input
stringlengths 114
23.1k
| output
stringclasses 2
values | instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|
I believe that everything (except emergency services) should be shut down on one day a week. CMV +
+ It used to be that every business had to be shut down on Sundays. It became a mandatory day of rest for the public. Only emergency services were available. Originally this was because of church, but not everyone used it for that.
I think that would be extremely helpful in these times where everyone is running around like a chicken with their head chopped off, and would allow for some quality family time, or time with friends. Stress/work free day guaranteed. It doesn't matter to me whether this is Saturday or Sunday, but I think the day off a week really let people focus on other important things. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:Criminal record should have no weight on a persons future and should be disclosed. +
+ Employers, colleges, community positions - these things all require that applicants provide a fully-disclosed criminal record (unless the crime was committed as a minor) if one exists. The stigma of having a criminal record can cost an individual any of these opportunities when he/she is fully capable of that position. The stigma of being a criminal is the issue here. Once someone is labeled a criminal, it consumes his/her identity. I believe more weight should be placed on psychological evaluations of a persons **current** state and an overall evaluation of an individuals **present** character. This discretion should override an individuals **past** criminal record.
The stigma that follows a criminal is fear of criminals and the belief that he/she is no good for society. We are threatened by this individual because he/she has committed a crime. However, this crime can be entirely non-threatening in the present. A man who sold his friends marijuana when he was 19 is not a threat to society. I believe that psychological evaluations and the evaluation of an individuals character can determine whether that individual is currently a threat or not. Take for instance, [Gina Grant](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gina_Grant_college_admissions_controversy) who was denied admission to Harvard for killing her alcoholic, abusive mother when she was 14. Since then she served 6 months in a juvenile facility, got excellent grades, served in the community, joined clubs, and tutored children. She was initially accepted to Harvard, but they revoked her admission when they uncovered her past. A psychological evaluation would show that she is a good person and her only motive to murder was self-defense against her abusive mother. Furthermore, this was years ago. It's not as if she's a serial killer who is fascinated with murder and may strike against anyone at anytime. They denied her the seat because of her criminal record *although* she was not currently a threat. Hypothetically, they could have instead given that seat to a man with no criminal record at all. However, he is (hypothetically) obsessed with stalking his ex-girlfriend, is planning to murder her, and has completely lost touch with society. Who is the bigger threat and who deserves the seat more?
Finally, I think it's unfair to label people as criminals once they have served their punishment. There's no reason something like a DUI that happened 20 years ago should haunt someone for the rest of his/her life after serving the punishment. According to the labeling theory, by removing individuals functionality in society and labeling them a criminal, they are more likely to re-enter the criminal system. Hence, the [66% recidivism](http://www.bjs.gov/content/reentry/recidivism.cfm) rate in the United States. I think this entire process is unproductive; 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 would like to get a cat, but my husband does not. Please either CMV or change his! +
+ My husband and I have entered an impasse. I'd really like to add a cat to our household, but he isn't a fan of them. He doesn't dislike cats, but just isn't interested in having one.
We're a consensus couple, and don't guilt trip, etc. and I'd never "surprise" him with one. I love cats, grew up with them, and even though we've got a young kid and a couple small dogs, I think a cat would be a blast to add to our home. Problem is, now that I've got my mind to it I'm having a hard time letting the hope go!
I've already tried to persuade him by sending him every cat .gif I could find on the Internet. That was a fun couple hours. I thought that would do the trick, but no dice.
Please give me some fodder (humorous or legit) to change his mind... Or change my mind about why I should want one, so I can feel better about his stance!
I also wanted to note that rescue/adoption is the only option I'd consider, and would never accept any animal I didn't plan to care for its entire life. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The "Screen Images Simulated" on Cell Phone Commercials are False Advertising +
+ I think we all have seen a situation where this occurs, you are watching a commercial for a new cell phone, or piece of technology and when the people look at the screen to capture/playback image or video it looks crystal clear in the best possible way. Especially photos.
An example is the very phone I use, the Galaxy Note 4:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpRbV86lYx0
Here is another with the LG G3:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tF4C_bwWXfc
Could someone please educate me on why this is not frowned upon more often? I feel as a consumer we are not being told the whole story when something is "simulated."
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe atheism is illogical, CMV. +
+ I personally hold a belief that atheism as a stance on religion is actually illogical. Why do I believe this?
Well the majority of the world is religious. Atheism in fact only occurs rarely in "developed" countries under people who are reasonably well off.
Why is this? Well some people (especially atheists) say that this is due to the fact that religion is essentially a form of control by the government. Be it that it is used to instil a set of values into children that they have to live by, or as something used to unite people by dividing them.
There are flaws with this opinion though. Largely it is due to the abundance of religion in the developing world. Atheism is extremely rare outside of the "developed" world.
This comes to my theory that atheism is something that only exists under people that no longer have to pray about anything. Historically all accounts of atheists are from civilisations who were advanced for their time. Specifically they come from more well off members of said civilisations. They come from people who do not have to worry about food, disease or crime. They come from people who have all their needs met and can't imagine their needs not being met.
Another interesting thing about atheists is how they view governments and large corporations. Their views that religion is made up by governments of a form of control is an example of this. They elevate governments and large corporations to nearly godlike status, that they have way more power than they actually have. This in my opinion is simply a result of the human psyche that wants to believe something is in control of things outside of your control.
Now since someone will inevitably ask my stance on religion, here it is. I've taken upon referring to myself only as a theist. I was raised as a Christian, but as I got older I recoiled away from that. The largest reason was the fact that Christianity, Judaism and Islam are 3 different religions who all worship the same god and work by the same rules, I came to the conclusion that all religions are the same. The differences between all religions are just due to different interpretations by many different cultures over the course of history.
Also, please don't turn this into an atheist circlejerk. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I don't think it's necessary to tip I'd the service didn't exceed the job description.. CMV. +
+ I'm not against tipping, but it's gotten out of hand and expected by almost everyone. I'm a makeup artist, and sometimes I get tips, but it's not something I have ever suggested or expected. I'm hired to do a job at a certain rate, and to rely only on tips would be ridiculous.
The times I don't feel like I need to tip are nail salons, Starbucks/coffee shop, valet parking and take out food.
If I feel the job was done well and exceeded the job description, I will tip. If it was just what I expected, then I pay for my service I asked for and leave.
I don't feel bad necessarily, but I know that I have a different view than a lot of people. I've worked retail, coffee shops, and food service and still feel this way. 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 is no need to worry about the surveillance state. +
+ This was initially my comment in [this](http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/29rl7b/today_i_learned_my_ip_address_is_being_tracked_by/) thread concerning [this](http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R20130805) article.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R20130805
* **TL;DR - Be a little patient, the world's not gonna end, people will INEVITABLY stand up to this practice of destroying our privacy and invading our lives. It's only a matter of time. Sorry for the text wall.**
Well, let me add a caveat to my original statement. What I was trying to say was that it would be a much bigger deal if they were using this on a large scale to effectively entrap an average citizen.
Just from the information in this article, it appears that they are using this for pretty serious crimes like very large smuggling operations of guns and drugs. And, while I personally still don't find this to be entirely kosher, its also not a surprise. If they were, for example, using this to profile an average person like you or me and then trying to entice us to commit crimes that we wouldn't normally commit I would have a much bigger problem with it. That would be entrapment. But, here, we're talking about people who are KNOWN to be committing serious and sometimes violent crimes on a regular basis and they're using the information to help catch them in the act.
I tend to agree with this sentiment and I am fully aware that this is the start of a very slippery slope which could EASILY turn towards using it against people who haven't actually committed a crime yet (in a sort of Minority Report, pre-cognitive way). And, even more conspiratorial, I can imagine this becoming a tool in societal engineering in the sense that it could be used to stop political movements before they start. But, I am not convinced that this is actually happening... YET.
So, back to the original post concerning why people don't already massively protest this... it's because this is a very grey area that many people wouldn't have a problem with even if they knew for a fact that it was happening. As I said in another comment, this system still requires them to find traditionally admissible evidence with a warrant, they still have to do the grunt work after this guides them to the honey jar.
I see some possible futures when it comes to the whole topic of secret surveillance in general.
1. they get greedy, use this on lesser and lesser crimes and it eventually becomes so widely known that people become scared that its not 'just' drug dealers and gun runners anymore. This sparks more widespread outcries and activism and the public finally denounces it forcing it's power to be restricted or revoked.
2. Law enforcement attempts to make this sort of evidence admissible in court publicly, a national debate ensues, and again the power of warrantless information is legally neutered due to public pressure.
Either of these paths could end in two ways, peacefully or violently (as in not-so peaceful protests) BUT, I simply do not believe that the citizens of the United States or any other country will somehow continue to allow this to progress out of complacency or some crap like that. Take the civil rights movement, for example. The things that instigated the massive protests to end racial segregation were not small events, they were events that affected thousands of black people. People could SEE everyday that there were two bathrooms for blacks and whites, that they weren't allowed to get an education, that they were physically beaten and killed by police and even civilians, and that they were loudly and unsympathetically abused verbally all occurring over the course of years and years. It wasn't like one day everyone just said, 'ok enough, today we're gonna end racism'... it was a slow buildup of events and the voicing of opinions by MLK and hundreds of other social leaders that created an eloquent, logical, AND emotional foundation which opposed the discrimination that was occurring. They provided the guidance of why it was wrong, why the general public was REQUIRED to force a change, and gave them the belief that they COULD change it.
Now, look at the surveillance issue. There has really only been one major event that was on par with something like a mass hanging or seeing someone beat to death and dragged behind a truck and that was the revelation of all the documents from Wikileaks/Snowden. That was the point at which the public at large became initially AWARE at all that this was even occurring while, previously, it would have sounded like every other conspiracy theory. At that point we had ground to stand on because we had hard evidence of this illegal and morally objectionable practice. Sure, it's been going on for a long time and many people have KNOWN that... but there was really no evidence to back it up previously. No one had been illegally detained (referring to Manning), no one had been forced to flee the country for being a whistle-blower (Julian Assange/Ed Snowden). Now, these things have been harped on by media outlets for YEARS. People have been forced now to put thought into it and we are starting to build a community of LEADERS who serve to maintain awareness and build confidence that something can be done about it.
I know that this is long winded but I think it's important to contextualize what is going on by comparing it to previous issues that are somewhat similar.
Three MAJOR societal leaders who were respected and outspoken were ASSASSINATED and this was after about 15 years of the unrest building and building. Unfortunately, this is what will most likely have to happen (or something on this scale) before real change occurs. I would love if massive political upheaval were quicker and easier to effect, but... its just not how it works.
It WILL happen eventually and many terrible things will likely be perpetrated when it comes to the surveillance state but we are really at the whim of inciting incidents to help motivate the citizenry. Without something to point at and a powerful, relatable leader like JFK or MLK to push the issue into the collective consciousness of the people, we will not see the major changes we are hoping for.
Assange, Snowden and Manning started this thing but they, with all due respect, are not in a position to do what needs to be done beyond what they've already accomplished. They can't tour the country giving powerful speeches, they are not generally viewed as charismatic people, and they aren't even in the country anyway. **Occupy wall street failed because they didn't have strong leaders going for them.** JFK was the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, MLK was a reverend and a speaker on par with the very best. Both revered members of society in the eyes of the general public. I can't think of a single person who fits that bill in the present day. Obama is clearly not that person, in fact, no politicians at all could hope to fill those shoes. I don't know who COULD live up to that challenge but it will happen. Something reprehensible will inevitably occur perpetrated by the NSA/Law Enforcement and it will be the tipping point, leaders will emerge naturally and organically. More and more ordinary people will start to be NOTICEABLY affected by this surveillance and the wave will break as it always has and always will. I am not worried at all that this apocalyptic, Orwellian nightmare will ever even come to pass. If it does, it will be quite short lived and met with the wrath of millions of people who simply won't accept it.
If you read all that then I TRULY appreciate it, I am very passionate about this topic and I only want to serve to provide a bit of confidence to people who are afraid that this will simply become the norm and we'll all just have to grin and bear it. I strongly believe that that will not be the case.
Thanks to those of you who commented
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe that people born in other countries should be allowed to run for President in the United States, as long as they have been an American Citizen for a long period of time. CMV +
+ I am unsure why we discriminate towards people who were not born in America when considering who can run for President. I believe that if a person has lived in America for a decent amount of time (the current standard is 14 years) and is a United States citizen, there is no reason why we should bar people from the ability to eventually become president. I think the current rules make us slightly less likely of getting the best president possible, as well as it being discriminatory of foreigners.
A reason that people might object to this is that they are afraid of somebody who does not have the country's best interest at heart. I think as a population we should try to judge that for ourselves,though.
And just as an example, take Tammy Duckworth (recently featured on reddit for ripping into a IRS contracter; this is actually what primed me to think of this); she was born in Thailand and as such is unable to run for President, and yet has given much for the country of the United States.
CMV. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: It should not be expected that 'moderate muslims' should speak out against ISIS +
+ I want to set opinions about ISIS, muslims and islam in general aside, and think more about the expectation that the 'moderate' muslim (which is usually a muslim living in a western country, living in an islamic lifestyle, generally without harming anybody) that they should be heard saying "ISIS sucks".
I believe this is more like a "you support it until proven otherwise", which I think is a very awful attitude in general, but especially because ISIS supporters are not a majority, or even nearly a majority.
I think we should see it the exact other way around. We should assume 'moderates' don't support it, are neutral, or they simply don't care, unless they praise ISIS.
Regardless, if a muslim does decide to speak out against ISIS, that's good as it puts ISIS in a negative light. My opinion is just that it should not be expected from anybody and that he should be seen as 'neutral/doesn't care' until shown otherwise.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe prostitution is both a societally valuable service as well as a morally virtuous choice, and I have never found a compelling reason for why it should be criminalized. CMV. +
+ I believe giving sexually disenfranchised individuals the opportunity to share your sexual intimacy is a morally upstanding choice.
Further, I believe that there are plenty of people who are not viscerally averse to the notion of monetizing tickets to their sexuality, and that it is perfectly possible to derive meaningful fulfillment from offering such a service, without feeling manipulated or coerced into the profession.
Personally, full disclosure, I am a 25 year old virgin with severe cystic acne. For all intents and purposes I am out of the sexual market. I ask this question, because for close to the past decade or so I've been given the blunt end of the stick in regards to sexuality, my own skin has ensured that I've never as much as held the hand of someone of the opposite sex. I've experienced first hand the psychological trauma of indefinite unrequited desire for intimacy/romance/sex, and I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.
If at some point I decide to take a trip to a state where prostitution is legal, provided that the conditions and circumstances regarding the transaction were well regulated, why would that be an action that you feel justified in criminalizing?
As long as the sex worker has every ability to consent and make an informed and controlled decision regarding their own body, I have a very hard time finding a passable argument against the practice. | 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 in allegations of rape, it's not wrong to question the testimony of the accuser +
+ I feel that when a rape accusation is brought up, many people have the tendency to, by default, side with the individual who is making the accusation.
I don't believe that there are many other instances in which the testimony of the person making the accusation is given as much weight and trusted by default. In most other cases, when the situation becomes a he-said she-said argument, one side would need to provide some sort of proof in order to have the law side with them.
I understand that this is a complex issue, and that the incidence and frequency of rape is a cause for concern. I understand that in many ways, the current system is incapable of dealing appropriately with rape, as a majority of rapes are not reported and many rapists get away scot free.
However, that does not at all mean that it's okay for an allegation alone to carry any more weight than usual. Ultimately, the story one tells is just a story, and without verification from other sources, there's no way to gauge its accuracy. Everybody lies, and just because an anecdote is convincingly given and you believe someone's account of a situation does not mean that their testimony is accurate. Anecdotal evidence in any other field is given little to no weight, and it shouldn't in cases of rape as well.
Yes, the system sucks. But the solution isn't to allow indiscriminate accusation to hold weight- it's to figure out some way by which stronger evidence can be obtained to discern the actual course of events. Without more evidence, it's unreasonable to expect prosecution to occur differently.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Suicide is a cowardly and selfish decision. +
+ First, I'll just say I mean no disrespect to those who have lost someone to suicide. I also have experienced the loss of someone close to me that committed suicide. And secondly, I'm not counting euthanasia or anything of that nature.
I don't mean that people who did decide to kill themselves are cowards or selfish, just the action itself is cowardly and selfish by it's definition.
A selfish action is something a person does out of their own self interest without taking into account or simply not caring about the effect it will have on other people, which is exactly what suicide is. As for cowardly, suicide is an easy way out. It may be that a person is stressed, depressed, physically or mentally in pain, or something else with no end in sight. Instead of dealing with these problems, be it seek help, get medicated, find another way to resolve the situation or just simply put up with the pain suicide is the cowardly solution. Nothing changes or is fixed, nothing is resolved and there is no closure. It's simply an individual refusing to deal with the situation.
Again I'll say that I don't believe people who commit suicide are bad people, or even cowards/selfish. Just today I heard the story of a middle aged father killing himself because he was abused as a child which later came back to him. I feel no anger or disrespect to this person, I sympathise with his pain and torment. But I think what he did to his children wasn't right, and there are other options he could have taken that were preferable.
| 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 ideas that are dangerous to human civilization (like inaction on climate change) have no place in a political decision-making context and should be outside the realm of free speech. +
+ I am a young person (<30 years) who has been studying the science of climate change for over a decade and is convinced that there is a substantial >30% chance of civilization collapsing within my lifetime due to political inaction regarding climate change. This fear hangs over everything from my retirement planning to my future decisions regarding marriage and parenting and I am convinced that climate "skeptics" who obstruct action are a clear and present threat to my life and well-being. I believe that politicians who refuse to act are endangering my life and those of others and that those people should not be allowed to have any influence in policymaking. I believe that allowing these sorts of civilization-endangering opinions to not only be heard but to win in Congress/the European Parliament is a failing of democracy and that free speech should not cover dangerous opinions.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think F2P is a bad business model for gaming CMV +
+ Free to play games are gaining popularity in the gaming world and I don't think that this is a good thing. Game companies basically have 2 options when it comes to making revenue from F2P games. The first option is to make their game "pay-to-win" which takes the skill out of gaming and unfairly creates advantages for those who can afford more. The second option is using microtransactions for cosmetic items like hats. The problem with this is that gamers are generally a pretty cheap bunch and unless the game is unreasonably popular like TF2, the company is not going to make enough money to turn a profit off of purely cosmetic microtransactions, CMV.
Hypothetically if there was a F2P model funded entirely by in-game ads, that may not be a bad option, but that doesn't seem to be done as of yet. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think it's healthy for employees to share their salaries with each other, and companies should encourage transparency in pay. CMV +
+ I think a lot of the jealousy, backstabbing, and suspicion that arises from employees stems from the fact that they often try to outdo each other and look better to their boss.
If they were realistic about their value and know about the people around them's values, they may be more likely to improve and better their skills & knowledge. Being transparent with salaries also motivates people who are getting paid more to make sure they keep proving their worth and to set a good example
When a corporate culture revolves around secrecy regarding salaries, employees are apt to become lazy and unmotivated because they can't gauge themselves regarding their coworkers. Why set a good example and why try harder when you don't know how much you COULD be getting paid (besides standard market value figures, which often vary by industry or location)?
Further, if salaries were transparent, there is more social pressure to help everyone move up in pay instead of just acting for yourself, which may help improve teamwork/camaraderie and lift salaries up wholesomely. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Late-term abortions that occur after 20 weeks are murder. +
+ I can't wrap my head around the argument that women should have the right to abort a fetus that is 20+ weeks old. It seems to me that this is the exact situation we were warned about when it comes to reproductive rights.
Some questions I have:
-How is it not murder? Some children are born prematurely as early as 20 weeks, and live full, healthy lives. It seems to me that this is not just preventing a pregnancy, or even aborting a drastically underdeveloped zygote/fetus, whatever the correct terminology might be, but that you're actually ending a child's life
-If a woman carries a child this late into a pregnancy, why should she have the right to abort said pregnancy, when she had the opportunity to end it in advance of 20 weeks?
These are not the only questions I have, so please feel free to elaborate on all details you feel like I should know. Thanks! | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe incestuous, bestial, and polygamous marriage should be legalized as well, if gay marriage is. CMV. +
+ * **Incestuous:** Yes, we know, "downs babies" and whatnot, but what about homosexual incestuous marriage where there are no chances of creating a child? Also, what if one or both of the parties opts for sterilization to ensure that no children are created? If the child isn't "bred" to be the parent's spouse, or if the marriage is between siblings who have no possibility of "training" each other, what is the argument?
* **Bestial:** Animals are capable of love, and humans can give and receive sexual pleasure from them. Lots of domestic pets (dogs in particular) are capable of choosing whom they love and hate, and make no effort to hide it, and will willingly have sex with humans they like. Humans are certainly capable of loving animals; you see people "kissing" dogs all the time. There's only a short "step" to sexual love, and I'm fully convinced that it happens more often than most people would believe, but hidden due to the stigma (which was the same issue gay people were having before).
* **Polygamous:** This been proven to work numerous times, despite the fact that some people who participate in it are abusive (this is usually due to cults, not polygamy itself). While polygamy admittedly isn't for everyone, neither is many other relationships, including homosexual ones. What is the reason men and women can't have multiple spouses?
| 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 democracy in the way we know it inevitably leads to socialism, CMV. +
+ I had trouble explaining why the public spending ratio almost consistantly rises in every democraticly governed country or economy. After thinking about it, it came to my mind that probably this is due to the people's demand to redistribute the income/having government paid jobs/sectors of the economy. In a way, I think this could be a result of the principle of a democracy. By definition, the amount of poorer people is much higher as the amount of rich people, as the groups are referred to as bottom/top 20% of National Income. Naturally, the bottom 20% (or more this is just an example) can easily abuse their power in elections to basically "steal" money from the top 20% through the government and completely legally. This should then happen in every democracy with a relatively free market. So in theory, this potential for the bottom 20% to live on the top 20% expense (in the short run ofc) is always there and therefore will eventually lead to socialism. I hope, it is not like this, as I think democracy is indeed a much better way for a state to be governed than through a dictatorship/monarchy etc... pls CMV! | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: (America) If money is speech, not paying taxes is First Amendment protected political protest +
+ As we all know, in 2010, the US Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United that corporations are people and the money is speech. This opened the door for ridiculous amounts of money to be spent on political endorsements.
I ask now, why can't we apply the same logic in withholding tax money from the IRS? It's a federal offense to evade taxes, yes, but if you have real reservations about funding war, welfare, corporate welfare, etc, would it not be the most effective form of protest to simply not give money to a government that has not responded to any other form of protest thus far? Further, is there any reason that the protection afforded to political spending in elections couldn't be extended to withholding tax money from the government as political protest? | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:Mass Surveillance has little to no benefits +
+ With the Snowden revelations, millions of people around the world turned in outrage to protest the American government. Unlawful spying on Americans and other nations not only leads to the breakdown of diplomatic relations (Germany/Merkel phone tapping), but can also serve as a stepping stone to a totalitarian state. The NSA has already been caught lying about it’s effectiveness. (See http://www.allgov.com/news/controversies/nsa-director-alexander-admits-he-lied-about-phone-surveillance-stopping-54-terror-plots-131007?news=851326)
Sure the FREEDOM Act makes claims to fix the shortcomings of the PATRIOT Act, but until it’s proven it’s effectiveness in the real world, it’s still an empty claim, similar to the ones the PATRIOT Act made. Terrorists attacks are rare, and not worth the sacrifice of privacy, at this magnitude. Even Senator Leahy states that “Collection of phone records is not making America safer.”
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think people who have 4 or more children are somewhat narcissistic. CMV +
+ I say "somewhat" narcissistic, because I'm sure a lot of these parents are caring, giving, hard-working, willing to sacrifice, etc.
But I guess my thing is what else could be a motivating factor towards having a lot of children?
I mean, think about it! Let's look into the decision of having *one* child. You and your partner believe you're such GREAT people, that the world will BENEFIT from you having a child (I have one myself). Now multiply this by 4,5,6, etc... NOW you're of the belief that the world's gonna be awesome with 4,5,6 or more of YOU running around. I can understand 2 or 3, because Johnny/Julie may want others to play with.
I don't need to be convinced that people with lots of kids AREN'T narcissistic. I need to be convinced that these people don't have *one ounce* of narcissism in them. Do people have a large amount of kids for purely altruistic purposes? | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The harassment issues with SDCC and other large cons cannot be solved without some addendum to dress codes. +
+ I've been part of the con world for almost a decade and my experience has lead me to believe that harassment at conventions is a big issue that's being handled poorly by even the best cons.
1. The nerd community has spent the last decade screaming that clothes have nothing to do with the incidents, and every year, I see sexier and more provocative costumes. And I see more assaults, claims of assaults and more people coming forward to say something untoward happened to them.
2. I see 'sexy' costumes on increasingly younger people, and increasingly large numbers of younger people wearing sexed-up costumes. It used to be that I'd see A group of 4-5 people aged 12-15 in wispy bits of nothing, and a slightly larger group of people aged 15-18 in wispy bits of nothing. Now, I feel like I see a good 50-60 people underaged and under-dressed (at a con of about 2k).
3. I feel like despite saying that cons are about the nerd community or the fan community 'sexy' and 'steamy' are a big part of their advertising/marketing and their public face. If you look for pictures of comic-con online right now, the bulk of them will be of women in revealing costumes.
4. Sci-Fi/Fantasy events are no longer particularly visually different from alternative lifestyle events, despite theoretically having little to do with that. Several cons (Norwescon in particular) have banked on that during lean years.
Reliably, cons have been implementing tough anti-harassment policies. But I don't think that solves anything. If the con looks, smells, walks, talks and acts like a sexual festival, I'm afraid that is simply what it is going to be taken for. If cons are in the business of using sex to sell themselves, it is going to attract people that come for that, and that alone.
No big con, to the best of my knowledge, seems to have taken a hard-nosed approach to costumes being pg-13. The couple of small cons that do have this rule don't report harassment issues (I admit, that might be because it's handled in house or they are simply too small to be of statistical value.)
I just don't see how this can be solved by an anti-harassment policy alone.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe every student in a class should get the same final grade as the student with the LOWEST final grade in the class. CMV +
+ For society to really advance I believe that we need to force each other to be accountable for our peers. I believe that the current vertical model for school really limits the growth of our species and we would benefit from a system where every student in a class got the same grade as the lowest graded student in the class.
This would encourage the smart children to interact with the slower children and also create an atmosphere where we value a group as opposed to an individual. Smart kids would still have value but it would be in a way that benefits society as a whole more.
1-How would smart kids get credit? How would smart kids separate themselves?
The whole point is that society would be better if there was no need for smart kids to get credit, and they focused on educating their peers instead.
2-Some kids are lazy and would bring the whole class down.
Yes, I admit that some kids will be lazy, but some kids are lazy in our current system. In the new system those lazy kids and their parents would have more incentive to put in effort at school. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe we live in a predetermined universe, therefore we don't have free will. CMV. +
+ The concept of predeterminism is often argued by invoking causal determinism, implying that there is an unbroken chain of prior occurrences stretching back to the origin of the universe. In the case of predeterminism, this chain of events has been pre-established, and human actions cannot interfere with the outcomes of this pre-established chain.
I view predeterminism as a philosophy that all events of history, past, present and future, have been already decided, including human actions. I don't really believe this predetermined universe was designed/planned by a God or spiritual entity. I think that just following the cause and effect chain and events of the universe, it was inevitable that we all end up here in our exact state. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The college football industry is many times worse than the porn industry. +
+ I've arrived to this conclusion as a result of the experiences and environment of having lived in two extremely contrasting locations: Las Vegas, NV(Sin City), and Atlanta, GA(Right in the middle of the bible belt, also a place where people are extremely passionate about college football). After having engaged in numerous debates with people on this issue, I've heard countless reasons why people think porn is wrong or immoral. I will just go over three main ones and explain why college football is much worse.
1) Porn is wrong because it monetizes someone's body in a way that compromises their health and integrity.
The hypocrisy in this statement is astounding, coming from anyone who is involved in college football. So having sex in front of a camera jeopardizes someone's health and integrity. But having 250lb men who can run like track stars repeatedly bashing into each others' heads as hard as they can doesn't?
2) Porn sets an unrealistic expectations of body image for young girls.
What is more of an unreasonable expectation? For a girl to be maybe slightly more attractive than average(with all the fetishes in porn these days, there is an ever broadening acceptance of body types). Or for a boy to be 6'4", 250lbs, 5% body fat, able to bench 400 lbs, and run a 4.4 40?
3) Porn is wrong because people are selling their bodies.
On a certain level, isn't everyone selling their body? Even the most basic and mundane of office jobs require you to use your fingers to type. I imagine a lot of folks will not want to get into a debate on that deep of a subjective topic though, so I will just stick to comparing it to college football. AT LEAST they're actually selling their body and getting compensated for it. Better than constantly engaging in brutal physical contact, risking serious injury and even death in some cases; not even receiving a dime. All this while the schools and owners of the NCAA make millions upon millions as a result of your hard labor and suffering. The free education argument doesn't fly either. Everyone knows that barely half of students who went to college focused on academics are able to find a job upon graduation. Let alone "student-athletes", who everyone knows takes filler classes in pointless majors; has other students on campus do their homework so they may remain academically eligible.
CMV
#1) STDs are rampant in the porn industry
Porn stars are actually 80% LESS likely to get an STD than a member of the general public of the same age.
http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/1cu016/til_professional_porn_actors_are_80_percent_less/
I wonder how much less likely they'd be to get one than say, the popular captain of the football team?
#2) Football provides an avenue for future career opportunities that porn does not.
http://www.gobankingrates.com/personal-finance/dan-marino-vince-young-broke-nfl-players-lost-fortunes/
If this is true, why are 78% of NFL players going broke within two years of retirement? If these colleges are doing such a good job teaching football players valuable life and career lessons. Why is it that even the most gifted, the top 1% who make the NFL, can't apply those valuable lessons 2 years removed from the end of their careers?
#3) Another common argument I've seen is this: "Porn doesn't make their workers any happier or healthier. Football does through encouraging exercise and teaching life lessons."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PepuR7rxSw
Here is an interview which is backed by a study that shows porn stars are happier, healthier, more likely to be content with their body, and less likely to have an STD than the average woman.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: If we discover a species of aliens that at the time is less advanced than us, but is clearly more intelligent and will surpass us in technology in the future, the correct course of action would be to wipe that species out while we have the chance. +
+ My thinking here is that if an alien species is simply "better" than us, but behind in terms of technology for the time being, then it would be an imperative to drive that species to extinction in the small window of opportunity that we have or else that species will eventually surpass us and our destiny will no longer be in our own control.
Even if the species may be peaceful in nature, I feel like loss of sovereignty/self-determination will become inevitable, as if the alien species disagrees with us on an issue and feels strongly about it, then they can just use their now superior military might to force their point of view.
On the other hand, if humanity remains the most intelligent species in the galaxy with all other known species less intelligent than we are, we would be able to forge our own destiny much easier.
I would like to have someone attempt to change my view, as I am personally uncomfortable with my own position at the moment.
1) Final response to the "interbreeding" option: I do not think this is a valid option to maintain human self determination in the face of a superior alien species as interbreeding with the aliens would create offspring that I do not consider human. If "humanity" attempted to match the alien species through interbreeding, I would consider this extinction.
2) NuclearShadow has succeeded in changing my opinion by stressing that other species that are possibly already more advanced than us would look down upon genocidal activity, and might wipe us out in return.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think your sexual proclivities, like your penis and your religious views, should be kept to yourself unless asked to share. CMV +
+ There's an internet saying which goes, "Your religion is like your penis; it's nice to have one, it's great that you're proud of it, but please keep it to yourself." or something like that. I believe the same should be true about your sexual proclivities.
I believe the world is becoming too hypersexualized and people are treating their sex life as some kind of performance art, especially on social media, which is subject to public (dis)approval, rather than for gratification of themselves and their partner(s). People agitate for slut-acceptance while shaming virgins and vice versa. How about everyone stay out of everyone else's sex lives while we proceed to do whatever we want that gets us off privately? | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: People should be judged only on the basis of their morality/character, rather than any other metric such as wealth or fame. +
+ In honor of my first cakeday, here is a CMV.
Moral character is the only, or at least by far the most heavily-weighted aspect by which I judge other individuals.
It seems that people are often judged by their wealth, fame, or success, but those things pale in comparison to moral capacity in my opinion. It is difficult to respect people who are selfish, sociopathic, callous, or just evil, no matter how successful their other accomplishments are.
IANAPhilospher, but this might be related to the question of deontology vs consequentialism. Basically, even if they "better other people's lives", however that manifests, through immoral means or intentions, they are immoral. This is also related to the legal concept of mens rea. Although I bring these up as related, hopefully discussions won't evolve completely into conversation about these concepts.
Inversely (I think), it is easy to respect people who are demonstrably moral, but not conventionally successful. Even if they are not famous, or wealthy, or productive in a career, as long as they are moral/ethical, they deserve and earn my respect.
I invite you to discuss and CMV!
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I vote Democrat in Federal elections and Republican in State and Local elections +
+ On most issues, I lean to the left. I think sexual orientation should be a protected status on the Federal level. I hated GWB's cowboy diplomacy and prefer Obama's diplomatic views (see Iranian nuclear deal). I think Republicans are batshit insane these days and I would be embarassed to have one represent America on a global stage. Their antiscience and pro-religious views are terrifying. Their embrace of corporations borders on treasonous.
I vote Republican in State and Local elections because I want lower state taxes. I agree with Republicans on gun control and I'm not worried that Democrats will ever pass sweeping gun control regulations on a Federal level. I'm neither gay nor a woman so their homophobic state laws don't effect me and neither do their views on abortion/contraception.
If it matters, I live in Illinois.
I've been told I vote very selfishly. I reply that this is how the system is supposed to work - we should all vote according to our self-interest. 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 this subreddit has become a platform for circlejerk opinions to get confirmation bias under the guise of changing their view. CMV. +
+ All the top posts have become hivemind opinions and the posts within either agree with the user or merely placate how bad it really is rather than try to show a different 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 it is better to use the Oxford comma than to leave it out. CMV. +
+ An Oxford comma is the last comma in a list ("one, two, and three") which some people feel ought to be omitted.
A 2010 documentary includes the line "highlights of his global tour include encounters with Nelson Mandela, an 800-year-old demigod and a dildo collector." This line may be hilarious as written, but is significantly less clear than if the serial comma had been included.
I believe that the Oxford comma adds clarity and consistency, since all the other list elements are separated by commas. For those of you who prefer to skip it: why?
CMV. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:America is no longer the greatest country on Earth +
+ I would like to talk about a country that received humanitarian water trucks from near by countries to what was once a city that was the match of New York City. On that water note, many industrialized countries recommend to NOT drink the water when visiting. 17% of high school graduates in the country are considered illiterate on the international scale and that does not even take into account the number of drop outs(which I plan on looking up). It's lost its credit rating in the world bank.
It amazes me that I'm talking about the US of A a country that has won World Wars, put men on the moon and was a champion of innovation on the world wide scale. We now lead in percent of the population in prison(land of the free) and in other metrics that put the US in a poor light. Has this been a decay since the 70s, or am I missing something. Please change my view.
I'll be working on getting some sources and a few good metrics overtime, as that makes it more debatable and a fair discussion.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I don't think parents should lie to their kids about the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, etc. CMV! +
+ My parents told me they were real, and I had fun with it and wasn't filled with feelings of betrayal or anything when I found out the truth. Still, I'm not sure you can morally justify lying to your kids about something like that for years and years for the sake of them having more fun. What are your thoughts? | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: There is no reason to go from windows 8 to 8.1 +
+ I unfortunately have a windows 8 operating system, and frequently get pestered about 8.1 from the popups. I have looked at 8.1, and have seen that it adds a start menu like win7, but i have heard from some sources that it is unstable and has broken some systems, and since i can tolerate metro, i have no reason to upgrade to the latest and "greatest" windows version. I haven't even heard people talk about 8.1 like they do eight, so it seems like it isnt that great an issue, but i might be wrong
so, 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: Pickup trucks are impractical clown cars +
+ I come from a Scandinavian country with a much lower population density that the USA, long winters and mountinous dirt roads covered in snow yet I don't even know the word for pickup truck in my mother tongue. They don't really exist here. I went to the US for the first time recently and I was shocked by all the pickup trucks. Americans seem to be using them as a normal car.
1) They are way to big and serve no purpose. Most of the pickup trucks I saw wheren't carrying a massive load, there was just a person in the truck. There size means that they are used as a grossly fuel inefficient and polluting car. Also they are a lot more difficult to park than a normal vehicle.
2) If you actually want to move a lot of stuff a trailer is a lot more practical. Instead of spending thousands of dollars more than a normal car for a truck that doesn't have a back seat you can buy a 1-2000 dollar trailer that will last 30 years and can carry a lot more weight and take larger loads than a pickup. An audi with a large trailer can transport a large boat, a pickup truck can't move a boat without a trailer anyways. Trailers are superior because you can take them off and switch trailer depending on your needs.
3) Vans are much better for moving stuff than a pickup truck. Your stuff doesn't get rained on or blown away and you can stock things vertically.
4) People said it had to do with farming culture. Guess what, Europe has a lot stronger farming culture than the USA. Over 90% of the population were farmers up until not that long ago recently. Countries like France are very agriculural. A pickup truck isn't a farm vehicle. A tractor can pull many times what a pickup truck can. Farmers use farm vehicles to farm and a regular car for personal transport. I have lived in a farming community without seeing a pickup truck.
5) How often are you actually moving something huge? I recently moved to 140 cm wide IKEA beds on a Volvo, I have moved barbecues, Kayaks, sail boats, skis etc on roof racks on a volvo. How often are you actually moving something larger than a kayak? It is also cheaper to get home delivery/rent a large vehicle/get a trailer when you buy a new soffa than to buy your own truck and fuel it all the time. If you are moving you don't want a pickup truck anyways, you want to rent an actuall truck for 150 dollars a day once a decade instead of buying a second rate moving vehicle and using it for personal transport.
Pickup trucks seem to be a rediculous 50 000 dollar fashion statement. American roads are much wider (ie higher taxes) because they have to accomodate all the oversized vehicles used for personal transport and damage roads. They consume our finite supply of oil for no practical reason and pollute. I personally find it silly when someone goes into debt to buy what looks like a clown car. I don't see what is so cool about them. If you want a cool car buy a porsche, much better looking and cooler. A porsche is also a lot more fun to drive.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: (star wars) Despite their telepathic and telekenetic powers, the Jedi religion is just as foolish as christianity or islam or any other "real" religion. +
+ In episode 1, Annakin is identified as having power over "the force" by an analysis of a particle in his blood. I posit that because the superhuman powers of the Jedi come from a chemical present in their bodies, these powers could easily be explained by evolution. Therefore, the attribution of these powers to "the force" is just as silly as the first human to figure out how to make fire claiming that HIS new special power came from god.
In episode 4, darth vader is refered to as a "Sorcerer" devoted to an "ancient religion" which suggests that his powers are no more than magic tricks in the star wars universe.
Also, because the technology of the time is so advanced, it seems strange to me that nobody would have figured out the basic laws of physics as they applied to the jedi's ability to move objects with their minds etc. I would imagine that if you are the kind of person who chooses to bring a sword to a gunfight in space, you wouldnt mind ignoring the fact that your abilities could be explained without your silly ancient religion. | 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 Premarital Sex almost always ruins relationships, and i don't see reasons to engage before marriage. CMV +
+ This is why i think so (Non religious reason)
Premarital sex distorts premarital relationships. Adding sex to a non-marital relationship, especially when adolescents are involved, is like throwing a one-thousand-pound weight into a rowboat. The center of gravity shifts drastically, forward motion becomes difficult and the whole thing may eventually sink. Sex never enhances a teenage romance. Instead, it almost always overwhelms and stifles it. Arguments, secrecy, stress and guilt usually replace laughter, discovery and meaningful conversation. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The vastness of space does not guarantee the existence of extraterrestrial life. +
+ So its often been said that with vastness of space, the huge number of planets in the universe, and the increasing recognition of Earth-like planets that there is almost certainly going to be life out there. Stephen Hawking has even made this point.
I agree with the line of reasoning that all these can only serve to push up the probability of life out there, but I don't think that they necessarily guarantee it or even make it likely. The main problem I have is that we don't know (or at least I don't think we know) the probability any given planet can and **will** have life. Since we live on the only known example of a planet that supports life we might be over estimating this probability. What if the chances that any given planet, even an Earth-like one, were to have life on it is 1 in a trillion? We would see that there are 500 billion planets and think that it virtually guarantees extraterrestrial life but it would actually only be a 50/50 proposition.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: It makes no sense that women are more afraid of walking around alone than men are +
+ It makes no sense to me that women are more afraid of violent crime than men, and furthermore, that feminists, who are supposedly trying to make women's lives better, encourage this irrational belief. (By "irrational" I mean "not founded in the actual state of the real world, but instead based on a gut feeling or faith or whatever")
Men are far more likely to be the victim of violent crime than women are. Men make up the vast majority of assault, battery, and murder victims. There are nearly ten times as many assaults as rapes. If you include "forced to penetrate someone against your will" as a form of rape (and don't include prison rape), the odds of a man being raped in a given year are nearly identical to the odds of a woman being raped in that year. Furthermore, rape (the only violent crime where a case can be made for women being more at risk than men) is nearly always committed by someone known to the victim, indoors, in a place known to the victim and assailant (such as a bar, one of their houses, a mutual friend's house, etc). Assault, conversely, takes place mostly outside, committed by strangers.
And yet, women are consistently more afraid of walking around outside (at night, alone, but also in general) than men are. This makes no sense to me: change my view.
There is also a second, related issue that I am confused by. I see articles written by and linked on Facebook etc by self-professed feminists which strongly encourage this (seemingly irrational) fear. For example: http://kateharding.net/2009/10/08/guest-blogger-starling-schrodinger%E2%80%99s-rapist-or-a-guy%E2%80%99s-guide-to-approaching-strange-women-without-being-maced/
This also makes no sense to me. Women are less at risk of this than men, and being afraid all the time sucks, and since they're less at risk than men this fear serves no useful purpose to them, so all that writing this sort of article does is make women's lives worse. Yet when I say that, I get yelled at and dog piled by the feminists who link these articles, who call me a misogynist, sexist, an uncaring and unfeeling ass, and on and on.
That makes negative sense to me, and has caused me to self-identify as an anti-feminist, because the overwhelming majority of feminist thought I encounter is of the form "women should hold this harmful irrational belief" or "men are evil" or "no man has ever suffered". A slight exaggeration, but only slight (sometimes they make very legitimate points about economics). This seeming total lack of ability (or willingness?) to think about these issues rationally combined with people calling me anti-feminist when I point out that this is irrational has convinced me that I am (and should be!) against the actual existing-in-the-real-world thing called "feminism" (as opposed to the "women should have the same rights as men, including the right to walk around without fear" definition of feminism, which I am enthusiastically in favor of, and which seems diametrically opposed to feminism-in-practice).
Change my view, please. It would make my life a lot easier if I didn't believe these things. Only actual real world data has any significant chance of changing my mind, but I am also curious to hear the non-data-driven arguments, so as to better understand where the people who disagree with me are coming from and why they believe what they believe.
Citations: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#Violent_crime
National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey 2010, page 19 | 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 Confederate flag should be banned from flying at any public or school related event. CMV +
+ I should probably preface this by saying I am from the north (pa). I just don't understand why the confederate flag is flown ANYWHERE.
I.e.http://www.mybaycity.com/scripts/p3_v2/P3V3-0200.cfm?P3_ArticleID=7070
My understanding is that this flag was created to represent the short lived confederate states of america. This flag, which represents the CSA, then represents everything the CSA stood for I.e. states rights to decide if slavery is legal. I cannot think of a scenario where flying this flag represents anything other than racism. While any number of reasons could be argued as to why the civil war was fought, its obvious slavery was a main cause. A cause the CSA stood firmly behind.
Do people fly the flag as a sense of regional pride? If so is there no other symbol to relate to other than the Confederate flag? One that is intrinsically tied to the subjugation and purchasing of people.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe in eugenics CMV +
+ OK so I know this is controversial, but genetics are the things that make up a person. Thats why personalities and traits run through familys. If we constantly only let the smartest, most social, most athletic, beautiful and creative people breed, in a few thousand years, we will have an entire world full of Eisensteins that look like Brad Pitt or Halle Berry.
In a way it's already happening. The smartest men marry the most beautiful women, aka trophy wives, and have children that are usually both smart and beautiful. Why is it that rich neighborhoods usually have the smartest and best looking people? Its natural selection at work. Yes, I know there are outliers, but only allowing the best genetics to transfer on will increase the probability of another George Cloony, Will Smith or Nicholi Tesla.
Dog breeders have used the same methods to create smart, powerful and awesome dogs. Take a noble German Shepard vs a Corgi. They are both dogs, but bred for different traits. Corgis are the stupid clowns of the animal kingdom while German Shepards are smart, can lead a pack and are super athletic.
Also, natural selection is already happening. Our current society values social skills above everything else. Thats why leaders are leaders, and followers are followers. The people with the gift of gab usually get the most girls. In turn, because of their wide selection ability they are able to pick the best traits that they want, effectively picking the best girls. Guys who can't communicate/are awkward always complain about being forever alone and being a virgin. They are bumping their subpar communication skills out of the gene pool. I know of all sites reddit will hate this, but its the truth. Frat bros pull so many girls, while your typical engineer, although smart, sweats when he makes eye contact with a chick. | 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 compulsory voting laws should be implemented in American national elections. CMV +
+ Many countries have similar laws, which have led to strong turn out numbers at the polling booths. People have claimed, in post-polling surveys, that they have "strong opinions" on the person they voted for, and they may not have voted without these laws in place. Many people find it inconvenient or irrelevant to vote, but it is a person's civic duty and allows for the elected official to truly be an accurate representation of the populous' opinion. These laws would encourage people to become more involved in the political process as well. People who might otherwise ignore a national election would do research to prepare, because they know they will be forced to vote for somebody. The people have to pay taxes to the government and attend school because it betters the country. Compulsory voting laws would follow that same principal. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:CMV: Chopsticks are the superior utensil for most salads. +
+ With few exceptions, chopsticks are superior to forks for eating leafy-green salads.
Chopsticks are ideal for picking up small mouth-sized morsels. Forks provide limited dexterity, their stabbing action often causes users to accidentally pick up far too much food.
Leafy greens will tend to stick to plates, removing these greens with a fork can be nearly impossible. Removing them with chopsticks is effortless.
Anyone comfortable using chopsticks should try eating their next salad sans fork, and I'd wager you'll be converted. I serve my guests salad with chopsticks - with near universally positive response. The only people who respond negatively are people who are uncomfortable using chopsticks.
Chopsticks are the superior utensil for salad, 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: With the emergence of the Internet, self-learning is much more superior than traditional school. +
+ I'm basing this on my experience solely. Some of you might be completely different. I understand that all schools are different. I'm also only 17, so in that way I'm quite limited, but on the contrary I've been to 11 different public schools in 3 different countries(Maybe uni/college is more focused) and some peripheral schools such as an art school and 2 different robotics courses/schools.
Anyway, I strongly feel that self-educating has much more value to someone that has a bit of drive(<--- important) That person can remain focused and do what matters to them, what works for them, even if it's a pretty narrow field. I'm not going to go into the perils of a standardized curriculum, but they should be noted.
So many resources are available on the internet nowadays that you'll never go through all of them. Don't like one resource, then simply swap to another. Whatever works for you; books, videos, forums, even little online courses. The point that I'm trying to get at here is that it's much easier to learn something by gnawing at it from a lot of different angles and getting information from everywhere rather than focusing in on a handful of resources.
That's all I will say, don't be afraid to ask questions. Even though I've had really great teachers, learning anything by myself is dramatically faster.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The reduction of suffering is more important than the preservation of life. +
+ I believe that whether something is morally right or wrong should hinge on whether or not it creates or reduces suffering, rather than if it preserves or ends life. I'll illustrate this with a couple of examples:
1. Abortion - In the early stages of pregnancy, a fetus cannot possibly suffer from an abortion since it is not developed enough to feel pain or have an sort of cognitive awareness. However, if a women is forced to go through a pregnancy she does not want to go through, lots of suffering might result for her. Therefore, I believe abortion is morally ok. In later stages of pregnancy, when the fetus might actually be able to suffer from the abortion, I still believe it is ok if the mother would suffer even more from having to birth the baby (i.e. her life was in danger).
2. Euthanasia - Families should be given the choice to end the life of those who have fallen into a coma or vegetative state, because keeping that person alive could cause the family emotional suffering (or financial suffering from medical bills). Also, if somebody develops a severe mental handicap such that they are no longer self-aware and are now a burden on the rest of their family to take care of, the family should have the right to euthanize that person.
3. Animal rights - I believe that it is morally ok to consume animals provided they do not suffer at all during their lifetime. Animals do not care about the length of their lives the way humans do, so killing an animal before it reaches "old age" is not necessarily wrong if the animal had a good life up to that point (in my opinion). I realize that there are VERY FEW places where animals raised for meat are treated well, and I acknowledge that the meat industry today is very messed up and needs to be fixed. But I think hunting, for example, is not morally wrong as long as humane methods are used.
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 the VA hospitals should be closed and discontinued completely. +
+ Close all of them immediately and let go of the staff. All veterans should be given a Health Care Card that allows for any and all medical expenses for them and their families, and can used at any public hospital or medical clinic of their choice.
All the medical bills will go back thru the government to be paid, but all payment issues will be between the health care provider and the government, not the military staff who needed the care.
It should be illegal to deny any medical services to military personnel, or to discriminate against them due to their care, or the cost incurred.
Sounds like a great idea to me - but feel free to change my mind.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I don't think there isnany viable reason to start smoking cigarettes, EVER. CMV +
+
I think at least 99% of smokers know excactly what smoking can do to you, and if they choose to smoke anyway they are ignorant and irresponsible. I understand addiction amd how hard it is to quit, but what I'm saying is starting smoking is one of the most idiotic things a person can do. I also understannd peer pressure, but people should know its worth losing a friend to essentially nullify your chances of getting Cancer. 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 I should have the right to NOT vote in my country's election, CMV. +
+ The Australian federal election is coming up and I have to vote. I believe I should have the right to dismiss voting and not take part. The main problem I have is that so many people here - youth in particular - are uninformed and uninterested and I believe an uninformed vote is more damaging than no vote at all.
I have been told that the reason we have to vote is to encourage people to educate themselves on Australian politics but unfortunately that just doesn't seem to be happening.
There is of course the option to submit a blank vote, but the people who do that still have to take time out of their Saturday to stand in line and be part of something that they obviously don't want to be part of.
CMV. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: WW2 was not necessary and resulted in more harm than good +
+ *Disclaimer: Hitler was an evil man who committed genocide*
Germany invaded Poland to gain a route to the sea (Danzig). Poland would have given up the path to the sea if Britain didn’t give them [the war guarantee](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Polish_military_alliance#British_Guarantee_to_Poland). In 1933, two months after Hitler’s rise to power, Winston Churchill himself made a statement in Parliament:
Here you have one of the protagonists of the 1930s and 40s laying the framework for peace 6 years before he took part in the destruction of the British Empire and the death of 60 million people by ignoring his own advice.
The West lost the world and The United Kingdom lost its empire because of WW2. Other countries lost their colonies as well, but the British Empire was the largest and the loss of their territories set back much of the third world by decades.
The Holocaust didn’t start until 1941. That is two years after the beginning of the war. Cause and effect is almost impossible to prove, but before the war Hitler’s plan was one of mass deportation. Two years into the war he began resorting to genocide. WW2 was not a war against Jewish genocide and, if anything, hostilities against the Jews were more intense because of the war.
Hitler had no intention of invading westward until Britain declared war on Germany. Why would they have built the German equivalent of the Maginot Line (The Westwall) if he intended to invade westward? Hitler did not want a war with Britain, France, or the USA.
60 million people were killed in WW2 because of diplomatic blunders. The most disastrous of which was Britain’s war guarantee to Poland.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Hard, gnostic atheism is more defensible than agnosticism for anyone who has examined the evidence. +
+ Imagine you, Alex, and another man, Bob, sitting in a dark room. Bob suddenly exclaims, "There's someone else in this room!" Alarmed, you turn on your flashlight to look for this other man. You run about the room, trying to find him, but you cannot. You can't find the other man. You exclaim, "What the hell are you talking about? I don't see anybody else!" Bob just says, "I know he's there. Just believe me!"
After going through the scenario above, why the hell would anybody be "agnostic" about the existence of a third man? As you search more and more vigorously and find no results, agnosticism quickly turns gnostic. The 3rd man doesn't exist. There's no reason to be "unsure" about this fact.
The same argument, IMO, can be applied to the nebulous concept known as "God". Sure, it's impossible to disprove the existence of God-like entities - concepts that share interesting features of God but are in no way, shape, or form any way related to the personal Gods (such as Allah or Yahweh) as believed by human society. Outside of philosophy, I don't see why anybody would be particularly interested in this form of God that has absolutely no practical consequence on humanity. What I'm interested in is the Gods that people actually believe in - the personal God that affects your daily life, that personally intervenes in your life to make it better, the one that's here to save your soul.
I spent a good chunk of my life trying to find Yahweh or any other God. I couldn't find any sign of him whatsoever in this universe that we inhabit. And not only me, no scientist has found much of a trace of Him. Most Churches can't even find him either - instead, they must rely on Faith that He is there.
Is it possible that "personal Gods" exist? Maybe. But as the search for that personal God continues, the probability that He exists diminishes to zero. How many times must I re-scan that dark room of Alex and Bob to ensure that the 3rd man does not exist? Every single lack of observation reaffirms the positive belief that "No, the third man does not exist", just like "The Personal God does not exist".
With new and updated observations of reality that continue to yield absolutely no evidence of God, the probability of the existence of God continues to diminish to zero. The discovery of classical mechanics proved that God wasn't needed to *actively* move heaven and Earth. The discovery of Evolution proved that God was not needed to actively create Life. Each new discovery reaffirms the fact that God does not intervene in the natural world using "unnatural" means. Sure, you can go ahead and redefine God to be the "mechanism that which drives the laws of nature". Sure, you can go ahead and redefine God to be the "Universe". But that sure is hell far, far away from the God of Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Mormons, and everyone else that believe in Gods.
Atheism permits the possible existence of super-powerful, God-like creatures that may share many or even all of the features that are attributed to God. It's not unimaginable that an alien race has achieved such incredible powers to be even more powerful than the God as described in the Old Testament. These "Gods" may be so incredibly intelligent or powerful that they are unimaginable by human intelligence. But they're not supernatural. They're not the personal God believed by humanity that reincarnates you or whisks you off to heaven. I'm also sure you've heard of the simulation argument, that there is a "super-universe" on top of ours that controls us, much like how we play videogames that create "sub-universes" that we have near total control over. However, this version of God is in great contrast to the God imagined by most people. Most people don't believe that God is a supernatural Nerd playing his world's version of Roller Coaster Tycoon. This conception of God at least takes care of the problem of "Evil" quite easily - but no human would call the supernatural Nerd a "God". I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of gnostic atheists all can permit these kind of "nearly supernatural" beings to exist. Hell, why not describe Jesus Christ as a space alien that decided to land on Earth to fuck with the natives? But even if Alien Jesus shares all the same attributes as the actual Jesus, for some reason, it's different. Alien Jesus loses that sort of "supernatural mystery" that is the crux of atheist antipathy towards religion.
Gnostic atheism is defensible. We know that particular Gods as believed by the vast majority of humanity can not be found and can only be believed through a mechanism called "Faith". We've tried as best as we can to find these personal Gods, just like Alex tried to find the 3rd man, but all evidence suggests that the 3rd man simply does not exist. Alex is not agnostic about the 3rd man. Alex is fucking sure the 3rd man simply is not there!
Humanity always strives to learn more and more about the world they live in and the universe in general. Agnostics throw their hands in the air and say, "We don't know!" Gnostic atheists continue the search for God - and when each search yields no results, their belief is reaffirmed that God does not exist. You don't have to believe in God to look for Him. But when both atheists and theists attempt to search for God and yield no results, it's utterly insane IMO to declare yourself to be "agnostic". The bipartisan search party found nothing again. What's there to be unsure about?? (Ironically, if anything, it's the atheists that search for God in far more vigor than most theists ever would. Theists believe through faith. Atheists try to find God but can never see Him).
Maybe I'm only arguing about semantics here. But I'm tired of reading what I believe is bullshit, "Atheism is the *lack* of belief". Come on. The vast majority of atheists actively believe that personal Gods such as Allah do not exist. Some people have a weird fetish of trying to redefine atheism from the traditional sense of the word, to the confusion of everyone else.
Many Agnostics and Theists gave up on the search for God. They just decided either to believe or not to care. But IMO, any person that actively searches for God's existence will eventually become an atheist, because every time he looks, nothing is found.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe universal public healthcare (no private health sector) is the only morally justifiable system. CMV +
+ I'm from Canada but I have family in the United States and friends from South Korea; three different systems of health care with varying levels of private sector involvement. Of these three, I see Canada's as the most fair, because people of all income levels get the same quality of care (for the most part, it's not perfect). It prevents people from having to make the painful choice between sickness and bankruptcy. Publicly-employed doctors are also more likely to work to prevent illness because they don't get more money if their patients get sick.
The United States is the worst out of the three, because the quality of care you receive is almost completely parallel with your income level. If you don't have good insurance, when you get sick you essentially have the choice between denying yourself care and making it worse or taking a huge hit out of your bank account. This can mean having to mortgage/sell your house or even skip buying food.
Even if you can afford it, it has the potential to completely ruin your life. For example, my great aunt who lives in Cincinnati was a nurse all her life and her late husband was a doctor all his life. They were smart with their money and saved a lot to be able to retire comfortably. However, my great aunt has chronic hip problems which are not covered by her (already expensive) insurance plan. Frequent trips to the hospital over the years has forced her to live in an expensive elderly care complex, also not covered by her insurance. From all those costs plus hospital bills, she has gone completely bankrupt and has few places left to go.
My grandmother, on the other hand, lives in Toronto. When she got cancer, everything other than her wheelchair was covered by OHIP (Ontario Health Insurance Plan). Now she's made a full recovery and it cost us relatively little. In fact, out of curiosity we looked up the price of the medication she was taking, and if we would have lived in the States, it would have cost us $30,000 a month. We would have had to sell our house.
Needless to say, I was happy when the Affordable Healthcare Act was passed, but I feel as if this is only the first step and it will only take us to what South Korea has which is a tier system; the poor gets the bare minimum and the rich have the luxury of shorter lines, better equipment, better-trained doctors, etc. While I think it's a step in the right direction, I still hold firm that higher income level does not entitle you to better chance of survival when you're sick. Instead, taxes should be raised and everyone should have an equally good chance.
A common criticism of Canadian healthcare is that lines are always very long. I think this is because of two reasons: One, nobody ever decides not to go to the hospital because they can't afford it. "When in doubt, ask a doctor" is the attitude, as it should be. Two, most science-oriented students nowadays go into engineering or computer science rather than medicine. This can be fixed by encouraging more biology in schools, making more med school scholarships, etc. The solution is not to re-think the entire system.
**TL;DR Universal healthcare is worth the higher taxes and longer lines because all people get the same care regardless of income level, you never have to choose between food or medicine, and hospital bills will never bankrupt you** | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think that the "classics" tend to be over-praised. CMV +
+ By "classics" I mean books, art, and other entertainment that is more than about fifty years old and remains relevant. It seems like, once a piece of entertainment persists for a certain amount of time, it becomes perfect--whenever anybody criticizes it, a legion of loyal fans rush to defend it. Any flaw is either imagined or excused by saying "It doesn't matter, because of x and y (usually having to do with the time or situation in which it was created)."
A good example of this is Lord of the Rings--in my experience, a lot of people hold it up as being one of the greatest fantasy novels of all time. Tolkien did an amazing job worldbuilding, certainly, but his focus on the world means that other parts suffer. He drags the reader through slow scenes that don't move the plot forward, then recounts battles and other action-focused sections of his books as if he is writing a history--in other words, he essentially tells the reader what is going on, then brushes past them. I'm not saying that LotR is terrible by any stretch of the imagination, but it is put on a pedestal that it doesn't entirely deserve when compared to other fantasy books.
The works of Charles Dickens are another quick example: The man was paid by the word, and it shows. His books are good, with some excellent bits and a lot of padding.
I'm rambling, but the point I'm trying to make is this: Classics, in the arts, are not perfect, but people often insist on treating them as if they are. I think that they should be respected for their place in history but given more realistic portrayals when compared to more current works.
The work of a child prodigy is considered impressive for what it is, but it does not instantly become great art unless it is comparable to the best work by adults. Its flaws can be explained by saying "A child did it," but they cannot be excused by it. I see old things the same way. They are impressive and deserving of respect, but not flawless, and the flaws cannot be excused by saying "Someone did it a long time ago."
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 American constitution would benefit from the addition of a notwithstanding clause +
+ I think it would be a great idea if the American constitution had a notwithstanding clause. In the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the notwithstanding clause([s. 33](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_Thirty-three_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms)) is a clause in the Charter that allows parliament or provincial legislatures to override parts of the Charter.
This would help with the very partisan 5-4 decisions I believe. If congress or the states disagree with a court decision, then they would have the ability to override those decisions for a limited time. I understand this would be similar to [nullification](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_%28U.S._Constitution%29), but adding a notwithstanding clause would be different in that laws made under this clause would be time-limited, and that states still can not usurp the powers of federal government(or vice versa).
As a Canadian, I think it would be useful if the United States had a way to override controversial supreme court decisions decided by a narrow margin(I'm thinking Citizens United v. FEC, District of Columbia v. Heller, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, etc.). What parts of the American constitution a notwithstanding clause would cover, I'm not too concerned about as long as democratic rights and mobility rights are left uncovered by the clause(I'm open to possibility other rights being unreachable by the clause though).
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Robert E. Lee does not deserve any respect. CMV. +
+ I have often been told that regardless of what you believe about the US Civil War, Robert E. Lee should be honored and respected. The main reason given is that he only fought for the South because his moral commanded defending his homeland despite opposing both secession and slavery.
I believe we should honor Southern soldiers, because they believed that they were fighting for a good cause, and anyway they didn't really have the option to join the North; the Confederate soldiers are as blameless as soldiers in any war who believe they are defending their homelands. However, Robert E. Lee is the one soldier who does not deserve respect for this decision because for him it actually was a choice.
Lee knew that secession was wrong, yet he defended it at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives. The Southern moral code should in this case be reviled, because it placed duty to Lee's homeland over both his personal morals (anti-slavery) and the lives of his fellow men - including his fellow Virginians.
The Civil War could have potentially been shorter and less damaging if Lee hadn't joined the Confederacy. For one thing, the South would have lacked its greatest general and the North would have gained a reliable military leader (which it arguably didn't obtain until Grant in the war's last year). Also, there were surely some soldiers loyal to Lee who followed him into rebellion, so they would have shifted the balance in the same way. Most importantly, the South would have been subdued by one of its own rather than an outsider like Sherman, so there would have been less resentment and greater unity after the war's end, which could have profound political implications even today.
*TLDR* Lee stood for a skewed moral code, and it's his fault the Civil War was so terrible. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The strongest ethical arguments for veganism are stronger than those for meat eating or vegetarianism +
+ I believe that the strongest ethical arguments for veganism are stronger than the strongest ethical arguments for meat eating and vegetarianism.
For the purposes of this thread, veganism is a practice of reducing ones consumption of animal products to the best of ones personal capacities (including emotional capacities) given the societal influences one encounters.
**My view rests upon the following assumptions**:
* People have a choice in what they consume (e.g., they can afford it financially)
* People do not suffer in statistically unusual ways (e.g., large spikes in blood sugar, allergies) when attempting to practice veganism
* A persons choice to practice veganism does not involve leaving behind their indigenous practices at the hands of continued genocide or other atrocities (e.g., exceptions are made for the Inuit)
*If any of the above assumptions are violated, exceptions to my viewpoint are already granted*
**The arguments thus far:**
For consuming animal products:
For practicing veganism:
**Additional Reasoning**
Arguments can include any number of important ethical concepts (e.g., suffering, autonomy, liberty, etc) but evidence will be ranked in the following order (from greatest strength to weakest strength). It's hard to say precisely when one argument becomes stronger than another and I'm sure that this varies from person to person:
1. Truths proven using the rules of logic
2. Empirically demonstrated phenomena
3. Scientifically rigorous explanations for empirically demonstrated phenomena
4. Subjective beliefs
If an argument is correct and relates to some aspect of ethics (regardless of what ethical system one chooses to use), I'll put it into the lists of arguments above. After that it's a matter of comparing both lists based on the quality of evidence in each list. Yes this will involve value judgements, but I think these should be handled on a case-by-case basis after much consideration (i.e., I will not be listing a predefined weighting of ethical ideas). If I say, for example, I value one particular trait (like the reduction of animal suffering) more than another trait (like the loss of human liberty) then I will necessarily limit myself in the number of ways I can reconsider my view. It's also foolish to introspect too much about what I do or don't find, convincing enough.
| 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 homosexual families should not be allowed the adoption of children. CMV +
+ For a start, I must say that I have nothing against homosexual marriage. I believe that anyone has the right to choose their own partner and register one's relationship with said partner. When it comes to children, however, the case is different, as the aforementioned parties are not the only ones affected. This does not apply to all homosexuals, but many of them are actively communicating solely with LGBT circles, which will also influence the future relationships of their adopted children. Growing up in an LGBT atmosphere, many people are unable to form healthy relationships of their actual sexual orientation, due to the lack of proper guidance from their parents (How can a lesbian couple teach their son how to converse with girls) as well as the influence of their social circle. Many indulge in homosexual relationships, not because that is their preferred gender, but because it is simply easier , due to their upbringing. I believe that homosexual couples should be able to register their relationships the same as regular couples with the exception of allowed parentage. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Stand your ground laws providing more legal protection to killing than to 'warning shots' or 'wounding/disabling shots' is inherently flawed. CMV. +
+ If it matters for some odd reason, I own three guns. But really, I don't think this matters.
I don't understand why killing to protect oneself can be protected by law, but protecting oneself with a non-lethal action is not, or at least, less protected.
Even if I feel my life is in danger, I don't want to kill. I'm a decent shot. I feel confident I can hit a leg at close range. But often legally, this puts me in a worse situation. Even when a 'stand your ground' law isn't on the books, I've been advised that it's always better to shoot to kill. If for no other reason than the other guy can't tell his story when he's dead.
I just don't want to kill someone if I don't have to. If I was facing a gun, shoot to kill. But if someone was coming after me with a knife or baseball bat and I have the opportunity not to kill, why am I less protected legally for sparing someone's life?
Also, yes, I know that a knife is extremely dangerous from even 20 feet since they can close the gap before most people can draw/load a gun. Let's assume I already have my gun out. IE I wake up at night and hear someone downstairs. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: We should be taught there are 6 continents instead of 7. +
+ Where I went to school (Australia) we are taught that there are 7 continents which are as follows: North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, and Antarctica. I believe a bit of common sense will tell you that there is in fact, 6, which would come about by combining Europe and Asia as there is an acute lack of an ocean dividing them, and should therefore be considered one and the same; Eurasia.
Most people will tell you that they are divided because of such a huge cultural divide, but I think that that argument is flawed in that many completely different cultures exist on the same continent (e.g. China and the Middle East). So if we were to choose the number of continents based on culture there would be an endless amount of completely subjective possibilities, which means that this method is irrelevant.
One might argue that if we were to ignore culture and combine Europe and Asia, we would also have to include Africa to create a super-continent, and we would have to combine North and South America to make the Americas (for arguments sake, let's forget about the Suez and Panama canals). However, I would argue that this is different as the land bridges between them are vastly smaller.
So, change my view; it makes much more sense to have 6 continents rather than 7.
| 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 we should abolish timezones and have a universal time across the world +
+ I think the world should agree on a universal timezone. It would make scheduling easier, business meetings would be smoother, and there'd be much less confusion when travelling and trying to synchronise things between countries. It wouldn't make any difference to sleep cycles or work hours or anything like that. We would also abolish daylight saving time.
What I'm **not** suggesting is that the world all wake up at the same time and go to work at the same time.
Let's say that we agree on GMT as the world's timezone (although it doesn't matter which time we choose). London would wake up at about 7am, work from 9am - 5pm, and go to sleep at about 10pm. The sun would rise at about 7am and would set at about 8pm. New York, however, are 5 hours behind London, so the sun would rise there at 2am on the universal clock. This doesn't affect anything though, because they'd wake up at 2am, go to work from 4am - 12pm, and go to bed at 5pm. They'd still get up when the sun rises and go to bed when the sun sets, but *the only difference would be the number they read off the clock*. They'd still have the same sleeping pattern and working hours, and they'd get used to it in a matter of weeks. Instead of waking up and reading the time as 7am, they'd wake up *at the same time* and read the clock as 2am. All that would change is what time they consider nighttime. Sydney, meanwhile, are 9 hours in front of London - they wake up when the sun rises at 4pm, they work from 6pm - 2am, see the sun set at 5am, and go to sleep at 7am. It seems weird that they should go to sleep at 7am, but to them it would be the correct time! They'd still be going to sleep shortly after sunset, like the rest of the world, and would go to sleep right on schedule at the same time they would now. They'd just call the time they go to bed 7am rather than 10pm. *The only difference is the time they read off the clock*
The times used above are obviously an arbitrary template used to demonstrate my argument.
This would synchronise the world, so if you want to skype your friend in Sydney from London, you can just say "I'll call you at 4am" and he'll know exactly when to expect your call. The same goes for business meetings etc. Scheduling in general becomes so much easier. It doesn't solve problems like jet lag, because when you travel you still have to adapt to the physical difference in location on the planet. It also makes programming a hell of a lot easier, because [timezones are a nightmare to program properly](https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDEQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D-5wpm-gesOY&ei=4_ZaU5CrH8Pa0QXKx4GgAQ&usg=AFQjCNE6DVexJDKjhP6pNTh0eUdJhX92kw&sig2=ArIuYmzIDvn79AdM5OBtjw). It can also make contracts easier, because if any one person says that something should start at exactly 12am, nobody disagrees about what time that is and there's so much less confusion.
I think it's a good idea, but I've never met anyone who agrees with me, but I've also never met anyone who's presented a convincing counter-argument. I thought it'd be interesting to discuss it here. What do you think?
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Employment sexism is justifiable. Oppress less, educate more. +
+ (1) There is many quantifiable differences between males and females. We can formulate trends and suggest who's more suitable for what, and assess trends' dispersion. To treat people regardless of sex is thus irrational, because sex plays a role, *in average*. It's *one of many* factors and it is completely justifiable to take into account. However, people should understand that trends have their limitations, that expected values are always better accompanied by variability.
(2) Oppressive methods of quotas and such result in abuse of people's fundamental rights. One should have a right to be misogynist or misandrist, i.e. demonstrate freedom of thought. No doubt, the less hatred, the better. But using abusive ways to reach this goal is wrong. The problem of hatred, superiority or ignorance (variability within trends) is best and *fairest* solved by education.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I don't think it is rape (usually) when one person is impaired (drunk, drugs, etc)... CMV +
+ Having been, what society defines, "raped" by a friend of mine while we were both impaired I have a hard time believing that I was raped or that some people are raped because they were impaired. Granted if they are obviously intoxicated and the other person is aware of the other person's impairment I still believe that it is assault, but I don't think you can always know when the other person is mentally impaired, and that situations like this should not be treated as severely as violent rape. Give me a reason to 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 exactly one of the following must be true: (a) A non-bigoted person can reasonably use a person's gender to infer things about that person, or (b) gender is a meaningless concept. CMV. +
+ I've seen a lot of activists on the internet talking about what gender is, differentiating it from "sex", talking about its fluidity and non-binaryness, to make up a word. Every day it seems like people are using the word "gender" to refer to a broader and broader set of concepts.
The problem is, the broader the definition of a word gets, the more useless that word becomes. Which is fine -- when more knowledge becomes available, sometimes old concepts become obsolete (for example, the concept of [pachyderms](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pachydermata), a set of animals that it turns out does not form a scientifically meaningful category). But then you have to actually *stop using the word*, not just retcon a new definition for it and soldier on. The way people freely use the word "gender" reminds me of the word "zequow" in [this Cracked video](http://www.cracked.com/video_18451_how-stupid-words-get-added-to-dictionary.html) -- I just want to shout out, "WORDS MEAN SPECIFIC THINGS!"
So, what, actually, is gender, according to internet "gender theorists"?
It's not determined by the person's interests or behaviours, e.g. a girl who's interested in Lego and mathematics does not stop being a girl, and a boy who plays with dolls does not stop being a boy. That seems fairly reasonable.
It's not determined by biological sex, seeing as how transgender people exist, with or without surgery. Fair enough.
It's not determined by sexual orientation, unless you believe the archaic stereotype that a transgender person is just a gay person who went too far -- also, this would require us to ignore the fact that there are gay transgender people.
It's not determined by what society says. If a person were born with XY chromosomes and male genitals and identified as female, but lived under a strict government with extremely transphobic laws, I can't imagine that these activists would side with the strict government.
It's not determined by the clothes a person wears. Depending on where you go, you see plenty of women wearing pants, and it's getting more and more common in Western countries to see men wearing skirts.
What's left? Pronouns, I guess, but that seems pretty anticlimactic. I also sometimes hear about "gender identity", but what does this even mean apart from the things I mentioned above?
I've come up with an example which I intended to be intentionally absurd, but in the age of Tumblr activism, I suspect it's not that far-fetched:
*Suppose we have a person named Jennifer. Jennifer identifies as male. However, Jennifer is fine with being referred to by the pronouns "she", "her" and "hers". She has always had two X chromosomes, a vagina, uterus, ovaries, and prominent breasts -- she does not have, nor has she ever had, nor does she intend to ever have, a penis, testicles, a prostate, or a Y chromosome. She wears makeup, she prefers wearing dresses rather than pants, and she wears her hair long. Most of her friends self-identify as female, although when it comes to romantic and sexual relationships, Jennifer would prefer to be with a person who identifies as male and has good upper-body strength, short hair, and an angular body without prominent breasts, as well as a penis and testicles (Jennifer considers herself to be a gay male). In spite of how she identifies herself, Jennifer has resigned herself to using female washrooms and changing rooms, in response to society's wishes. Jennifer enjoys caring for other people, and would someday like to have children.*
If I missed anything you consider to be a component of gender, feel free to fill it in yourself. My point is, once you've factored out everything else, gender doesn't mean anything (i.e. statement (b) is true). You might as well just arbitrarily divide the population into "red team" and "blue team".
I'm guessing somebody's going to point out: "Hey, you have it completely backwards -- all of the things you mentioned are *components* of what makes a person's gender! Gender isn't some extra thing, it *comprises* the other things!" To put it another way, you might claim that a person's gender isn't a binary thing, but a point in a multidimensional "genderspace". Fair enough, but that means that, given a person's gender, you can infer things about a person's behaviour/sexual orientation/clothing/biology, which means there would be *no reason* to have conversations like these:
*Person A*: "My gender is XYZ."
*Person B*: "Ah, does that mean you enjoy PQR?"
*Person A*: "Whoa, that's a stereotype! Stop being XYZ-phobic, you bigot!"
And if you agree with this formulation of gender, then you should agree with statement (a) in the title of this thread.
Also, if you have more traditional beliefs about gender (i.e. there's male and female, and each gender has specific qualities/tendencies) then, unless you consider yourself a bigot, you should agree with statement (a).
I should probably give you some context about where I'm coming from: Although I've made some snarky comments, in spirit I'm more on the side of the Tumblr/Activist/Gender-Fluidity crowd than not, in the sense that I think it would be nice if people could just be people and wear whatever clothes/hair/genitals they want without feeling social pressures to behave otherwise.
But I hate rhetoric that doesn't have some kind of logical thought behind it. That's why I've intentionally made the title of this thread something I consider to be a tautology. If you want to change my view, you can argue that both (a) and (b) are true, or that neither (a) nor (b) is true. If I'm using overly Spock-like language here, it's not because I'm trying to sound smart, it's just because I'm trying to convey my position clearly enough that it's easy for you to pinpoint where I'm wrong.
| 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 current gen/modern consoles and videogames are much better than older (retro) systems, and that anyone who says otherwise is just a hipster. CMV +
+ Forgive me for my use of "hipster" but it was the fastest way to say this. I think consoles and gaming systems have come an amazingly long way, and that older systems such as the N64 have no comparison to them. In my opinion, the only reason why someone would rather play such a system if they have access to the latest ones is 1.- emotional value (completely valid reason, I've done it too) 2.- saying that older systems or videogames are "more fun", "less commercial", with a "deeper story" (these are all subjective, but i believe that it is very unlikely) or playing just to get away from the mainstream.
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: Some atheists (contrary to what they like to believe ) are bad for science by alienating a huge number of people from it. +
+ I met a lot of atheists. I also met some angry atheists. My problem is with them.
A lot of angry atheists attack religions and religious people by using science. A lot of them seem to think that they are helping scientific progress.
I think they are doing the opposite. Scientific advancement is a group effort from the society. If more people take part in science, more progress is made. The more the merrier.
By using science to attack people who are religious, they alienate a huge population from science. So the number of people in science is lower. So less progress. More time until we get space ships.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Football (soccer) should change how they keep track of time in game from keeping the clock running the whole time and having extra time, to stopping it when the play stops and resuming it when the play starts again. +
+ First, let me say that I am not a huge soccer fan, but I do enjoy watching the world cup when it comes around every four years (go Italy!).
One thing that I never understood was how the sport kept track of time. For those who don't know, even when play "stops", the clock continues to run. Then once the time clock has expired, they add on extra time based on the amount of time that the game was halted for throughout that half. For the life of me, I can not think of a single positive for doing it this way.
A video on reddit was posted today ([here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYrTL9wptqw)) shows a goalie yelling at (and probably scaring the shit out of (lol)) a ball boy in order to give him the ball back quickly because his team was down and the time was running out. Another famous video ([here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8dMmpC7cH8)) shows a ball boy jumping on the ball and covering it with his body (I'm assuming he did this in order to attempt to waste time for the other team, helping his team out), and a player kicked him in order to get the ball out from underneath him. Things like this would easily be avoided if time stopped once the ball went out of play.
There is also the possibility of the refs arbitrarily choosing to round the extra time up or down in order to help out a team that they support.
Some might say that they want to keep the game on schedule, and I would say that this could easily be done by restricting the amount of time that players are allowed to keep the ball out of bounds. Give them 10 seconds to throw/kick the ball to continue play (just an example, if 10 seconds doesn't work, change it to something that does).
For the life of me, I cannot think of a single reason why the current system is better than my proposed system, so I leave it to you, CMV!
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I'm pretty sure that almost nobody ACTUALLY believes in hell. CMV +
+ Let's assume we're talking about the Christian tradition here.
I don't believe in hell. But if I thought that hell was actually a literally real place where, according to my behavior in life, I might be tortured for eternity, I would live my life in a very, very different way. I wouldn't just bank on getting into heaven, saying "eh, I'm probably being a decent enough guy." I would give all my money to the poor and dedicate my life to helping those in need. And that wouldn't be a difficult decision at all. *It would be a no-brainer.*
So these people that say they believe in hell, yet go about their lives much like I do -- not doing EVIL things but focusing on wealth, having premarital sex, enjoying idle pleasures instead of contributing meaningfully to the world, etc etc -- can't REALLY believe there's a danger of going to hell, right? At the very least, they probably doubt enough to say "yeah, my religion says there's a hell, but just in case it's all nonsense, I'm gonna live it up while I'm here." | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Scared of working in Downtown San Francisco (earthquakes) +
+ Hello-
I'm starting a job tomorrow working on the 26th floor of a relatively new building in downtown San Francisco. While I am aware of building codes and safety tests, I'm still afraid of being so high up or possibly on the streets during a major earthquake (I'm also afraid of planes). Can any civil engineers out there debunk my view that the buildings aren't 100% safe? I'm also riding BART under the water, so if you want to take a stab at proving the safety of that during an earthquake as well, that would be even better.
| 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 we should make a return to carrying cutlery on our person +
+ This CMV centers around the current situation surrounding disposable cutlery in Western nations, wherein we spend precious resources on making one-use plastic cutlery which is disposed of immediately after a meal. This is also a big issue in eastern Asia, where disposable chopsticks are consumed at an alarming rate.
I think we should return to the system of medieval Europe, where people brought a knife for eating wherever they went and while eating "out" there would be no expectation for the host to provide cutlery. This could be done easily with either a hybrid of a fork/knife/spoon or simply bringing several tools for the job. A non-disposable pair of chopsticks would be even easier to bring with you, too.
This would also be a boon for hygiene, as every person would be responsible for keeping their set of cutlery clean, preferably with some type of paper napkin to rub over with after a meal.
A common counterargument I get is about where one would carry the cutlery, especially for men who tend to not bring handbags with them. But this is a non issue, as there are are several foldable sporks on the market even today.
I look forward to hearing possible counterarguments to 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 dressing super sexy is to sexual harassement/ rape what leaving your wallet on your car seat is to car break-in on parking lots. CMV +
+ just so I'm clear. the girl is ALWAYS the victim. I do not support any kind of sexual harassment.
But knowing there are vicious, violent, frustrated and dangerous men who are not afraid to commit sexual assault, and still dressing imodestly, revealing 80% of your body in a "sexy" way, is quite provocative, and increases your chances of being harassed / assaulted.
Like leaving your wallet on your car seat in a parking lot. You know there are people who are ready to break in your car to get it, it is recommended not to leave anything visible to avoid temptation...yet for girls this measure of precaution doesnt seem to make sense.
As an american humorist said (kind of, I can't find the quote) "if I'm wearing a cop uniform, you'd be right to run to me and reach for help shouting "Officer Help me!! " well when I see girls nowadays, they are wearing a whore's uniform, no wonder they are getting attention."
So.. yeah. change my view. I'd be glad to answer anything to clear up my view if I wasnt explicit enough. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: War is obsolete. +
+ I am an Aussie in my 50's and seen enough to know there is great truth in the statement that:
"If the US alone were to redirect the money they spent on 'defense', it would be enough to feed clothe and house all the people on the planet" (this was back in the 80's when the US defense budget was IIRC ~$6 trillion and the worlds population was under 5 billion people.) although I think the adjusted figures, especially if they included those infamous 'black budgets' of untold billions of dollars would probably still do it, and state of the art technology makes many things trivial today that only 20yrs ago were high difficulty.
We live in unprecedented times with the ability to both harvest *and* look after the resources on this planet BUT we need to do so as a united group. I *don't mean anything like* a 'NWO' type shit, it's all about 'us the people who know each other through the benefits of the internet' and the other wonderful ways of instant communication we have at our disposal ... the way we share our opinions and pov's is special for the 'collective consciousness' of the world
This ability for the *world* to share opinions about things 'in real time' and the way thoughts and images can go 'viral' across the internet/world *shows* how people around the world share much in common and when people work together amazing things can happen, good things!
SO, I don't want to argue "why we fight them" ... History has shown very few wars are 'justified' but it also shows that war has been extremely profitable for certain groups of people. As for land grabs like what's happened in Ukraine by Russia, that's on another level to the Israeli's kicking settlers out of Gaza, both are fucked but one *far more so* than the other. IMO ALL wars are irrational and without 'reason', but you can try and change my view!
But once 'control' is seized Why not make educating them a big priority and use troops to help them asap improve their physical situations? I am aware of far too many 'reasons' why the 'wars must continue' becoz the 'miitary industrial complex' is just that, *complex* and when a government can spend untold Billions of dollars on 'black projects' *which nobody who pays for this stuff, the taxpayer' knows anything about* and 'by law' (wtf!?) *isn't allowed to know* about!
How does that work? Anybody? I seriously can't understand how a government can somehow be 'allowed' to do this .. a bit like the Patriot Act which was *supposed to be* something it no longer is, and all those changes have just been 'snuck in'.
I think it's mainly becoz the US fills it's armies with guys who have very little opportunity to get a decent job anywhere else so easily. They just have to pass basic and even through that they get paid. I hurts me to think about the many desperate people who have joined the army just to survive, And then they get thrown into shit of the worst kind. Shit you can't do anything about but try and get by! While private contractors in Iraq are carting around billions in cash in garbage trucks they eventually 'dissapears'
Wouldn't in be so much smarter to avoid rather than try to counter, after all none of the fights the US has been in for a long time have been on US soil
I think the human race as a whole should stop supporting all and any types of 'war' .. UFC? Bring.It.On, great stuff, but Afghanistan? Na fuck that shit! It's completely wrong and look at the result of the kids who are now 25yo, never been to school outside of some crazy mullah teaching them about death to infidels, and they see their homeland destroyed, and *they know nothing else but war* becoz it's surrounded them all their lives!
And we wonder why these dudes are 'mad cunts' ... seriously, they know NO better! It's truly frightening! People who have been effectively 'brainwashed with religious bullshit' along with their mates they grew up with, these fanatic muslims are truly frightening because they come from Ignorance. They honestly believe they're doing the right thing! This is a *direct result* from their homeland being turned into war zones by the US and her allies!
Now IF we HAD (yes I realize it's a HUGE 'if') gone and fed and educated these people for a while, rather than trying to force them with guns? What if we'd been able to help them make their lives better than before 'we' met them? I'm sure the 'hatred' of 'westerner's' would be negligable compared to what it currently is, b
If the western countries put the effort they put into trying to kill people and 'supposedly' defend themselves and out it into assisting the people who would they perceive as 'threats' .... we would be living in an incredibly different world, but as long as we allow TPTB to continue to 'glorify war' and 'war heroes' remain roles models for young men, we will continue the human sickness know as war
We should have learned from our history by now, for we're just doing what we *know doesn't work* and haven't since Vietnam! And 'those who forget history are doomed to repeat it', it seems our leaders have the craziest case of mass amnesia when it comes to the past!
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Genocide in North Korea +
+ Now these beliefs are based off of my own religious beliefs (Christianity) so take that into consideration. I believe in the bible and because the bible tells me that only those who accept Jesus Christ as their savior go to heaven. I believe that due to the fact that Christianity is illegal in North Korea, they are responsible for the largest and most severe genocide of all time. Now it is different because the killings (to me) are eternal and not physical however to me this is much worse.
I believe that due to the millions of lives which will not make it through the gates of heaven (once again my views), the United Nations should take a serious look into focusing on over throwing the communist regime. I see no reason in entering a world war for the people under the nazi regime and ignoring those suppressed by the North Korean government.
I will post my biblical references below here.
John 14:6-7
John 3:16
Mathew 10:33
Acts 4:12
And regarding any confusion as to the people being forgiven because they had no chance of hearing about God... Romans 1:19-22.
I'm not asking for someone to change my view on how people get in to heaven or anything regarding my faith, because that won't be changing. I'm curious if anyone disagrees with how serious the issue is. Also if anyone believes we should stay out and why?
I'm doing this on my phone so there probably will be a few grammar mistakes, please forgive haha | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Foods with recombinant, and especially transgenic, DNA are worthy of concern +
+ The term "GMO" is applied to foods without much specificity. I have no issues with selective breeding, but selective breeding has been occurring since prehistory, and is well documented and understood. (I think that some of the selective breeding that large agri-biotech companies do is ethically questionable, but that's a completely separate issue.)
However, I believe that once you start bypassing the natural DNA selection mechanisms by manually inserting genes, especially genes from other organisms, we enter poorly explored territory. I don't believe that we currently have the knowledge to determine possible side effects, nor the ability to test for all possible side effects.
In addition, once these crops are planted, if there is a problem discovered later on, there is the possibility that cross-pollination could pass these problematic side effects to crops that weren't part of the GMO seeding, making it possible that an entire species becomes unfit for human consumption.
One argument that I've heard is that nature performs the same type of recombinant DNA manipulation as plants get viruses, but I don't have any notion that plants survive those infections or are able to subsequently reproduce, nor do I have any idea how frequently that sort of thing might occur. Evidence along these lines might be a good starting point.
To be clear, I'm not against recombinant GMOs altogether. Doing things like manipulating algae to create biofuel or manipulating other plants to produce specific chemicals to be harvested sound like good ideas, as long as we're careful to avoid letting those things go wild.
My concern is specifically with foods and with my notion that there are potential unknown side effects that could cause human health problems and/or render certain crops unusable in the long term.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Pep rallies are a waste of my time. +
+ A bit about me, first: I like learning things in school. I like videogames, and not most sports. My school has lots of pep rallies because it is big into football. I, personally don't care about football (soccer football is best football!). anyway, three weeks in a row, we have had peprallies during school. My favorite classes happen to be right in the two usual times. I don't think That I should have to waste my time listening to people yell about school spirit instead of learning things for my potential career. The scheduling is especially bad since the class that usually gets cut off is a class that requires you to memorize various commands. So, I think that pep rallies should be entirely optional. What do you think, CMV?
After about a day my C hasn't been V'd. maybe it could happen later today, but at the moment I'm going to continue being a stick in the mud.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I don't think cops (or other law enforcement personnel) should be allowed to lie to suspects. +
+ It is perfectly legal and normal for cops, ~~attorneys~~, etc. who are trying to get information from a subject to lie to them in an attempt to get information from them. Here are the reasons I'm against it:
Often times, if a subject is in custody, their only source of information about what's going on is their lawyer, and those interrogating them. It can be extremely difficult to deduce the truth for a suspect. Often times, police officers lie to try and get the suspect to give up information or confess in hopes of lessening punishment or explaining their side of the story. My argument is that such lies also encourage the suspect to confess, even if they didn't do it, to try and lessen the punishment. It also fosters an attitude among the public of "don't trust a cop," because you know they can and will lie if they think it'll help their case, whether it's true or not.
In regard to exceptions, I'm okay with the police lying in two situations. First, if they are currently undercover in an investigation. It is obviously impossible to conduct such investigations otherwise. Second, I would say lying is okay if they have reason to suspect someone's life is at risk, such as if a kidnapper has someone tied up somewhere and you need to rescue them.
CMV!
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: If a lawsuit is found to be frivolous, criminal charges should be filed against the plaintiff. +
+ Frivolous lawsuits do nothing but flood the court with idiocy and waste the federal court's time which could be better spent on litigation that is actually necessary. When people file lawsuits over things such as they don't like the color of paint on their neighbor's house, it's clear that the plaintiff is just harassing and/or looking for a payday. The current rule regarding the federal courts is that if 3 lawsuits are found to be frivolous by 1 person, then any lawsuit has to be paid up front. I believe that there should be more punishment for those who waste the court's time.
| 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 mandatory voting is an inherently objectionable policy, and is incompatible with modern liberal society. CMV. +
+ Mandatory voting is an objectionable policy. If citizens have the right to vote, they should have the right to abstain from voting. If one has the right to worship as they please, they also have the right to abstain for worshiping entirely, do they not? So why is voting held to a different standard in nations like Australia?
One argument I've heard in favor of mandatory voting is that you can choose write-in candidates or "none of the above". This makes the policy less objectionable to me, but does not make it entirely acceptable. Citizens are not required to register (or be in any way affiliated) with atheist or agnostic groups, so once again, why should voting be treated differently?
Furthermore, why is the institution of voting entitled to even one second of my time? Why should I be required, under penalty of law, to take time out of my day to vote? Under what grounds do I owe the state my time?
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Amway isn't a scam +
+ Read up a ton on the subject, and I'm still not convinced. I believe I have some points that through research have still not been rebutted.
* Yes, the higher ups make money from motivational content. What's so different between that and artists making money off of their songs? It's still a service they are providing.
* Even if part of the income of the higher ups is provided through selling the motivational content, they are still high levels within the Amway business on it's own. Meaning that even without the additional income of the motivational content, they would still be making a lot of money, so how is it a scam?
* If the selling of motivational content was to go away, would the Amway business on it's own still be considered a scam? Isn't it basically a referral program?
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The NFL Should Change It's Playoff Format +
+ So this obviously stems from the pathetic NFC South this year. To me, it makes no sense that three 5-8 teams are battling for a playoff spot, while the Eagles, for example (no bias, I am not an Eagles fan) are 9-5 and as of now will miss out on the playoffs. We've seen this problem before; the Seahawks made the playoffs at 7-9. Not only do these teams make the playoffs, but as division winners, they get home field advantage too.
I would propose two potential solutions
1). 6 best teams, regardless of standing in their respective divisions, make the playoffs
2). Same format as now. But any team that wins a division at less than 8-8 does not make the playoffs and is replaced by the third best wild card team. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: If religious people truly believed in heaven, they would be happy that they're dying +
+ Even if they're not necessarily happy about dying, they wouldn't be sad about it.
I can't speak much about Islam, Buddhism, etc, but I know for a fact that Catholics believe that there's a heaven, and that life in heaven is infinitely better than the life we live now, and therefore I see no reason why any Catholic who thinks that they're going to heaven should be scared of or sad about dying. If they do believe in heaven, they should be looking forward to the afterlife that they supposedly believe in. | 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 Google requiring users to use a real name on youtube is a good and necessary idea. CMV. +
+ I think that by campaigning for the use of real names online, Google is ushering in a new era of both online and personal responsibility. It's obvious already; all of the youtube comments I've seen connected to a real name are generally much more respectful, interesting, and positive.
Youtube comments have always held a reputation for being of particularly poor quality and taste, and requiring people to use a real name will undoubtably improve that, creating a better online experience for everyone.
I also feel that people spend enough time interacting with strangers online that how we do so will affect how we interact with people in the real world (and I think this effect will be especially relevant for younger generations). Giving people the chance to anonymously be assholes to others online will make them feel that they can get away with it in real life.
This is bigger than youtube, G+, or any set of products. This is a culture-shift on a massive level, and one for the better.
**However**, I do feel that content generators should be allowed to decide if they wish to require commenters to use real names or not. If you want to post a video about things nobody would use their real name to comment on, you should still be able to create a space for them to do so anonymously. Also search should never be linked to personal information, for very obvious reasons.
It may seem horrible and awkward while the transition occurs, but once complete, it will be good for Google, the internet, and society in general. Google is perhaps the only company in the world with the power and the influence needed to induce such an enormous shit in the way everyone acts online, and they will drag us into the future whether we want to or not. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: TwoXChromosomes is the worst subreddit of all for people actually wanting to participate in a subreddit because it positions itself as one thing but delivers another in a personally offensive way. +
+ There are subreddits that are worse than TwoX on the surface because the subreddits exist for just plain evil - like the racist subreddits or subreddits glorifying violence and such. But these subreddits don't pretend to be anything other than they are; users know what it is and know what they're participating in. Other users stay away and never participate on those subreddits.
With TwoX, the surface of the subreddit is a place for women's issues and discussions about being a woman. But what is actually delivered is a subreddit in which the intended users of the subreddit are bombarded with negativity from other users. So now you have users who *think* they're participating in a supportive subreddit meant for women's perspectives, but end up being responded to by antagonizing users who argue against women's perspectives and play devil's advocate. Downvotes reinforce this as well. Often this is personally offensive to the woman who submitted the thread or posted the comment being responded to.
This happened when TwoX became a default subreddit. Other default subreddits have the same problem of users not realizing what subreddit they're in and making comments that go against the spirit or rules of the subreddit, but this problem cuts the deepest in TwoX because the topics are so personal. When someone makes an inappropriate joke comment in r/history, it gets deleted, and the thread can look sparse, but nobody is typically personally offended. But in TwoX, on the other hand, when someone makes a comment that goes against the spirit of the subreddit, the comment is typically an attack of a person or idea or feeling (because those are the things typically discussed in the subreddit - unlike history, for example), and so people do get personally offended.
This all combines to make TwoXChromosomes the worst subreddit of all for the typical user who actually wants to participate in it.
----------------------
However, you gotta admit, as a user of a community, it would suck to see your inbox constantly fill up with "trolls" even if those "trolls" eventually end up buried in downvotes. When you get a response to a comment, you get an inbox notification and will typically be the first person to read the comment - so you read it before it has any up or downvotes. Even if all the "trolls" eventually do get their comments removed, downvoted, or with many responses saying "that's not right!," the person whose comment it is originally is getting all that inbox activity that really sucks. So the experience for a regular user of the subreddit still really sucks even if the end-result for someone browsing the front page is nice.
("trolls" in quotations because I'm using it as shorthand: by it It mean users to espouse the negativity mentioned above.)
| 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 feminism movement has caused a crash in the U.S. education system, and it's a crash that we likely will never recover from. CMV. +
+
Before mentioning anything, I'd like to note that I am by no means demonizing the feminism movement or anything of that nature. Instead, I'm referring to allocation of jobs; many other industries (i.e, hard sciences) received a great boon after the feminist displays in 1910 and after. However, I believe that this shift of allocation has damaged the American education system, and have only been affirmed since I've began my last year as a student teacher.
In colonial times (1772 until the end of the 18th century, essentially) teachers were primarily male; you'd honestly be hard pressed to find a female as an educator in this time, but it certainly was plausible as being an educator wasn't seen as a career. Instead, most teachers used their experience in education as a stepping stone in order to advance to other jobs, such as medical jobs, law jobs, and religious jobs.
This primarily male system continued in place until about 1820-1830. However, because of the large amount of secretarial work that comes with being an educator, most teachers did not consider education as a primary profession and instead were siphoned into fields that I mentioned prior. This only became a greater issue with westward expansion of the United States, so additional educators were required to be adopted. It was around this time that the standard of female educators (which we still hold today, but no where near to the same degree) was formed. In addition, because of females being employed into the educational field, education began to be seen as a primary occupation (albeit one that only females pursued, similar to secretarial work).
Honestly, this sort of educational system lingered until late 1800s-early 1900s, with it really picking up steam in 1910s. At this time, feminism as a movement is coming into full swing; the women teacher's rebellion followed along with it. Initially, this forms into having teachers unions, better benefits, and a gamut of other improvements.
But, after the feminism movement (mid and post 1930s) had largely made ground, female educators were (similarly to males) siphoned from education as a field and into hard sciences, medical, and law fields. **Because of this siphoning, I believe that our education system experienced a crash and has never recovered from it.**
Many of the educators at this time, who were siphoned, became prize winning biologists, physicians, chemists, doctors, and a gamut of other high caliber occupations. These individuals were, quick frankly, brilliant. At no other point of history after 1930s can we really say that education is filled with brilliant individuals, primarily because they were siphoned into other occupations (yes, males were in the 1700s, but as females adopted education as a field, education didn't experience a crash). Even today, the demographic of educators is no where near the intellectual caliber as at this time (and I say that going into education myself!). This is not to say there was not brilliant teachers, as I have the pleasure to interact with them on a near daily basis and refine my pedagogical skills, but we certainly do not have the prize winning hard science individuals teaching our children like we did in the 1920s and prior.
I'll mention again that I'm not demonizing the feminism movement. After this movement, there were undeniable leaps and bounds in hard sciences, and those discoveries would not have been possible without those women leaving educational positions and trading in their chalkboards for lab coats. However, education has (and still is!) experiencing a drought that it honestly cannot recover from. In order to recover from this drought, you have to make education more attractive to those who are interested in pursing doctoral and master degrees. Education is always experiencing budget cuts, has an awful public image, and is an incredibly demanding job when considering its time:money ratio.
I do not believe that it is possible to make education more attractive for these individuals who otherwise would pursue hard sciences, law, and medical fields. The only real reason I hear of individuals being passionate about education is from intrinsic value, and that's certainly not something that can be advertised to everyone (Come teach! You'll find meaning or something!). Unless there's some massive rework of the education system to make it more attractive (and, honestly, who sees that coming when education isn't a field lead by educators?), I see no real way education in the United States can recover from its current drought.
CMV. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: As a rule, I wouldn't hire a felon. +
+ I fully understand that repeat offenders fall into the trap of cant get a job - turn to illegal things because they can't get a job - can't get a job because they are felons - turn to illegal things because they can't get a job, etc etc etc.
On average, [there are 3 unemployed people per job](http://jobsearch.about.com/b/2013/08/18/the-number-of-job-applications-per-opening.htm). You won't have a problem finding people without felonies for just about any position.
Basically, felons have a much higher chance of [committing another crime](http://www.crimeinamerica.net/2010/06/02/repeat-felons-dominate-the-criminal-justice-system%E2%80%94most-convicted-felons-do-not-serve-time-in-prison%E2%80%94part-one/) as compared to people who have never committed a felony. If an employee commits a crime while on company property, involving company property, or anything to that nature, it directly hurts the business. Even if they're not on company time, you still lose the employee if they're arrested and you're forced to find a replacement. When compared to someone who has never had any trouble with the law, the person with a clean record has a major advantage. They're statistically less likely to steal, more likely to stay out of jail, and less likely to involve the company in any illegal business.
Given the opportunity to hire a felon vs someone with no record, I see no disadvantages with not hiring felons.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I'm 15 years old, and I believe that I should be able to (legally) consent to having sex with someone who is older than 18. CMV +
+ I believe that I should be allowed to consent to have sex with someone who is older than 18, if I so desired. I know the dangers of unprotected sex, I know how to be safe, and I know the emotional consequences that can follow.
I don't believe that because I'm 15, I somehow don't have the capacity to know, comprehend, and consent to having sex. I'm not some incompetent, mindless baby that can't think for himself.I think it's really stupid to say that someone my age can't consent. What makes me any less able to consent than someone who's, say, 18?
So, CMV.
I'm a Bisexual guy too, if that matters.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: A tablet computer is an essential tool for a university student. +
+ I think there are only a few items/materials that we would consider essential for a university student, and I think out of all of them, a tablet is the most important one.
Most readings these days are digital, either PDFs distributed by the professor, or books that are available digitally through Kindle. A tablet saves trees, carbon dioxide, etc, but reducing the amount of paper that would normally be printed out. Sure, you could argue that the creation of a tablet uses important nonrenewable resources, but I would say that the tablet has other advantages, and environmental reasons aren't the sole advantage.
iPad and Android tablets (and I assume whatever the heck Microsoft's is) have very solid apps for editing PDFs. They can highlight, make notes, bookmarks, etc, and they also sync to Dropbox, making organizing and syncing files very seamless. This makes it easy to bring in quotes and other sources when you create presentations or papers.
Reading and editing on a computer simply isn't a good experience. You can't sit in a chair or on a sofa and cradle something in your hand. Using a laptop is just a less ergonomic experience. Laptops offer a better writing and researching experience, but a tablet with a keyboard is a reasonable option, and there are always library computers for writing essays if you really need them.
Because of these reasons, I think I would consider a tablet to be one of the most necessary tools or materials for a college or university student.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Inventing an infallible lie detector would do more to solve issues relating to human behaviour (e.g. crimes) than any other single development. +
+ If we had a perfect lie detector that was easily accessible - say, as easy to get as a cell phone is today - this would solve virtually all problems relating to human interaction. Let's leave aside the practicalities and just assume that it is trivial to find out the truth from people. This would not force people to say anything, it would simply determine if what they said was true. So you could just be silent or say "I'm not answering that" if someone asks crude or obscene questions.
People who knew they would be caught - not a question of if, but when - would be far less likely to commit crimes like theft or premeditated physical attacks. Crimes of passion would still occur, but rarely.
False accusations would disappear instantly. The justice system could no longer convict anyone who did not deserve it, barring exceptionally rare circumstances (like amnesia). Police forces would instantly be cleaned up, as no one could abuse their power and pretend they didn't.
The political system would be reformed, as politicians would no longer be able to accept bribes or do other actions that are illegal. It would become impossible to propose laws or programs and lie about your reasons, making it much more difficult to pass laws or programs that would be against the public interest.
People would have much less ability to harm each other. Relationships would become much better as dishonest people would no longer be able to lie.
It is true that this would do nothing to solve issues like pollution, climate change, or homelessness. However, making a world where no one could lie to each other, or escape detection when harming someone else, would do an immense amount of good - perhaps more than any other potential development.
| 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 minimum wage constitutes no more or less than the bare minimum effort. +
+ If an employer chooses to pay the minimum wage required by law, how can he expect more than what is required? Especially when the job actually requires some skill or intellect in the first place. **Employer** "Can you give 110% when working?" **Employee** "Are you going to pay me 10% extra?". **Employer** "No." **Employee** "There's your answer then". **This whole argument is based on those who are only in minimum wage employment for money, it doesn't count if it's an apprenticeship or internship etc**
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I think the war in Iraq is the largest mistake the USA has ever made. +
+ Seriously, Vietnam looks like nothing compared to what has transpired in the aftermath of the second invasion of Iraq. A stable Middle East with a few power players (Hussein, al-Assad) is far better than the situation we are beginning to face. The loss of life and continued financial/political commitment to Iraq has taken away focus on domestic issues and squandered all our money - for what? No WMD and folks that are crazier than Hussein, plus the matchbox for the insane "Arab spring" that has been spiraling out of control.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe that if marijuana were legalized, people in jail for related crimes should have to serve the remainder of their sentences CMV +
+ I'm all for legalizing marijuana, but if we legalize it, I think that people who are in jail on charges for things like possession, intent to sell, growing, paraphernalia, etc, should have to complete their time.
At the very least, they should have to complete part of their time.
They committed a crime. They should do the time.
I know that for the most part people aren't really getting rehabilitated in jail, but maybe if there were less of a strain on the system (no more drug offenders coming in), there could be a greater push for education and rehabilitation. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
If I found out my unborn child was going to have non-trivial birth defects, I would want it aborted. CMV +
+ From what I've read, it's very easy to find out if your unborn child is going to have birth defects (e.g. Down's Syndrome) through routine fetus testing. As a potential father, if I were to discover through these tests that my future child was going to have a non-trivial birth defect like cerebral palsy, I would want my wife to have an abortion. Without getting too specific, I don't mean defects like missing a hand or a child with a malfunctioning heart, I mean something so physically and/or mentally debilitating that would require the kid be put in special education classes, or live in a group home as an adult, etc... I feel like a very selfish and really just shit human being for having this view, but it doesn't change the fact that I believe this. I'd like to clarify that I have no issue with people who have said defects at all, I just don't think I could handle raising a disabled child.
CMV. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think replacing individual vehicles with mass transit for the majority of people would be a good thing. CMV. +
+ Though transit is currently impractical for many people, I think if we switched over to a system where most people were using transit, it could be much more efficient and thus effective. I mean this for all reasonably sized cities (say 10,000 and up), not just monolithic places like NYC.
It would likely be even more effective if we could re-design our cities to incorporate mass transit. But, for the sake of argument, let's just assume that we keep our cities as is and simply increase the number of buses/trams/subways according to the costs saved by everyone converting their cars into their asset values and applying that to transit infrastructure.
There might still be the need for some vehicles for certain jobs, such as those that need to transport large machines. Those would, however, be business related vehicles.
I'm not sure at all about this view and am open to changing it. So, CMV! | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
The JC Penney's fair pricing failure shows consumers do not make rational market choices. CMV +
+ A couple years back, a clothing department store JC Penney's had Ron Johnson step into the CEO role. He was tasked with bringing new life to the store, and decided on a "Fair and Square" approach. He was going to do away with many of the deceptive tactics that had been in use previously.
Before, sales were used heavily to sway customers. Items would be marked up by 20%, then placed on a 20% off rack. Generally at a given time 50-60% of the merchandise would be on sale, with some items never being sold at it's "normal price" at all. Anything that was off sale was priced at a ludicrous markup. Jonson did away with sales entirely, and marked all the shelves with the true prices. Further, he eliminated the $44.99 pricing, rounding to whole numbers. I believe coupons were also cut back.
As the title suggests, this failed colossally. Sales dove dramatically, customers left, and many predict the store won't ever fully recover. There's a few ideas why this happened, the most supported is that people like sales. Buying a $30 pair of jeans feels nice, but buying an ~~$80~~$30 pair feels *awesome*. Other factors like the .99 pricing also contributed. JC Penney's felt more expensive without the trick, despite being on paper the most honest pricing.
This is highly contradictory to the "rational consumer" model that various degrees of free market supporters often rely on. While market issues from bad choices are brought up often, the conversation is generally toward vague regulations issues, scheming boards, or X group being uninformed consumers. Here we have a prime example where no government oversight contributed to the problem, where the CEO was replacing actually deceptive practices openly, and the primary customers are fairly well off, educated, middle to old age patrons. I side with Johnson, and would have thought this successful before. That it failed, and failed on such a magnitude leads me to believe a truly free or very free market relying on choices like this one are detrimental over our current system.
The market solution here is objectively the worse one. Instead of competitors dumping their now admittedly deceptive tactics, Penney's [apologizes](http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/05/01/jc-penney-ad-apologizes-to-customers/2127055/) and goes back to it's [deceptive tactics](https://www.google.com/search?q=jc+penney+sale+). Further, the competition is now incentivized to find better ways to do sales, impulse buys, or pricing tricks. I believe this is detrimental to market systems, and to the quality of life of the consumers. We should not over-rely on consumer habits. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
The United States of America has the best justice system in the world. CMV. +
+ I am not making a claim that our system is perfect. You will not move me by detailing flaws in our system without showing me another system that is better. I am looking for a comparison between our system and another you can present as being superior. Do this well, and I'll pass out a delta.
To CMV, you'll have to 1.) demonstrate a system that actually exists in the world that can scale up as much as ours that 2.) you'd rather be tried under than the U.S. system. I believe that the United States justice system offers more rights to the accused than any other, and I'd rather stand trial here than anywhere else.
Note that our system of justice, the methodologies actually practiced in the courtroom, is different and distinct from our system of laws and lawmaking. I think we have a lot of stupid laws, and a lot of problems with the way we make laws, but that's not on trial here, so to speak. We have the highest prison population of any country by a huge margin, and I don't agree that many of the "crimes" that contribute to that statistic should be crimes, but this is an issue of politics, not justice, and that's not what I want to discuss 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 an Asian male makes you invisible in the dating or hookup culture CMV +
+ The media makes a stereotype of Asian males that emasculates them to being the geeky troll or just fighting Kung fu for honor.
Blogs in the manosphere have totem poles of attractiveness that are harsh truths. Asians are at the bottom or near it.
Being a white guy automatically makes it easy for you to take the Asian women and have more choice. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe suicide is an unrespectable act of weakness with few exceptions. CMV. +
+ I'll start off with exceptions, since this is probably the most important part of the post for someone who wants to avoid misconceptions about my point.
1) A person who is being tortured.
2) A person with a severe disease that causes them great pain or agony daily
Other than these exceptions, I think suicide is a weak, stupid decision and I can't stand the way people who kill themselves are idolized as "beautiful angels" or "brave souls". They weren't brave for taking the easy way out! That was cowardly! Someone who was brave would not kill themselves because they lost their job or were bullied, or lost a loved one, or had a divorce! A brave soul, or a beautiful angel would keep pushing forward until they succeeded!
When I hear about suicides on the news, especially teens who kill themselves because of bullying, I find myself shaking my head instead of feeling sorrow for this person. The suicide itself does not make me angry, it's the way everyone treats it. Take Amanda Todd, for example. Everyone treated her as a saint as soon as she was dead, when in reality she killed herself because people were **bullying her?!**
Of all the reasons to kill yourself, this seems the most ridiculous to me. It's tragic that someone died, sure, but they're now being idolized, almost viewed as a hero because they gave into bullying and killed themselves?
CMV guys. I'd like to hear a realistic other side of the argument since all I get from real life friends is sugarcoating. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Having an Obese child should be counted as child abuse. CMV +
+ I think this is a really good idea considering that we have a childhood obesity epidemic, and that the parents have
100% control on what the children eat. If you want to be obese and die at 55, that's fine, but don't force your
kids to. Obesity causes so many illnesses I can't even name them all here, and it's is a medical disorder that can
be fixed very easily with proper food and exercise. We give our kids whatever we feel like, or whatever is easy to
give them and don't care about the consequences. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: We should not have fixed-price fines for unlawful activity +
+ For example, two people are walking the streets of their city and both decide to cross on a red signal.
Two police officers stop each of them and they are both issued a $50 fine for the infringement.
Both have steady income and are able to pay the fine however their annual income differs by $80,000.
The fine for jay-walking is a form of punishment intended to deter an unsafe activity.
The fine represents an additional subjective risk for the activity when the city requires no monetary recompense.
My view is that this risk is much lower for the high income earner to the point where it no longer has its intended effect therefore the fixed-price fine is ineffectual.
Since the fine, as a consequence of breaking the law, is no longer a risk, it is an unequal form of punishment and some kind of scale is required.
One solution may be for fines to be similar to taxes, based on a persons income with a minimum amount.
People might also be allowed to choose between a inverse variable amount of community service or the variable fine.
If these methods were used over fixed-price fines, the risk would be sufficient enough that all people would adhere to the law regardless of their income. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think no one should attempt to change their sex (i.e. tansgender) CMV +
+ I feel that our biological sex is such an integral part of our identity, that we should not attempt to change it. I do not understand the idea of feeling like "a woman trapped in a man's body" or vice versa and, no offense, why this is becoming so accepted. I am aware that the DSMV once categorized this as a psychological disorder (not sure if it still is).
I also feel that it has the potential to create problems that society wouldn't normally have to deal with. For example, proponents of transgender people believe a male who identifies as "female" should be able to participate in female sports. However being biologically male gives them a huge advantage. I'm sure hormone therapy lessens the amount of muscle on a transgender M to F person, but there still must be some strength advantage, and also not every transgender person is taking hormone therapy.
I am open to new ways of thought but no one has managed to make me understand it yet. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Financial Aid is not a morally justifiable reason to join the military +
+ I'm not looking to debate whether killing as an act of war is immoral, though the best responses might take the discussion there. Instead, my point is that killing a human being is a very serious thing and that if you don't personally believe in the cause for which your country is fighting, you are not treating the lives of the opposing soldiers with sufficient respect. Furthermore, offering to kill on behalf of a third party in order to secure personal financial gain is akin to contract killing, and is immoral.
I know there are plenty of kids that join the military to "support their country" and for whom their government salary is an added benefit. I'm not talking about those people. I want to discuss those who go off to war so they can afford college.
1. It is morally reprehensible to kill a human being without a just cause.
2. By enlisting in the military, you have agreed to kill someone on behalf of the cause for which that military is fighting.
3. If you agree that the cause is just, that it is worth killing for, the morality of your actions rests on the morality of the cause itself. You can defend your actions based on whether or not the cause is justifiable. However, if you do not believe the cause is just, if you enlist purely for financial gain, you cannot defend your actions because you acknowledge that you are not killing for a just cause.
4. Therefore, enlisting in the military for financial gain *only* is immoral.
| 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 there is no moral difference in eating cat, dog or horse than there is in eating other meats. +
+ I often see uproar over other countries that eat foods such as dog, cat, and horse. We are encouraged to protest over the immorality of it. I do not see it as morally any different that eating any of the "Western" meats that are perceived as acceptable such as beef, pork, poultry, lamb, etc.
We are using our societal norms to put pressure on other cultures to conform to our belief system regarding what foods are appropriate and moral. I do not think unless you stand against eating all meat products you are in any position to judge another society for the foods they have eaten for generations. We, in the US and most western countries, have eaten domesticated animals for millennia and it is no different than someone in an Asian country, for example, eating dog or cat.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |