I engage in social media and appreciate it's networking potential with colleagues, classmates, friends, family and future employers, I do believe that it has made my generation (Y) and the current generation (Z) more vain and focused on appearance. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think STEM majors are more valuable to society than humanities. CMV +
+ My argument has two points.
1. STEM majors learn marketable skills. Engineers and doctors solve problems using science. Scientists apply critical thinking to understand the workings of the universe. Graduates with humanities degrees don't have much to contribute to the betterment of society in comparison.
2. Society is better able to use a large number of STEM majors. As society advances, it will continuously increase in demand for STEM majors to repair and create technological infrastructure. On the contrary, the demand for humanities majors won't scale any faster than linearly.
Things I am not arguing:
1. Humanities are less difficult than STEM. Although personal experience has suggested this, a similar CMV has presented good arguments against it.
2. Humanities are worthless. I am only saying they have less worth to society than STEM fields.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The best thing for Snowden to do would be to return to the US +
+ That is, that would the best thing to realize Snowden's ideals.
With all of the world watching, how could the US government do anything to him? Say he does have to go to court when he steps on US lands, and say he does get sentenced, punished, whatever. Wouldn't this simply mean the country goes into revolt, with much support from the rest of the world?
[The majority of Americans](http://www.newsweek.com/most-americans-think-snowden-did-right-thing-poll-says-253163) think he did the right thing, with even bigger percentages in the rest of the world ([Russia](http://rt.com/politics/rissia-snowden-usa-poll-945/), [Great Britain](http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/10/29/edward-snowden-uk-survey_n_4173876.html), [Europe] (http://www.infosec.co.uk/media-centre/news/European-Industry-Survey-2014/), [Hong Kong](http://news.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne+News/Asia/Story/A1Story20130616-430137.html)).
In other words, I think it would be true to say that the majority of the world think Snowden did the right thing.
Snowden doesn't want the people to accept what the government does to them, and many clear thinking people all around the world do not, so why should he not make the next move?
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: In the United States, the minimum age to run for Presidential office should be lowered to age 25. +
+ 1) According to NPR, (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=141164708) brain development is completed at an average age of 25. This ensures that the candidate will be mentally capable of handling office.
2) Younger members of society, especially in the status quo, are more in touch with science and technology, and are able to make better policy decisions on such matters. This is especially true in areas such as climate change and net neutrality.
3) The current age of 45 seems both arbitrary and unnecessary. Age and wisdom and intellect have a weak correlational relationship, not a causational one.
4) The democratic process is capable of weeding out unfit individuals, no matter what age. It doesn't hurt to allow younger folks to run.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Your first love is your strongest love +
+ I am just under the impression that a man's first love is his strongest love and every following love is a bit weaker each time. ALSO each following love is trying to match the intensity of the first love, a bit like chasing the dragon after taking a drug for the first time. I base much of my view on the belief that after separating from your first love the veil falls and your naive beliefs about love go away forever. By this I mean that you no longer believe in the "fairy tale" love stories and start to see just how hurtful love can be. Reddit change my view. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Michael Sam didn't really accomplish anything groundbreaking today that merits being a top news story +
+ I really don't care what team he bats for, and i don't wanna know. Everyone preaches equality... but nobody would care about him if he was straight. Dude's a 7th round pick, until he does something significant, can we treat him equally like all other 7th round picks and ignore him?
Manziel is a Heisman winner, Clowney went #1. Sam..... what's he actually accomplished? If I were a GM I would hesitate to draft him, not because he's gay, but because he attracts a lot of undue attention, without the proportional amount of on field impact (see: tebow).
Okay, I get it, he's "breaking barriers" as the first gay NFL player... cool, good for him, this was a story about 3 months ago. Same with Jason Collins, a marginal talent who struggled to make a roster getting undue hype. Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier AND was actually good (MVP, All-Star, Steals champ, etc). On top of that, its not like there's been any rule against gay people playing football (statistically, I would guess he isn't even the actual first). Dude was perfectly fine being gay and playing college ball. I doubt any fans cared about who he was in a relationship with. Jason Collins played about 10 years in the league being gay without anyone having any problems. But no, they decided they needed to call a national press conference and announce it to the world that he's gay. you don't see any straight people doing silly shit like calling press conferences to announce themselves straight. it's a publicity stunt, pure and simple. Who you're seeing isn't anyone's business, but these characters seem to find the need to shove it down all our throats (pause /s) while at the same time complaining that they aren't being treated fairly. Fast forward a couple months, and what part of this is actually news? Nothing. He actually got drafted? cool. what would have been a bigger story, him getting drafted in the 7th round or not being drafted at all? it would have been a huge story either way even though nothing of significance has happened. ∴ it was a publicity stunt and I dont believe that crap about him wanting to be known as just a "football player" and not a "gay football player". Son, if that was true, you would have kept your mouth shut and not actively advertised the fact and not decided to use the national media as the platform to come out of the closet.
I question why a 7th round pick is the top story on both /r/nfl and espn.com (with the draft + NBA/NHL playoffs going on)
I'm not homophobic and dont have anything against him being gay. my point is that I don't care.
Let me paint my point of view for you: I'm a redskins fan; lets go down the list:
QB: RG3: SO - Rebecca Liddicoat Griffin (M)
RB: ALfred Morris: SO - ???
WR: Pierre Garcon: SO - ???
WR: DeSean Jackson: SO - ???
WR: Santana Moss: SO - ???
LB: Brian Orakpo: SO - ???
LB: Ryan Kerrigan: SO - ???
CB: Deangelo Hall: SO - (M) Only that he's married/straight, saw some family vaca pics on IG of the wife & kids
_
RB: Clinton Portis: SO - ???
TE: Chris Cooley: SO - ???
FS: Sean Taylor (All-Time Favorite Player): SO - ??? / only that he had a GF + daughter from the murder reports
_
QB: Peyton Manning (MVP): SO - ???
QB: Tom Brady: SO - Giselse (M)
QB: Aaron Rodgers: SO - ???
QB: Andrew Luck: SO - ???
QB: Tony Romo: SO - ??? / ex: Jessica SImpson (a big reason why nobody likes Romo outside of DAL, too much extracurricular info and not enough playoff wins / app's)
RB: Adrian Peterson: SO - ???
....
on and on. Point being, nobody really cares /pays attention to who athletes' SOs are (unless they're celebs themselves). We know about RG3 and Rebecca in DMV cause its friggin RG3, Franchise Savior, and literally every skins fan did a thorough background check on him the minute that trade went down, and in the weeks before/after. Any one of those ??? people could be gay for all I know. All of them are more accomplished than this dude. What's preventing a gay athlete from keeping his personal life on the DL like 90% of the rest of the league? THAT's what I mean about shoving it down our throats. If you need to come out to your family and friends, fine, go for it, do you. If it comes up in the locker room and a teammate asks, fine, tell them, be yourself and all that. None of that requires setting up interviews and going through the press. If someone you mention to announces it to the press and word gets out, fine, dont deny it, and proceed to do all the interviews. Its the fact that these guys are tooting their own horns that I have a problem with that makes it a publicity stunt. As far as setting an example for others like you to look up to..? I don't buy that. Yeah, maybe, but there are plenty of other celebs a lot more accomplished, famous, and successful than this dude who are openly gay. If I'm a gay person, I'm not looking up to Sam and Collins and tryna be like them, I'm looking up to people like Ellen, Anderson Cooper, NPH, Ellen Page, Elton John, etc. It's like a young black kid looking up to kwame brown instead of michael jordan. Was kwame the first (black or otherwise) kid to get drafted #1 straight outta high school? yup. do any young black high school kids look up to him? doubtful. is it hard to be a young black kid and do you still get crap from society and the system for being so? undoubtedly. can you get killed in america for being a young black kid while your killer not only walks free, but cashes in on it? yup. does that make kwame brown relevant to anyone outside of /r/nbacirclejerk? you tell me.
yet somehow, this is still the #1 story in sports right now apparently. the media / hype machine is at fault for making a bigger deal out of this than it should be (it was news in february; nothing groundbreaking has happened since). IMO sam is at fault because the way I see it, it was a publicity stunt. if you wanna try to change my opinion on that, i'm all ears and open mind. again, I have nothing against him being gay. I have something against it being news on all the major sports news sources.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Ordering tacos at Chipotle is always the worst choice. +
+ **IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION: Title should read "Ordering *soft shell* tacos"**
The burrito, the burrito bowl, and the soft shell taco at Chipotle are all comprised of the same ingredients: a tortilla (unless it is a bowl), rice, beans, meat, salsa, sour cream, cheese, guacamole, lettuce. You are essentially getting the same thing no matter what you order. The only things that change between these options are the delivery method to the mouth and the amount of ingredients.
Some people enjoy the authentic eating experience of picking up a burrito with your hands and eating it. These people order the burrito.
Some people feel burritos are too messy to be worth eating and prefer eating what would have been the contents of a burrito in a bowl with a fork. Some people prefer the low-carb option and forego the tortilla. These people order the bowl.
The soft shell tacos at Chipotle cost the same as their burrito/burrito bowl counterpart (of the same choice of meat) and are filled with the same ingredients you have a choice of when ordering a burrito or a burrito bowl. In fact, coming from the perspective of an employee who makes all three menu items, I can definitively tell you that you get less of each ingredient when you order the soft shell tacos. This is because the three tortillas that tacos are made in are collectively smaller than a large burrito tortilla or the burrito bowl and we simply cannot fit the same amount of ingredients on the taco tortillas. Of course, the low-carb dimension does not exist for soft shell tacos, which come on tortillas. In addition, the delivery to mouth method is essentially the same as a burrito; it is hands on and potentially even messier than eating a burrito, as tacos are not folded shut.
Any reasonable person who comes to Chipotle to enjoy the ingredients that go into every one of the menu items should not choose the soft shell tacos over the burrito or the burrito bowl. They cost the same. The ingredients are the same; they do not taste any different. You get fewer of every ingredient because of space issues. You do not get the benefits (cleaner eating/low-carb) of ordering a bowl, and it could be even messier than eating a burrito. Soft shell tacos are wrong every time. 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 retirement is overrated and that society should stop assuming that this is a norm for people +
+ I'm still young and in school, and I already hear about getting your life together in many ways that I totally agree with and understand, EXCEPT with regards to personal finances, particularly retirement. Obviously I know its good to start saving money now for a home, pay down debts asap, etc., and its something I've already started doing given that I am going into business and commerce.
The ONE thing I keep hearing and do not care about at all is saving for retirement and retirement planning. I have 2 main reasons why I don't want to consider it, and it annoys me when I am told about it. I do not mean to offend anyone, I know everyone has their views (which is why I'm here), these are merely my honest views on this, so forgive me if I do.
1. To retire means to give up on your life. To have no more ambition, nothing to work towards, no concrete goals. This probably stems from being taught traditional martial art philosophies, i.e. There is no such thing as perfection. Every day you train is a closer step to it and betterment of yourself, but you will never reach it. We also have a joke that says "Our retirement day is our funeral day". I feel like retiring is like saying to the world "I'm done, everything I have is enough, I can just die now", and that people get to that point where they think "I'm good enough so I can satisfice and stop now." It frightens me that I will become like that. I don't want to be like that. It is selfish to think you are good enough, even more so if what you were doing was of great service to humanity. It is selfish to believe you "deserve" this time off now.
2. It's just a pain in the ass to deal with. It's one less thing I'd rather not worry about, and something I wouldn't have to worry about if I kept working and saving/investing the way I do now. I know it seems trivial of a reason but when its something (or will become something) everyone expects of you to think about, and I just respond "not doing that", I get looks and responses like "omg, that's so weird, how can retirement not be something to think about"
I also understand that if you are just so physically or mentally unfit that it would probably be detrimental to others, then retirement would make total sense. I guess my only reason I would ever consider retirement would be as an insurance policy. CMV
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Natural rights do not exist. CMV +
+ Traditionally, the rights to Life, Liberty, and Property are ascribed as natural rights. I do not think they exist in nature, and are instead a product of social construct: Such rights exist because there is mutual agreement that they exist. As their existence is derived from social construct, social construct could revoke them.
To illustrate my view, I propose a thought experiment. Suppose you are the only Hyper-Intelligent Koala on your own island. You are incapable of leaving this island, however within it you have the ability to do whatever you please. Whether or not you have the right to do a given thing is meaningless: You are capable, and the only consequences will be natural consequences. If you move a rock at the base of the mountain, no one will become angry with you moving the rock. But if that movement triggers a landslide and you die as a result, that is a natural consequence of your actions.
In this scenario, rights are no different from ability. Therefore there is no such thing as a right in this context. Ergo, rights are dependent upon interactions between various entities. So now, let's consider what happens when another Hyper-Intelligent Koala comes to the island.
Prior to the arrival of the second koala, who I will call Chubby, your food supplies were scarce. There was only one Eucalyptus tree on the island, and it was regularly pecked bare by you. With Chubby's arrival, your ability to survive is now threatened. Either you will survive, Chubby will survive, or neither will survive.
Chubby's arrival on the island was not violent. His climbing into the eucalyptus tree was adorable, certainly not violent. His eating of a few leaves was not violent. But these innocent acts are what we could call "theft." But if this theft occurs in an effort to protect what I expect natural right proponents would argue is the most fundamental right: The right to live, how does that interact with the other rights? The right to property?
You would, under a natural right to property, be allowed to prevent Chubby's access to your eucalyptus tree. But in doing so, you would be violating Chubby's right to life: he cannot live without food. So in this situation, rights either are in direct conflict with one another, or simply do not exist. I posit that they do not exist.
Now, suppose Chubby has an idea. "If you restrict your intake, and I restrict my intake, this tree will grow larger," he says. "In fact, it will bear fruit and create new trees, providing enough food for both of us. Yes, we will go hungry for a time, but in the long run we will both survive and have an excess of food." You propose that Chubby be responsible for harvesting the correct amount of leaves, and the two of you share them. Now, you have labor on your property in exchange for food. You enable chubby's ability to live, and expect in return he will not only perpetuate your ability to live, but will decrease your need for food by performing labor. You also expect that he will not murder you and take your tree for his own. At this point, you have mutual agreement: To respect eachother's right to live.
It is my view that this is the manner in which rights are derived. Change my view. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe that the more we highlight racism in our modern society, the more prevalent it becomes. CMV +
+ This was somewhat inspired by the post about the Zimmerman case earlier.
I live in the US if that helps.
Everywhere I turn I see people complaining about how much racism is such an issue these days. Most of the time the people saying this (in my experience) are hypocrites and usually don't make any effort to change what they're complaining about. I watch them talk about how they are oppressed and slandered by other races, yet they turn right around and do exactly that to other people. I don't necessarily think it's so much even White people being racist these days. Obviously, there are still racist White people, but in my experience it's evenly distributed between all races.
When I was a kid I never hated anyone. It didn't matter what race they were or how they looked; they were just like anyone else. I played with them and talked to them and they were exactly like me.
Of course, I started to grow up and hear things. My family talked about how everyone in their workplace of so-and-so race acted this way or did that thing or had that attitude. I was fed these pieces of hatred and rolled them over in my still-young mind. It made sense to me. I took these biases and used them. I used them to hurt and degrade other humans at a young age. I didn't know the effects of my words.
After I had grown more I thought again about these things. Why? Why do I feel this way about this entire group of people? Where did I pick this up? I never used to hate these people, so why did I suddenly start to? This is how I came to my realization. I only picked these biases up from things I had heard, rather than by my own judgment. Only recently have I torn away from these feelings and this is the first thing that I noticed about this subject.
So reddit, I offer you 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? |
I think grammar/spelling errors aren't that important as long as the message gets across. CMV +
+ While I myself am no linguist by any means, I do get a little annoyed when people commit grammatical sacrelige. I usually keep these thoughts to myself.
Other times, when somebody with less-than-perfect language speaks their mind, naysayers quickly draw their swords and lynch the perpetrator regardless of the contents of their argument, valid or not. So people with potentially insightful opinions who are sadly lacking in communication skills are shut down.
I think that's a little silly. Besides, isn't a little rule breaking integral to language evolving? Surely in the hay days of early language people got tired of using two words to say something and instead decided to combine the words -- giving birth to the contraction!
Again, no linguist, just a thought and a little theory. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: "Going solo" or a single member of the band "taking the lead" leads to a sharp decline in quality in that musicians body of work. +
+ This sort of thing happens far too often and I can't for the life of me, think of an instance where it has worked out.
For my two examples, I will use Sting and Weezer.
The Police are an extremely influential band that released some of the biggest hits of the 80's. Winning a total of six grammys during their existence.
However, Sting's solo work swung quite quickly to a more adult contemporary/pop style that alienated many fans of the Police and while he did start off strong, he did fade in quality fast.
Weezer started off as a four piece band that wrote music collectively. At some point after the release of Pinkerton, Matt Sharp left the band and Rivers fully took control of the writing process. This has lead to worse and worse Weezer albums and a far inferior band that Matt Sharp started called the Rentals.
My view is that these solo artists were better musicians as collaborators. Whatever strife they might have had with each other helped fuel better songwriting.
I concede! I concede!
Pop music breaks my rule so often it isn't even funny. Apparently, I should listen to Lennon's solo work as well.
Thank you all for changing my view on this. I didn't like this idea and I wanted to be proven wrong so I wouldn't be so hesitant to give a chance to solo work.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: If you don't have healthcare, the self-diagnosis of mental health problems is acceptable for the purposes of understanding and caring for yourself. +
+ Let me preface this by saying that I'm not talking about the Tumblr brand of self-diagnosis where someone's got depression because they have had a sad week or obsessive-compulsive disorder because they wash their hands more often than normal or anything like that.
That said, if someone has done extensive research on possible mental illnesses that they may suffer from as well as researching other closely related illnesses and find that they suffer many symptoms that align with a specific illness, I see nothing wrong with it.
I'll use myself as an example. I've suffered from generalized anxiety disorder and atypical depression for many years, and have been diagnosed by a professional, back when I still had healthcare. However, I also suffer other mental symptoms that aren't typical of either of those disorders. I spent many years in fear of myself because I didn't understand what was happening in my mind and why. After many nights of research, I've come to the conclusion that these symptoms very closely align with borderline personality disorder. Am I wrong? That is very possible, of course. I'm not a professional. However, having this affirmation, whether or not it is the case, makes me feel better. It makes me feel more secure about these things, because now at least I can pinpoint a possible cause, and when I eventually get healthcare again I will have a jumping point to discuss with a psychologist.
Change my view? Keep in mind that you're speaking to a college student who hasn't studied psychology outside of a couple of general education courses that she had to take, so layman's terms in regards to psychological ideas would be great.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
In a democracy all parties should have the same funds and prefab, standardized election campaigns, CMV +
+ It seems to me that already big parties have an unfair advantage in that their financial means enable them to produce election campagns of much higher quality and quantity compared to smaller parties. Therefore, I believe there should be templates for election posters, election video ads and websites for the approved parties in which they can fill-in their statements and views. Also the count of screenings of the ads and reproduction of the posters should be the same for each party.
Basically, the election compaigns should all look the same (except, of course, for the party emblem): no colors, no illustrations, a uniform fontface, uniform photos of the candidates and only grey or black text in standardized sizes. | 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 US should use the death penalty for confirmed murderers and rapists, CMV +
+ Didn't see this topic before in this sub, so here goes.
I want the death penalty to be used as a "last resort", when either they admit to their crime or there is unquestionable evidence (a video or something similar) of the crime.
A lot of my friends are highly against it but can't seem to tell me why (pretty sure they are slacktivists)
Anywho, CMV | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Individual rights are more important then safety +
+ There is a famous quote from Benjamin Franklin that goes "Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security."
I am speaking as an American but I'm sure my point will resonate with some in other countries, especially in the West. As a society we have given up too many personal rights on all fronts and are worse off for it. I break my view down into two issues:
**Too Many Regulations:** There is a balance point that needs to be struck between "do whatever you want" and "you have no rights". We have tilted far too close to the latter. Often such new regulations are the result of fear mongering or pandering to single issue voting blocks. The results are the proliferation of thousands of petty laws. Think for example of the byzantine web of gun laws that are based on silly cosmetic features that have nothing to do with the guns effectiveness. Or another thread on the CMV front page about traffic violations for putting on chapstick or taking a sip from a water bottle while driving.
I am not against sensible regulations to curb huge dangers but these laws provide either no increase in safety or one that is statistically insignificant. This kind of bullshit also causes a much bigger problem which is...
**Over-Criminalization:** I am of the view that no one ever got caught up in the criminal law system that turned out the better for it. The criminal courts should be reserved as a last resort tool to deal with serious violations of property or persons. The issues of incarceration in America and our legal systems dysfunction are infamous so I wont rehash that here.
The creation of so many conflicting, complicated, and petty laws creates a situation where legal regulations no longer follow a common sense model that an average person can follow. It has been said all of us break probably a dozen laws without knowing it every day. This degrades trust between the authorities and the citizens, as well as between the citizens themselves.
**Conclusion:** While the motivation to -do something- about the loss of a loved one in accident or seek legal recourse for minor annoyances is strong there also must be limits. The creation of an endless legal miasma about every action in life makes a society worse off. CMV if you can.
| 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 euthanasia is the most humane way of dealing with stray cat and dog populations. Our human obsession with death is the only reason people react strongly when animals are put down en masse. +
+ I made this post after reading an [article](http://www.apnews.com/ap/db_268743/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=gt4HL1Z3) detailing how half of stray cats sent to shelters will be euthanized. This isn't all that surprising and I know this isn't the most provocative opinion in the world but I fail to see the issue with putting down large numbers of animals if the alternative is suffering on the street or in a cage somewhere. Euthanasia actually makes me hopeful rather than sad and I think it's our own fear of death we project on animals and we're just subconsciously seeing ourselves put down. I can't find any arguments otherwise that sound valid. 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 all people who are opposed to the theory of evolution don't understand what evolution is. CMV +
+ I think that all people who propose an anti-evolution viewpoint are people who either willingly or unwillingly don't understand what evolution is. The way that evolution works is simple common sense when explained, and to reject it if one understands it would make about as much sense as rejecting an explanation of how an internal combustion engine works.
The only reason anyone rejects the idea of evolution is from either a willful refusal to understand it or being left out of the loop by a society that encourages its rejection. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
A person in a committed monogamous relationship is obligated to fulfill their partners sexual needs. CMV +
+
1) By 'committed monogamous relationship' I am referring to the agreement between individuals that they will limit their sexual activities to each other. I am not referring to any government or religious law.
2) I believe that restricting a person to monogamy, and then denying that person sex amounts to abuse.
3) Why is adultery wrong, but forcing a person to live without sex acceptable?
**Original Post**
All relationships should have emotional support, but by entering a *monogamous* relationship each person is *required* sexually satisfy their partner. This means they have to "put out" to their partner's requirements, or accept that monogamy is at it's end. I do not mean to suggest that their partner has the right to rape their mate, but that each individual assures their partner is sexually gratified in one manner or another. No one should be forced by their partner to remain sexually frustrated, and doing so should be seen as a form of abuse and a breach their agreement.
Some examples of what I am referring to:
* A person develops a kink, experiences increased sex drive, or changes their orientation. Their partner should expect them to seek sex in their preferred style and pace elsewhere.
* A person finds their sex drive dwindling or no longer enjoys a kink. That person should still be available for sex with their partner regardless of their drive, or expect them to seek it elsewhere.
* A person develops a physical or emotional disability which hinders or causes the inability to have sex. Their partner are under no obligation to remain sexually monogamous to that individual if their needs can no longer be met.
* A couple remains celibate until a certain time (marriage, quantity of dates, high shaman approves, etc). Afterward it is determined they are sexually incompatible. Each should be expected to find relief elsewhere.
I feeling that my thoughts on this are wrong, but I can not find any reason to change my view. I've also searched and could not find a post about this. Please CMV. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I believe that charities are bad +
+ Dislaimer: I am not talking about overseas charities (I haven't thought about them as much), I am talking about national or regional ones.
I hold far left-wing views on politics and society and I honestly think that charity actions are not helping anything in the long run. Often, they do quite opposite.
* Charities are mostly apolitical - they raise money for a cause but at the same they distract people from the reason why the problem happened and do not propose anything to solve it
* Charities unintentionally compete with eachother - people only have that much money and cannot donate everywhere. As such, the most succesful charities are the most vocal ones, which means they have to spend money for promotion of themselves, which could be spent on helping the cause (or actually raising awareness of it or trying to find the way to fix it)
* Not only people can't help all charities, they often feel that they've helped enough by donating and get less interested in the topic
* Speaking of advertisement, charities often resort to a tabloid-like advertisement, by manipulating emotions - showing cute pictures of happy family before a child got sick, using diminutive names or disempowering adjectives (e.g. "Our **little Nathan** has leukemia"), often accompanied with sad music - all to manipulate people
* Charity actions are often used as a sort of "get-out-of-being-criticized card", this is popular with the companies, but I much often see this in the Internet, where some controversial internet persona organizes charity actions, which are then used as a way to dismiss any criticism towards such persona - aka they aren't made out of self-interest
This and some more problems are easily visible in the case of charities helping one person, let's make an example:
Lawrence Smith lives in Republic of Hypotheria, a democratic country with universal healthcare, with his daughter Lucy. However, Lucy has a serious illness (let's name it AFD, for "acute fictional disease") which requires medical treatment unavailable in Hypotheria, it can only be treated abroad - something that Lawrence can't afford. Now, the scenario splits into two directions:
* **Scenario one**: Lawrence is a poor factory worker - by that he is on the mercy of the giant charity organisations in Hypotheria, which can either accept or decline his cry for help. And this is where business comes in - such charity has to pay for the adverts in TV and other media, they need to account the money etc. What if advertising this cause is hard? (for example, people are completely unaware of AFD, because it's a very rare, genetic ilness). What if the father was an alcoholic? What if he was arrested in the past for a theft? This can create bad publicity for the charity ("BIG CHARITY HELPING CRIMINALS" in a national tabloid - quite a good scandal), they can reject him for their own safety, even though it is his child who needs help, not him.
* **Scenario two**: Lawrence, although not being able to fund his daughter's treatment, is a rich, local businessmen - he creates his own charity action for the sake of helping his own daughter, getting posters all over the town, organising charity concerts, mobilizing students for charity work - nice of him to do that for his own daughter, but what about other ill children? Such charity effectively sucks the money and society's eagerness to help only for his cause. Not only that, he's not really a poor person, some could argue there are people who are in bigger need for help. His charity only showcases inequality, where poor can't even afford help from others.
The most important thing however, regardless of the scenario, is that charity won't actually help the cause (curing the AFD), but the person (suffering from AFD). The biggest issue raised will probably a one-liner like "Unfortunately, in order to be a smiling child free of AFD again, Lucy needs expensive treatment in <other country>, you can help make her dream come true by…". The questions such as what is AFD, how to cure it, why is it not covered by national insurance, how can it be prevented and many others, will never be raised. Problem won't be solved, This basically sticking a patch on sinking boat instead of replacing the boat. A very expensive patch.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: It would be at least a little wrong for me to permanently leave my country of origin +
+ I'm an American citizen, born and raised in the US. I have a psychology degree and will have a nursing degree as well in a couple of years (planning to work as a psych nurse). Nursing is highly in demand in many parts of the US, and I'd like to work in an underresourced area--something the US really needs.
The US provided me with public education, which I did not pay for. I received a positively obscenely large scholarship to college because I got a good score on some dumb test I took in 11th grade. I was also in the US foster care system for 7 years, which is ludicrously expensive for the state. All in all, I'm guessing the government has provided me in at least hundreds of thousands of dollars in support (although no cash payments).
At the moment I'm studying in New Zealand. I like it better here for many reasons (not all relevant to this CMV). Once I'm finished with my education and have the necessary work experience (2 years) to transfer my license here, I'd like to do so, and never return to the US. I would be a shoo-in for permanent residency here. NZ is wonderful, and I would much prefer to work in their mental health system than the one back home (having experience in both--NZ is preferable to me).
I feel quite bad about this. America spent a shitton of money on me, and now all my tax dollars are going to go to some country that didn't spend a dime on educating and raising me. I'm not saying all immigration is always unethical or wrong... I'm saying, in my case, it seems like a fairly shitty thing for me to do. CMV? Or am I right? | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
[CMV] I think less of people who use any kind of non-prescription drugs +
+ Throwaway because I don't want anyone who's angry/offput by my point of view going through my main account history.
I think less of people who abuse drugs. This includes daily meth users to twice a year marijuana users and even cigarette smokers. I don't include caffeine or alcohol in here because those can have literally no negative health effects when used in moderation. Everything else I can immediately think of that would be categorized as a drug does have a negative health effect, even after one use. And I can't understand why or justify why anyone would want to use a substance knowing beyond and reasonable doubt that it has been scientifically proven to have negative effects on the body.
I know it has been argued that it's for the relaxation effects, that sometimes people get stressed out or some shit like that and they use to help relax themselves. I think that's a load of crap. I'm a firefighter and a a paramedic, I've seen dead children, adults, elderly, mutilated people screaming for help, I've held a guy's guts in his body with my own hands, and not a thing I've experienced has ever made me feel like I needed a substance to help me be able to deal with it. I believe there are very few people in the world who have as much real stress on them as a first responder, a combatant soldier, and such. So I can't justify the stress excuse.
I know it has been argued that it "feels good", but again, I cannot understand or justify how anything that is known scientifically to be detrimental to your health would ever "feel good" enough to knowingly want to use it.
But I realize that I only know my own side of the story, and I want to give the other side a fair chance. So please, change my view.
As for alcohol, the same principal applies. In a small moderated quantity, the body is more than suited to handle alcohol between the liver's ability to filter it and the brain's cognizant abilities not having any noticeable necrosis or permanent degradation. Again, that is within moderation.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: If you outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns. I'm fine with this. +
+ Actually I'm fine with that. Imagine if guns were outlawed. Now the price for an illegal one just went through the roof. Think your average gang banger would have one? How many meth heads would keep a pistol when they could sell it for mad amounts of cash? The lower end of the criminal underworld would be flushed of guns almost overnight.
Only the richest bad guys would have guns and those aren't the guys mugging people, breaking into houses or committing armed robbery. Hand guns would be worth their weight in gold on the black market. You wouldn't risk losing yours over a few bucks in the Quickiemart till. You wouldn't want to shoot someone and just throw it off a bridge. It would be like mugging a guy by hitting him with a gold brick.
Another interesting effect would be more investigation into the gun violence that would still occur. Law enforcement would be much more motivated and have more time to pursue gun violence. For example, if a kid gets shot everyday in South Chicago it's not nearly such a big deal as if a kid gets shot once a year. I worded all that poorly but I think you'll get my drift.
As time goes by replacement parts and ammo get harder and more expensive to obtain contributing to a feed back loop resulting in guns becoming even more scarce and valuable.
I'm not advocating for outlawing firearms in America. I own two rifles and a shotgun myself and I lean far left politically. I just think the whole "only outlaws will have guns" argument is really weak.
Since it's a controversial subject I'd ask everyone to stick to discussing this **particular** view. Thanks! | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Redditors should boycott buying Gold until Reddit is able to utilize the money they've already collected to improve their servers +
+ Pretty self explanatory. As some had already mentioned in posts concerning the recent server issues with Reddit, the site has consistently met it's daily Gold goal yet there are still persistent issues with the user experience of the site in large part because of server problems. Until such a time as Reddit is able to correct this issue, we shouldn't continue to buy Gold as a way of demonstrating our frustration with the service. By stopping their source of revenue, I believe, we would be sending a strong message that these server issues can't continue unabated.
Thanks for everyone's thoughts! | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Shaking hands is unnecessary/unhygienic and should not be a standard social procedure. CMV +
+ Shaking hands is very unhygienic. You don't know what your coworker was doing with his hands before you got there and there could be germs all over his hand. Considering many people don't wash their hands after they go to the bathroom and the presence of sweat, shaking hands is quite disgusting. I understand that the action lets you interact with someone at a more personal level but surely this could be replaced with some other action such as a shoulder tap or air five which is cleanlier and could convey the same introduction.
I don't think think a social gesture that requires us to carry hand sanitizer should be used. 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 we should leave the poor parts of Africa to their own devices. CMV +
+ I honestly think the white man should stop playing the saviour and just leave Africa alone, let nature take its course. I realize that sounds inhumane but what are we really doing down there? We can't guarantee a decent life for most of the people we save and are basically just keeping them alive.
If there was a definite solution to end poverty in Africa I would definitely support it, but right now our efforts just don't seem efficient to me.
Please change my view
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I think that people who have racial fetishes (especially toward Asian or black people) are disturbing. CMV +
+ I've noticed that there are a lot of guys (specifically people who are NOT Asian) who have "yellow fever". Or there are white girls with "jungle fever" who will only date black men. They try to justify that this is a "preference", but this makes me uncomfortable.
The thing I'm talking about is mostly sexual/regarding sexual attraction. It's about the people who watch specifically "Asian porn" (where Asian females are depicted as weak and submissive). It seems to be taking objectification to an extreme level.
When that same person dates a person of their preferred race. It makes me question "Are they dating this person because they are kind, generous, lively, and intelligent? Or because they are Asian?"
When the person dates outside of their preferred race, it makes me sad because their partner will never fit their standard of "true, innate attractiveness".
I hope my opinion is making sense. The reason I want to change it is because I've come to resent people who have these racial preferences, even if they truly cannot help it.
Thank you so much for anyone who chooses to answer this. I'm willing to expand on this view if need be.
It was recommended that I edit this post. I am trying to focus on the objectification/sexualization part of all of this. I have no problem with dating in or outside of race. I'm talking about sexual fantasies and sexual expectations (Asian women expected to be submissive, Latinas expected to be feisty, black women expected to be "animalistic") | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Gun rights are actually a liberal concept +
+ Recently my World Empires class was discussing 18th century enlightenment philosophy, specifically John Locke and the French philosophes like Voltaire and Rousseau that advocated for inalienable rights given to each man at birth. Now, this is very important because in his time John Locke was considered a radical liberal to suggest the concept of tabula rasa, equality and the rights of the people. The French began to adopt this idea and this resulted in many political conflicts to loyalist types who could never really put down the rebellion. My professor said this was because "Once the toothpaste is out of the tube you can't put it back in". What he means by this is that once a right exists and is widely accepted it cannot realistically be removed from the people who want it. He goes onto explain several historical examples including why there is only one "negative amendment" and why it itself was amended (referring to prohibition). The major point Im trying to make is that Liberals have been historically the ones to fight for individual and civil rights. Gun rights are a right that is incapable of being put back in the tube and I don't comprehend why this is the only "right" that doesn't seem to apply to liberal politics.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
[CMV] When a fat girl calls a normal looking girl or guy 'bony' I think its b/c she has an agenda to change the perception for the good of fat people. +
+ Change my View | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I want to move very far away for college while my parents want me to stay local/in-state. +
+ There are a few things I need to touch on; first and probably most important, I come from a family of means so while tuition is a factor it isn't going to be the sole purpose of the school that I'll be attending. Second to give you perspective I live in the American Northeast and I want to go far west to a university in states such as Nevada, Arizona, and Colorado. And lastly this post isn't going to be the deciding factor of where I'm going to school, I just want to see the other side of the argument. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think that the minimum wage should not be raised and that we should change the tax system from a progressive tax system to a flat tax system. CMV +
+ From a completely economic standpoint, the minimum wage is an artificial bottom line that creates deadweight loss in a free market; if a person is paid more than their work is valued then the employer may choose not to hire more employees and may raise their prices in accordance with the raising of minimum wages to match profits. I still believe a basic minimum wage should be in place (I am making a little above minimum wage so that may contribute to it) because the U.S. market is not perfectly competitive and oligopolies can manipulate prices and wages more than a competitive company can. So obviously the argument is going to come up about where the line should be drawn but I do not believe the answer is to continuously raise it until everyone is happy because that really isn't ever going to happen. My argument against minimum wage increase is shoddy and you guys can rip it apart and tell me why I'm wrong but I firmly believe that the steep progressive tax rate in the U.S. harms our economy more than it helps. A progressive tax punishes innovation and hard work, it is a deterrent for efficiency. These are the things that are going to stimulate the economy and provide for economic growth, not collecting a few extra bucks from those who have worked for it. (Here's the argument that not everyone worked for their money which I will acknowledge and which I cannot come up with a full response but again, there are those who didn't make their own money but there are those that did). Another argument that I forsee is that the people who make a lot of money do not need all of that money. However just because they did not make all of that money does not mean that money is not entitled to them. I can't just take someone else's money because he has more than me even if I need it more. As an aside, the current tax code is over 70k words and extremely obfuscated causing people hours and hours of frustration while filling out their tax forms. A flat tax would simplify the process greatly. | 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 iOS is better than Android. CMV +
+ After discussing it with my roommate, an avid android user, I've become more curious. I've had my iPhone 4 for a bit over two years now, and I've grown to love it. I haven't found anything terribly inconvenient about it's functioning (save maybe making ringtones) and enjoy its clean and easy to view interface. I've heard from many that Android allows considerably superior flexibility, but have found little to substantiate such claims. Upon viewing friends Android phones, I've always found the display to look ugly and be rather unpleasant on the eyes. But, if there are worthwhile features I could use, I could adjust, but for now, I'm seeing iOS as the optimal OS. 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 math best way to measure intelligence, please CMV. +
+ Let me start out that this is coming from someone who is bad at math and not some smug STEM major (I start college in a few weeks and have not decided my major) . I have always received poor grades in math classes throughout school even when I got a tutor and came in before class to get extra help from the teacher. The only time I got great grades in math was when I had a teacher that I later learned graded work and tests upon completion not accuracy
I hold my view because I feel like after looking at math compared to other subjects, it seems like math is the only true subject. Science, technology and engineering (the rest of STEM) are all highly based in math and one could not succeed in either of those subjects without a high skill in math.
I look at history and other social studies and see only memorizing facts, dates and concepts. This distresses me because those courses were some of the ones that I was the best at, but feel unsure of how much use I could get out of them in the "real world"
Even the subjects I feel that are my best (English and literature) seems to show little measure of intelligence. When I look at all the English and lit classes that I have taken (all of them honors and A.P) at school I feel like the classes boil down to ones opinion of a text so there is no right or wrong answer as long as you can justify your answer. I can not think of any other subject that works this way and feel that even though I am good in this subject it seems rather useless unless you want to be a teacher, which I would only do if I had no other employment options.
When I look at mathematics I see a genuine skill, not memorization or justifying your opinion. There is only a single correct answer in math (I know there are a few exceptions but that is besides the point). At my school at least (I just graduated from a relatively small high school, graduating class of about 120) high level math classes are a strong indicator of intelligence. People at my school were shocked to learn that I was not in calculus (the highest level of math at my school) or even the level before it. My classmates often assumed me to be intelligent, due to the fact that I took several non math AP classes but I do not feel intelligent.
My low math scores on the SAT as well as my gpa made mine significantly lower than most of my friends. I feel that me not being good at math shows that I am less intelligent and that math is single best way to measure a persons intelligence.
I am very nervous about what to major in since I feel I could try to struggle through a STEM major, or study what interests me (the notion of doing what you love over what will make money has always bother me. Every non STEM major I am interested are considered to be some of the most useless majors around. I am afraid that if I major in a liberal arts subject that my job prospects will be horrendous
I feel that math is the best way to measure a persons intelligence, even if it means that I am not intelligent. Please change my view!
On a side note, does anyone have any career related stories, as I have always been afraid that because I am bad at math, my career prospects are minimal compared to those who are good at math | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: If everyone in the world acted like this man, the world would be a safer and a nicer place (link in post) +
+ http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=5283784&page=1&singlePage=true
Basically, in a tl;dr: a 61 year old man in Texas several years ago called 911 to report that his neighbor's house was being broken in to. He said to hurry because they were gonna get away, and dispatch said people were coming. Well, they weren't coming fast enough, and when the robbers were leaving, the man said that he had a shotgun and was going to stop them.
He went outside, yelled at the men to stop, and when they ran, he shot them both dead, protecting his neighbor's property. He was never prosecuted.
I believe that if everyone in the world watched out for their neighbor's/fellow citizens, and everyone *knew* that everyone was watching out for each other, people would be more hesitant to commit a crime against someone else. As a Criminal Justice student, this story is one of my favorites, and I believe that he did the right thing. You can attempt to change my view on either the fact that he did the right thing or on my title point.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe colonizing other planets and/or moons is inevitable for the survival of our species, and we should greatly focus on funding this. CMV +
+ **Currently, every single human being lives either on, or in orbit of, the planet Earth**. This means that a single global disaster large enough could wipe out our entire species.
Now I'm not saying that this is going to happen anywhere in the following 1000 years or indeed anytime soon, but considering the fact that the planet has already seen five mass-extinction events, it is very likely (and I would like to say inevitable) that something along these lines is going to happen again someday or another.
The odds of another asteroid like the one from the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction might be quite low on the short term, but high in the long run. And we should remember that it carries a risk so incredibly high (i.e. the extinction of the entirety of our species) that we should, at the very least, *start* research on making sure not all of ours eggs are in one basket.
And of course, that's not the only danger: extreme climate changes and thermonuclear wars are just two examples of things that could completely fuck each and every one of us over.
It doesn't matter if it happens tomorrow or in a hundred thousand years (not to mention the lack of resources in 100k years): the chances of, *eventually*, something happening to the planet that will cause another mass extinction event are pretty much 1.
Colonizing other planets would spread this risk, and quite probably not just to two planets. Because if we have the technology to live independently on other planets, why stop at two? But even if we stopped at just two as a maximum amount of planets, the odds of survival increase tremendously. After all, mass extinction events aren't exactly so common that they would occur on both planets at once.
I believe the reason for an organism to exist, is to help ensure the survival of its species, and that by not researching heavily into something that will, quite probably, save the entirety of the species, we are neglecting the sole reason of our collective existences.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Public healthcare should be thought of similarly to public education +
+ Having an educated citizenship is important, so we have public schools. Having a healthy citizenship is also important, so we should have public healthcare.
What public healthcare should be is a topic for another day; right now, I'm just arguing that it's comparable to public education and so should be accepted similarly.
Public education gives us a competent voter base, competitive workforce, and aids economic mobility. Public heathcare is important for most of the same reasons. Public healthcare doesn't have a direct connection to the voting booth, like education, but it does have direct connections to the economy, with healthy people being more able to work, with people not needing employer subsidized insurance being more able to start new businesses, and people paying less for healthcare having more money to spend on other things.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Five-star-ism is converting all ratings to binaries and is making the world worse. +
+ I made this comment on /r/flipping but I want to discuss it further, because it's something that I genuinely think is a social problem, however I'd like to be reassured otherwise.
eBay are cancelling the accounts of sellers who get more than around 8% of less than five star ratings. By doing this, eBay are trying to force sellers to satisfy 100% of buyers. Because there is some irreducible percentage of buyers who are unreasonable, this is never going to actually work. Getting an unreasonable buyer is random, and accordingly there will be sellers who get pushed out due to nothing more than the bad luck of getting several unreasonable buyers in a row. No matter how good you are, your eBay account now has a half-life.
This is a consequence of an American cultural malaise, "five-star-ism", the drive towards unreasonable standards of perfection, and the perfect is the enemy of the good. A pass is a good mark. Three star service is actually good service. Three stars means that it wasn't noticably great or noticably terrible; you just got exactly what you wanted. Every transaction that you did today, that you didn't even notice, what you got there was three star service. You deserve three star service. What makes better service better, is that you didn't actually deserve it.
In a sane world, if you get better than acceptable service, that's four stars. If you get the best service you've ever seen, that's five. If you were disappointed in some way which is clearly attributable to the service provider, but you still got more-or-less what you wanted, that's two stars. If they were completely incompetent and absolutely failed you, that's one star. (Or zero, if they intentionally angered you.)
However, those who decide these things in eBay, Uber, Walmart, Blizzard, various American call centres, etc etc have all somehow come to the bizarre decision that "acceptable" should mean five stars, and anything less than five stars, is unacceptable. I took an Uber ride the other day. I rated the guy five stars, for no other reason than that I knew that if I did not, he would be punished. He had done nothing wrong. He did exactly what I expected of him. No more, no less. He deserved three stars. I wanted to be able to give him that rating without any concern for his continued employment (well, his contract).
This state of affairs completely grinds my gears. It destroys the very purpose of having rating systems at all. It converts the rating system back to a binary, "bad/good", with no meaningful distinction between those ratings. Worse, it makes no actual provision for recognition of genuinely good service. If you rate any seller who sent the thing out in acceptable condition within acceptable time as "five star" - how do you fairly rate the one who sent it out quicker than you expected, better packed, and the item in better condition than you were told? How do you rate the Uber driver who showed up early, got you to your destination quickly, and had a great conversation with you?
Am I wrong? Have I missed something here?
| 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 being "born" gay is complete scientific bologna CMV +
+ Before any one has a cow, know that i support Gays, Lesbians, Transgender, Bisexual, curious, and all the like, they are all human beings just like I am and you are too.
But for a gay person to say they are born that way just doens't make sense to me, i mean yes, you can be born with blonde hair, or be born black that is confirmed to be genetic, And i'm aware of certain hormone imbalances in pregenency after a woman has had several children, Yet still, it is in our genetic code to see the oposite sex as attractive, and then fuck the opposite sex to make children. All religious hoopla aside, that is the fundamentals of sex. Now with that said, WHY on earth would our gene code pass down something that could potentially lower our chance of reproducing?
I have a good grasp on surrvival of the fittest and evolution and basically the good traits are reinforced because those traits lead to survival and or offspring which lead to a new generation of evolution. Homosexuality (if it is a genetic trait) would have had to, or be in the process of going extinct by now if it were a real genetic trait because, being homosexual is almost equivalent of being sterile, unless you revert from homosexuality and have sex with a woman, then there is no way to pass down that "homosexual gene".
Also, even if there is a confirmed gene that determines ones sexuality, then why would the gay community want to flaunt it, that basically confirms them to be a group with a lineage, kind of like most white people can trace back to Europe some how. Wouldn't LGBT community want to fit in with the world and be functioning members of it? or do they want to declare that they are a new race of humans?
Once again, i mean to offend no one, i've just heard the saying " I was Born this way " quite a few times and from an evolutionary stand point it doesn't make much sense to me. If there is some research or discussions that i might have missed though the few times i've researched this please point it out.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The only true way to break the cycle of poverty and crime in the black community is to equally fund all public schools +
+ The issue of blacks being "disproportionately affected" by police violence is simple.
Black people have only have civil rights for 50 years or so.
Without civil rights it's kind of hard to get a decent job, or get a quality education.
This leads to generational poverty.
Many white people have at least someone in their family who could bail them out in a financial pinch. Many black people do not have that. Imagine if everyone in your immediate family that you could reach out to for help was just as poor as you. While this is a reality for whites as well, it is a harsh reality for a larger number of blacks.
When you have generational poverty, it's a lot harder to break out of poverty yourself, when you have no positive influences and noone to support you while you go to school, or teach you etc.
When you are in poverty, you tend to be more desperate and commit more crimes.
When you commit more crimes, you tend to interact with the police more.
The more desperate you are, the more violent crimes you commit, and the more lethal the response from police.
It is true, black people do commit a disproportionate number of crimes compared to white people, but they also are disproportionately poorer, which as I stated leads to desperation.
(NOTE: There are more white criminals than black criminals, but only because black people are a minority. Black people are *proportionately* charged with crimes more than white people)
Am I excusing the behavior of criminals? No, I am simply cosigning those that trumpet the "black crime statistics" as it is indeed a societal problem, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the color of their skin or genetics, and everything to do with cause and effect over the last 150 years.
Am I saying we should feel white guilt? Fuck no, I sure as hell don't. Even the most persecuted members of this country have it far better than the starving people in other countries. It is what it is.
The only way out of this mess, in my opinion, is to fund all schools equally. Give an equal share of tax dollars to the rich schools as well as the inner city ones. Then our next generation might have a chance at producing less criminals (of any race).
Why does Beverly Hills High need a day spa, when Compton High can't afford working computers?
I'm not advocating a re-distribution of wealth, but when it comes to government provided services, they should all be provided equally, especially something as crucial as this.
I am absolutely against giving blanket handouts to poor people. I am not a fan of public assistance.
Technically though, we are all on the public assistance dole unless you send your kids to private school. If you want to break the cycle of poverty, provide kids of all socioeconomic classes a fair chance.
Giving special college grants to people of a specific, disadvantaged race or class is worthless, because at that point they already received an inferior education from their crappy public school, and by letting them into your college with a lower score you are lowering the standard for everyone.
Invest all the NAACP/affirmative action college grant BS into public schools instead so they can get into college on their own merit.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I am addicted to video games (such as Dota2, League of Legends, and Heroes of Newerth), and I don't think it's a waste of my time. CMV +
+ For more information on these types of games, please see:
[MOBA definition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplayer_online_battle_arena)
[Dota2](http://www.valvesoftware.com/games/dota2.html)
I've been captured by the intense enjoyability of playing video games for over 6 years. I've drained thousands by thousands of hours through the years on such different games. These games have huge replay value and I find true enjoyment when I'm playing them. The availability of so many different heroes and champions to play never makes these types of games boring, and I feel casually playing them is comfortable. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |