input
stringlengths 114
23.1k
| output
stringclasses 2
values | instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|
I believe the continuity of consciousness is an illusion. CMV. +
+ It's a difficult idea to tackle but here it goes:
Firstly, I believe that due to our constant change in memories, opinions and general personality we are not the same person throughout the entirety of our lives. This first part is simple enough as most people would agree they are not the same person they were ten years ago, if you define a person as a mind composed of concrete ideas, memories etc...
However, the same applies to the you a month ago or five minutes ago. The line may become blurrier but that last post you read added a memory or maybe even an opinion to who you were and now you're, ever so slightly, a different person.
There are a couple of ways to look at this:
A) We are continually dying and being replaced by a slightly altered version of ourselves
or
B) Consciousness should be considered an ever shifting state and not a static one, whatever compound of chemical and electrical signals is going on in our head is still us as long as any change or addition happens gradually and in small amounts.
This all might be interesting but you might be thinking it is irrelevant to our everyday life. And for now, you would be right. But this might become a much more decisive dilemma in the future. Here is how:
The year is whatever, and we have created the capacity to fully scan our neural structure to the very last detail. For the purpose of this hypothetical situation let's say the process is destructive and a full scan would also wipe out your brain and cause you to become well, brain-dead. Now, you have invested in an insurance plan, mostly because you worry for your family. This insurance company has grown a body clone of yourself with a blank slate for a brain and given you a neural scanner you must wear on your head at all time. When a grave accident happens to you the scanner fires off, effectively killing you if you weren't dead already and sending your brain schematic to the insurance company which immediately prints it and transplants it into the clone.
This clone would have the exact thoughts, memories, opinions, emotions and personality you had the moment the scan was taken but the body you were in is now completely dead. Some would argue the clone is just an exact copy but not actually you, not the same "person". But I disagree, the continuity of consciousness is an illusion anyway. Taking the options above, If you accept A then yes you died and this isn't exactly you but you die all the time anyway so it doesn't matter now either. If you accept B then there isn't a problem, this is still you because continuity is not a defining characteristic of consciousness.
Anyway, I thought this allegory would help me express my opinions with accuracy. I fail to find an option C in this situation but I may be wrong. And of course this argument is completely secular and disregards most faiths but I ask that this not be the center of any discussion and we focus only on the logical thinking behind it. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
There is no point in voting because one vote never makes a difference. CMV. +
+ Whenever I say this, 100% of the time I get the following response:
"Yes but if everybody behaved like you, no one would vote, and then one vote WOULD make a difference".
My answer to this alternates depending my my mood:
"So?"
"But will everyone do that?"
"Thanks for the compliment that everybody in society follows my lead and won't vote if I don't. The problem is that I can't see it"
Please consider the above responses before making this argument.
Also consider the relevance of: you are more likely to get run over on the way to the polling station than your vote to make a difference.
Thanks! | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
If you believe that abortion there should be legal, then you shouldn't ethically be against limitations on it. CMV +
+ Leaving late term abortion aside, we are reaching a point with genetics that we as a culture are going to be able to determine traits and in utero and if those traits are less than desirable just abort the child and try again.
I feel that the most shocking example is going to be with homosexual children. Hypothetically we are going to be able to find the genetic link to homosexuality and if it is testable in the womb gay children will be aborted in great numbers.
I agree that it is unethical, but should be legal to abort a child for any reason and that by putting your own ethics and telling a woman what she should be able to do with her body is wrong. It should still be her choice. CMV | 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 feel sorry for people who have to work Thanksgiving/Christmas/etc at retail stores. CMV +
+ You chose to take the job. You chose to keep your job. If you don't like it, quit and move on. If you can't find another job, be thankful that you're employed at your current skill level.
No one is forcing you to do anything. You can always quit your retail job if you don't like the way things are run. Millions of people enjoy the day after thanksgiving sales (ok...they *go* to the sales), there is a market for that. Which means there are jobs there. If you don't want that job, someone else does. I've worked my share of holidays/long hours in a job far shittier than retail, its not that bad. Stop being a whiner and accept that you may have to do something unpleasant sometimes. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:Adoption is better than giving birth to one +
+ I really think that a lot of common world problem are mainly (if not, majorly affected) caused by overpopulation (starvation, diseases, unemployment, etc. you name it).
So I thought, why not adopt child that needs help instead of making more child?
Here's the benefit of adopting on top off my head:
1. You don't add more problem (e.g. starvation) to the world and you still get to keep a child.
2. You don't have to let your wife/yourself(if you are female) risk your life giving birth. Sure, technologies improved so the risk is reduced, but still, you gotta pay a lot of money just for the operation. That money can be used for something else that might be more important.
3. Imagine if your own child was born in this world, there's no guarantee they will be living in a good place in the future, since the number of problem in the world seems to be increasing. (again, look at unemployment problem in the world, it seems to keep increasing)
I tried discussing this with my parents, but they just keep dismissing my arguments with saying "Nah, you're not at that age yet, you'll understand in the future". and it kinda sickens me since they use that reasoning for a lot of things.
Now, I'm not saying that everyone should adopt child and ban childmaking. I'm posting this because I'd like to see the opposing view on this, as I can't seem to see it myself.
Okay, I can at least mention one reason why having your own child is more beneficial than adopting: It's because mother are more mentally (or spiritually?) connected with her child because they were in her womb for 9 months. But heck, I can't prove or disprove that.
If there's anything unclear, I apologize in advance and I'll try to clear it up for you.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Feminism as it exists in the modern era is useless and annoying +
+ Today I opened the door for a girl and got screamed at, at 8 in the morning.
Certainly changes need to be made but not in the way it's being approached now. I don't think I've heard one coherent argument.
Again, I completely support equality but the beating down of every make you come across surely isn't the best way to accomplish things. It's not like I don't support the movement, I just don't fully understand it (in terms of how the goal is being achieved). And every person I've come across supporting it has been mean spirited and a bit of an asshole
I guess what I'm really looking for is proof of what progress is being made recently, or how the aggressiveness pays off. Thanks in advance for any light that can be shed | 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 Boy Scouts of America contradict their own oath and morals by refusing to tolerate atheists and homosexuals. CMV +
+ Let me start off by saying I don't dislike the BSA as a whole, I just think their principles are questionable. I'll also mention that I am entirely external to the organization; I live in Canada so I've never met someone who I knew was a part of BSA. I don't know if we have an equivalent program.
My opinion is as simple as a few syllogisms:
1. The Boy Scouts of America's official policy is to oppose atheism and other ideologies that contradict biblical values.
2. The Boy Scout oath:
"A Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly,
courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty,
brave, clean, and reverent."
3. Opposing and restricting membership and being intolerant to other individuals based on personal beliefs is not helpful or friendly, and it is even less courteous, kind, or brave.
I think worst of all is the bravery part. In my opinion it is absolutely cowardly to be so indignant or disgusted by what someone else thinks or does that you cannot associate with them. Bravery is the ability to accept what someone else believes as their own personal ideology, especially if the ideology doesn't violate the harms principle. I believe being gay or atheist harms no one, thus if the Boy Scouts of America are trotting out a motto that includes being brave, kind, and friendly, then they ought to act so. CMV. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: There is no need to be provident with oil with respect to the climate, as we'll burn up all of it at some point +
+ The problem with burning petroleum is that we release CO2 that has not been in the atmospheric cycle for a long time, so it's just "extra" to what we usually have. On the other hand you can plant as many trees as you'd like to but you're not going to change how much carbon there is in the cycle.
Hence we *should* immediately stop burning petroleum and just leave it, because we're never getting rid of the extra carbon.
However, I believe that due to the relatively low cost and easy use humanity is not going to stop burning it until it's (virtually) all gone. The amount of it is very limited after all and it's financially very lucrative. I conclude that I don't benefit the climate in the long run by cutting down on my petroleum use.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: If there are no moral truths without a God, there are no moral truths with a God. +
+ People who say a theological foundation is required for morality often put their argument in the form "Without a God there's no reason not rape and murder. Legal consequences and social stigmas don't constitute a morality".
But what changes by adding God to the picture? If someone is of a mind to completely disregard legal and social consequences of their actions, neglect the wishes of friends and family, and pay no care to the damage they inflict on others, why would or should they be held back by what *God* wants them to do?
Not killing someone because you fear God's punishment is no different from not killing someone because you fear legal punishment. Maybe you fear God's punishment more, but that doesn't make following His rules any nobler than just following society's rules.
But I'm not an expert on the nuances here. Let me know if I'm missing something.
Thanks for reading. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I am OK with judging people. CMV. +
+ If you commit a murder, I will judge you. If you steal, I will judge you. If you dress like a slut, I will judge you. If you get a tattoo, I will judge you. If you break the law, I will judge you. If you are dishonest, I will judge you. If you are fat, I will judge you. If you look like a nerd, I will judge you.
I hold this opinion because I don't see anything wrong with judging people.
Is there any reason why I shouldn't judge you?
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV, the electorate college system to elect a president is absolutely ridiculous as it essentially makes some voters more important than others +
+ I know that technically each vote has the same weight. However, If I'm leaving in New York, there is no way you can seriously try to tell me that my vote is just as important as someone's vote who lives in Ohio or Florida. Using the electorate college practically disenfranchizes a lot of the country and it is ridiculous it still is in existence.
What is wrong with a simple popular vote? Shouldn't that be the determining factor anyway? That way presidential candidates would at least campaign in areas with the most people, instead of campaigning predominately in swing states. I understand the original reason for the electorate college and not a popular vote, "to silence the voice of the uneducated voters" I believe it was.
But come on people, how is it at all justifiable that based on where someone lives, there vote can hold significantly more power in determining who the president is? | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The iAMA of the Westboro Church was handled disgracefully by Reddit. +
+ [Link to WBC AMA: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2d5xtl/we_are_members_of_westboro_baptist_church_and_are/]
The point of iAma is for people to be able to talk about their views/experience without being harassed about them. I by no means condone ANY of WBCs actions, but their AMA was by no means purposely provocative towards people, in a way that would violate Reddiquete.
Some of my main points of concern are
1. The excessive downvoting of posts made by WBC that in no way granted a downvote. People downvoted the WBC because of their beliefs, not in the value of the posts
2. The harassment of the WBC replies to questions. There were many posts "Proving" WBC is 'Gay', etc. These harrasment posts (i could post specific examples if you really wish me to, but i would advise you simply look at the thread yourself.) ARE in violation of IAMA's rules ("Abusive or harassing comments").
3. The general Sentiment shown for the WBC AMA
for days (Weeks?) Reddit has known about the AMA, and has been hostile to the very idea. The fact that we are a big enough community to attract the attention of such a big name is very impressive. To spoil these chances shows our immaturity, and our inability to do these sorts of things again.
Don't fight hate with hate. Thats what we did, and we should be ashamed.
(Disclaimer: this is a generalization of the comments I have seen of the AMA, there were numerous comments that were polite and respectful. there were many more, however, that were not.)
(Another Disclaimer: Just so were clear, I personally Despise the WBC. They are a cruel hate group that has a sick and twisted view of the world. I just think that they still deserve respect.)
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think the minimum wage should be removed to create more incentive for people to get better jobs - CMV +
+ A little while ago there was a lot of talk about raising the minimum wage up to $15. People on both sides were giving quality reasons about the economy, living standards and so on. That all seems good but as a whole shouldn't we be decentivizing jobs that need a minimum wage.
Shouldn't we instead be incentivizing jobs that need more skill and education. I think the best way to incentivize would be to remove or reduce the minimum wage. If someone knows that they can't live based on their pay from a fast-food joint then they'll have even more incentive to get an education and a better job.
I'm really interested to see what you guys have to say about it. I don't know much about this topic. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I can't take feminist activists in the west seriously... +
+ ... when I see 19 year old girls fight literal female enslaving rapists, risking their lives everyday to protect those who are close to them. Look at that steely eyed stare as she says "they see women as just little things, but one of our women is worth a hundred of them"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGVbpsGmLVo
Meanwhile, in the west:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maP0CAhL_3k
Is this a sorority initiation ritual or something?
I guess the point I'm trying to make is, I can't see that fearless 19 year old girl wasting her time running through the streets of her city topless, shouting slogans once the fighting stops - I would imagine her rolling up her sleeves, getting to work, solving problems, affecting real change.
Maybe they were trying to shift public attention towards a very important topic or cause, I personally have no idea. It just looks like a bunch of women being loud. Which is fine, I don't mind a bunch of people stirring sh** up and having fun but like I said - can't take that kind of thing seriously.
I would like to see examples of feminist activism in the west - from the last 15 years - that are not "ridiculous". A campaign that has brought awareness to a real problem, with a plan that has gone some way into solving it. Change My View (I'm honestly curious). | 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 intelligent design (not necessarily the six-day creation as Christians believe), but the idea that the universe did not happen by accident, is a valid theory, and should be taught alongside evolution. CMV +
+ couple things:
* I am not what you would consider a Christian. I believe that there is a God of some kind, and he created the universe, but beyond that, I don't know. I do not agree with most things involving the Christian religion, especially their bigotry, but I do agree with more than a few things in the Bible. The issues I have are primarily in the contradictions with its moral rules.
* I am not saying anything about the age of the earth.
* My view is based on some facts and evidence, but mainly on knowledge of the sciences.
* my biggest issue with evolution is odds. The statistics that any sort of anything, even a single molecule, could be created by accident, ex nihilo, is just preposterous to me. In addition to that, the sheer size and complexity of the universe exponentially decreases these odds, and I find it baffling anyone could believe something so unlikely, so impossible, could even happen.
* this is not a view based on irrational beliefs, and I don't want people saying it is. This should be an argument of logic, not beliefs.
* my issue with cosmology is with the "ex nihilo" problem...where did everything come from, as it is most definitely a scientific fact that, due to rates of decay and whatnot, the universe has not always been.
* my issues with evolution and abiogenesis are one and the same, and more of an issue of education than anything. These are taught as being scientific fact, however, they have never been observed, and by definition, for something to be proven by science, it must be observed.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: If it's wrong to say "Not all black people are criminals, but all white people live in fear of crime," then it should be wrong to say "Not all men rape, but all women live in fear of being raped." +
+ It seems pretty intuitive that if the first one is wrong, so is the second, since you're generalizing a group of people based on a trait they can't control. You don't choose to be born a male, so it's not fair that you're labeled as a potential rapist with examples like the "bowl of M&M's": If I were to use that example, except having the bowl of M&M's be representative of black people, I would be (rightly) called a Neo-Nazi and told to go fuck a Confederate flag or something.
However, I see the "All women live in fear of being raped" being passed around a lot, and I don't quite see the rationale behind it. Considering that only a minority of men rape, it seems pretty unfair to make a statement that holds all men accountable.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I am personally against organ donation. CMV +
+ This is only my personal belief. My belief is that when I die, if I get harvested my soul will not be able to rest because all of my body will not be together. Parts of me will continue to live. Therefore, I do not want any parts of my body to be separated nor do I wish to be embalmed or autopsied.
Also, I believe in Darwinism. Let's say someone has renal failure through no fault of their own and needs a kidney transplant. Well, natural selection tells me that you're kinda outta luck. Yes, I know, technology and advances in medicine kind of trump Darwin, but being that it is a major belief of mine I refuse to participate in that technology. Perhaps that makes me primordial. I am open to arguments.
Now, if my children were ever selected, I would not just stand by and let them suffer. I would donate any part of my body for them. The reason I believe this to be acceptable is because they are already a part of me. They are living breathing people consisting of half my genetic code. I believe my soul can rest if it means they can continue to live.
Likewise, I refuse to receive a blood transfusion or, if I ever need a transplant, I will not try to get one. Partially because it would be horribly hypocritical and also because, once again, natural selection. If I am chosen to die then let nature run it's course. | 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 we should have a basic income and privatize everything +
+ **Set a Basic Income and Privatize Everything**
"A nation should not be judged by how it treats its highest citizens but its lowest ones." - Nelson Mandela
There are a few basic necessities of life that everyone needs access to, food, medical care, education, transportation, communication, protection, etc. In every society there are people who cannot support themselves. Psychological disabilities, physical disabilities, or even a run of terrible luck can leave someone temporarily or permanently unable to secure the basic necessities.
One approach to providing basic needs is to establish government run programs that provide them. The problem with this is that government programs have little incentive to provide quality or to run efficiently. There are countless examples of government run programs being bloated, wasteful, bureaucratic nightmares.
Businesses run in a competitive free market, on the other hand, have a lot of incentive to offer quality service as efficiently as possible. Those that don't will die out in the long run.
I believe that the solution is to provide a basic income and privatize everything. Everyone will get enough money that they can buy the basics of life. Because services are being provided by a free market they will tend to be good quality for the price spent. I see no reason why the government should provide services that the free market can provide, other than to give them to people who can't otherwise afford them.
**Side Effects**
*Minimum Wage*
Minimum wage would be unnecessary. The idea behind minimum wage is to ensure that those who are working get at least enough money to get by. However it doesn't actually do that, as shown by the McDonalds Budget. Also it does absolutely nothing for the unemployed. Minimum wage is an artificial restriction on the market. I believe that, given the existence of a basic income, getting rid of minimum wage would be a good thing.
*Students*
Students would be able to focus more on their education. More people will be able to go to school. This should lead to a better educated society.
*Starving Artists*
People would be able to be artists and innovators without starving. There will probably be more liberal arts majors. Yes, there would be a lot of shitty stuff produced, but there will also be a lot of great stuff produced. In art it doesn't much matter how much garbage is produced. Garbage can be thrown out. What matters is how much good stuff is produced.
On the other hand there an argument could be made that starvation makes good art.
*Meaningful Jobs*
I believe that most people want to do things that they find meaningful, and that contribute to society. People already contribute to open source projects, wikipedia, community programs, etc. with no reward but the good feeling of supporting something good. People won't stop doing the interesting jobs.
I'm not saying that basic income will lead to a utopia where every works without pay. I'm just saying that it won't reduce the number of people willing to work the creative or skilled jobs.
*Menial Labour*
It will be harder to find people willing to work menial jobs. But, these are the jobs that have been, can be, should be, and will be automated.
*Less desperation*
People who are not desperate for the basic necessities of life will be less likely to do desperate things. Robberies should reduce. As should the number of people doing prostitution from desperation.
Okay, so perhaps privatizing *everything* wouldn't work. I revise my position to "Privatize as much as possible."
| 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 believe that addiction is a disease that addicts are powerless to control. CMV. +
+ I hope that I'm just misunderstanding the use of the word 'powerless' which I hear so often. However, addicts that I have spoken to are very set in their beliefs that they have no choice but to use drugs. I can't help but feel that using this definition allows many addicts to use this as an excuse to deny personal responsibility, which would ultimately do a disservice to recovering addicts. Can someone please explain why these types of terms (disease of the brain, powerless) are used in the classification and treatment of addiction?
I am specifically looking for physical evidence. Is it possible to diagnose someone as an addict through a brain scan? Is it possible to reliably differentiate a casual drug user and a "diseased" individual through a physical test? Can this also be applied to things like sex and gambling addiction?
I am trying very hard to be sympathetic to addicts because I honestly can't put myself in their mindset. Still, I don't believe that addicts are anywhere near powerless to overcome their affliction, the same way someone with diabetes is helplessly unable to produce insulin.
It also occurs to me that there may be a chunk of dishonest addicts who are only latching so hard to the 'disease' explanation in order to get what they need out of their families and friends. This particularly bothers me because this dishonesty makes it near impossible to trust any addict, effectively screwing over honest addicts who want to make a real change.
So am I right, or am I missing something? Try and CMV | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Radical feminism is a conservative version of feminism. +
+ Think of it this way. Feminism is like a country. It's made up of lots of different people with a shared identity, and who have similar views, but disagree on some things.
In every country, there are going to be people whose views make them:
A) More militant
B) Desiring of a more homogenous country
C) More interesting in competing with other countries than cooperating with them.
And we generally refer to these people as the conservative element within a country. For the "country" of feminism, it's radical feminists which take on these roles. Radical feminists are more "militant" with non-feminists and perceived enemies and opponents, being more apt to use insults, derogatory language, and other forms of insults. Radical feminists are more interested in tightly controlling who can and cannot be a feminist (for example, insisting that men can never really be feminists) and
thus controlling who is in the "country". And it is radical feminists who are more interested in taking a combative stance against ideological opponents than trying to come to an understanding, with the "it's not my job to educate you" attitude that you either agree with us or you're not worth our time, where as more moderate feminists would be more interested in trying to reach an understanding with outsiders.
I'd like to point out that I'm not arguing that all of feminism has these characteristics, or that radical feminism is inherently wrong. Just that it would be accurate to describe it as a conservative form of feminism for these reasons. CMV.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I believe that there is no difference between women who sell their bodies for sex (prostitutes) and women who sell their bodies for procreation (egg/sperm donors or pregnancy surrogates) +
+ I believe that it is wrong to say that prostitutes are criminals, while men and women who sell their bodies to help others procreate are helping society.
In both cases, you have someone providing a service that allows someone else to fulfill a biological urge. In both cases, it is a service that benefits only the person/people involved in the transaction. In both cases, one person is accepting payment for the use of their body to fulfill a need of another person.
I see no logic in allowing one and condemning the other.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe the Bible should be taught in public schools as a mandatory class. CMV +
+ In the interest of full disclosure, I am Christian, although not your traditional one. That being said, this has nothing to do with my stance.
My reasoning is simple:
Throughout the western world, the Bible and Christianity have been far and away the most significant influences in culture, literature, art, philosophy, law, etc. That being said, how can someone in the western world considered themselves educated without a basic familiarity and understanding of the Bible, its stories, and philosophy? It has nothing to do with teaching religion, but examining the bible as a piece of literature and philosophy. Such a class should be required of all students, as it is their responsibility as citizens that get in the voting booth to possess a rudimentary understanding of culture, philosophy, etc.
Should other religious texts be taught, or atheism? Sure, but only as electives. For example the Koran, while increasingly relevant, has not had nearly as much influence as the Bible and is simply not as important to understanding the western world. Should I live in Saudi Arabia, the Koran should be mandatory and the Bible and elective. It's a simple matter deepening your understanding of the society you live in.
Would this violate a separation of church and state? No, because it's not an endorsement of any religion. It's a simple acknowledgement of the text's importance in western society. The point is not to teach a religion as right or wrong, but to examine it the same you would examine any other religion from an anthropological, historical, and philosophical perspective.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe OSX to be a better operating system than windows CMV. +
+ You probably get this a lot, but I was thinking about it in the shower today. Yes, mac computers themselves are overpriced for the hardware, but what about software? If I have a Razerblade, I would want that to be bootcamped OSX for daily and windows for gaming.
I find OSX to be an improvement over windows, and to be fair, I've bootcamped my mac, I have plenty of experience with windows.
As a computer science student, I find my work is a lot easier on a mac. I have multiple desktops that I can switch between with a swipe of my trackpad, I have a UNIX coding environment thanks to Terminal, I have a free notepad editor thanks to Textwrangler (I recognize windows has notepad++)
I like the fact due to the low market share, viruses for macs aren't that common, and (This is one for apple) I like my 3 year warranty.
The only drawback I can think of is that there aren't many games for OSX, but macs come with bootcamp, which doesn't void the warranty thankfully, so I can install windows quite easily.
I like having the app store. I like having messages integrated with my iPhone.
I guess in short:
+ good for coding in unix languages like c/c++
+ App store
+ Multiple desktops
+ Not a lot of viruses
- (drawback) not a lot of games available. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I find assimilation into the Borg more enticing than membership in the Federation. CMV. +
+ I think the whole way of "life" of the Borg seems pretty great. They have all they need, they have a telos, and they strike me as more possible for humanity to achieve than the peace required by the Federation.
To the first point, that they have all their needs taken care of and have an arsenal and quick, global hive learning which renders them nearly indestructible. Death is no object because life is in service to the hive and corpses are taken up for resources and information.
The second point is pretty cool. The whole of the Borg is driven by a sense of purpose--approaching perfection through incorporating greater intelligence and diversity into themselves. While individual humans have senses of purpose, the whole of humanity has no agreed-upon purpose and human conflict is the result. The Borg are internally peaceful.
The third point, that it is a likelier future for humanity than the Federation, I base in part on the accelerating returns of technology. We already have human brain-to-computer interfacing and rat brain-to-brain interfacing. With cloud computing as well, it is looking pretty likely that sooner or later we will have internet-facilitated human brain-to-brain interfacing. I consider the singularity an inevitability barring nuclear holocaust or environmental collapse, while the peace required of a Federation member I consider highly unlikely from a non-hivemind humanity.
Two elements of the Borg I expect to come up here:
Individuality. Rather, the lack of it. Though I have it and enjoy it, for the Borg it is a non-issue. It is a tradeoff, initially, to be sure, individuality for a hive mind, but afterward, the Borg are no more aware of individuality than are our individual neurons. It is a clumsiness shed in favour of a larger system with loftier goals higher purposes, and greater abilities to realize those goals and purposes. The individuals of the Borg act like the hands and eyes and neurons of a larger organism, not as independent specimens, so I consider it insufficient to say "I don't want to be a Borg person". There is no such thing. Your consciousness and identity are those of the hive. Your body is no longer tied to your personhood.
Secondly, violence. Assimilation sounds pretty bad, no? But in First Contact we learn that the Borg do not just kidnap and plug in, and that's the end. They kidnap, and forcefully expose lifeforms to the benefits of the Collective, and await free choice to join or not.
Even so, this is extremely violent. It is not injurious to the person (on the contrary, it is empowering!). It doesn't change human history, but only human future. And the new human future would be one in which, on top of our own creativity and intellect, we can capitalize on that if others too, and even other species.
So, I believe the Borg to be a better (and likelier) future for humanity than a (mostly) peaceful Federation of Planets. Change my view. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I consider safe shelter , nutritious food, and quality education and healthcare universal human rights. +
+ **While I am not an advocate of equality of outcome, I do believe that there should be equality of opportunity.** This means that I believe harder work merits more money to spend on frivolities like fancy gadgets, exclusive vacations and surpassingly excellent food, drink, and housing, but that any two people – regardless of who their parents are or where they were born – ought to have the same chance to access these benefits if they work equally hard.
**I consider the rights I have outlined in this post’s title necessary for equality of opportunity to exist.** I do *not* suggest that any of these things should be mandatory, only *readily available* for those who are interested.
Here’s why:
* Living in an unsafe environment presents a serious distraction towards which an individual must divide a portion of their attention. This means that a given quantity of effort one person exerts focusing solely on their goals will have greater rewards than the *same quantity* of effort will elicit for another person who must allocate part of their energy towards simply staying alive.
* Without access to nutritious food, an individual is at an immediate disadvantage: their brain development and physical health will be stunted, which serves to limit the rewards that hard work is capable of accomplishing. Also, in large part because of the lack of affordability of nutritious food ["people in America who live in the most poverty-dense counties are those most prone to obesity"](http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/60/11/2667.full) which can cause a variety of diseases and other medical problems which all take energy and other resources away from attempts to be successful.
* Unevenly distributed educational opportunities also prevent the same amount of energy from producing the same rewards. Every field requires knowledge that we are not born with. Education ought to maintain a balance between unlocking each individual’s unique passion, challenging them with thoughts from other fields which can provide ammunition for the synthesis necessary to be innovative and successful in their main field, and installing the basic literacy in a variety of subjects that is necessary for constructive participation in society.
* Given that the alternative to universal healthcare seems to be a choice for some between blowing their savings to get treatment and simply living untreated, both the medical problems which are systemic (like those caused by obesity) and the medical problems which are the product of random chance are going to more significantly impact people born into poverty, limiting their ability to see the same rewards for the same amount of effort.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Sex is something intimate, to be shared in a relationship; not just something that should be done casually. +
+ I was raised to believe that sex is an intimate part of a relationship that is meant to be a bonding experience between lovers, as well as, duh, pleasurable. But, it's been a while since I've had any prospects for a relationship (and, thus, it's been a while since I've had sex). It's been long enough that I've contemplated having casual sex (either with a friend, or with just random people), and doing it solo just isn't cutting it anymore. But whenever I've come close or had an offer I get...anxious. I start to feel guilty and embarrassed, and end up declining. But I'm having this internal struggle about my feelings on casual sex. However, I don't look down on people that do have casual sex, it just doesn't click for me on an emotional level.
I hope this is enough information about my view, I'll answer any extra questions just in case I missed something!
**Tl;dr**: Reddit, change my view on casual sex so I can have "relations" without feeling awful about myself.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: With Better Marketing, The Chevy Volt Would be the Most Popular Car in America +
+ Disclaimer: I leased a Volt about 7 months ago and love it. I do not represent GM in any way.
I believe that the Chevy Volt is the best car that money can buy at the moment. For those unfamiliar, the Volt is an extended range electric vehicle - it operates fully on electricity, and switches over to a gas-powered generator when the charge is depleted. It can be charged in any standard power outlet, and works with higher voltage car charging equipment.
Chevy has done a TERRIBLE job marketing this car. Every day, I find myself having to deal with the same myths and fears coming from people who are unfamiliar with it. Some of the things i get are:
* When you run out of battery, you're screwed! (The Volt has a 9 gallon gas tank)
* Those things catch fire all the time! (This happened once in a crash test, traditional gas-engine cars ignite more often than electric)
* Your electricity goes through the roof! (it costs me less than $20/month to charge the car at home)
* Electric cars are only for rich people! (I've seen some leases starting at $199/month)
* It's expensive to maintain!
* Obama forced GM to build this! (It was first developed in 2006 and the EV tax credits were put in place by George W. Bush)
It's a very acclaimed car - it's won the most prestigious industry awards, including Motor Trend Car of the Year. Kelly Blue Book rates it with the lowest projected costs during initial five-year ownership period.
Drivers love it too. The Volt ranked first, for a second year in a row, in Consumer Reports' list of owner-satisfaction based on its 2012 Annual Auto Survey, with 92% respondents who owned the Volt saying they definitely would purchase that same vehicle again.
The first generation of this car is now at it's end, and there's tons of data available that show just how game-changing this car is for the average driver. If you can convince me that all of this won't get more Volts on the road, a delta is yours.
In the end, I was convinced that no amount of marketing can end the amount of political football that the Volt was unfortunately roped into.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The price of gasoline in the United States is too low. +
+ I live in Canada, where people often buy gasoline across the border because it's cheaper. I think that gasoline in the United States is too cheap, leading to more driving than there should be. In Vancouver, gas is about $1.29 per litre CAD(Canadian dollars). In Blaine, Washington, it is roughly $.75 per litre CAD or $2.85 per gallon CAD. Looking up gas prices internationally, they seem to be among the lowest in the world, with no developed countries having a lower price(see this [report from the World Bank](http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EP.PMP.SGAS.CD/countries)).
This seems to be due to low taxes on gasoline compared to other developed countries and subsidies(This [IMF report](http://www.imf.org/external/np/pp/eng/2013/012813.pdf) shows a high amount of subsidies for petroleum products compared to other countries). The U.S. federal gas tax for example hasn't been raised to keep up with inflation since 1993 and the Highway Trust Fund is running low on funds. And this doesn't even include externalities such as carbon dioxide which aren't included in the cost of fuels in the U.S.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: A benevolent Capitalist company is indistinguishable from a Socialist state. +
+ When I say Socialism, I mean it very lightly so feel free to include Social-Democracies like Scandinavia and Germany in that definition. What I mean is, when a Socialist state employs someone (for welfare states, think public sector employment) they also receive things like free housing, guaranteed income, guaranteed job security and sometimes even free meals, free energy and free transport. Now, when I work in the public sector and produce a public profit, that profit is then used to pay for these services.
Now, in a benevolent Capitalist enterprise, I work and produce a profit for the company, that firm may then, through its benevolence, provide me with high wages, free company housing, free company meals and maybe even pay for my electricity, transport and healthcare. I see these types of companies that provide such a wide range of services for their employees as effectively states-within-states where they exist, like a mini-dictatorship run by a benevolent dictator (that being the owner/CEO). Of course, such companies are rare (just as benevolent dictators are rare in government), but where they do exist, I see no difference between them and a Socialist state.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: THe Flash (Wally West) could beat just about any superhero in a fight +
+ The Flash is way faster than most of you think. He is so fast the He thinks in attoseconds (an attosecond is the time it takes light to go from one cell to another). By the time any of them could lift a finger to attack him he would have already hit what a googolplex amount of punches and kicks. Then you have to think about Mass x speed So even with his wimpy arms he is hitting you with unfathomable force. He has a lot of crazy powers that are just cheap (speed stealing, residence frequency matching, intangibility, the list goes on and on) But moving back and forward in time would be a big key to beating the heavy hitters. I dont think that anyone could beat him. CMV
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think that "organic" foods are no better than regular foods, and that it's just a marketing scheme and an excuse for a price increase. CMV +
+ My feeling is that organic products cash in on consumer's vague fears about things they don't understand like "chemicals" and "preservatives".
I know there are guidelines for a food to be certified organic but I don't think that means much.
I have never tasted a significant difference in any organic product I've bought.
At the risk of being pejorative, I think organic foods are a niche market sold to upper middle class white people. It is a luxury to buy organic items, but it is marketed as a health benefit.
**VERDICT:** My C is V'ed, but not for the reasons I thought. Overwhelmingly it seems like the strongest case made for buying organic, with lots of thoughtful data provided by several commenters, is the reduced impact on the environment. And though I still have some skepticism about the real health risks of pesticides, a fair case was made for pesticide-free foods too. If the cost isn't too prohibitive, I feel buying organic isn't as frivolous as I previously thought, and I will be more likely to do so in the future. Thanks for the lively discussion CMV! | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I am an atheist who believes that people who are religious breed more hate and violence than their non-religious counterparts. CMV. +
+ Most days when I turn on the news I see reports of religiously fueled violence, not just in other countries but in America as well. I feel that the tolerance for people to get along in this world (when you think in terms of religion) is very low. There are many cases of violence in history that can be directly traced to religious roots and I feel that as we advance our own history this mentality is not changing.
This is not an argument saying that people who are religious are violent. Nor is it an argument saying that religion is the cause of hate and violence. I want to question why it is that religious tensions lead to these kinds of actions of hate and violence. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Vegetarians (and the like minded) are being hypocritical if they are Pro-Choice. CMV +
+ People are going to think I'm Vegan/Vegetarian bashing. I'm not. This is just an outgrowth from another thread.
m(_ _)m
It has come to my attention that vegetarians (and like minded eaters) do so to protect life, the life of an animal (not clearly defined as per the honey thread).
Well, it seems to me if one is very concerned about life then one must be against abortion. I've read a couple of lines of thought that say that larvae feel distress when honey is removed from the nest, or that it's cruel to kill the larvae. Surely if larvae feel distress, then a zygote or a fetus of 6, 12, 24, 36 weeks would feel stress, too.
If one is against animal cruelty, then wouldn't one be against a late trimester abortion?
If you're a hardcore vegan who won't eat honey, or a militant PETA member, or a vegetarian for ethical reasons then I expect that you must also be Pro-Life. CMV
**bold**
"For those vegetarians who are very vocal and involved in active protest for the rights of animals and consider every life (from bee larvae to egg to domesticated animal) sacred and on par with human life, it is illogical/inconsistent to not be Anit-Abortion." -- taken from a comment with Olier. **bold** | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: By stiffing bad servers, I am doing them a favor in two ways: One, by giving them accurate feedback on their performance, and, Two, by helping to prevent them from miserably eeking out a living wage in a profession where they clearly do not belong. +
+ First off, I worked in food service for many years. I've worked in most sorts of positions, from fast food fry cook to fine dining server, and later as a general manager. As a rule, I tip **very** well: For an exceptional experience, 50%. (That's right; If my server is truly exceptional, I'll tip 50% of the meal's price.) If the server is very, very good, 30%. For service that is average, 25%. Even a server that I would describe as "meh," who makes a mistake or two perhaps, but is polite and clearly making an effort in good faith will earn the "standard" of 15% from me. I will *not* tip less than 15%.
That said, if a server is simply *bad*, meaning that they are dismissive, rude, overly forgetful, inattentive, smelly, or something like that, I will *not* leave them a tip. People who are bad servers simply do not deserve to be tipped, and they certainly do not deserve to be tipped *well*.
I know that they live off of their tips, but that's really the point; They *shouldn't* be able to live off of tips if they are simply bad at their job. Their misery and the misery of the patrons at their establishment will only be prolonged if they are allowed to earn a living wage doing something for which they are clearly ill-suited. In the long run, they will be better-off if they are encouraged to find something else by their inability to support themselves being a server.
Unfortunately, many restaurant managers are insufficiently proactive in terminating bad employees. The "little push" of being stiffed only aids in quickening turnover that management should probably be taking into their own hands but don't.
As an aside, expediting the exit of poor servers will only serve to keep positions open for those who have an aptitude or would do the job well through hard work.
More people should stiff bad servers, it seems, as I'm finding them to be more and more common.
Change my view!
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Stove-popped popcorn is the perfect at-home junk food. +
+ Popcorn is the perfect snack food. I can buy 4lbs of popcorn kernels for $12 on Amazon[1] or slightly more expensive in my corner store and it lasts forever because I only pop 2tbsp at a time, maybe three if I want a really big snack, so it's much much cheaper than cookies or potato chips.
Since they're raw kernels they aren't seasoned and are low calorie/low fat, they're also a complex carbohydrate[2]. I can eat them with salt or sugar or cheese sprinkled on top depending on what kind of snack I want.
It's easy to make, just put 1tbsp oil in a pot with 2tbsp of kernels, takes about three minutes for the oil to heat up and pop the whole lot perfectly, unlike microwave popcorn which almost always ends up either burned or partially popped, and is often covered in butter and incredibly unhealthy.
You can cook it in any kind of oil you want, making it as healthy or unhealthy as you want. Eating it with no seasoning is great for hangovers.
It doesn't leave crumbs everywhere like cookies, and it doesn't leave your fingers covered in grease or dust like chips (unless you use butter, but I'm assuming for this that buttered popcorn is out because that makes it a lot more hassle and takes away all of the benefits).
Buying a huge bag of potato chips or cookies ends with them going stale before you finish them, but since the kernels are unpopped you can buy loads at once and never run out of snacks, because they don't go stale. I have a 30oz jar of kernels in my pantry that, if popped, would make 157.5 cups of popcorn (no source on this, you'll have to trust me that serving size is 3tbsp unpopped -> 7.5 cups popped, 21 servings/jar) which is the equivalent of 17 medium popcorn buckets from the movie theatre[3]
If you're too lazy to do it on the stove you can get an air popper that pops it without even needing oil, just put the kernels in and turn it on, you might say that's an extra expense but you can afford it with all the money you're saving buying popcorn kernels for snacks instead of cookies or potato chips which are both more expensive.
Other things that people might consider junk food, since I've only really compared to the two 'classic' junk foods, cookies and chips.
* Hummus: Expensive, not really junk-food-like, cheap if home made but way more of a hassle up front.
* Pretzels: I think pretzels are boring as hell. And they can't be salty or sweet or cheesy, unless you buy three varieties, and they still suffer from going stale.
* Dried salted peas: These are good as hell, but they're kind of hard to find. They do last forever though. Never tried making them. Friends would probably balk at the idea of being offered peas as a junk food.
* Mixed nuts: Expensive as hell, I'm poor.
* Pork rinds: High in fat, gotta eat an animal.
* Granola Bars: These do not fill me up at all.
* Rasins: Boring, not satiating.
* Apples/other fruits: Gotta keep them around and eat them quick enough for them to not spoil. Pretty good otherwise though.
* Saltines: What are you, Oliver Twist? I'm not eating plain saltines.
That kind of turned into the junk food review, but I can't think of anything else people regularly eat as junk food right now. Change my view! Sources below.
[1](http://www.amazon.com/Snappy-Yellow-Popcorn-4-Pounds/dp/B003832GRQ/)
[2](http://www.popcorn.org/NutritionRecipes/tabid/56/Default.aspx) [3](http://www.livestrong.com/article/311375-the-calories-in-amc-movie-theater-popcorn/)
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Some traditionally "unattractive" people choose to be homosexual: CMV. +
+ First, I know the topic of homosexuality as choice has been brought up numerous times, so I am adding my own wrinkle to give nuance to that view. I do not think all (or even most) homosexuals choose to be homosexual. I think many are genetically predisposed to homosexuality, and that people fall all over the Kinsey Scale.
My particular view is that certain people who feel they aren't attractive to the opposite gender (either in their own perception or in actuality) choose to instead seek acceptance and attention from their own gender. Though gays and straights can be equally shallow when it comes looks, the homosexual community accepts and even fetishizes looks not held to be traditionally attractive by most heterosexuals (e.g. bears or butch women). These "unattractive" people hope to find companionship, romance, and sex from their own gender because it would be easier than finding someone of the opposite and preferred gender, or even just being alone. As I said above, people fall all over the Kinsey Scale, but I think that some, most, or even all of the people I am talking about go beyond where they really are on the scale in order to find companionship.
I do not place any judgement on these people. I simply find it to be an interesting phenomenon. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I don't see anything "illegal" about Crimeans voting to become a part of Russia. +
+ I think that what we're seeing here is democracy when it's convenient. Ukraine decided to break apart from the Soviet Union, and that's fine; but if the Crimea doesn't want to be a part of the Ukraine and they win a referendum (2/3 majority) to become a part of Russia, I don't see anything wrong with that.
To do otherwise, is extremely shortsighted in my view, because Ukraine is going to have a restive province on their hands with a powerful backer making a military crackdown/ occupation inevitable. Further down the road we may see something akin to an IRA develop. This blood will not only be on the hands of Ukrainians but the UN as well since they seek to deny them their democratic voice in the recent referendum.
However, I do have one caveat in this case: I think that a simple majority would not be sufficient to give Crimea to Russia. It would have to be a 2/3 supermajority. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Seeing the Ukraine debacle, I think a nuclear deterrent remains the only way to ensure territorial sovereignty in the modern world CMV. +
+ I think if the west does not ensure that crimea is returned to ukraine, this will only hasten Iran's nuclear ambitions, if not the rest of the middle east.
To say nothing of the treaty already in place which was signed by US, UK and Russia! Also keeping in mind that countries with nuclear deterrence can get away with quite a bit of shenanigans, case in point, recent articles declaring that the Pakistani intelligence services were fully aware of Osama Bin Laden's presence and movements within the country.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I believe that a book, movie, album, etc. should only be protected by copyright as long as it's available through legitimate channels. +
+ You can charge $50 million per copy and I consider that your right, but as soon as you take something off the market permanently, I believe you have no right to complain about copyright infringement.
Consider a band that creates an album, releasing it freely on the internet. They build up a huge fanbase, releasing free albums. Then the lead singer has an existential crisis, dissolves the band and takes down the website, making it impossible for new fans to find their albums.
I believe that the band's fans are completely justified in making and distributing copies of the band's albums, since the original creator has refused to make them available, and has shown no indication that they will ever be available again, and in fact has indicated the exact opposite.
I believe that, in contrast, a company like Disney, who has a track record of pulling and re-releasing their movies every few years, for marketing purposes, shouldn't lose their protection. Just permanently out-of-print materials.
CMV.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think that many charities are wasteful, counter-productive, and a way for corporations to get out of paying tax while improving their image, while the population is tricked into believing that all is well. CMV. +
+ There are hundreds of thousands of charities operating at the moment, and setting one up is a pretty straight-forward thing. But I have worked at charity events which charge upwards of $1000 for a seat at a table to "raise money" for some obscure affliction, serving guests deluxe chef-cooked meals and $150 bottles of wine, not to mention employing a catering company with over 100 staff. All of this is tax-deductible, and yet serves as a networking event, and a way for the contributing individuals and corporations to look good.
A charity is usually run by a board of directors who can be paid upwards of $300,000 a year in salaries. Money also goes towards huge advertising campaigns, and done in a wasteful way such as hiring those annoying people on the street who try to corner you to donate money monthly "for less than the price of a cup of coffee a day!". **These people are hired by a separate company, which received 50% of any money you donate**.
Charities are sometimes effective. They keep people fed and sometimes sheltered. But the question is, why should charities be in charge of this? Shouldn't oh I don't know, the *government* be in charge of this? We pay tax, and he government will spend it on such amazing things as more warships and tanks, or perhaps a new $1.2B NSA surveillance centre.
My point is, if charities all stopped functioning for a period of time - we would see just how dire the poverty/unemployment/medical issues really were, people dying on the streets. The government would like us to believe that they are the ones who are maintaining order and feeding the people, but they aren't, it is largely charities funded by tax-payers and run inefficiently and wastefully by charities.
Charities are temporary patches holding together an incredibly broken system, and are doing more harm than good in the long-run. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Consciousness operates under Quantum Mechanics +
+ Let's assume that consciousness exists.
1. The brain is biological but also eletrochemical(stress on electro) because of the way each neuron interacts with every other neuron via electrical synapses.
2. The key aspect of the brain is not the neurons themselves but the set and pattern of electrical synapses in the brain.
3. Consciousness is therefore about those electrical synapses.
4. The study of electrons or electrical behaviour falls under particle physics which operates under Quantum Mechanics which is probabilistic.
5. Therefore, consciousness is quantum and probabilistic.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I am a young gay but I don't think I should ever act on it +
+ So I am gay, I know I am I get all hot and on when I see an attractive guy and I have known this since I was 13 but I have never acted upon my feelings I am 23.
I just don't see the point in "giving in" to it, I don't really feel the need for sexual activity in my own life despite what society expects me to be like. I even tried to reject western society and become a Muslim which was a crazy idea in retrospect since it was probably a load of shite.
I don't hate gay people or anything like that, I just dont think its something to be proud of since I didnt choose it and well some my age are fairly promiscuous, I don't plan on being out because its none of anyone's business.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: For the majority of people, showering in the morning is superior to showering in the evening. +
+ For the majority of people, showering in the morning is superior to showering in the evening.
When you shower in the morning, you get to go to work / school completely clean and fresh and don't feel gross from sleeping and sweating. Most people sweat more in their sleep than during their day-to-day activities. (There are a variety of reasons for this, including nightmares and the heat of being under blankets, at least for me.)
Showering is also a relaxing way to "warm up" (literally) for the day. For people who normally wake up 10 minutes before class or work, adopting a morning shower creates a buffer period in which your mind and body can fully awake, making you fully productive right when you begin work.
Many evening-showerers object that it is equally gross to dirty your bed with the sweat of the day. I argue that you should probably be washing your sheets on a semi-weekly basis anyway. Also, many people who say this still nap in their beds in the afternoon, and do not shower before doing so.
I am surprised by how vehement the people I meet who shower in the evening are about it. Many have attempted to "convert" me from my morning shower, but I have not been persuaded yet. So please, CMV!
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
People with mental defects who commit egregious crimes should not be punished any differently. CMV. +
+ I don't know if there's a legal term for what I have in mind for 'egregious crime' - more of an intuitive notion of a crime that is simply horrifying, that shocks you about what people are capable of. For example, someone that murders and rapes a child or blows up a hospital.
I think anyone who commits these kinds of crimes is fucked up in some way (tried to think of a more politically correct term, gave up), and I don't think some should receive more lenient punishment because one has some clinically recognizable mental defect.
For example, if criminal A and criminal B torture and kill someone, the crime alone is indicative that they are off-balance in some way. I just don't believe that anyone could commit these kinds of crimes without being 'insane' in some way, and they should all receive the same punishment and attempt at treatment after conviction.
Anyone who commits these crimes is guilty, and I'm disgusted that there are people who could commit a crime like raping and killing a child and then be deemed 'not guilty by reason of insanity'. It's just ridiculous that as a society we have developed this oversensitivity to psychological problems. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The term 'sexual assault' should never be used. +
+ I've noticed that the term 'sexual assault' has been recently thrown around more and more frequently, and with little or no context each time. For example on a news story, the most common description is 'A woman was sexually assaulted today,' or something similar. This is such a broad statement that it is almost entirely meaningless. The way the term has been used as of late, 'sexual assault' can mean anything from getting a look that the victim deems pervy, or full on thrown against a pinball machine rape.
Imagine if your friend came to you one day and said he was assaulted at a bar and got into a fight. You would ask what the hell happened to get him into a fight; got punched, slashed with a knife, broken bottle, whatever. It's just a throwaway term to prevent people from getting triggered. But really, if you're worried about that then you shouldn't be talking about it in the first place.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: With regards to sandwiches, triangular cuts are far superior to rectangular cuts and should be the only ones ever used. +
+ CMV: With regards to sandwiches, triangular cuts are far superior to rectangular cuts and should be the only ones ever used.
Every time I use sliced bread, I end up cutting it triangularly. Toast, sandwiches, grilled cheese, etc. I think it is the best way and that sandwiches on traditional sliced bread should be cut this way. (So I’m not referring to subs/etc. I will also allow patti melts as an exception, although I prefer them cut still).
My boyfriend barely ever slices sandwiches when he cooks and when he does he tends to go with rectangular. Most likely to spite me because I can’t think of any reason to ever use that style of cutting.
So my views are that sandwiches should always be sliced, and they should be sliced in a triangular fashion from corner to corner (with the above noted exceptions and specifications).
First, a sliced sandwich is always superior to one that has not been sliced. It allows you direct access to the middle, where the most flavor is. It also cuts down on the amount of crumbs created. You are also able to completely avoid eating the crust this way if you prefer.
Second, the triangular slice is always superior to the rectangular slice. If you have a dipping sandwich such as grilled cheese with tomato soup, the triangular shape allows you to fit the sandwich into a container much easier since you have a smaller tip. They also fit around a bowl much easier as triangles. can also regulate how much of the sandwich you bit off easier. You can see much more of the insides of the sandwich to inspect where you might want to bite. The triangle is a stronger shape than a rectangle, so you can support the sandwich with less effort. When you eat the insides of the sandwich, the triangle leaves a much more manageable crust than the rectangular cuts.
/u/Nepene gets a delta for convincing me that rectangle cut is superior in ONLY ONE WAY, when transporting in ziplock baggies. And that it is an acceptable option (although inferior option) when eating a sandwich that would involve dipping in soup. I don't think there are any other situations where a rectangle cut would be better or acceptable.
| 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 concept of this subreddit has more potential than any other on the entire site, but it is diluted and dragged down by people that respond purely for the sake of debate, rather than any actual interest or vested opinion of the subject at hand. CMV +
+ Subject at hand being pretty much any topic. Someone could submit "I think that hot things can burn you" and it will still have people responding trying to convince them otherwise. Each time something like this is submitted and discussed it detracts from an otherwise valuable discussion hub. The concept is great for actual thought provoking discussion and viewing things from new perspectives, but instead most of the people responding have no actual opinion or interest in what is being discussed, they just like "debating" on the internet. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe the clash of civilizations is real and happening. CMV. +
+ I'm not exactly down with Huntington on all of his points. But in broad terms, I believe the world is divided in regions of cultural homogeneity that compete with each other for world hegemony (economical, cultural and eventually political).
[This is a map I could agree with, for example.](http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2013/286/a/6/clash_of_civilizations_world_map_by_saint_tepes-d68d0kw.png)
I'm aware that "homogenous" here can sound simplistic. I know that all these regions carry internal divisions, and opposing agendas, but I believe their sum of the divergences is less important than the sum of the convergences. In the end it's still about the clash.
Change my view. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: An American Union would be the best way to fix all the problems in the America +
+ By the way, when I say AU, I mean both of these areas. I saw a recent post here talking about annexing Mexico and Canada, so I thought, "hey, instead of that, creating a political-economic union like the EU would benefit the Americas."
I looked at some [benefits of EU membership:](http://econ.economicshelp.org/2007/03/benefits-of-european-union.html)
Anyway, I believe a American union would promote development and modernization, as the EU is with turkey. What I think should happen is any country that has a very high HDI can join. This will promote development in LDCs. What I'm thinking is we also allow The Kingdom of Demark becuase of Greenland and The Kingdom of the Netherlands because Aruba and the 3 cities. The de facto capital can be New York.
| 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 our society has reached a point where religion is no longer necessary and brings nothing but problems. +
+ Im a 21yo agnostic, and since i have full awareness about religion ive thought that is a total waste of time, and i found really dumb that someone would choose to restric their lives in order to satisfy a God.
Ive also found really barbaric beliefs in every religion,mostly ins christianism and islam (because those are the ones i have more information about).
Now, according to the advances we have in terms of technology and more scientific fields i think we need to advance a LOT in terms of freedom of decision. Between homosexuals not allowed to get married or adopt, women not allowed to abort, some people even children not allowed to marry whoever they want, kids sent to wars to "defend their religion", i really believe religion brings nothing but trouble, and hasnt in a lot of time.
NOTE: english is not my first language, so im sorry if this post is hard to read and/or has bad writing details.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Stannis Baratheon would be a horrible king of Westeros. +
+ I believe Stannis on the Iron Throne would be a disaster even worse than Joffrey.
Stannis is stubborn, obsessed with his biased sense of "justice", absolutely horrible at maintaining any kind of good relationship with anyone, fails at any kind of intrigue (not involving shadow babies), and suffers from massive reality distortion field which gets him into fights he cannot win.
Stannis could make the best of his situation backing Renly, who would then together with Robb crush Lannisters from all sides. He would then be Renly's heir, and Renly doesn't have terribly great chances of having children. Instead he chose the way of evil magic and became a kinslayer.
Even his reputation as military commander is inflated. He barely survived one siege, won one easy battle against Ironborn, then lost pretty much everything else.
I expect the realm under Stannis would most likely fall apart in a few years. The people would never accept him, not only because of his horrible personality, but also due to his believe in a foreign god to whom he makes human sacrifices.
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 is the duty of privileged people to take advantage of their opportunities. +
+
Because privilege is not a product of individual achievement - and is often provided by parents - people born into privilege have a duty to take full advantage of their opportunities. Taking privilege for granted
1. invalidates the sacrifices your family members made for you, or
2. demeans the people who lack the same opportunities and would do anything to have them.
For #1 I am specifically interested in financial and educational privilege.
One example of #2 is the character of Will Hunting, who is privileged intellectually (having an eidetic memory). Will turns down a great job offer and says that he wants to continue being a laborer, like his friends. His best friend, Chuckie, then tells him, "it would be an insult to us for you to waste your potential and that my fondest wish is that you leave to pursue something greater."
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Being white and "wearing bindis" or having your hair in dreadlocks etc. *is* negative cultural appropriation, and it *is* wrong. +
+ Cultural Appropriation is defined as: the adoption of some specific elements of one culture by a different cultural group. It describes acculturation or assimilation, but can imply a negative view towards acculturation from a minority culture by a dominant culture.
Background: When a white person, often from the English speaking modern world is seen sporting some kind of cultural artifact from a culture that is not theirs, it is coming to be viewed in a negative light, and rightly so. Examples being: wearing bindis as a fashion statement. Ignorant to the fact that if an Indian or Pakistani person was to wear a bindi in the US, they're viewed as *probably some dirty terrorist* whereas when an attractive white kid does it, they're *exotic and fashionable.* Or when a white person styles their hair in dreadlocks. Something that has cutural and spiritual significance to Jamaicans is reduced to nothing more that something that's trendy.
Many people argue that it is a matter of personal liberties, and that individuals should not be told what they can and cant do as long as they aren't hurting others, and that just because someone may be offended doesn't mean they're in the right. But the reality is, appropriating these cultural elements *is* harmful. Furthermore, I *do* believe that any person of color has every right to be offended. It is not fair to claim that others can or cannot be offended by something. If you are a white person, you probably are ignorant. Ignorant of what it is like to live as a person of color in America. So let's not try to tell other people what to be offended by.
CMV?
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Monetary profit motivation (especially capitalism) makes it next to impossible for anything to reach its full potential +
+ Farmers have no incentive to make good tasting, nutritional tomatoes.
They go bad quicker and are more difficult to grow. A farmer instead has incentive to make tomatoes that last longer, and can be grown year round. Making more beneficial tomatoes for society is asking farmers to sacrifice profits.
The meat industry has no incentive to find more ethically reasonable systems of working. It would be a massive cut in their profits considering their current system is strictly based on efficiency and volume of product.
Batteries that never die? Tires that never lose tread? Whats the incentive? If you didn't have to buy new batteries, you would only spend your money one time. The cut in profits would be massive.
Newspapers, news stations and other media outlets answer to someone at the top of their financial food chain. Those people more often than not care about the bottom line. How many papers are we selling? how many viewers are we getting? This directly interferes with the quality of the journalism being presented by these outlets.
The medical industry has a tragic lack of incentive to be as efficient as possible for the reasons already outlined above.
But this issue cuts us down to even much more trivial issues:
When someone makes a movie based on a comic book or other intellectual property... they had the idea to do so due to the massive popularity of the source material. However... all of the movies we get inspired by this source material is "reinvented" and "redesigned"... this is to make them as middle of the road as possible so that grandma, your little sister, your parents and you can all potentially go see the movie. They want that bottom line, the most sales.
This is the primary motivation to the metaphorical raping of 80s and 90's nostalgic culture (IE transformers, gi joe, etc.) ... they see something that could get a lot of people to go to the movie theater... wipe their ass with it, and move on. It doesnt matter if they do justice to the source material.. .they just need those ticket sales.
The music industry has no incentive to promote quality music. Nickleback and Soulja Boi are a dime a dozen... there is a billion of them in every city. Radiohead and MF Doom are uncommon artistic talents... Artists have demands, they want their work to be seen a certain way. They are difficult to work with because they dont care how much money you make by representing them, their art comes first. If you can find any rapper or towny-rock band, promote the crap out of them and over-saturate the masses to a premeditated formula of music-- you cut out your necessity to rely on artists for their art. This is all in the name of your bottom line becoming fatter.
The examples I could outline are almost inexhaustible. Monetary profit motivation (especially capitalism) makes it next to impossible for anything to reach its full potential. The human race is denied faster advancement and top quality in almost every single aspect of life because of it.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Transgender people should go by their sex rather than their "gender" +
+ I've read article after article in defense of transgendered people when they encounter some sort of inconsistency with their self-identity and the assumptions that other people make about them. This has always confused me, because first of all, those assumptions *are* correct most of time considering the ratio of trans to cis people. It's because of a little thing called heuristics which have aided humans in day to day life since the first homo sapiens walked the earth. I'm definitely not implying sex is the same as gender, but considering all of the debates over trans people should be treated then wouldn't it be logical to just stop using gender all together in favor of sex?
I think women's restroom shouldn't be a women's restroom, it should be a female bathroom. If I call you Mr. it's because you have a penis and are a male, not because you "feel" like a woman. I'm aware of the complexity of reproductive biology, it doesn't change how the issue should be approached. Another example would be non-binary people. The creation of the non-binary category makes the entire concept of genders somewhat diluted and confusing, even among experts on the subject. The fact that any sex can be any gender makes gender mean very little.
I'm also aware of how genders are related to certain roles within a society, it doesn't make gender any more meaningful. I think a male should be able to act like anything he wants, I believe they should be true to how they feel. That goes for females too. Bathrooms, birth control, or anything else that could create the whole gender identity conflict were not created to accommodate people's genders that don't match up to their sex. That isn't wrong or evil, it's simply the most efficient and accurate way to divide things whenever deemed necessary.
Basically, I'm saying this. Gender has become pointless to attach to policy and the way we interact due to it's fiat nature, therefor logic would suggest that everyone simply being identified by their sex rather than gender is the only useful way make such divisions and hurts no one (or at least, no one should feel hurt by it)
CMV! (sorry for any grammatical errors in advance)
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Every enlistee in any military who joins 'for the benefits' is both in function and in principle a mercenary. CMV. +
+ I can never understand how exactly people can, in good conscience, respond to accusations of 'anybody would know the wars being fought today are unjust' with things like 'they need to get through college' or 'they're poor'. That justification doesn't fly before a judge - assuming a Western military, why should somebody hiding behind walls of artillery and fighter-bombers to kill people for pay be afforded any degree of respect besides their substandard working conditions? Why do we blame the politicians for wars that soldiers voluntary enlist for?
This isn't Vietnam, with the draft - why *shouldn't* these mercenaries be spat upon as they return?
I'm Singaporean, if that's important.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The way many universities are treating rape/sexual assault is excessive, alarmist, and bordering on irresponsible. +
+ It's entirely possible that I've been mislead (reddit as a news source can be...fickle...) so if that's the case, then consider me a convert. But some of the programs that many universities, my own included, are implementing are going to what seems like extremes to prevent rape or sexual assault. I'll be citing examples from my own experience with just such a program, but unless I'm mistaken (a real possibility) the program I experienced is representative of a larger trend.
As part of my freshman summer assignment, I had to go through an online module that took about three hours to complete (even at a brisk pace), which I find rather excessive. It essentially told me that I shouldn't attack (verbally, physically, or otherwise) or harass people or make sexual advances without enthusiastic consent, and told me what to do if I see someone potentially harming or taking advantage of someone else; I agree with the message (mostly) but the fact that I can summarize so completely and concisely a three hour long module is kind of ridiculous. It also cited a statistic that "1 in 5 women are sexually assaulted" which has been shown to be suspect, at best [self-selected sample from 2 universities, hardly statistically rigorous]. If I were a girl who didn't know better, I would seriously be afraid for my life. I don't mean to downplay the significance of rape or sexual assault, but I find this kind of response to be alarmist and believe it will only cause more violent reactions. Creating this amount fear tends to create panic, and panic tends to lead to chaos.
The module gave off the impression that any sort of hesitation should be grounds for immediate cessation of sexual activity; it says that anything short of enthusiastic consent should be taken as a "no." Are new lovers supposed to never supposed to go beyond that initial insecurity or hesitance? I find this to be alarmist, and I worry that such a fearful treatment of sex only adds to the taboo that the USA already places around anything sexual.
Also, one section of the module spoke about rape involving alcohol. It stated that alcohol removes a person's ability to consent, and thus negates their responsibility to avoid unwanted sex (which I can see, within reason; 1 glass of wine does not a drunkard make [usually]) but that it also does not excuse a person's behavior, and does not render someone innocent of rape. This seems contradictory. The module made it seem like a woman is free to drink however much she likes without taking any responsibility (though it did make a note that this was risky behavior), while a man should always be careful because being drunk does not excuse his actions. I understand that a drunk man forcing sex on a woman is rape, and that a man taking advantage of a drunk woman is rape, but what happens when both are drunk? By the time I got to this portion, I'd been hammered with all manner of "don't be a rapist" and I seriously wonder if both parties being intoxicated would make consensual sex "okay" in the eyes of my college.
I'll mention the distinct lack of male victims/female perpetrators - it honestly seemed like the message to men was "don't rape" and the message to women was "watch out for rape"; even the several fictional examples were of men assaulting women - but I recognize that that's moving into "oppression olympics" territory.
The thing that disturbs me the most is the sinking idea that the kind of people who need this message the most aren't going to listen; those who take this kind of message seriously are already going to avoid assaulting people and be generally kind to one another, while the kind of people who will rape or do other nasty things aren't going to pay much attention. It obviously isn't going to help the ones who already know their actions are wrong, and I feel like the ones who rationalize their actions, or genuinely believe their actions to be okay, will simply ignore the message as just another "play nice with others" ad from school, or worse, an overreaction not meant for them. I realize how hypocritical that makes me sound, but trust me when I say all of my peers (females included) are also mocking the program for being excessive. If the program is so lengthy and overdone that many people treat it as a joke, it only gives more credence to those who would dismiss it no matter how long or intense it was.
As I understand it, my college is far from being an outlier. If other colleges are doing the same, then they are collectively creating an environment of fear and victimhood for young women, not to mention the demonization of men. I understand the necessity for knowledge about how to prevent these horrible crimes, but when the rallying cry is "Not Anymore" as if these crimes were common or even accepted anywhere in the recent past, I have to question the knowledge and intention of the creators. It's starting to feel like we've moved beyond crime-prevention and are moving towards McCarthy-esque paranoia.
Please change my view, it's no fun feeling this way. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Elements within the modern day Feminist movement promotes the idea that "Female Culture" is superior to "Male Culture" +
+ I'd like to clarify before beginning that I'm not opposed to Feminism, I just have issues with certain elements with it. I make these sort of posts so that I these elements can be addressed and hopefully change my point of view on them. I do this because I believe that, at it's core, Feminism is a very good thing for society. I just believe that it has gained a lot of unnecessary and undesirable baggage, especially in recent years.
Anyway, the topic that I've stated in my title is something that I've long suspected to be true but only had brought into focus recently when a female friend of mine linked me an article on a feminist website. After reading the article, I stumbled into the Forums of the website. Right at the top of the page was a post from a man (who was obviously quite new to the website and internet Feminism in general) asking whether Feminists actually hate men.
Now, these kind of posts are a dime a dozen on the internet. But it's the responses I found interesting, especially the first one he got. The user who wrote it claimed that Feminists do not have a problem with men, just "Male culture". She (presumably) then went on to list a ream of various different things that were wrong with this so-called culture, including "Grunting", "Aggressiveness", "Competitiveness", "Not being in touch with their emotions", and the mandatory "Objectifying women".
Now, some of the things she listed made a certain degree of sense - many of them are not pleasant traits. But they were addressed as stereotypically male behaviors, and some non-negative but distinctly male traits were also included in her criticism. However, it was the tone of the comment that bothered me the most - throughout its entirety, she seemed to be subtly implying that "Female culture" was superior to all these things that the "primitive" men did, and that men who acted more "Feminine" were the better men that Feminism didn't have a problem with.
Now, you could dismiss this comment as typical SRS-style rubbish. And I would have too, were it not for all the support she got in the comments section. Now, this was a fairly mainstream Female-orientated website (for the life of me I cannot remember the name of it, but I'll try and find it in the meantime). It unnerved me a bit that things that are inherently "male" are seen as inferior by the Feminist movement.
This incident cemented in my mind the idea that certain Feminists see traditionally male behaviour as inferior, and Female behaviour (traditional or otherwise) as superior. And while Feminism seeks to break down gender roles, that shouldn't mean that men can't act like "stereotypical men" *if they want to*. Feminism is all about choice, or so I'm told.
If Feminism continues to gain traction in these modern times, I fear we will see the vilification of the stereotypical "male culture". And that wouldn't exactly be fun for somebody like me, who enjoys being a man.
Please CMV.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe that in order to help combat poor parenting that is raising a generation of self-entitled assholes, a year of mandatory federal service should be imposed on all 18 year olds. CMV +
+ I am getting older and can be quite cantankerous most of the time. I was a high school teacher for most of my life. I grew up poor and paid for my college on borrowed money that I painfully and tediously paid off after 25 grinding years. I know that older generations have complained forever about the younger ones. However, I have seen something different first developing when I was teaching, I see it with my kid’s friends and I certainly see it on Reddit. Kids today with their constant phones and socially media are being raised by misguided parents to believe that they are special, that they can never do anything wrong and should never be judged when they do something incredibly stupid. There is no accountability or responsibility in their world. This is leading to so many kids who are not equipped in any manner to actually produce in the real world and are honestly puzzled when they fail. I believe that a solution to this is a year of federal service after high school and prior to entering college. This could be some form (not full-fledged) of military service, infrastructure jobs like the WPA used to have, construction, cleanup, social work, tutoring, name it. Many of these jobs simply don't get done now but would bolster the economy on a long-term basis. Not make-work, but a strategic use of a new workforce that is usually contributing nothing productive during that year. The pay would be minimum wage and housing would be covered as well. Politics and the viability of passing a law aside, I feel this year would "open" their eyes to reality and provide them an opportunity to function productively in a social environment where production matters more than bullshit. They would then enter college or the workforce with a much more mature and realistic view of the world and themselves. And yes I know there are plenty of hardworking responsible 18 year olds wondering around. I'm not focusing on them. Please help change my view! | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I don't believe in science as a means to Truth. +
+ I probably should clarify before I get a thousand replies from r/atheism users. I'm an atheist, I believe in evolution and all that jazz. However, I don't believe in science's ability to provide capital-T definite Truths, only small-t truths (or what I consider to be tentative truths), which are marred by social influences, human blindness and methodological flaws. I believe there is, to some degree, a scientism to be wary of when considering questions of what we know, and do not accept anything just because it is stated to be "science", but based on a pragmatic assessment of the work's epistemological value (which I recognize, of course, to be built upon my own premises, as I am not a perfect arbiter of truth either, and ultimately requires a lot of research in order to fully understand what is being presented to me) in order to determine on a personal basis how believable the evidence is, though, of course, it is never perfect.
The reason I do this is because I think that taking science as authority in itself is a flawed premise to come from, and that the questioning of science is more in line with scientific principle than not. Firstly due to the fact that science relies on a succession of paradigms (in the Kuhnian sense), but also because too often I see people purport scientific claims that are ill-founded and based on unreasonable grounds. Further, I see a danger in entrusting science without due consideration, scientists being within a social frame, to make accurate determinations without bias necessarily, be it political in nature (such as the old scientific racism or modern day neurosexism) or just by chasing the random whims of their mind's eye (I see string theory like this often, if only because it doesn't even meet Popperian requirements of falsification, at least not yet). However, often I run into people who bawk at the questioning of a reified Science in any capacity, and am confused for the sort of person who may be a climate change denialist or an intelligent design advocate.
An aside: do not confuse this for blind acceptance of non-scientific things. I'm not going to replace astronomy with astrology any time soon.
Anyway, I hope for some good attempts at changing 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 don't believe that the military should have different fitness standards for men and women. CMV +
+ The US army [requires](http://usmilitary.about.com/od/army/a/afpt.htm):
push-ups sit-ups 2-mile run
men 40 50 16:36
women 17 50 23:06
What rational justification can there be for excluding a man from the military who can meet the female standards but not the male standards. If fitness requirements serve a functional military purpose, why should a man who can do only 20 push-ups in a minute be rejected while a woman at the same level would be adequately fit? If certain levels of fitness are required for the job, why should women get a handicap? Is the purpose of the fitness requirements to reward people who are relatively fit for their peer group or to serve functional goals?
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I don't think the American government is of the people anymore. CMV +
+ To my understanding, the government of the United States was designed so that any natural born citizen had a workable shot at political aspirations. Obviously not just anyone can be an elected official, candidates need to be intelligent, tactful, good with people; but given that you were capable, anything was possible. My disillusionment begins here. Money runs everything. If you don't have money, or friends with money, you have no real hope for political success. A caste of leaders has formed, strictly reserved for the upper echelon of society. The one alternative, the third party platform, is almost always viewed as radical, or crazy. I will admit that this is in part due to the astronomical expense of campaigning, which leads me to my next point. Even once elected, lobbyists and rich benefactors get an uneven say in what happens behind closed doors. If that's the case, then the government is no longer of the people. Instead it's an exclusive club that sits up on Capitol Hill and metes out judgement and legislation, successfully dooming "The Great American Experiment". Please CMV.
There is a ton of interesting viewpoints below that I would have never thought of on my own. I will definitely read through them all as soon as I'm out of class for the day. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Rape culture doesn't exist, it's just a combination of other bad parts about society. CMV +
+ I do not think rape culture exists, because a lot of things that people consider to be "rape culture" is just apart of other things.
One might say that victim blaming is a part of rape culture. No, victim blame in way other situations than rape victims. I was robbed at gunpoint walking to the gas station one night. People told me that "That sucks, and I'm sorry that happened, but you shouldn't walk alone at night." Rape victims hear similar things and then they cry "SEE?! RAPE CULTURE!!" but it isn't, it's victim blaming. Plain and simple. People victim blame all the time, even for simple things. If I'm walking in the grass and slip and fall, most people wouldn't really feel bad, some people would just call me a clutz and then tell me to walk it off, and laugh at me for being clumsy, thus blaming the victim.
Here's my second refute: People claim that "courtmentship game" is a part of rape culture. Nope, just entitlement in our society. Some people feel entitled to so many things other than sex.. Let me give you an example; Man buys woman drinks, takes her out to eat a lot, now feels like he is entitled to sex. Many feminists say that's rape culture, it isn't. It is entitlement culture. People sometimes feel entitled to many things, not just sex. I think it is because how we raise our kids. If you do something good, you'll get a reward. So many people never actually realize that it isn't how it works in the real world.
As far as victim doubting. Rape can be hard to prove, especially if it wasn't a violent one. If all rape victims were taken 100% seriously, 100% of the time, a lot of innocent people would be gotten locked up because people will then have a tool to falsely accuse of someone easily, some (albeit very rarely), actually do it now. So people don't victim-doubt because of rape culture, people victim-doubt because rape is often hard to prove, so you have to be very careful before we convict. This part of so called "rape culture", isn't rape culture, it's just part of the US constitution: "Innocent until proven guilty." - Should we now switch it around to please the feminists?
In conclusion; victim blaming, victim-doubting, sex-entitlement, isn't rape culture. All the things that people say is apart of rape culture applies so much more than just to rape. Therefore, rape culture (as far as feminism goes), isn't real. They just stole it from men in prison and went with it. If there is a rape culture, it is the prison one; We either laugh off, or even glorify the possibility of a prisoner getting raped. But even then, that might not be "rape culture", it might be "Justice culture." We in America likes to see justice served, no matter how strongly it was served. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: There is no good reason to sit in the front row of a movie theater. +
+ Barring a sold-out showing, I cannot fathom a single reason why someone would want to sit in the front row of a movie theater. I think that it is the absolutely worst place to sit. My reasons are as follows:
1. One cannot see the entire screen in their field of vision. Head-turning is an inevitability.
2. Some people (including young children) will have to tilt their heads upward to see the screen. It is uncomfortable; continual craning is most likely detrimental to health.
3. Although many disagree that [sitting too close to the TV is bad for the eyes](http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/07/health/07really.html), I believe that being so close to a movie screen can induce [eye strain](http://www.healthguidance.org/entry/10020/1/How-to-Reduce-Eye-Strain.html).
4. There are so many better seats in the house. Full field of vision is only a few rows back. Sitting in the very back allows you to look forward/down (avoid neck strain) and still get the full movie experience. Some people also prefer to see a full audience in front of them to enhance the movie-going experience.
I cannot understand why someone would choose to sit in the front row. Please change my view.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:Rock is dead. +
+ When I say this, I especially mean in it the context of mainstream. There probably still are a lot of indie rockers out there, but the same can be said for any genre we consider to be "dead."
Why I believe this:In an embarrassing effort to try and find "modern rock artists", these are the best my local rock station can come up with.
Riptide-Vance Joy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUI5uLysKaE
Ho Hey-The Lumineers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lL9nytKWg8U
Sweater Weather-The neighborhood
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RA26uXxh5O0
Don't get me wrong, these are great bands, but they can hardly be described as rock n roll. The Vance Joy song especially, since it nearly has a ukelele vibe, which is not rocking out in any sort of way. There are no power chords, no rebellious or overtly sexual themes, nothing that makes you want to get up and pump your fist. It's not rock n roll in any way, but this is all rock stations can point to as "New Rock" because the art has mostly died out, but they need to find some sort of music to stay relevant and not rehash Weezer and Stone Temple Pilots over and over, so they just air people who play guitar as if that is the only requirement to be a rockstar. There are no more Robert Plants, Axel Roses, Steven Tylers, Kurt Kobains, or Mick Jaggers out there. The art is gone, replaced with rap, pop, dubstep, neo-folk, and weird hipster stuff like Bastille (Which JUST came on my rock station btw.)
Anyway i'm done ranting. Care to CMV? | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe communism as described by Karl Marx is a more democratic economic system than capitalism. CMV +
+ Conventional wisdom since the Cold War argues that capitalism and democracy are synonymous. I believe that Marxist communism is ultimately more democratic. The public rather than private interests control the means of production. Society is classless, thereby preventing the subjugation and exploitation of one socioeconomic class over the other. Because wealth differences are meaningless in a theoretical communist society, wealthy individuals and institutions would not be able to gain unequal access to elected leaders.
I am not a communist nor do I believe it is the best system, but I think the notion that capitalism and democracy are inseparably linked is seriously flawed. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Most "free" antivirus software are nearly as bad as malware. +
+ Without getting specific as to which ones are worse or denying the necessity of anti-virus software in general for you know, viruses. The secondary purpose (to me at least) of such programs is to keep your computer clutter free from adware, popups, and generally keep it running smooth and fast. While this not being as bad as getting a Trojan, if your internet usage is kept relatively simple by mainly visiting places like Reddit and such, many if not all free AV software hit you with a constant barrage of auto-updates, mini scans, and popups for "discounted offers" to upgrade that in effect, slow your computer down more than anything. This only gets worse when trial offers expire and you now have popups AND nothing protecting you. Yes, I know there are work arounds such as changing settings and uninstalling when expired, but this isn't the point. Besides, sometimes, this won't even work. Currently, for example, one noted AV software is running a "World Cup Promotion" and constantly pops up an ad about it. Not saying this is horrible, but I'm starting to feel like the programs are becoming more and more malware like every day.
2ndly, I fully understand they "want" you to buy upgrades, and that's fine. It's how they go about it that matters.
3rd, Let me make a side comparison to some actual adware. Let's try Conduit Search engine. Not malicious but surely invasive. Easy to get rid of too. But what does it do? It changes your default homepage and search engine mainly. Neither of these are hard to fix nor is getting rid of it (which you have to do to keep you changes). I can akin most AV software to this, confirmed malware, for the level of interference it delivers. Granted, AV software is downloaded voluntarily and actually does serve a positive purpose. But my argument was that the free/trial AV software was "nearly" as bad in some aspects. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I don't think birthdays are important. CMV +
+ I believe the only days your birthday should matter are on milestone dates, like when you turn 18 or 21. Most people seem to have a sense of entitlement on their birthdays, and use that against everyone around them.
Other than these very few dates, your birthday is just another day of the year.
I understand the argument of "if you don't celebrate yourself, who will?" But I've often seen people act irrational and entitled on their birthdays, and have a high expectation of those around them, simply because they feel they "deserve it."
To me, this seems like a primitive act, and imposes on others, whereas, people should just accept that the day they were born has no real meaning outside of the day they were actually born. | 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 conservative ideology from the past 13 years has done so much harm in the US that my generation will be cleaning it up our entire lives, CMV. +
+ Starting with President Bush in 2001, the GOP has been placing corporate pawns into the government to expressly deregulate our economy in almost every single way which has lead to enormous income disparity. I could go on and on about the sinister Republican party, but my beef is more with it's constituents. I think that they continually vote against their interests because they do not know what the Republican party is actually doing. I think that they mainly hear about guns, Jesus, abortion and freedom and nothing more. When I have discussions with my family and wifes family (all fundie conservatives), it is very apparent that they have no idea what is going on in our government. My dad misread a [senate bill](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s1336) that I emailed him completely against it until I told him it was legislation from Ted Cruz and then he said it was a good idea because Cruz was a Christian. I really do believe that good, loving and caring people are being duped and played by the people that claim to represent them.
I really do not think that the current far-right will last much longer, as I think that the US will have a very hard liberal push within the next 15-30 years as my generation (I'm 24) gains more of a financial stake in the economy. While this is good, I'm resentful of the current crop of conservatives running the government. They openly blame a strawman of liberalism as the downfall of the economy/country, push harmful legislation, and then will die, leaving people like me to clean up their mess. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The New Dr. Who is one of the most overrated shows of all time. +
+ I'm talking about the new ones not the classic ones. I really don't see what all the fuss is about this show. It has poor CGI, it's not that funny, and I just find it generally boring. The old "Time Traveling" storyline would honestly fit better into a movie over a full on TV Show. Maybe if the episodes were shorter I'd be able to actually complete them in one sitting. But as of right now, the 1 hour boring episodes are impossible to actually sit through. Meanwhile, everyone else on the planet talks and talks about it like it's some sort of religion. I don't understand. 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 am done defending President Obama. I am a 'liberal' who voted for him twice, and his Net Neutrality flop finally did me in +
+ I've lost all hope for a progressive movement in this country. I have been defending him for 6 years to all my conservative friends (in a *very* red State) while he: kept Guantanamo open, bailed out the banks, passed the GOP alternative to single payer, kept the wars going in Iraq and Afghanistan, stood firm with the NSA, etc, etc.
Hillary Clinton will probably win the Democratic primary, and will probably be the next President, and if anything she will be even less progressive than the disappointment that is Obama.
Please, change my view before I become a 25 year old husk of a man | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think eating meat purely for pleasure is inherently a cruel act. CMV +
+ Vegetarian/vegan lifestyles aren't for everyone for a number of reasons. Some people can't afford to do it, some people have body chemistry that forbids them from doing it healthfully, and some people come from cultures where eating meat is strongly rooted in tradition. I don't have a problem with people eating meat, and I am a meat-eater myself.
However, I am a person who can afford to eat a vegetarian diet (although I think people are confused about how much it costs to eat a vegetarian diet vs. an omnivorous diet and in fact, most people living in the 1st world can afford it), who will not suffer adverse health effects from eating a vegetarian diet, and who does not come from a culture that mandates the consumption of meat.
Therefore, eating meat is purely a want rather than a need for me, and it's one which necessitates the harm and unnecessary slaughter of animals that cannot express a preference towards life or death, in which case I think it is our moral obligation to preserve life where possible.
CMV. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: When a 10 year old gets raped and faces execution for no longer being a virgin, this is because a society has deemed her impure. If we're against this judgment as a more civilized society, we should also be against judging or limiting a person's career/life because of online sexual presence. +
+ I've often heard about teachers being fired, having their lives ruined, and/or being barred from teaching because of content that gets exposed online. **I don't believe a person's life should be legally/intentionally affected by sexual exposure online, because it further promotes social discrimination.**
When I see such a despicable disregard for life in one society, I can't help wondering how it extends to our "civilized" societies. In this case, it's clear we have a deep obsession with sexuality and sexual purity. An extension of this judgment results in young students who become sexually exposed to fellow students digitally and commit suicide because of it. **In one absurd society, they murder a girl for sex. In ours, we do it passively.**
Until this discrimination is removed from society, people will continue to be passively punished and socially shunned by neutral variables and harmless personal decisions. **It would be a sincerely positive step to stop legalized sex shunning.**
I dare you to CMV!
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think Google is being being tactless, irresponsible and is unnecessarily tainting a world event with its politics by posting its current controversial "Doodle". CMV. +
+ In case you aren't sure what I'm referring to, see this news article:
http://metro.co.uk/2014/02/07/google-doodle-goes-rainbow-for-gay-rights-ahead-of-sochi-winter-olympics-2014-4294426/
Sample text:
In Beijing in 2008, [there were concerns over human rights in China,](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/2469078/Beijing-Olympics-Human-rights-abuses-getting-worse.html) but Google and other companies rightfully didn't let it taint the spirit of the Games. Not so this year, with gay rights now being so ubiquitously championed in American media as to almost be tedious, we haven't heard the end of this so-called propaganda law, which does not actually discriminate against gays participating in the Games, or attending them, despite what Google insinuates in its "Doodle".
Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of legalizing gay marriage, but Google is not only spreading misinformation about Russia's policy, but is also kinda calling the kettle black here, with America still itself banning gay marriage in most states, and other Western developed countries doing the same. Only 17 countries in the world legalize gay marriage entirely, and yes we are working on it, but we aren't there yet. To shun and scorn Russia in its entirety because of a particular cultural issue being fought there now is tasteless and tactless, especially from a multinational corporation. Nowhere in this "Doodle" is Russia, or even Sochi, mentioned. Clicking on the "Doodle" brings a results page for "Olympic Charter" instead of anything about the actual games for cripes sake. The entire damn thing is being implicitly condemned and boycotted by Google.
Please CMV and tell me why I'm seeing it all wrong here. | 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 the two-party system is dysfunctional and needs to be eliminated - CMV +
+ It's clear that politicians are more interested in sticking to party lines than using common sense these days. And it doesn't take a genius to realize that there is a vast array of differing opinions. Two parties simply cannot cater to everyone. So why do we only have 2 parties. Why does everyone else fall under the "Independent" classification? In reality, very few people are truly democrats or republicans. I would hope that our country is a little more heterogeneous than that. [Look](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_South_Africa) how many political parties South Africa has. More importantly though, look how many are represented in Parliament. Sure there's a ruling majority, but a wide variety of opinions are at least represented.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I think the saying "A good key can open many locks, but a shit lock is opened by many keys" has some truth to it. CMV. +
+ "A good key can open many locks, but a shit lock is opened by many keys"
For those who haven't heard this before, it means its okay for a man to get lots of woman, but shameful if a woman gets many men.
I'm not sure why, but I feel there is truth in this message. A man and a woman have different hormones, different social standings, different "nature", and even different morals. If men and women are different in these ways, why do they have to be viewed the same when it comes to being a stud or a slut? Of course my examples are generalisations, so there's no point picking me up on that.
I understand this is a controversial opinion, and I'm sorry if you're offended. Please maintain the image I have of this sub and refrain from insulting me. Thanks! | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
The only musical genre that I don't like any examples of that I have heard is dubstep. CMV +
+ I like having an eclectic taste in music, and there are a wide variety of musical samples that will make me stop and listen because I enjoy them. However, I have yet to hear an example of dubstep that has accomplished this. This even includes my brother (who is a massive dubstep fan) to try and sell me on it.
I acknowledge that I might just be starting to get old, and I would just accept not liking dubstep if it were not for one thing. I used to say the same thing about metal before I ran accross a [song that had interesting enough lyrics](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=achODZe5JWI) that got me to listen to it several times and other similar songs by the same artist and eventually many other songs in the rest of the genre. Now, I consider metal one of my favorite genres (mostly folk metal, but I have an appreciation for the rest of it) and I hope that one day I can get close to a similar understanding with dubstep (I acknowledge it must be through a different route because dubstep doesn't use lyrics).
**How to change my view:**
1. Find a dubstep track that makes me enjoy it. I would prefer it if you can try this one first.
2. Find a genre that I either have forgotten about or don't know about. But be warned, you will have to convince me that it counts as a genre without making me like it.
3. Convince me that dubstep doesn't count as a separate genre and is really just a small subset of something like techno or electronica. This method is unlikely because of how distinctive I feel dubstep is.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: You can judge a book by its cover. +
+ Now I'm not talking about an actual book, I'm referring to the analogy that people use to represent how you shouldn't judge a person by their appearance.
I believe this is nonsense. Based on what a person is wearing, how they present them-self, their body language, and a bit of intellect, you can come to a conclusion or estimate on that persons personality. I'm not saying you can completely figure out someone based on their appearance but for sure you can get the "brief summary" of their life, how they behave or personality. Some people are easier to read than others but every little tattoo, piercing, shirt wrinkle, hairstyle, piece of clothing (the list could continue on forever), could definitely be interpenetrated to show a little characteristic about a person and who they really are.
You can judge a book by its cover. You can judge a person by their appearance.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I believe arming teachers in the classroom is totally infeasible due to numerous risks. +
+ I believe that solving school violence by arming teachers in the classroom would be fraught with problems. Teachers are not even close to law enforcement, and so there are difficulties in assuming the situation would work much like a law enforcement situation. For example, even if they received firearm instruction, I doubt teachers would receive standard law enforcement training. This means their judgement in a crisis situation could be impaired due to inexperience. And would gun-toting teachers have their backgrounds investigated more fully? An emotional teacher could be dangerous. And teachers are typically the only adult in the classroom, so there wouldn't be a police officer "partner" equivalent to act as a moderating influence, or an eyewitness.
Additionally, many teachers would likely resist having a firearm due to fears ranging from personal liability to political opposition to gun ownership - making the measure a partial solution at best.
Am I articulating the "arming teachers" argument poorly? CMV please.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: To be vegetarian and participate in modern agriculture is philosophically inconsistent. +
+ So, to clarify I'm mostly talking about vegetarians who clam to be "In it for the animals." Not so much individuals whom just prefer the dietary lifestyle. Someone I know recently finished a temp job in which they demolished last years crop fixtures to make room for this years crop fixtures (things like posts for vines to hang onto ect.) In doing so, he sited that his tank treads on his ripper would often destroy mice and gopher homes as well as killing individual mice and gophers. Now I'm not saying that vegetarian's just shouldn't eat. However, it's philosophically inconsistent to be sternly against killing animals for meat products, when animals are also killed for fruit and vegetable products. Now this isn't directed towards people who have their own private gardens they eat exclusively from, rather as the title implies people that gain their fruits and veggies from modern agricultural methods I.E. buying them at the supermarket indiscriminately.
A way to change my view, would be to challenge it on a philosophical level, as opposed to anything that is pragmatic or rooted in social or economic climates. That being said, CMV.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Prostitution is not a form of violence against women +
+ So I was reading an article on how Sweden has handled prostitution in their country in which it mention that "Sweden's unique strategy treats prostitution as a form of violence against women in which the men who exploit by buying sex are criminalized". a link to the article:
http://esnoticia.co/noticia-8790-swedens-prostitution-solution-why-hasnt-anyone-tried-this-before
I understand the pragmatic value of Sweden's lawmaking and how the prostitution industry there led to some pretty terrible human rights abuses, however there are also places with legalized and regulated prostitution where the brothels are very protective of their employees, not to mention the U.S.'s legal porn industry which to me seems not that different than prostitution. It seems that if we could intensely regulate prostitution--namely against sex workers being coerced into the job--it would be a service not a hindrance.
I've dated a girl who did pornography on the sly for extra cash and she claimed to enjoy her sessions, but even if it was true that no sex worker really wanted to be a sex worker, a lot of people work terrible jobs because the pay is good. If potential clients were screened and the sex workers had a choice in their occupation and the right to refuse service it seems hard for me to see that as exploitation and violence against women.
 
Sweden is right in fighting back against negative social forces however I believe that prostitution isn't inherently wrong, rather poor implementation of prostitution that is wrong. | 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 in order for the American Citizen to re-gain control over its own government, Americans must begin to integrate protesting into our culture. CMV. +
+ **TLDR: French people have a "Protest Season" where every year they stop working and go out and make their government listen to them. The United States culturally does not have this, and we suffer because of it.**
So I hosted a foreign exchange student from france a few years ago. When talking about politics one of the first things he mentioned was "Protest Season". This was a time in the spring every year when nearly every french citizen gets together within their communities to get their governments to listen to them. Work stops. School stops. It's almost like a holiday for kids because the school closes and they all get together with their teachers and other people in the community and make signs and protest until they get what they want. AND THEY ALWAYS DO. At least a portion of what they want. Every year, french people in every town across france get together and make their towns, counties, cities, and even the federal government LISTEN to their demands and FORCE them to respond by refusing to work until the issues are addressed.
I believe that because Americans do NOT do this, we have allowed our local, state, and federal governments to operate unchecked and unchallenged for years. I believe that because we have allowed these problems to become so large, they appear unassailable by a small group of individuals. But if there were numerous small groups of individuals who **believe that it is their duty as a citizen to oppose their government** on certain issues every year, problems like the NSA and Prism could have been stopped in their tracks because upon the news breaking the ENTIRE NATION would have shut down and been in the streets protesting. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe CPR should never be performed on people over the age of 70. CMV +
+ In the unusual instance that CPR is actually successful on someone over 70 years old, the complications are just not worth it. Chest compressions done correctly are absolutely punishing on a young body, on an older person quality compressions will break bones. If a team is able to get your heart beating again on its own, there is a good probability that there will be some brain damage. I think that once you turn 70 you should automatically sign a DNR (do not resuscitate) order. If your heart stops beating or you stop breathing, that may just mean that your time is up. CMV. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe that mainstream contemporary art since the 1950s is juvenile and shallow; in short it is not art. CMV please +
+ I believe that art requires skill, talent, insight and hard work -- that properly executed, art touches the soul of the viewer. I've taken a few art history courses, and to my eye, western art peaked with the [Post-Impressionists](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-Impressionism). It's been downhill since then. There is an ineffable something in the [sunflowers of Van Gogh](http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vincent_van_Gogh_-_Four_Cut_Sunflowers.jpg), or a [Cezanne](http://www.theartwolf.com/articles/impressionism/cezanne-card-players.jpg) or [Monet](http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/monet/waterlilies/monet.wl-clouds.jpg), that is not there in modern and post modern art.
I don't get anything from pieces like [this Jackson Pollock](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:No._5,_1948.jpg) or [this Rothko](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rothko_No_14.jpg) for example. They neither excite nor inspire me, and definitely do not touch my soul. Reading about these artists, it appears that they, at one time, did something innovative that caught the eye of the art world. Instead of becoming fleetingly notorious, they became famous, and this fame fed on itself, making them 'masters' in the eyes of the art world. Articles like [this one](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/16/nyregion/one-queens-painter-created-forgeries-that-sold-for-millions-us-says.html), where a forger created dozens of works supposedly by various modern artists, and managed to fool critics, art historians and collectors, just reinforces my view.
Not all art since 1950 is bad of course, I felt an instant connection the first time I saw the work of [Kieron Williamson](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kieron_Williamson) (for instance, [this landscape](http://www.kieronwilliamson.com/Portals/11/Favourite%20View.JPG)), but most contemporary work seems to me dull and insipid. I'll be happy if anyone can change my view.
N.B. By art I mean paintings, sculptures and installations. Other forms of art, writing, drama and music especially, are still interesting and healthy.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Anybody who has taken up smoking tobacco since the year 1990 has made a proundly stupid decision and has nobody to blame but themselves. CMV. +
+ **Background:** I'm a 21 year old from Ontario, Canada. My exposure to smoking tobacco is as follows. I grew up in a time when it was common knowledge that smoking was terrible. My entire childhood I was told by family members, teachers, and even television that smoking tobacco is awful and I should never, ever do it. Every year at elementary school in health and physical education there was a brief unit on the dangers of addictive drugs, and tobacco was usually one of the first items up for discussion. We would have to complete assignments and presentations to prove our understanding of the risks. So my personal decision to never take up smoking in my life seems like a no-brainer.
The usual argument I hear from people who defend smoking is that the addiction is nearly impossible to combat, and smoking brings them much relief. Well, those people have already made up their minds and I support their freedom to do what they want with their own lives. (as long as it's not invading my personal airspace)
What I don't understand is why anybody less than a few years older than me would ever make the decision to get started in the first place. A few decades ago, smoking was not something that anybody questioned. But in recent times, I can't imagine how anybody is not painfully aware of the consequences. I don't think you can claim ignorance and shrug off starting smoking as "just something to do" in this day and age.
**To change my view:** Explain what convinces a person under 25 in North America, or anywhere the problems associated with tobacco are well known, to get into smoking *in the first place.* I don't see what could outweigh all of the lifelong influence against it.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
No claim is so harmful or crazy that merely discussing it (at CMV or elsewhere) should be forbidden. CMV +
+ I'll grant you it's difficult to know whether a particularly crazy view is genuine or trolling; see [Poe's Law](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law). Given this, I prefer to take these crazy claims and let them be discussed, hoping that the community is mellow enough to allow cool heads to prevail.
What's the harm (particularly at a place like CMV, designed for rational discussion of controversial topics) in rationally talking about a claim, even if that claim is utterly wacky/offensive/ignorant/hurtful? If there is demonstrable harm, where should one draw the line? | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Terrorism Doesn't Exist +
+ What if I told you terrorism didn't exist and is merely the failed foreign and domestic policies of the United States government to either prevent or account for acts of Guerrilla warfare playing out in retaliation to the United States many atrocities of war over the course of its existence. The united states failed perception of the long term effects of it's actions has formulated the scapegoat terminology of 'terrorism' to widely label all of its failures in diplomacy that comeback to level the playing field. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Considering 99.9% of all species that have ever lived on earth have since gone extinct, I do not think there is much significance to an endangered species dying out +
+ Large campaigns that receive sizable amounts of charitable donations go to prevent the demise of a number of endangered species. I find this money to be wasted on the efforts to save an individual species. Money spent protecting and restoring the environment is of course vitally important but paying large sums to protect the last 500 of some animal seems silly. If people are that hell bent on a certain tiger or rhino existing save some of their blood and in 50-100 years when cloning is even more common place than it is today, make as many of them as you want.
| 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 okay if people fetishize me (as a minority) so long as I can score some dates. CMV. +
+ Some people would call me an Asian Uncle Tom, but hear me out.
A lot of gay people would deny that three's any "racism" in the community.
I'm sorry, but practically anything to do with gay men is solely about gay white men. Everything is about beautiful, sexy white men. We're culturally programmed to love and basically find a specific set of features beautiful/relevant/or worthy.
Just hop onto /r/gaybros or any of the other gay forums on reddit. Search for "asian" and watch all of the minority complaints roll in.
One of my favorites: http://www.reddit.com/r/gaybros/comments/1jea84/question_has_the_bropic_ever_featured_an_asian_guy/
First, most upvoted answer says it all.
Now, I am Chinese looking. That's not to be derogatory in anyway, it's the truth. People call me chinky faced and whatnot.
See, most of the dates I've managed to score were because of my Asianness. It's because of people who see me as "exotic" that I'm able to even relieve myself of sexual tension every once and a while.
So, CMV. What's so bad about being fetishized if it makes me a little happier throughout my day? I will never look European. I will never have a mainstream face. So why not score with the fetishists? I can make the money, they can adore me. In 2013, are relationships not whatever we choose to make them? | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe animal cruelty laws are ridiculous CMV +
+ * We systematically enslave and kill animals for food
* Only the weakest members of society actually care about this
* We regularly shoot animals to control populations during hunting seasons
* We regularly euthanize pets who are found wandering
* Many animals that are capable of hurting or killing us would do that if they had the chance
* Most of the animals that are capable but choose not to only do so because we have bred the animal out of them
* I conclude that we regularly kill animals when it suits us and then pretend to care about them in a select few cases to maintain the imagine of "humane killing."
* Evidence indicates even plants "feel" pain. This makes vegetarians no better.
Caveats
* If such a killing would greatly impact the ecosystem, such as the senseless killing of endangered animals, I believe such a thing should remain against the law
* If the killing of the animal impacts another person (they are killed violently in front of someone else would fall under assault laws, killing someone's pet etc)
This post is inspired by the recent rise of factory farm pieces on the news declaring it an "outrage" how we treat the animals we eat. I consider this a pathetic attempt to rationalize guilt for the weak who would have otherwise likely died in the struggle for resources before the food chain was handled for them. They shed a metaphorical tear for an animal that would stampede over their head without a second thought.
Also recent posts about the "travesty" of dogs wandering the streets in Russia during the Olympics. You know what we do with dogs that wander the streets in America? We lock them in a cage, where at their age no one adopts them, so we put them down.
I'd say in that case Russia is the real animal rights advocate, at least for dogs. But in either case to care is ridiculous.
* It's a waste of resources
* It only true purpose is to rationalize guilt for the weak
This rationalization is easily seen also in the London Zoo controversy. It is absolutely ludicrous that we try to shield children from the reality of the wild. The action taken was clearly the best coarse for the zoo, the animal and for the children and parents who chose to view such a thing.
But these weak actors that have trouble rationalizing the food chain that is handled for them cry for no other reason that they are weak in a world run by the strong and are unable to rationalize the brutality of existence.
To be clear I do not participate in such a thing and consider such behavior to be of weak personal standing. No different than someone who abuses a child.
But we don't eat children. We don't systematically kill them.
If we systematically ate and killed children I'd feel the same way about child cruelty laws. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Although I am not a racist, I believe that interracial marriage is generally a bad idea. CMV. +
+ Before I begin, I wish to reiterate that I am not a racial supremacist of any sort. I am a member of a minority ethnic group, and technically, I have a few distant ancestors who are not of my racial background. I do not want to make this conversation into a discussion of racial bigotry; I find any form of supremacist ideology to be quite distasteful, and I do not advocate for the inferiority/superiority of any race.
My belief on this particular issue is not based on any fundamental objection to intermarriage between people who are of different races; I am primarily concerned about the well-being of any potential children resulting from interracial unions. Typically, the major ethnic groups in this nation do not get along well, and many parents discourage their children from bringing home an individual of another race. Familial opposition to interracial pairings often means that many mixed race children never get the opportunity to know their grandparents/extended family, and this can lead to a profound sense of alienation. Biracial children must also contend with prejudice/discrimination from people who stand at all ends of the racial divide; I remember knowing a half black/half white girl in high school who was throughly mistreated by black students and rejected by most of the white students. Due to the insurmountable social pressures faced by many mixed race kids, they often seem to suffer from deep psychological issues and often fail to find a place in any community. I wish that we lived in a world that was capable of treating all individuals equally, but unfortunately, this is not the case. | 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 murder is ethically wrong. CMV +
+ [Why I Hold My View]
-I find that the loss of a human life can inflict devastating amounts of grief upon individuals close to the victim as well as bring about quite a lot of suffering into this world, and to me causing suffering is ethically wrong. Therefore, murder is ethically wrong. Of course, I could probably list a million other reasons why murder is ethically wrong, like the fact that it could damage the social structure, ruin lives, start bloody feuds, etc. But I don't plan on deluging you.
Not only does the fact that murder is illegal pretty much everywhere and frowned upon in nearly all societies indicate that there is more or less universal consensus on this subject, I don't think that there is a way of proving murder to be ethically acceptable or even inherently good in the sense of alms-giving, volunteer work, etc.
[Clarification]
-When I say "murder," I mean the "unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human being." (This definition is the one from Wikipedia's page on 'Murder.') I am not referring to manslaughter, negligent homicide, shooting someone down during battle in the middle of a war zone, killing someone in self-defense, etc. I'm talking about a guy killing his girl-friend because she cheated on him, or a gold-digger murders her wealthy husband so she can inherit his fortune, or a crime boss gunning down rival gang members just because he can. You know, the kind of killing that makes the news, the kind of killing that makes your stomach churn, the kind of killing that's done out of rage, greed, pride, lust, and all those other things that Dante tells you to avoid.
[What I'm Not Looking For]
-To people who plan on pulling out fringe arguments like the example I have below to change my view, I'm not looking for that.
Granted, I understand that the term "murder" hits a grey area when we're talking about preemptive measures. For example, let's say that some twisted dude who needs mental help decides to emulate "The Human Centipede II" and starts to kidnap people so he can make a fifty-person monstrosity. Then all of a sudden his mailman comes across the 20-something victims that he's collected so far tied down in his basement, waiting to have their mouths stitched to somebody's anus. So then the mailman goes and kills the demented dude because for some reason all the police in the United States were occupied with a giant donut festival.
I guess that the aforementioned scenario doesn't quite fit the definition of murder because the mailman killed the guy with the intention of saving those people, so I guess that the killing may have been unlawful (depending on what state you're in, or country for that matter), yet still ethically good depending on how you view things philosophically. But in the case that the mailman just hated the guy, had no idea about all the victims in his basement, and didn't realize that he saved all those soon to be ass-munchers until AFTER he killed the guy, then he did unlawfully kill the demented dude with malice aforethought, so that's murder, but it still had good outcomes. So maybe you could consider a situation like that an instance when murder is ethically good, but that's not what I'm talking about, and it's a pretty weak argument if you ask me.
[What I'm Looking For]
-I want to see how typical, run of the mill, malicious, cruel, murder isn't ethically wrong, and I don't want to hear none of that solipsism, existentialist, nihilist, satanist stuff like there is no such thing as good or bad or ethics. And I definitely don't want the Matrix theory and that none of this really matters because you're not actually killing anyone because we're all in a computer simulation.
[TL;DR]
-I think murder's not okay, and I want to see how someone could rationally explain why murder is okay and should be legal. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Raising a child in your own religion is wrong and they should be able to pick freely when they are at a proper age. CMV. +
+ This happened to myself and countless others. I have witnessed it firsthand and heard many stories from friends. Yes, anecdotal evidence isn't a great starting point, but it is where my view comes from. I was sent to a Catholic school since Kindergarten and will be graduating from my Catholic high school in a few months. As much as I love the small community, I wish I could have had a say in where I got to go. I've been forced into religion by my parents from a small age. There was no other option. I was brainwashed with the religious education and never believed in any of it. I'm an atheist, but am still forced to attend mass and participate in Church services.
I believe that a child should be given the opportunity to choose for themselves. They should be presented with information and given a free choice. I've mentioned my atheism in passing with my mother and has threatened to kick me out of the house because it is a "house of God." She's extremely devout.
I'm aware that extremely devout Catholics and religious folk alike believe that passing down a faith is "the greatest gift you can give someone", but if the child chooses not to accept the gift, they shouldn't be shamed.
Give the child a choice. Let them decide their own beliefs without drilling them into their heads.
Sorry if this sounds rant-y but I will clarify and details until 11:51am EST today. I will continue to answer questions and responses around 2:30pm EST later today.
Thank you for your participation. C my V.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I believe any ideology is inherently bad +
+ I believe that any ideology no matter what it is (pacifism, egalitarianism etc) is inherently toxic for human consciousness. I have long held this belief, but am open to debate and change. I believe that an ideology is a blanket statement. Plain and simple in my view to say that you are _____ ideology is to limit yourself to a filtered world view. It is as if you are looking at the world through a colored lens, and no matter what that color is you are not seeing the whole picture. I believe ideologies limit ones ability to take in information, as that information must first pass through their ideological filter (for example certain feminists are unable to accept women rape children almost as much as men do, Pacifists are unable to accept that sometimes the only solution to a act of violence is eliminating the person committing the violence and that some people cannot be reached by reason.). I am a firm believer that anyone who says they are a subscriber to an ideology is mentally handicapping themselves. It is different in my opinion between saying "I do not like harming others and would not do so in almost all circumstances" and "I am a pacifist", or "I believe woman are equal human beings and should be treated as such by society and law" and "I am a feminist". The difference is when information enters that directly conflicts with your ideology, you are predisposed to toss that information out in favor of protecting the ideology. I am curious and open to see all replies.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
The world is at no risk of becoming overpopulated, and talking about it is a distraction from the real issues (not the other way around). CMV +
+ If fertility rates were to remain the same, population growth is driven by exponential growth (as pointed out by David Suzuki here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8x98KFcMJeo) but the fertility rate hasn't remained constant. The rate of population increase has actually been quite linear over the past century (the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th billion all came at approximately the same time apart, but exponetial growth says they should come closer together). It's been declining since the 1960s, not because of overpopulation alarmism, but just due to changing lifestyles as women have entered the workforce. In most western countries the fertility rate is below replacement now, and as other countries develop it also goes down. Bangladesh is often held up as the example of too many people, with images of Dhaka being the posters for the idea of overpopulation, but it has a fertility rate of 2.2 children per woman, which is only slightly above replacement (and possibly below).
Indeed, the UN thinks population will peak at 9 billion, and not because of food shortages or other factors relating to an "overshoot", but a gentle decline. Hans Rosling (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mz_kn45qIvI) thinks 12 Billion. This is with nobody feeling like they need to give up their dreams of big families for the sake of the planet, or anyone's rights being impinged upon; this is just what happens when well educated people, particularly women, have many ways of finding happiness in free societies.
What would life be like for 12 Billion people? Well we make enough food today for 10 billion, and we aren't making the best use of agricultural land by a long margin. We have the technology, now, to grow food and get clean water using solar energy in arid areas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seawater_greenhouse). That's without burning any fossil fuels, and there are many ways of meeting other needs such as energy, building material and transport that don't contribute to CO2 emissions or other environmental problems with current technology. Housing room is the least of our worries - we've got more than enough room even if we live at low population densities (http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2013/06/if-all-the-world-lived-in-houston-how-big-would-the-city-be/) - a very far cry from "standing room only". I'd say life could easily be as good as it is now, and life's probably as good as its ever been.
The real issues seem to be poor wealth distribution, corruption, education etc.; the issues that people say are a distraction from the main event which is overpopulation.
Malthus thought we'd run out of food, but he didn't predict the industrial revolution. Paul Ehrlich's bomb never went off, yet those views are held in high regard. But I'm always going to be worried when my main allies are the Population Research Institute, an anti-abortion organisation run by a religious body, so please, either CMV or affirm that I'm not falling into some ideological trap. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Police should be required to use dash cameras and wear body cameras at all times. +
+ This would serve the dual purpose of holding cops accountable in the event of fuckery, and vindicating any use of force if justified. I can see zero reason why this would be a bad idea. It's insane to me that we have no problem with traffic cameras at every intersection, but still allow cops to do their thing with no accountability.
Ideally I see it going down like this: dash cameras and body cameras on every cop. Footage is captured and stored by a 3rd party and can only be retrieved with a court subpoena.
Hard to believe good cops aren't already wearing cameras just for their own protection. CMV
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: With the exception of a "I just don't like the taste of meat" argument, it is impossible to justify a non-vegan vegetarian lifestyle. +
+ First of all, everyone is afforded their food-taste preferences. So, people who have no ethical/health qualms about eating animal products, but simply do not enjoy the taste or texture of animal flesh are off the hook. It would make sense for a person like this to be a vegetarian, but still partake in eating things like eggs, dairy, honey, foods made with red dye, etc.
However, vegetarians who want to make a claim that their lifestyle is significantly healthier and/or more ethical than that of the average meat-eater cannot justify that claim on either front.
Ethics: Just because an industrial animal isn't being killed for its meat doesn't mean it hasn't led a miserable, hellish existence. Dairy cows and egg-producing hens that are part of the mainstream ag industry are injected with hormones that deform their bodies and exaggerate their production abilities. They are often kept in tiny enclosures standing ankle-deep in their own shit, in crowded conditions, and may literally never see the light of day once over the course of their short, painful existence. When they are too old to lay eggs or produce milk, they are killed, with their remains being used in products such as dog food.
Honestly, I see less of an argument for honey being unethical, because I don't really think bees suffer during the honey-production process, even on a mass scale (mainly because they would be doing the same thing anyway in the wild). However, I am sorely undereducated on this subject and would like to learn more.
If you have strict set of Jain-like beliefs and are a non-vegan vegetarian (which I suspect includes about 0% of the population), eating any product made with red dye (carmine) should be off-limits, since the cochineal bug is industrially bred and smushed to harvest their naturally occurring carminic acid stores.
Health: This one is a little trickier, because it's true that while vegetarianism isn't NECESSARILY healthier than a meat-eating lifestyle, it can be easier to eat healthy as a vegetarian because produce typically becomes a much more central aspect of diet, as opposed to meat (often full of saturated fat, cholesterol, and excessive calories). However, while vegetarianism may sometimes be healthier than a meat-eating diet, I would argue that veganism is more often a better health choice than vegetarianism alone.
To replace the calories/enjoyment lost in meat elimination, vegetarians often rely on a disproportionate use of other high-calorie foods that don't require as much expertise/research/adventurous palate to prepare and eat, like cheese and quick-burning carbohydrates. Like almost all foods, if eaten in appropriate proportion to other parts of the diet, these foods can have health benefits, but there are also many drawbacks since they are often high in fat and heavily processed.
Vegans, however, can't eat many of these foods as well as part of their dietary limitations, and vegan substitutes are are nearly across the board lower in saturated fat and calories. In addition, these substitutes are often hard to find, so to supplement calories, many vegans simply add more produce or plant proteins to their diet, which are healthier and contrary to popular belief, CAN actually provide all the calories, protein (yes, grandma, I'm getting enough protein), and nutrients that a human requires.
For these reasons, if you're going to be a vegetarian and justify it with an animal ethics argument or a health-based argument, you can't. You may as well either go back to eating meat, or go all the way and become vegan.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: It's no coincidence that states that vote Republican are objectively worse off... +
+ So, I want someone to convince me otherwise, but I think it is obvious that right-leaning people generally dislike public investment in social welfare, education, health, science... and as a result, when they get elected, the adopt programs that invest less in these things, and therefore the populations of states that elect republicans are poorer, dumber, fatter, and worse at science and math...
alternatively, i have heard the argument that I am misunderstanding the causation issue, and that it just turns out that richer states have more opportunity to invest in those things, and therefore, it's not whether their political views that determines how well they live, but their general wealth level. I realize it is hard to tease out the distinction here. because states with major industrial centers like NYC, Boston, and SF... also do drive wealth, and wealth does give people the opportunity to invest more in their kids and quality of life. But there are counter examples, like Texas, which has terrible outcomes despite having decent economic performance.
So let's discuss, what is the cause? I believe it is the social welfare politics of the left that creates the environments for good outcomes. prove to me I'm wrong.
and for some indirect evidence...
Fattest states (9 out of the top 10 are straight republican. only michigan is not. and michigan has a republican controlled state government, even if it has some democratic representation at the federal level):
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/diet-fitness/photos/top-10-fat-states-where-obesity-rates-are-highest
Dumbest states (9 out of the top 10 are straight republican. only michigan is not):
http://www.thestreet.com/story/12821862/1/the-10-worst-states-for-getting-an-education.html
States with the best/worst schools (texas is the only states that breaks the thesis in this ranking):
http://www.usnews.com/education/best-high-schools/articles/2014/04/21/how-states-compare-in-the-2014-best-high-schools-rankings
Poorest states (all republican):
http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
Richest states (all democrat except alaska, which is obviously an outlier because of oil):
http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
worst quality of life (all republican):
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/10-states-worst-quality-life-164909712.html
Best quality of life (ND, Iowa and Maine are outliers):
http://247wallst.com/special-report/2014/10/06/the-10-states-with-the-best-quality-of-life/2/
Best for high tech industry (mostly democratic):
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/the-10-best-and-10-worst-states-for-high-tech-business/253043/
Worst for high tech industry (all republican):
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/the-10-best-and-10-worst-states-for-high-tech-business/253043/
and I could go on and on....
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: OJ Simpson most likely did not murder Nicole Brown Simpson, and I'm glad he got off. +
+ Please leave the footnote below the following line, but remember to delete this sentence by replacing it with the body of your post. Thank you!
Call me a crazy conspiracy theorist, but it is my opinion that OJ's acquittal was not farcical or a fluke. Everything that WE know about the case comes from media coverage of the trial. I'm not saying that the media deliberately made out an innocent man to be a monster, but I am saying this: There are only 12 people in the world who saw, understood, and inspected every iota of evidence in the trial, and those 12 people chose to let OJ go. Maybe I have too much faith in a jury of my peers, maybe I am subconsciously playing devil's advocate, maybe I am woefully ignorant of the facts, but that's my opinion: OJ Simpson got a fair trial and a just result. Change my view. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
I believe that Feminism is outdated in the United States-CMV. +
+ Here in the United States, we all share a golden standard of Personal and Economic Freedom. With this freedom we maintain that all citizens have certain rights, and that everyone should have the same rights as everyone else. My view is that now that Women have the right to vote, work, own land, etc. that the Feminism movement does not have a solid platform to fight for. Furthermore rights that Females supposedly do not have, are small nit picky issues that are blown out of proportion to seem like huge issues when they can be solved easily and through rational channels. So there you have it, change my view.
(I will try and respond asap I can, but I do have class until four and work after that so sorry if there are gaps in my responses) | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |