Datasets:

JingyangYi
/

CMV_op_test

Dataset card Viewer Files Files and versions Community

Split (1)

test · 1.53k rows

input stringlengths 89 9.33k	output stringclasses 2 values	instruction stringclasses 1 value
CMV: The contribution of vegans/vegetarians and other environmentally conscious people is absolutely insignificant. + + I'll start off by saying I'm a vegetarian and I also try to limit the eggs and dairy I eat, I try to buy no leather and no other animal byproducts. When there are leftovers from dinners with guests, etc. I'll eat that (throwing meat away is definitely worse than eating it). I try to do as much as I can for the environment and animals, I have very little money so I do not donate to animal rights organizations but I certainly would if I could. I'm trying to be as reasonable as possible on the subject, I try not to see individuals as evil 'cause they think it's normal to torture animals, I understand it's a cultural thing although I loathe humanity in general. I also think the hypothetical contribution of even a billion of the strictest vegans imaginable wouldn't change things a bit. As of today I'm making this choice exclusively because it makes me feel good / at peace with myself, 'cause if I think about the contribution to the environment, I'm sorry but I just can't believe I'm doing anything significant. I'm 100% convinced on what I've done for a year now, and I'll become as "vegan" as possible in the future (I hate this whole "vegan" thing, it should be something natural like being against slavery), I'm NOT looking for an excuse to quit. But I know it'll only benefit my ethics and my self-esteem. I know that for every person like me (and I'm nowhere near good) there are one thousand who don't give a damn. I know that there are TENS OF BILLIONS animals being tortured for food, and unless the world miraculously turns vegan overnight, there's no chance any of this will change. Change my view. On the eating leftovers thing, I also have to add.. I've been to a wedding recently and I got vegetarian courses, it was really no hassle for anyone... but I looked at the courses with fish and meat and I just thought of all the stuff they'd be throwing away that day... if I ate meat and fish that day it would have made NO difference at all... maybe it would have been better, saved the cook some work... For me the key point is not BUYING meat rather than not eating it, I get it, and having vegetarian stuff served that day and making things look positive for everyone and having conversations with others about being vegetarian was a positive thing... but the actual contribution to things? That restaurant probably threw away ten times what I could have eaten. It's depressing. I still recommend that people switch to a vegetarian (or vegan) lifestyle, I think it's a GOOD thing by all means. It's a fantastic feeling, it's healthy, and a million other things. As I said I haven't stopped believing in the lifestyle and I'll never quit. I just believe the actual contribution to the environment and the well being of animals is insignificant, and expecting results is hopeless. I have found a convincing argument and I think that made me change my mind. Although many answers were backed up by very uplifting data, I couldn't justify changing my mind since I couldn't help but believe things are changing way too slowly, and that the damage might still be irreparable in the long run. I have never thought about critical mass. I still believe the situation is a lot more complex than just the West, but even believing that one day a relatively sudden change could happen like it did with LGBT rights based on public opinion reaching critical mass makes me believe there's something to look for behind the hard numbers. Another great argument with links [Does Veganism Make a Difference?](http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Philosophy/Utilitarianism/Does%20Veganism%20Make%20a%20Difference.htm) [Expected Utility, Contributory Causation, and Vegetarianism](http://www.veganoutreach.org/enewsletter/thresholds.pdf) Both of these essays approach your question in a statistics-based manner that focuses on thresholds. They propose that your effect on meat production is a measurable probability. In other words, they ask questions like, "What are the odds that your purchase of, say, a frozen turkey will be the one that causes your grocery store to order another entire shipment of frozen turkeys? And that that shipment causes the food distributor to order more turkeys? And that that shipment causes a farm to slaughter more turkeys?"	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Anti-discrimination law is discriminatory. + + Al Franken went on Jon Stewart [a few weeks ago](http://thedailyshow.cc.com/extended-interviews/wb5h9x/exclusive-al-franken-extended-interview) and said it was ridiculous for a politician to be against a law that prevents students from bullying gay people. Stewart's crowd ate it up. Stewart asked him what the Republicans said is their reason. Franken dismissively responded, 'they don't believe anyone should be bullied'. People laughed because well obviously LGBTQ people get bullied waayyy more than their counterparts so they need to be specially protected. It seems pretty obvious you shouldn't beat up someone because they’re gay, but you really shouldn't beat up anyone. While heterosexuals students may get beaten up a lot less on average, I'm sure we could identify groups within heterosexuals that should be protected from bullying, (e.g. nerds). Obviously adding nerds to the list of protective classes is ridiculous. The LGBTQ community is considerably more organized and properly defined, they've banded together and pushed serious change in policy in the last decade. In the 1960s, the Civil Rights Act passed on the same tune, a group banded together and they pushed for social change. The issue with the entire concept of "protective classes" is that they only protect the "alpha" minorities while leaving everyone else in the dust. Any group that can get national and consistent attention can get "protected". It's exclusion masquerading as inclusion, it goes as far as to split the world into three groups, "normal", "protected" and "fucked".	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Nicki Minaj is in the wrong, not Miley. + + I'll be honest with you, I didn't even know about this whole thing until this morning. I saw a whole bunch of posts on tumblr like "I hate Miley so much," "Miley needs to check her white privilege," "I respect Nicki so much for how she handled that." So I went on ye olde Google and in ten seconds found the transcript of the Miley interview, and I video of their exchange at the VMAs. So to recap, Anaconda didn't get nominated for best video, Nicki went on Twitter and basically said that it didn't get nominated because she's a curvy black woman and implied that if she were a skinny white girl like tailor swift (she never said nor implicated tailor, but tailor took it to mean her because she is a good example) she would have been nominated. Miley then says in an interview that she could have respected what Nicki said if it was said in a different less angry way, but couldn't because of the way she presented her points. She called Nicki "not polite" and "not very nice" in her statements about the nominations. Then during the VMAs Nicki said "back to the bitch that had a lot to say about me in the press a few days ago" then said something along the lines of "what you got." Miley then said, "we are all in the same industry, we all do interviews, we all know how they manipulate things, congratulations on your award." Frankly before this incident I respected Nicki way more than Miley, but I've lost some respect for Nicki and gained some for Miley. I think Miley's comments to the press were respectful, articulate, and accurate. I think she handled the VMA situation maturely. I think Nicki's comments on Twitter came across as petty, and I also think they were inaccurate. I think the way she handled the VMAs was immature and only served to detract from her point by diminishing her credibility. I also feel like Nicki and Beyoncé are two strong examples of non white women who are both celebrated for their contributions to the music industry and are regarded widely as extremely sexy. For this reason, I think that people calling it "body shaming" that Nicki wasn't nominated is ridiculous. She's a pop star and sex symbol, nobody is body shaming her, and if they are, not nominating her for an award doesn't count. I also feel like it makes sense that there aren't as many black women who are famous and receiving awards because, well, there are way fewer black women than black men, white men, white women, and all other gender ethnicity combinations combined. Statistically it's completely reasonable for there to be years where an award with fewer than ten nominees have no black female nominees. I do think Nicki has a point that black women and black men contribute a lot to pop culture and aren't recognized for it, but I think they aren't recognized because it's the average black person that creates more culture than a few celebs. We don't give out awards for "segment of the population that most contributed to pop culture this year." I'm willing to award deltas both for objective proof that black women specifically are snubbed in the music industry (no subjective "this video was clearly better" nonsense), and for persuading me that Nicki's comments at the VMAs were justified/Miley was in the wrong in the situation in terms of the way she approached the problem.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: The TSA was never meant to keep us safe + + After September 11th, the TSA was created because people were afraid and because the union needed jobs. The government used fear from its citizens to support the creation of a pointless government agency after pressure from the unions who wanted more jobs. I'm not saying that we don't need airport security, but we obviously do not need 47,000 TSA "officers". Also, some important information to keep in mind is that the TSA has never once stopped a terrorist attack. This is the same reason that states build useless parking garages, for the unions who want work.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV:I want to live in Scandinavia + + Hello, I'm Luke and for the longest time a small dream of mine has been to move to a Scandinavian country such as Norway, Sweden, or Denmark. From what I've heard of them they're all great countries to live in. The big thing for me is the weather and the scenery, I love cold weather and I've seen so many beautiful pictures of the forests and towns there. I'm wondering if I'm being stupid and I should just give this up because Scandinavia isn't all flowers and smiles like I think it is.	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 see anything wrong with sleeping with somebody's girlfriend + + As crazy as this title sounds, I really don't see anything wrong with it obviously unless it's your friend, it's not your responsibility to keep other peoples girlfriend's 'faithful' if they are going to sleep with you they are probably going to sleep with somebody else anyway, also I wouldn't want to be with somebody who would have slept with another guy but because he didn't want to in the end she didn't. I wouldn't blame the other guy at all, she is the only one to blame imo, regardless of wether he talked her into it or not, he shouldn't be able to anyway...	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: There is no practical reason for any individual to vote in national elections + + By "practical reason," I mean a reason that motivates you to vote by ascribing a cause-effect relationship between the action of voting and the outcome of the election. I admit there can be other reasons to vote--social pressure, solidarity, civic pride, etc. But on a practical level, I can reasonably expect no difference between the world in which I vote and the world in which I stay home, except that in the former I'd have to go out of my way to perform additional actions. If I'm trying to decide whether to perform those actions, based on pure self-interest, there is no reason for me to vote. I'm setting this at the level of national elections (specifically thinking of U.S. elections) because it's true that, given a small enough "nation," your individual vote would carry a significant probability of making a difference. This is a classic example of a [collective action problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action), and after considering this class of problems thoroughly, I've come to the conclusion that there is no self-interested practical reason to participate in these cases, barring external motivators (such as added incentives). It would be nice to find a reason to believe this isn't a case, so I look forward to someone convincing me!	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: There needs to be different downvote buttons for "I disagree" and "You're trolling." + + -The reddiquette says "don't downvote just because you disagree." However, there are tons of posts on almost any subreddit with zero or negative karma, and many of these are insightful and friendly but are minority opinions. -Even subreddits with heavy-handed anti-downvote policies still see lots of downvotes. -Lots of users (myself included) write posts and intend to use the karma as a "poll" of sorts, with upvotes as "Yes" and downvotes as "No." However, getting heavily downvoted still hurts feelings and can result in quota issues (often tied to an IP address). I have several verified-email accounts but still get "you are doing that too much. Try again in 9 minutes" messages. I feel sorry for anyone who shares an IP address with a firebrand redditor. -There is a difference between "I disagree" and "you're not contributing." Almost every language can differentiate the two. There needs to be a way for redditors to communicate philosophical disagreement separately and independently from believing a post is worthless or antisocial.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: We Should execute the weak to improve the human genepool and reduce overpopulation + + Alright, so, i was challenged by a friend of mine to post this here for discussion, and while i am open to ideas to modify it or drop it entirely, i will only do so if you can actually change my mind. I will not give up easily. I believe I can change this country, better yet, this world for the better. The whole idea behind what I am about to say relates back to evolution. Humans do not allow evolution to take place properly. We save the weak. I personally believe that we should execute the weak. yes, this sounds harsh but let me explain why. We are not advancing as a race. For now though, we will keep it to America for the sake of the argument and hope the rest of the world catches on. Another massive problem we are facing is over population, we are using our resources and producing waste and pollution and mind blowing rates. You look at animals and if an animal doesn't want to eat, it dies, if a human doesn't want to eat, it has an eating disorder and is treated for the disorder. More importantly that human is allowed to procreate. We allow shitty genetics to be passed on. We SAVE the WEAK. We also allow these morbidly obese, incredibly stupid people live and breed. If an animal in the wild isn't fit, or cannot attract a mate, it will die and or be unable to pass on its genetics. Humans may be fat and physically repulsive but if they have money they can still get women and still have children, which fucks with the gene pool. I could go on for longer in this section but if more reasoning is necessary i'll continue on later. Now to determine who is to be executed. The type of people i want to execute are people who are not able to make a contribution to society. If you weigh 500 pounds but you're incredibly smart, you can still make a contribution to society. The opposite is also true, if you're borderline retarded but you're very physically fit, you can also contribute to society. People who are mentally unstable shall also be executed as we wouldn't want their genetics passed on and they are a threat to the gene pool we are creating. What will determine who is executed: At the age of 14 years old, annual testing will begin based on birthday. There will be three tests, a mental test, a physical test, and a psychological test. Your Mental test exactly 3 months after your birthday and your physical test 9 months after your birthday. Tests will vary depending on your age, the older you get the harder they become, until the age of 20 where they will remain the same until 35 and gradually work their way down until the age of 65 where no further testing will be required. At the age of 20 we will also introduce psychological testing which will continue until the age of 65. What the tests will consist of: The mental test will be a basic evaluation of your ability to do math, your ability to read and write, and your basic understanding of the sciences. This test should not be difficult, anyone who has at least a D average in school should be just fine. For the physical test, every age group will be required to complete a mile in 16 minutes. This is a very easy time to make, you can walk that pace. Physical tests will include varying push up or sit up tests depending on age group. There may be a few other exercises required in certain age groups, and the amount of repetitions will also vary depending on age. this should be easy for anyone who isn't morbidly obese. Next is the psychological test. These will be administered every 5 years to insure mental stability and health of everyone. We want the mental health of our gene pool to be good as well. Lastly, there will be certain ways to be omitted to testing, ALL WILL BE FROM SOME SORT OF SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION TO SOCIETY, the main one being in the military. If you served in the military without being dishonorably discharged, you will be exempt from any further testing in your lifetime. Another example of a way to be omitted from testing is by paying for it. The cost will be $25,000 per year, per person. Many will be angry that it's giving more power to the rich, but i see it as a valid way of determining someones potential for making a contribution to society. If you are rich, I will almost guarantee you are either physically fit enough or mentally fit enough to pass the tests and you would have been fine anyway. AN IMPORTANT NOTE: You will only have to pass 2 out of 3 tests. How we will execute people: We will set up an organization in charge of carrying out testing and executing people. My idea is to possibly have the military be in charge of this, though I haven't had the time to think too much into that, this I am very open to other ideas on. The method of execution i think will be best is the firing squad. 8 men, 2 with real bullets to ensure death, 6 with blanks for the obvious reason. For those who are unaware, my understanding is that firing squads use primarily blanks so the gunmen aren't aware of who actually killed the person so they don't have trouble with living life after killing someone. Now another thing i would like to do that isn't executing people, but will improve our gene pool is preventing certain people from having children. People with MORE THAN two generations of diagnosed cancer or potentially terminal illnesses that tend to be passed on genetically will be sterilized. These people will not be allowed to produce offspring, however we will make it easy for them to adopt if they would like to have children. I would also like to place a limit on the amount of children a person may have. The maximum number of children a person may have is 3, which is a very reasonable amount. It should slow the rate of population increase or possibly make the population decrease due to some couples not having children or only having 1 child. There is no reason to have more than 3 children because at that point you're just putting a burden on society. If say you already have 2 children and you would like to have a third but you end up with twins, triplets, or even more, you will be allowed to keep them as it wasn't your intent to have that many. When you hit the limit for children you will be sterilized. This is all i can think of for now, if i remember more of my plan i will post. So reddit users, 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: He, she, they. That's all the pronouns you are getting. + + My proposition is that pronouns past the three most common ones are not necessary and are actively harmful. An example for some of the new pronouns that can be encountered in the wild is "xe/xer/xerself" or "zi/zis/zimself". My argument is as follows: 1. Pronouns are always dealing with a spectrum. A "he" can be used to describe both masculine as well as feminine men and similarly for she and women. The singular they is also covering a spectrum, the spectrum of all people that do not identify with either gender or those that identify with both to differing degrees. Therefore they is sufficient to describe alternative gender identities. 2. If we'd decide that new pronouns are necessary to describe or be inclusive to specific non-standard gender identities, we would very likely end up with a sheer infinite amount of pronouns. Since the argument for further pronouns would not be based on scientific facts but rather on feelings of individual people, the argument why some new pronouns are okay and others aren't would be a very difficult one to make. The result would be that we would have to allow anyone to pick or create their own pronouns. 3. Since we'd have a large number of new pronouns people would very likely get confused, since they'd not only have to remember a name and a face but also the specific pronouns of a person AND incorporate those into everyday speech. The result would either be that people would start inadvertently giving offence or our speech patterns would change to rely far more on using names instead of pronouns. 4. Having a wide range of new pronouns would actively harm the English language by making it less clear. Encountering unknown pronouns would confuse people and make it difficult to imagine what kind of character is being talked about.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Game publishers are holding the franchises we love hostage and its only a matter of time other publishers follow suite. + + So, with konami doing everything in there power to ruin MGSV and now square enix [pulling this shit.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJkzcQDqbpE) I thought it was about time I brought out an issue and why it angers me so. You see, it wouldn't be a problem if I could just say boycotting would work. But guess what? It won't. And both konami and square enix knows this. Deus Ex is a niche but brilliant series and it wouldn't take much for the series to go back to sleep for another decade (if not permanently) due to lack of sales. So i have a choice. I can boycott this game (which, concidering human revolution, is probably going to be pretty good pre-order bullshit or not) and then never have another deus ex game for god knows how long or I just shut the fuck up and buy it near launch. And no, buying it 2 years down the line won't help the series because square enix have already proven they only care about the short term sales. And they know this damn well. Thats why they're pulling this shit to begin with... As for konami? They're basically done with console gaming all-together so they couldn't care less what "gamers" think about them at this point in time. And they just know theirs absolutely no way in hell people are going to skip out on Kojima's last metal gear solid game. So what are they doing? They're squeezing out as much as they possibly can out of us by doing the most lazy, sleazy shit this industry has seen in quite a long time. And don't say "I'm just going to wait for it to go on sale!" HA! Lets be real here, no you're not. You'll say you will in the comments, but you'll fall to the temptation. You always do. Seriously, guys, I have no idea what the hell we can do and I fear its only a matter of time before other publishers follow suite. Maybe I'm being to cynical and things will be okay? Because if I am, please convince me because things look very dire from my point of view.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV:People who believe in a possible afterlife because "science can't tell us everything" are stupid and willfully deluding themselves + + I have this debate often with my roommate. He doesn't really have any strong theological beliefs (he's "agnotistic") but he believes there will always be more to our reality than what can be measured -- and, by extension, doesn't find it absurd for someone to believe in life after death. No matter what we learn about physics and the human brain, there could always be "more out there" that in some way would allow our being to persist even after death. This beliefs spills over into more practical matters, such as him refusing to see any computer as ever being "conscious," regardless of it's complexity. I argue that we know enough in this modern age to dismiss that belief. We may not really understand how all the neurons on our brain work together to make a fully formed human mind, but we know it's an emergent property of physical parts -- and no more. We're a sac of complicated flesh that uses electrical gradients to process information. If one part of the brain is physically damaged, the processing that occurs in that area of the brain is disrupted. People have strokes and lose a huge chunk of their "personhood." Maybe they have trouble speaking, or recognizing faces, or maybe their personality is drastically altered. Regardless, it's clear that we're the product of PHYSICAL interactions in the brain. We don't exist anywhere else in any sense -- we are literally the structure of our neurons. It may be a black box, but just because we don't know how the black box functions doesn't mean there might be an entirely different reality out there that would allow our true "soul" to move to or extend from. It's just human arrogance to believe we're special in some way and can transcend this universe full of non-living parts. He also believes that we could be living in the Matrix, for instance, and that might be one way for life after death to occur. He says that I'm the arrogant one for claiming with certainty that we shouldn't believe in things beyond the measurable. I'll try to rephrase. If we're abiding by a philosophical absolute sense of certainty, then anything is possible. The matrix is possible, god is possible... maybe there's only one sentient person on the planet and the rest are robots in disguise. You can't construct some logical proof to dismiss these ideas as being utterly impossible. But where does this leave us? We can't know ANYHTHING, then? Just because all of our knowledge of the universe is acquired through inductive reasoning doesn't mean we can hold on to these irrational beliefs. We study the microscopic world that composes us, observe that everything seems to operate on static laws. We're composed of the very stuff we study, so, conclusion: we operate on the same static laws. If a 100 years from now we understand the brain in depth, and from static principles can explain how a given structure of neurons can give rise to a certain personality or behavior, then where will you put your theological beliefs? If we can be explained via rules in this world, why would i need to believe in anything more?	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Trump is the everyman's candidate + + A friend and I were talking about the current candidates and she couldn't understand why Trump was doing so well in the polls. The best I could articulate it is that he is the most populist candidate out, his politics are moderate but heavily nationalist, his demeanor is one of our idealized archetypes, and he is wealthy but appears genuine, achieving a halo effect (unlike Romney.) After realizing this, I asked several other people, and realized that basically my friends, like Clinton, don't like how he communicates, but then have no major disagreement with the content. Am I missing something? Is there a good reason to dismiss him as a candidate? More importantly, who is real competition for him? From todays conversations: I see an argument for why he may not have a good chance in an election (delta awarded), mainly in that whatever percentage of his 25% popularity is republican is all he may get from the republicans, and as a more mainstream candidate arises, the split votes wont go to him (that is, the people who polled for him may be all that would poll for him in the primary, given any other more mainstream republican candidate. However, I have seen no compelling argument for why he is not a populist candidate. Some have tried to narrow the definition of a populist to being representative of a position or policies that in some fashion clearly serve the underserve or/and the majority, but this is difficult to define, and ignores the perception. One person argued at length that the self perception of the constituency as victim and the candidate's policy being to address that sense of victimization is what makes them populist, and while I can agree that it is a fine definition, the person then asserts that this is not trump, and I disagree, as Trump clearly paints the American people as victimized by poor, self interested leadership, a corrupt political culture, and compromised ideas and strategies, and his entire platform is about going in as a normal private citizen and fixing it. Many (most?) have simply tried to argue that he is too insulting to win, but I remain unconvinced that that would stop a sizable percentage of Americans from voting for him. This is because Americans don't actually value formality and decorum as much as power and conviction. For the same reason that this is the America we have, I can't see how a candidate, fundamentally in favor of current nationalist policies, but simultaneously harping on being free from big money interests and the many leadership deficits that are frustrating Americans, isn't hitting so many of the right cords with mainstream America. If he sticks to a policy (rather than sentiment,) that is antithetical to a group, then another would be preferred by that group. But a career politician vs Trump, both speaking in vagaries, I see Trump coming out on top rather consistently. (Saw a headline today, Trump took a hit in polls for being in favor of higher taxes, this looks like an example of the very thing.)	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Planned Parenthood should spin off it's abortion business and then re-brand it's health services business lines + + Planned Parenthood is a non-profit, but it is still a business. Businesses spin off business lines all the time for any variety of reasons. Since their abortion business line receives no taxpayer funds, there shouldn't be any financial loss from spinning it off into a new business. Then all the other health services that Planned Parenthood provides could be conducted free from the stigma of being provided by "America's largest abortion provider". Such a move would direct any criticism and protests to the new "abortion only" business and away from the health services businesses. They would no longer face threats of cuts to their federal funding. I wouldn't be surprised if they were actually able to increase their funding with such a move. The biggest challenge I can think of that would be faced would be the need for additional locations since all existing locations would have to be designated as either "abortion services" or "health services" locations. But I don't think that would be a HUGE obstacle. Many of the existing locations could likely be split into two separate, but side-by-side, facilities. Many are in buildings that could easily be divided for multiple tenants already, so that's exactly what would be happening. Opening new "free health clinics" should be fairly easy from a local regulatory standpoint. Who wouldn't want more free health clinics in their neighborhood? And if the total square footage needed for both abortion and healthcare services shouldn't change much (maybe a little more space for 2 reception desks and waiting rooms), so the long-term increase in rental or real estate costs shouldn't be significant. I think it would more than offset by increased revenue from greater public support, and reduced costs related to security and dealing with protests. The only other caveat of this view is that I'm taking Planned Parenthood's contention that no federal funds are used in the abortion business at face value. I have no reason not to believe that. But if that isn't true, it would present additional challenges to any spinoff.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Despite being very liberal otherwise, I feel strongly that we should have the right to bear arms + + In general, I understand that having guns around increases homicide rates and suicides and all that, but I don't think the answer is to ban guns altogether. 1. I do think that criminals will get guns either way. 2. I believe that a lot of the increased homicides that come from increased gun availability come from improper gun education. Too many stories of kids finding their parents' guns and getting hurt. In such situations, the guns should have been put in a vault or something. 3. Crazy people are beyond reason. If someone comes into your home with a gun, being without a gun sounds terrifying. Sometimes it's the only thing stopping you from getting killed.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Random encounters, like in the Final Fantasy series, are a bad game mechanic. + + so random battles that just happen with no warning, while you're walking, just like, warpy screen, you're in a battle now stuff. this really only applies to turn based games, in fact, i don't know of any real time games that have this system of enemy encounters. i don't think they have the need. it's annoying as hell. you take 4 steps after getting out of a battle, and arrive in another one that the run functino won't work for and you start taking damage, and then you can't escape again so you take more damage, and that just starts a whole snowball of "oh my god fuck this shit." meanwhile, the battles themselves are just often an unnecessary, repetitive, near useless way to grind. the millionth time we saw a zubat in pokemon, it. it wasn't really doing anything for us. with an rpg game, the logic seems simple enough, i guess - there's a turn based system of combat, and there needs to be a way to trigger the combat screen from the overworld. and it shouldn't necessarily be purely predictable, should it? the player needs to progress and level up so they can meet their bigger challenges in the future. putting aside the discussion about other games mechanics and why in some cases it works much worse than others - there's just better, non annoying ways of doing that now. off the top of my head, paper mario on n64 had visible enemy mobs walking around. if you collided with them, you started a battle. that makes much more sense. it's not annoying. it doesn't happen every five steps. it doesn't come out of nowhere. it still accomplishes the same purpose that random encounters do. invisible enemies starting a 5 second battle transition, with a chance that you can't run, especially if you're in over your head and trying to get out of an area, with no ability to see it coming, no warning, no possibility of avoiding it, is just, bad. especially when even something like the paper mario system exists. at least that way, if you have no items, and are on your way back to somewhere because you're too injured, you have a chance of maybe avoiding the enemy mobs.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Gun Control groups should drop the Assault Weapon rhetoric and focus on what really causes the most violence: Handguns + + Everytime the topic of Gun Control comes up, be it on the internet, on the news or in person, it seems to me that these this point dominates the conversation. And frankly, nothing screams 'I don't know what I'm talking about' more than someone who keeps insisting that 'assault weapons' are the problem (or even a problem for that matter). Are you an individual who is against 'assault weapons?' If so, here's a fun self-awareness test. What is an Assault Weapon? Don't Google it, just try and answer it for yourself. If you're like most anti-gun types, you have absolutely no idea what it actually means. I ask people this question plain and simple all the time and they get completely screwed up. The fact of the matter is, assault weapon as a term used in the gun control discussion is completely made up. For a rifle to suddenly become an 'Assault Rifle,' all you need to do is add cosmetic additions that don't change the functionality of the weapon at all. [Here's an example of what I'm talking about](http://moelane.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/718415097.jpg) Alright, so we've established that the 'assault weapon' term is silly. Now, let's look at what is actually killing people. [Here's some numbers on homicide weapons](https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8) As you can see, handguns are OVERWHELMINGLY used more than rifles ('assault weapons'). Rifles are used less than blunt objects! But I know everyone gets worked up over mass shootings. That's what's terrorizing our country, right? Well, take a look at this Mother Jones [chart](http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data) The weapons used are, again, OVERWHELMINGLY handguns! So why is there is big outrage against AR-15s and other semiautomatic rifles again? Now for my personal interpretation of this data. I conclude that the polticians behind gun control laws don't actually care about reducing violence. They rely on the ignorance of their voting base when it comes to firearm functionality and homocide statistics. As such, they pass laws that don't actually ruffle the Gun Lobby's feathers too much, because the cosmetic items don't really matter. Hell, I wouldn't even be surprised if this is exactly what PRO-gun lobbyists are pushing behind the scenes. Anyone who educates themselves for a few seconds on Google can see that 'Assault Weapon' bans are entirely superficial and do nothing to curb violence, which makes the Gun Control crowd look more ignorant as a whole. Welp, that's about it. Go ahead and take a shot at my view!	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: European style pooping is the worst way to go to the bathroom + + 1. Squatting is more comfortable, easier and healthier than sitting. it creates less stress on the the puborectalis muscle allowing for a smoother uninterrupted experience. it plays well with gravity so less pressure is needed and lowers the risk of cancer and other ailments. 2. Toilet paper is messy, expensive and damages the environment. When washed properly the use of your hand is preferable to toilet paper, It might sound disgusting but when you think about it using a thin piece of frail paper to smear around fecal matter with no water or soap is even worse. 3. Modern europen toilets are large, bulky and complex. They take more space, require more maintenance and are ultimately dirtier as butts keep touching them.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: There is nothing wrong with incestuous relationships + + (I live in the UK so generalisations are based on UK attitudes) Everyone seems to have an "eww" attitude to incest without giving any valid arguments why they're against it. I can use many apposite arguments for incest equally valid for gay-relationships. 1. Gay (incestuous) relationships do not affect other relationships. 2. Love is grounds for a relationship, regardless of sexual orientation (familial connection) 3. Discrimination of gay relationships (incestuous relationships) is founded in bigotry. The only argument I see as vaguely valid is that children born from incestuous relationships have a greater chance of developing genetic deformities. However, if the criteria for a relationship is the ability of a couple to conceive a healthy child then many people with genetic dispositions should not be able to have children either. In conclusion I think 1. Legally, there should be no ill-treatment of consenting adults wishing to engage in incestuous relationships 2. Socially, we should stop viewing incestuous relationships as taboo	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: If you CONCIOUSLY and CONSENTUALLY put something in your body that you KNOW makes you make bad decisions, it's not rape. + + If this is a duplicate post, I apologize, an AutoMod told my my old version was too short and that it was removed. Here's my logic, though: If I get drunk and blow off all my money, it's my problem. If I get drunk and crash my car, it's my problem. If I get drunk and get into a fight, it's my problem. If I get drunk and have sex, it's my problem. ----------------------- Of course, though, if you slip something into my drink and have sex with me, that's not my fault, and if you give me a drink and say it's Mountain Dew when it is actually something that knocks me out, it's your fault. So if it wasn't concious and consentual, then it's still rape. And if you were given it under a false idea of what you were ingesting, it's arguably still rape. (But if you say, oh sir I didn't know that alcohol makes you make bad decisions it's not rape) ------------------------------ worknman brought up something I didn't think to address, but I meant if someone says "yes" and has something in their body that they put in themselves that they knew makes them make bad decision, it's not rape. A drunk person can give consent if they consentually got drunk. So also, if someone attempts to have sex with them and they say "no" and are too drunk to fight back, it's still rape, because they didn't give consent. --------------------------- I'm probably gonna get lynched for asking this, but it's basic courtesy. Please don't downvote everything I say just because you disagree, please. It's very obviously going to happen, but please, just don't.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: About Transgenderism, sincerely please + + I would ultimately call transgenderism an abnormality; keeping in mind that normalcy is subject to change and is culture specific. In the same way, I would call blue eyes and homosexuality an abnormality. None of which, in this day an age, negatively impact these people's outlook of life and how happily they could live their lives (ignoring reactions from social responses of being transgender/gay/blue eyes). My flow of logic is as follows: An abnormality is something that differs from what is usually observed in any life form. If in a perfect world, all humans primarily use right hands over left, then a left handed person would be abnormal but still able to live just as easily as any right handed person. If in this nonperfect world, a life form's goal is ultimately to survive and procreate for future generations; then something that inhibits this primal goal would be a negative change. Living in the world that we do, our goal as a species is not to procreate as much as possible, because we do not require it for survival of the species. More so the goal changes simply to be as happy as we can be. If a human who lived in our early stages as humans was 100% homosexual in a world mostly heterosexual, a homosexual would have difficulty passing their genes along to future generations. In early stages of human life, homosexuality was a negative change from normality because it disallowed the life form to bare more life. In 2015, homosexuality is not a negative change because procreation is not a fundamental goal, whereas happiness is. Therefore, being homosexual is no longer a negative change, simply an abnormality. Being transgender is a 'disagreement' between mind and body. In early stages of human life, a human that thought it was not human (ie: a plant or a fish) would have a very difficult time achieving it's specie's fundamental goals. In 2015, we no longer have these fundamental goals, because instead, being comfortable and happy is what we desire. A homosexual or transgender is a person with an abnormality that at a point in time would negatively impact their ability to survive and procreate, but has 'no' impact on their ability to be happy. Also, I would say if modernism has a way to remedy the abnormality to allow the abnormal being to still be happy, then it ought to be remedied. The easiest way to change modernism to allow all peoples to be happy is to change our view of how we perceive them; in a similar way we do not hate people with retardations; because in a point in time it was okay to allow those who cannot survive and procreate to die off. But as I have said, ability to survive is not something we restrict happiness to. If a person 'chooses' (or not chooses) to live happily in a way that defies the necessities of survival that person ought to be respected nonetheless. But social variations that directly go against how we were 'designed' to live are abnormalities. A transgender person is abnormal, but not lesser. A homosexual person is abnormal, but not lesser. A blue eyed person is abnormal, but not lesser.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: There is nothing wrong with a young gay person choosing to be celibate + + So I am a gay guy in his 20s who has decided to abstain from sex for the rest of my life. I am not religious to be honest but I just don't really think that my life needs sex or companionship to be 1/2 decent. When I told a couple of people that I know they were shocked and wanted me to get some therapy or some other waste of time but its nothing to do with homophobia, I just don't get along with other people, don't like people being close to me and I don't get lonely so I see it as a rational choice, I am perfectly happy in my small flat with my pet dog and that's it .	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: College is not unaffordable in the US. + + The expense of a higher education has been a hot button issue for a number of years but the fact that students take on huge loans and graduate with huge sums of debt is a function of their own suboptimal decisions. [According to google](https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&es_th=1&ie=UTF-8#q=average%20annual%20college%20tuition&es_th=1) the average tuition for private colleges is $31,231 per year. Assuming the worst case and a student pays full sticker price, that's around 125k in debt. But with almost all private schools, there are plentiful scholarship and grant opportunities. Even for students who support themselves (meaning no financial help from their parents), these options make the 125k number far less. This forgets the fact that according to the same source, students can attend an in-state university for just shy of 10,000, for a far more affordable (and worst case) of 40k. And this is without considering alternatives to college.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Trying to save the pandas is a waste of time, money, and resources. We should let them go extinct. + + First off, I like pandas I think they are cute and interesting; however, I think we should let that species meet whatever natural end is coming. Many valuable resources are devoted to saving the panda because pandas are extremely well known and popular, not because they have a good chance of survival. Here are the reasons I believe this: 1) Pandas have lost much of their natural habitat due to the population explosion in China. While this is regrettable, it is not likely to get fixed anytime soon. This means that even if we are able to revive this species they won't have anywhere to live. 2) pandas, as a species, have chosen poorly. They are carnivorous animals who's main diet is bamboo. Their digestion can only process about 5% of the stuff in bamboo. That means they have to eat huge amounts of bamboo everyday. With the reduced habitat this is getting harder and harder. Either they need some microevolutionary shift to eat more nutritious sources of food orthey should join the likes of the dodo bird. 3) human efforts to revive the population have shown some increases, but at what cost? It is incredibly difficult to get pandas to mate with one another, it's like they don't even want their species to survive. I get they aren't actually making this choice, this is just a facetious way of saying that their instincts and biology do not support the kind of growth in population hey need. Hell, half of their births are twins and the mother almost always lets one die because she doesn't produce enough milk. I realize this would take evolution to fix and this problem is way too short term, but it means that their survival requires an exorbanant amount of human intervention. Since their is a finite amount of resources conservationists can dedicate to endangered resources they are killing other more likely to survive species. 4) I'm not saying we should encourage the decline of the panda. We should still try to preserve what habitat they have left and ban hunting them, but they are so far gone and require so much help that we shouldnt waste too many resources on them. Let the panda try to support a small and natural population without our interference. If they cannot achieve this goal, I don't think it's worth the resources to help them grow.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: The hyper-rationality of our age is detrimental to humans. + + Let me begin by defining what I mean when I say hyper-rationality. Hyper-rationality is the social expectation and pressure that every human action and institution must be teologically justified by rational means, rather than a mixture of reason, emotion, tradition, religion, evolutionary instinct etc. I will use one clear example, for the sake of focus, while knowing that there are other examples of this as well. I will talk about producing off-spring. In my experience, people against procreating articulate 3-4 arguments against having children. Firstly, that having children will detrimentally affect the environment (1). New humans means more consumers of the Earth's resources and more producers of waste. The long term viability of the earth with exponentially more consumers and producers is uncertain. Secondly, the cost of having children can be astronomical (2). Thirdly, you become isolated to your social circle and to your spouse due to the time need to take care of your child. I present these arguments not because they uniquely matter, but because they seem valid. They are, shall we say for the sake of argument, true. However, in the pursuit of being rational, these arguments have contradicted one of the most basic and scientific principles of life, namely that animals produce off-spring to survive. It is basic evolutionary biology. We observe this in every known creature; we observe our own instincts to sexual activity and pleasure; we observe people's special fondness to babies (3). Yet, despite this obvious teology of humans, the rational arguments are given preference. This seems to play out on the societal level. Education levels and industrialization (a proxy for culture/rationality) correlate with lower birth rates (4). In conclusion, this is but one of many examples where hyper-rationality creates a social pressure that contradicts human instinct. 1. http://green.blogs.nytimes.com//2009/08/07/having-children-brings-high-carbon-impact/ 2. http://money.cnn.com/interactive/pf/cost-of-children/ 3. reddit.com/r/aww 4. http://www.earth-policy.org/data_highlights/2011/highlights13	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: It would be better for the US to regulate prices of certain commodities (e.g., rent, food) than to raise the minimum wage to $15/hr. + + Let's say we raise the minimum wage to $15/hr. Hooray poverty is solved! But wait... What's to stop landlords (let's picture them as Mr. Burns) from calculating exactly how much extra everyone can pay now? Wouldn't the new cheapest place to rent be the maximum that a $15/hr wage could afford? I think people saying there would be less jobs is just fear mongering, but I would argue people making minimum wage would be no better off than they were before due to inflated costs of living if there are no limitations on those who set prices. And how fucked would you be if your current standard of living is based on making $16/hr, and suddenly rent prices raised like this? (You'd go from double the minimum wage to basically at the minimum wage). If instead, we set regulations on necessary commodities (stuff you require to live like shelter) as a percentage of the wage of a minimum wage worker, wouldn't that make more sense? Free market works great for things people want, but not so well for things people need. For example, if the price of an Xbox exceeds what I think it's worth, I can simply live without one, demand will go down if they're priced too high, eventually the price will stabilize. But what am I willing to pay for a roof over my head? Heat in my apartment? Food on my table? Even if the price far exceeds what they cost to produce, I can't just decide to not pay for these things, so without limitations on what can be charged, what's to stop prices from going up indefinitely? (Looking at the US healthcare system, the answer seems to be nothing) Last, but not least, does raising the minimum wage perhaps discourage skilled labor? If you're a person who's worked hard or went into student loan debt in order to attain a $15/hr job, isn't this the rawest deal possible for you? Suddenly everyone is making the same as you, minus your debt payments, having done none of the hard work you did? Suddenly you went from middle class to the worst off of anyone, all because you worked hard/got skills in order to get a better job. (I don't have a $15/hr job, but I know a lot of people who are in this situation) So, what am I missing here? Would greatly value input of anyone with education/experience in economics, since honestly, the reason I'm asking this question is because I have very little knowledge in the area. TL;DR: I think raising the minimum wage would simply result in the cost of living raising to match, leaving minimum wage workers no better off and middle class folks worse off Change my view/Educate me!	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Putting hot water in ice cube trays is counterproductive. + + Apparently, a sizable minority of people make their ice using hot water from their taps. They believe that some version of the Mpemba effect will allow the hot water to freeze more quickly than cold water would. I find it plausible that the hot water would start to freeze faster (with a warm center that takes longer to complete freezing) but I cannot imagine how the cubes would freeze solid faster than if cold water were used. Those of you who believe in this practice, please CMV.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: We do not have to fear automation + + They've been saying this since the 30s. Keynes predicted that as technology increased and our material needs would be met, we would only need to work 15 hours a week, instead we are working longer hours than ever. There's no reason to think this will change anytime soon, if it hasn't in the last 80 years. http://www.theguardian.com/business/2008/sep/01/economics People were saying from the 18th Century that the industrial revolution will make man redundant? But did it? People moved on, new types of job openings which we'd never have imagined before came to be, think about the luddites' opposition to technology. We do not have anything to fear.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: The claim that gun rights are derived from nature rings as hollow as the claim that gun rights are granted by God. + + Some of you you believe the right to bear arms is inherent, my question to you is: "how does it come about that this right is inherent?" What makes this right inherent? There is a difference between rights granted by law and natural rights. Laws can define where natural rights are legally applicable. But laws can't give or take away inherent/natural rights. (Laws can, however, violate or protect those rights.) There still must be a logical derivation of this right from nature if it exists. If "Natural law derives from the nature of man and the world, just as physical law derives from the nature of space, time, and matter." my question is, how exactly is it that you are proposing the right to firearms derives from nature? "It just does" is not a sufficient answer. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights Explain why we have the natural right to self defense, and how, logically, that right extends to include firearm ownership. Or the claim that gun rights derive from natural rights will remain entirely unsubstantiated. I actually think guns are the least of our problems, and I'm not really a "gun-grabber" because there are a couple dozen things I'd rather do first. (And if those happen, guns would mostly only be used for hunting, and target practice. And the potential for a strong national defence, like they ought to be.) I'd rather get people educated and out of poverty. Etc. I tell you this so you can understand, I'm an open mind on this issue, and if you can't convince me, you probably won't convince anyone. To be clear: I could give a **** about gun rights, I don't see any logical derivation of those rights from nature. So far as I can see they are only legal rights and not natural rights at all. At the same time, people who actually spend effort and time opposing gun rights annoy me, because (duh) there will always be weapons and violence until people get healthy and free. focusing actions on a wedge issue like guns serves to divide, and sow fear, rather than to unify and bring progress. Discussion, though, is another matter. I am currently against both "gun grabbers" (practically) and gun rights (ideologically). So I am mostly heavily neutral on this subject. I have serious questions about the central dogmas of both sides of this debate. Tell me why I should no longer ideologically oppose gun rights. Show the logical derivation from nature, which I believe you are claiming exists. currently without an understanding of the justification for the claim that gun rights are natural rights, It is my view that many legal freedoms or impositions are a matter of practicality, justified by the basic and overriding human drive to form a safe, harmonious, and productive society, and then that guns are simply impractical toward this end. if you can't convince me of this, (or at least correctly formulate _any_ argument defending your position) , you are probably not really going to convince anyone. But If your thought is that the right to firearms is derived from the right to self defend would it not make more sense that the natural right to self defend justifies the legal right to live in a firearm free environment. Since guns take more lives than they save? To claim that a right is derived from nature without showing the logic of the derivation is equally meaningless as to claim that a right is granted by God. I see no logical derivation from nature for the right of humans to bear arms. (Bonus: I can't imagine that there is any which wouldn't also "justify" the "rights of monkeys to bear arms".) I invite you to Change My View.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: If you are unattractive, it's largely your fault. + + The only times where it's not your fault is if you are disfigured, or if you were born with extreme facial asymmetry. In both cases you cannot change those issues. If you have a nose that is 2 1/2 inches long and crushed in eye socket, then yes, you have an out. However, if you are not disfigured, and your facial syemetry is average, and you are still considered unattractive, well then it's your fault. Are you overweight? Your fault. Do you dress like a 35 year old male who still lives in his mom's basement, and wears black velcro shoes? Your fault. Are you balding? Depending on the structure of your skull, this is debatable, but you can take steps to mitigate this that don't involve a comb over. Halfway your fault. Do you have acne? Take better care of your skin. There are some miracle acne drugs out there. Your fault. Do you only wear shit tier clothes every single day because their "comfortable"? Your fault. Do you wear shit tier clothes every single day because you have no concept of fashion? Your fault. Do you wear shit tier clothes every single day because you can't afford decent clothes? Work harder, go back to school, still your fault. Ladies, do you not wear makeup because it takes too much effort to apply? Your fault. If makeup didn't work there wouldn't be a multi-billion dollar industry surrounding it. Do you smell like ass because you don't take a shower every day, use deodorant, and wear cologne/perfume? Your fault. Do you have a shit tier job because you have a degree in History? Your fault. Men, do you not shave your unibrow/nose hair? Your fault. Nearly any excuse you can give for why you are unattractive is something you can control for and therefore makes it your fault. I do not presume to say that taking all these steps will make someone a 10/10 but if you are a 2/10, I firmly believe you can go to a 7/10. Everyone can be a 7/10 out of ten. Again, this bars physical characteristics that you have no control over. If you're a 4'10 male, it's not your fault, you just have shitty height genetics. Also I am not saying being attractive is easy. It takes a lot of work and a lot of self improvement. Finally, this post isn't supposed to make anyone feel good. I am fully aware of how douchy it sounds. Spare me the hateful pm's.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV : A man who tips waitress extra for looking cute is a chump + + I see the tipping drama on Reddit fairly often and i see guys commenting that they tip cute and hot waitress more for being cute. I think this behavior makes you a lesser man , a wimp , cuckold and creates power balance in industry where he could have had a male waitress doing the same quality service and he gets less tips for that than average service from bubbly hot 18 year old.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: As president, Bernie Sanders would not be a good international negotiator/leader, and U.S. interests would suffer + + I agree with most of Bernie's domestic politics, but foreign policy is a critical aspect of the presidency and I don't think he has what it takes. To convince me otherwise (and thus support Bernie), you'll need to show me I'm wrong about the following points, or that they don't matter: 1) I've never seen him not looking generally flustered and awkward. Working on international issues requires developing personal relationships, thus being good at making friends. I don't think he is like that. 2) It requires building alliance and persuading people. Bernie is an independent, does not have serious alliances or close friends in Congress despite being there for over two decades. He has not gotten any notable legislation passed. Would he really negotiate the best possible international treaties for the US? 3) A President needs to be able to understand and navigate everyone's goals. Bernie doesn't seem to try to understand everyone's motivations but rather just gets angry at people who think differently from him. e.g. he says things like "I'll never understand why some poor people vote republican" 4) Being a leader involves standing up to or effectively dealing with bullies and thinking quickly. He has very little track record of doing this. And when the BLM protesters took his mic at his own rally, he just passively let it happen, seemed a bit bewildered. It may have been a reasonable decision to let them speak, but he clearly wasn't in control of the situation. How could he stand up to Putin, Khamenei, etc.? He is willing to use force and can be quite serious and calculating in describing his military policy: http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/sen-bernie-sanders-2016-campaign-33413797 http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/video-audio/sanders-on-cnns-state-of-the-union He does have bipartisan congressional achievements: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/inside-the-horror-show-that-is-congress-20050825 He does make friends with people who disagree with him: http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/bernie-sanders-is-a-loud-stubborn-socialist-republicans-like-him-anyway-20150727 which includes this statement from Chuck Schumer: "He knew when to hold and knew when to fold and, I think, maximized what we could get for veterans," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, who also participated in the VA talks. He can be quite assertive in a non-blustery way: http://youtu.be/WJaW32ZTyKE And, though it wasn't exactly contradicting my previous view, he does have a better knowledge of foreign policy nuance than I thought: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmlmGKKm1Xg http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/the-foreign-minister-of-burlington-vt-120839	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Consuming fiction in any form (i.e. books, comics, movies, sitcoms, video games, music, etc) is a waste of time. + + Fiction merely provides entertainment. It doesn't help us grow at all. There are other sources of information that help us grow much better. If that is so, what is the point of fiction apart from a source of entertainment that may or may not help us in the long run? If all it does is provide short-term joy, what is the point of it? Is our time not better spent trying to grow ourselves? Why waste our time trying to entertain ourselves when we could just use other forms of relaxation between sessions of growing ourselves? Is that not the goal of life? To improve and advance our lives and those of others? Or am I wrong? Is fiction truly of some use? Or if it isn't of any use, then should we still consume it? If so, why? Why not simply just exercise, meditate or sleep instead of reading fiction? What makes fiction a better alternative to those activities?	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Property rental, especially for living spaces (apartments, houses), should also transfer 0.4% ownership of the property each month as well. After 20 years of rent, renter would own almost 100% of the property. + + Had a thought about the disparity between mortgages and rent. Two cases: Person A buys a property to live and every month for 20 years pays $1000. Person B rents a property to live and every month for 20 years pays $1000. While both persons paid the same amount, after 20 years person A could sell his property and have $240,000 returned. I understand the importance of rent. Not every person has the financial backing to obtain a long term mortgage. However, there's something that seems wrong with the above. People of means can buy property and essentially have others (renters) pay the mortgage for them. While not a perfect solution, there's something that seems interesting that paying rent includes the requirement that .4% of the property ownership also transfers per month. Of course, the rent would be based in large part on the perceived value of the property and then also include costs that cover services. If a person had a 2 year lease, they'd own almost 10% of the property. During lease renewal, maybe the owner will want to buy that 10% back or the person moves and sells it to a higher bidder. It might not stop slum lords from forcing tenants to sell back their .4% ever month or other under the table dealings, though laws can be set up to protect against such practices. Of course, property owners are not required to rent their property. However, there's something I like about the idea that if you let others use your property, you agree to give up a portion of that property as well as part of that exchange. Basically, rent morphs into a mortgage.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: The GOP is a force for bad in the world + + Before I begin my diatribe about the Republicans, I must disavow the Democrats. If you look at my [submission history](https://www.reddit.com/user/thankthemajor?sort=top), you'll find that my top content is in /r/Socialism. I am a Marxist, and the Democrats are sellouts. Also, by GOP, I mean elected officials and Party power structure, not voters. Now... * On every single issue where there is any disagreement, the Republican Party advocates and acts towards positions that are objectively harmful to the world. Environment The Party politicians is just barely coming to admit that climate change is real. They certainly won't admit that it is anthropogenic. The party opposes regulations on carbon emissions, which are [absolutely vital to avoiding catastrophe.](https://www.climatecommunication.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/presidentialaction.pdf). Despite Mitt Romney's rhetoric in 2012, the party stands opposed to advancing sustainable energy. They do, however, support environmentally dangerous fracking and the Keystone Pipeline, which represents a precedent for the extraction of "unconventional oil." The real-world impact of this is huge. The World bank estimates that a 2 degrees C increase in mean global temperature will cause [crop losses of 60% in South East Asia and 80% in Sub-Saharan Africa](http://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/document/Full_Report_Vol_2_Turn_Down_The_Heat_%20Climate_Extremes_Regional_Impacts_Case_for_Resilience_Print%20version_FINAL.pdf). War The Republican Party is the party of war. They are just barely starting to soften their tone on the 2003 Iraq War, and yet, in the same breath, they want to invade Iraq again. [More than 100,000 civilians were killed in the last Iraq War.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War) They unfailingly support expanding the military budget, even though it is [bloated](http://www.pogo.org/blog/index.html?bloglistrelatedcontenttags=wasteful-defense-spending), and we spend more [money on military than the next nine countries combined](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures). The GOP supports the decades long occupation of Palestine and all the human rights abuses of the Israeli military. They oppose the Iran nuclear deal, and thus work toward increasing the possibility than Iran will get a nuclear weapon. (Although, the Democrats are not much better on this.) Human Rights Except for the admirable dissent of John McCain, the Republican Party is the party of torture. They are the party of Voter ID laws, early voting elimination, and all the other practices that are the poll taxes of today. They are still opposed to marriage equality. They work at every opportunity to suspend women's reproductive rights. They seem to think that transgender people are non-sincere perverts. They almost all support mass deportation of undocumented immigrants from Central America. They have started supporting the end of birthright citizenship. Justice They are the party of being ~~hard on crime~~ hard on criminals. Except for the honorable dissent of Rand Paul, they oppose extending voting right to those convicted of crimes. They are the party of the prison industrial complex. They are the party of the police power structure, consistently supporting officers who kill unarmed black men and dismissing the BLM movement at every turn. They oppose any kind of gun control, which we need to slow our ridiculous level of gun deaths. Economy This section does not need any explanation. Even more than the democrats, they are the party of the oligarchs. Poor people? Fuck 'em. Cut food stamps. If you're on wellfare, you're a leech. Cut taxes on the rich and raise them on everyone else. Shrink Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Healthcare is not a right. TL;DR On every issue I can think of, the GOP has the objectively more harmful stance. The world would be a significantly better place if they did not exist.**	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: The number of seats which a state has in the House of Representatives should be determined by the number of eligible voters in that state. + + If a state has 18 million people, with only 10 million eligible to vote. Than that state's house seats should only reflect the 10 million people rather than the 18 million people. While representatives claim to be serving all people in their district, they really only care about those who can vote. This is why no politicians care about prisons or orphans. The only reason why politicians care about public schools is because the parents of public school children can vote. This is also why the drinking age has not been lowered. Politicians do not care about those under 18, and those over 18 will soon be able to drink legally and thus once they turn 21 do not care about lowering the drinking age. Until politicians start listening to those who cannot vote, they should not be awarded seats which include those members of the population who cannot vote. To change my view, you must provide clear examples of politicians listening to those who cannot vote, and really taking their ideas into consideration.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Minorities can be racist, too + + If a person with a minority background holds prejudiced views and acts according to them, that minority is being racist. It does not matter if those prejudices are aimed at another minority group or even the majority group, nor do the power dynamics involved or historical oppression play a part in determining what is racist behaviour. The only factor at play when determining racism should be if someone is treating someone else worse because of their race or ethnicity. Similarly, past oppression can't be used as justification for present day racism.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Not knowing her age should be a defense against statutory rape in some cases. + + Hi guys! Let me start out by saying that I believe I understand the reasons behind statutory rape. Many different cultures define adulthood differently, but in most childhood is defined as a time where the person has a psuedo-agency. They're a person but they can only make certain decisions. Age of consent laws are based upon this. I completely agree. I like romeo and juliet clauses but in general I think this way of thinking and justification is spot-on. I think it's 110% absurd though to apply this in situations where the minor meets their statutory rapist in an adult-restricted zone (in this case a zone designated for anybody above the relevant age of consent). This means 18+ clubs, 21+ bars, even 16+ shows where it takes place in a region where the age of consent is 16+. This isn't a moral argument, it's a legal one. I think it's so bizarre to expect adults in these areas to "be on guard". If anybody should be charged, it should be the venue that let them in due to negligence. I don't even know what to think about fraudulent IDs. I understand this isn't a super common occurrence, that typically it's parents who file charges and that minors aren't usually acting as weird predators. It's not about frequency, just that it exists. I'm not sure how easy it will be to change my view. I do know that I completely don't understand any arguments for this line of thought. I might just be confused. It just doesn't make sense to me. Maybe something will click.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: All-White towns are a good idea + + [Craig Cobb](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Cobb), an American white nationalist, has proposed creating all-white towns, to which he refers to as "Pioneer Little Europe". At one point, he was trying to turn Leith, North Dakota into such a town, but is now focused on Antler, North Dakota. I think his proposal is a good idea, but not because I am a racist or white nationalist. I think it is a good idea because it could potentially help minorities in the rest of the country. If one or more all-white towns were formed, some of the racists throughout the country would move to these PLEs. Because of this, there would be fewer racists in the rest of the country, and minorities would therefore be less likely to experience racism or discrimination.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: White Supremacy cannot be defeated by the Black Community + + I believe that the only group of people capable of bringing an end to White Supremacy are white people themselves. When minority groups bring up their concerns regarding White Supremacy there is often times push back from members of the white community who feel that they are being attacked. This causes the conversation to shift focus from the issues that are being brought forth by those minorities, to a conversation involving race baiting and reverse racism. I believe that in order for a meaningful conversation to take place it must be spearheaded by members of the white community who are aware of their privilege and are willing to work against it. This idea is in large part why the civil rights movement of the 60s was successful. African Americans marched, rallied, and protested for many years, but when white americans who had been sitting on the fence, or sitting by silently started to make themselves known the movement moved to another level. Black America will never be free from the grips of this oppressive institution unless good, decent, and conscious white people get involved and start to lead the conversation and challenge members of their own community	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: A $15/hour national minimum wage is a really bad idea. + + I run an animal hospital, we have a small kennel, a cleaning staff and a bunch of technicians. Currently, the average staffer makes about $12 per hour. Raising the minimum wage would increase my payroll by 20% and I'm not thrilled with that idea. Why not? Because the people I hire are often inexperienced, uneducated and/or have some restrictions on working (kids in school, they can only work these hours or those hours, limited mental capacity, etc). Hiring these people is okay with me because the jobs like cleaning cages and walking dogs and mucking stalls are very simple and require very minimal training. Some of my employees don't make much but they aren't asked to do very much and their hours are often very flexible. Work with animals in this way can be very forgiving and is often very rewarding. I find most people in my employ seem to like the work. If I have to pay $15/hour, well, I can probably get better (more qualified, more experienced, better trained) people for that much. If my bare minimum is $15/hour, then suddenly it makes sense to ignore the high school dropouts and part timers and inexperienced folks. For this new minimum wage I can get experienced assistants and certified techs. Why should I pay so much to others? This doesn't help people who have a hard time getting a job, it hurts them. I'll pass them over for somebody who can do the job for real. For at least $75K (rough estimate) a year in additional costs, I can do better than what I've got. Why wouldn't people like me just start ignoring the folks who made the old minimum wage and instead go for more qualified people who want the job at this higher minimum wage? And before anybody tells me what a bad person I am for making money and not caring that people make less than I do, please remember I went to school for a decade and incurred a mountain of debt and I bear all responsibility for what happens in my hospital. I put in the most work, I bear the greatest burden, take on the most risk, am financially responsible for a dozen other people, and for all that I get to make the most money. So please help change my view without making me feel like a monster.	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 US should spend more money on military. + + 1. Military industry keeps some of the very few manufacturing jobs in US, this industry's survival critically depends on US's defence policies and government orders, without US spending sizeable chunk of its budget on military, millions of jobs will be lost. 2. US has the money. Yes, US is in some serious debt right now, however USD is the most indestructible currency ever existed in human history, with US's economy size, gold reserve and military power at its back, it is impossible for USD to collapse in the foreseeable future. US can always borrow more money from its own citizen or foreign countries without worrying about crisis like Greece happen. Further more, even if USD value drops as a consequence of US printing more cash to pay back debts, all other countries will follow to de-value their currencies to compete with US, just like we have seen in the past few years. 3. US spending more on military doesn't necessary mean a safer world, but at least it will make its NATO allies safer. As a Canadian I know we don't have to worry about fighting off an invasion alone. US spending more on defence means we will spend less, this will benefit our economy and allow us to put more money into our welfare system. 4. No matter how much US government sets its 'defence' budget, US's armed force is built to be an offence force. Considering how the military complex works and US politician/public thinks, US will never stop bombing/invading smaller countries to defend its 'freedom'. Spending more money developing and ensuring US's technological advantage on military means less casualties from those inevitable wars. 5. Military technologies benefits civilian life in the long run. We wouldn't get internet, GPS, jumble jets and spacecraft if US haven't thrown so much money into military. I want to see human land on Mars before I am 50, so come on US congress, make it happen! To answer some of the most frequent questions: Why not spend the money on infrastructure/medical research/education/NASA? Well, when US was cutting military spending in the 90s, the federal spending on education/infrastructure/NASA/higher education research also went down. I fundamentally disagree the argument that 'we are not spending enough on such/such/such because we spend too much on military!' The fact is the amount we spend on military and other programs is not a zero sum game. Spending less on military dose not bring US better infrastructure/education/research. US is already spending too much on military, it's by far the most powerful force in the world, why more? In % per GDP sense, US ranked No.21 in the world(3.5%), behind Saudi Arabia (10.8%), Israel (5.2%) and Russia (4.5%), this is not that much. Comparing to those countries and the collapsed USSR, US is in a much better financial state (see my point 2). Also, US government and public have set their military force to be the keeper of freedom/world police ever since the end of WWII. Yes the current size of US military is too big for a defensive force. However, for what US public and government want it to be? I think the current spending is well justified if not insufficient.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: I believe the purpose of the military is totally to kill people and break things. + + I heard Mike Huckabee say this during the first Republican Debate, and until I went online the next morning, I couldn't imagine anyone would disagree with him. People were saying this was shameful, and embarrassing to the US military, a ridiculous simplification. To be clear, I am no fan of Huckabee, and I have nothing against our military or militaries in general. That said, I think he was dead on. I think most people who don't accept this do so because they think it's crass, and brutal. Well, yeah, but it's also absolutely true. That's why the military has all those rifles and artillery and tanks and battleships and bombs and chemical weapons and knives and humvees and machine guns: for the killing of people and the breaking of things. Sure, not every member of the military's job is to be a killer, but those people are there to support the killers. The cooks, mechanics, engineers, and secretaries are all there to let everyone else kill people and break things as safely and efficiently as possible. Again, I have absolutely no problem with this from a moral perspective. I am certainly not condemning anybody, just stating facts. Most people I've seen disagree with Huckabee are just dancing around this. "Soldiers exist to protect the United States and her interests!" Sure, using violence or the threat of violence. "The army doesn't just kill people, they developed the Internet!" Yeah, as a weapon to coordinate their violence in the most efficient way possible. The internet we have now is just an unintended side effect. The US military is in a bit of a unique position, since they haven't had a lot of opportunities to do their job recently. Our military is so badass, there are not a lot of people with enough courage or stupidity to take us on. Thus, a lot of time is spent running practice drills and handing out food to people after earthquakes. That's great, but it's all a displacement activity until they need to do their real job. It's a sideshow, a distraction. The alternative would be these men sitting around, waiting for something to need destroying. We don't keep our military around and spend billions of dollars for disaster relief. We keep them around to kill people and break things. That's their real purpose, simple as that.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Unless the Republicans change their stance on social issues, the United States will never have another Republican President + + I'm a young, college educated, bisexual woman who needs contraceptives for medical reasons and who doesn't believe in God. The GOP's stances on social issues are downright appalling to me. I know that people tend to surround themselves with like minded people, be it consciously or not, so the thought of the GOP being unable to ever win another presidential election has crawled into my head. *(TL;DR in bold.)* *The social issues I'm talking about are:* * *LGBT issues* such as same sex marriage, religious freedom laws, "bathroom bills" involving trans people, etc. * Their black and white stance on *abortion- some of them want no exceptions for cases of terrible fetal deformities, threats to the life of the mother (Scott Walker in the last debate), rape, incest, etc. Fighting against *contraceptives* and the morning after pill that could prevent unwanted pregnancies and prevent abortions * Pushing *abstinence only sex ed.* [37 states allow for medically inaccurate information to be taught to students as "fact", so long as it scares them out of having sex. My school was one of the ones that taught blatantly incorrect information.](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/08/sex-education-requirement-maps_n_5111835.html) * Claiming that anthroprogenic *climate change* isn't real, and pushing the teaching of *intelligent design* in public schools * *Marijuana legalization* * Being so *bible/religion* based when the population seems to be shifting away from religion *Please please please change my view! I live in Ohio, so I really can't let myself slide into apathy thinking that the GOP has no hope of winning anything! You don't need to change my views on the social issues at hand, just convince me that another Republican president isn't out of the question!*	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Laws requiring paid maternity leave, in the absence of also requiring paternity leave, would be harmful to women especially those who don't want kids + + So, first and foremost, I think it's unfortunate that the U.S. is one of the countries where both maternity leave and paternity leave are not universally granted by employers. But I think that if we were to put a place a law mandating employers to give paid maternity leave, it would result in unfair hiring biases against women. Some employers would develop a preference for hiring men over women because, if you are purely concerned with profit as lots of employers are, why take the risk of hiring a lady who might take a lot of time from work while you can just not risk it and hire a man? There are already a lot of stereotypes about women being less dedicated to their jobs than men because they are "more focused on kids". Wouldn't a mandatory maternity leave just make this worse? It's particularly unfair to women who aren't planning on having kids because employers could be biased against them for expecting them to use something they won't ever even need in the first place! If paternity leave were also mandated, then this would be less of a problem because men would be as likely (or nearly as likely) to take leave as well, making the "expected value" of a man's labor to an employer the same as a woman's, and hopefully eliminating the bias.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Ending child pricing (or beginning adult pricing) at movie theaters at ages 13-16 doesn't make sense and is wrong + + Adult tickets cost more than child's tickets for anything that distinguishes the two and often this makes sense. Adults have more money than kids and can afford the higher prices. Kids pricing allows family's to be able to afford to go to things as a family. For certain things, size does matter (fuel costs for transportation) and most adults are bigger than most kids and so should get charged more. And specific to theaters, adults are more likely to see an R rated and since the R-ratings are somewhat prohibitive in terms of selling tickets, I could see some sort of roundabout justification for increasing tickets prices for adults as they are likely to see a movie that falls into this mildly "niche" category of movies. I think the problem I have is that most (if not all movie theaters) consider you and adult at thirteen or fourteen. This doesn't make any sense. A thirteen year old doesn't have much more money does a twelve year old. They don't even have the right to work for another few years. They're not much bigger than a twelve year old and even if they were it wouldn't really matter because its not like bigger movie goes are more costly than a small movie goer. They can't see rated R movies. It seems like the only "right" they've acquired is to technically see a PG-13 movie but they probably could do that before age thirteen and it hardly seems to justify a price increase. I know that thirteen is not universal but I find it wrong to charge adult prices for anyone under eighteen (you could maybe argue seventeen since they can see rated R movies and can work). 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!	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: White North American Jews have an irrational persecution complex + + Growing up Jewish in Canada, I was taught that Jews are always under threat of extermination - whether by the ancient Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Persians, and more recently the Nazis. While fear of extermination would indeed be justified in 1930s Europe, fear of extermination by Islamic terrorists continues today even in Canada and the US. I've even heard that ISIS is going to exterminate the Jews, even though ISIS has not killed a single Jewish person to this date. There is a widely-held view in Jewish circles that the UN is inherently anti-Semitic even though the majority of permanent members of the UN Security Council are very pro-Israel. UN troops never interfere with Israeli military operations and one of the first UN resolutions was the establishment of the State of Israel. Still, extremist groups like the JDL (Jewish Defence League) attract support from mainstream Jewish organizations, despite their classification as a terrorist group. The Jewish community seems to think that their politicians at home persecute them as well. I know so many liberal Jews who will vote for a right-wing party just because they scream their unwavering support for Israel the loudest. Currently, every single major candidate running for President of the United States or Prime Minister of Canada has declared their staunch support for Israel; even left-wingers like Bernie Sanders and Canada's frontrunner Tom Mulcair. Meanwhile, white cops are killing black kids at a horrifying rate but the Jewish community is still focused on their own supposed persecution. When the Charleston shooting broke out, my synagogue had one moment of silence then continued with its Israel fundraiser. My theory is that North American Jewish culture has developed an irrational persecution complex due to past persecution ritualistically retold every Hanukkah, Passover, Purim, Yom Ha'Shoah, etc. I realize this may come off as anti-Semetic and indeed my own family has called me a "self-hating Jew", although I think this only reinforces my point. Will someone change my view?	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV:People Look for Reasons to be Offended + + I've noticed that recently it seems like Americans (in particular) tend to look for reasons to be offended. One example would be race (yes I realize that racism is still a thing, and am in no way trying to minimize that terrible fact). There are so many things that can be directly attributed back to race or cultural upbringing, but when this is pointed out it is called "racist." I think that this is wrong and is making the race issue more prevalent than it needs to be. That sentence is not trying to suggest that the race issue needs to be ignored, merely that not as many people are actually racist as are being accused. This same concept can be seen elsewhere, women for example. Women seem to look for areas in which they could possibly be seen as oppressed, even though it's likely that they are not being intentionally oppressed. For example, if a man suggests that a certain job would be done better by a man (which is IMO entirely possible for some positions) that would be seen as sexist an/or oppressive towards women. (To clarify, I'm not suggesting that women shouldn't speak out for their rights to equal treatment - I think that that is very important. I am suggesting that many women are looking for ways they could be offended and being the issue of sexism up in issues that have nothing to do with that). I think that in America there is a growing "desire" to be offended, and that people tend to seek out areas in which they could be offended. This doesn't make sense to me, and I think that it brings up issues that have little to no relevance and actually perpetuates their prevalence. Again, really not trying to sound offensive toward anyone with this post. I am aware that I only posted two examples, and I'm sure that I'll get some flack for mentioning only two groups of people - I apologize if I have worded something offensively, and sincerely promise that it was not intended to offend.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV:Dota 2 is superior to League of Legends + + Having played dota for 1 year, and Lol for 6 months before that i have come to the opinion that Dota 2 is a much better game in many facets. Not only is dota 2 completely free to play, the actual gameplay is better, and the graphics are much better. -The Dota 2 map is larger and has more interesting features for vision and juking. -Dota 2 has TP scrolls and a courier allowing for more interesting map movement. -Dota 2 heroes have much more unique and scaled up abillities than LoL Champions. Think techies vs teemo, and heroes like tinker, meepo, lone druid, invoker, etc. LoL heroes typically have a couple skillshot nukes and a movement abillity as a rule of thumb. -Denying, highground miss chance, and pulling/stacking make laning much more interesting in Dota. -Ancients and Roshan are much more interesting high value targets than Dragon or Baron. -Towers are much weaker in Dota, and smoke of deceit exists, allowing for much more aggressive gameplay. -Dota heros are much more turbocharged, any dota hero ported exactly would be the strongest champion in League of Legends. -Activatable items improve gameplay decisionmaking. LoL items are boring and mostly just stat based. Dota items allow for much more customizablility in item build and improvement in game play (blink dagger 18 second cooldown vs. flash 300 second cooldown). Dota 2 has a higher barrier of entry in a style of game whose focus is improvement, and that might lead people to LoL, but given the massive time investment in either game this is basically irrelevent.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: "Bulbous" is a far grosser word than "moist." + + (disclaimer: there is probably going to be some grody text below, so beware) You've all probably heard it: "moist" is the grossest word in the English language. People responding to a [New Yorker Twitter poll](http://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/words-came-in-marked-for-death) about the worst word in English overwhelmingly selected "moist." [Buzzfeed](http://www.buzzfeed.com/hunterschwarz/why-moist-is-the-worst-word-ever-6zgv) talked about it in a full-on image-and-text bonanza. There's even [scientific research from Oberlin University and Trinity University (San Antonio)](http://mentalfloss.com/article/64984/science-behind-why-people-hate-word-moist) on why we hate the word so much. It's pretty well-documented: we don't like the word. However, I'd like to propose that "moist" is definitely not the worst word in the English language. There are plenty of words that are "worse," but I'd like to focus on "bulbous" for the purpose of this CMV. Think about it in terms of the ratio of possible positive uses of the word vs possible negative uses. "Moist" has a lot of positive connotations. You might describe a delicious chocolate cake as "moist," for example. You might also use moisturizer if your hands are feeling dry. (I mean, we're still selling things with that name! You'd think we'd switch from "moisturizer" if it were truly despicable.) Compare this with "bulbous." I cannot think of a single positive connotation associated with the word. It's a word you'd use to describe something like a wart on a foot or a disgusting growth on a six-month-old container of yogurt. Using this metric, "bulbous" is a far grosser word. The other argument I'll make here is that the mouth shape you make to say "bulbous" is way worse than that of "moist." You have to twist it all sorts of disheartening ways - closed to open to squished close again to open again to a gross final-s sound. Comparatively, "moist" is a walk in the park - one quick flare of the mouth and you're done.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: People who want their partner to be monogamous do not deserve relationships + + I'm not saying monogamous people do not deserve relationships, to the extent that they simply don't want other partners. If a person doesn't want another partner, that's okay. Most of the time, I also don't wish for any other partners than my wife. What I'm saying, however, is that people do not deserve relationships to the extent that they want to impose monogamous restrictions on their partner. As a society, we do not recognize agreements that attempt to take away a person's individuality. If you enter an agreement where you willingly become a slave, we do not recognize this. If you enter an agreement where you become an indentured servant, we do not recognize this. Similarly, when you say your marriage vows, and make an implicit promise that your genitals will only ever touch your partner's, this is giving away individuality. Legally, this promise is not enforceable. We do not recognize it. What I'm saying is that we need to go beyond just a legal position, and recognize that morally, also, these promises should not have our respect. It is not moral to relinquish individuality. If two people do not want other partners, that is great. They should be able to have a relationship that does not involve anyone else. But there should be no expectation, from either partner, that this state of affairs will continue indefinitely. The two partners should enjoy such a relationship as long as it lasts, and not attach strings. At no point should a person expect from their partner to never want to be intimate with anyone else, and at no point should a person make their partner promise such a thing. Such an expectation is immoral; immature; insecure; possessive; jealous; and selfish. Such a promise keeps these non-respectable qualities even if, at one point in time, the promise and the desire to make it are mutual. ----- Responses to common retorts: ----- 0. You're ignoring that monogamy works fine for so many people! I'm not ignoring that. If monogamy works for you, do it. However, I am saying that the proper way to do that is by being monogamous yourself; not by holding someone else &#8211; your partner &#8211; to a strict monogamous expectation. If monogamy truly works, long-term, both for you and for your partner, you will walk into it by happenstance. If that happens to you, nothing is wrong with it. Just don't try to make that happen with coercion. 1. Society is based on contracts; employment agreements also encroach on individuality As an employer, I take steps to maximize my employees' individuality. My agreement with them is that they're paid for actual work they do (they are software developers), and I pay them handsomely for the work that is done well. I make no requirements encroaching on them that are not absolutely necessary. Everyone works from home, and can have an environment they like. I do not require certain hours to be kept. I make no impositions on their drug use or sobriety. I make no imposition that they cannot quit their jobs at any time, and go work for a competitive company. This is because I believe work should be truly voluntary. I think the companies that practice these encroachments are in fact being immoral, and are exploiting negotiating leverage. I do not wish to be that type of employer. I believe a large portion of our world, of our economies, is based on subtle slavery. I believe we should be acting to change this, and the first place to start is with intimate relationships that ought to be loving. To a large extent, we are vastly exaggerating the encroachments on individuality that we believe are necessary, and should be reducing these encroachments in all areas, both intimate and in employment. ----- 2. I also expect my partner to be financially responsible, to travel with me, to not do drugs. Expecting your partner to generally be financially responsible is one thing. But blowing up when they've purchased this one item that seems unnecessary to you is another. Wanting your partner to share your interests is one thing. But blowing up when they don't want to travel with you to this one particular country is another. Expecting your partner to not smoke pot all day, and your home to not be full of smoke, is one thing. But blowing up when they've had a joint with a friend this one time is another. Similarly: expecting your partner to mostly be available to meet your needs is one thing. But blowing a gasket because this one time they flirted / kissed / had safe sex with someone is another. ----- 3. Expecting a person to not be intimate with others; and expecting a person to tolerate such intimacy; are the same type of coercion. Only to the extent that a cartoonist drawing Mohammad, and a fanatic calling for beheading in response, are the same type of insult. The drawing is not even an insult, unless you choose to interpret it that way. The pain of a Muslim who saw a drawing of Mohammad is self-inflicted, and rooted in unhealthy beliefs. The pain of a person whose partner was intimate with someone is similarly self-inflicted, and rooted in unhealthy beliefs. When a person physically stabs you, it's their fault. But when it feels like you're being stabbed because your partner wants to express their love or lust with someone else, you're not being hurt by them. You're being hurt by jealousy and insecurities that you have not overcome, but can. This is your pain, which you don't need to feel; and would not feel, if a sick culture wasn't telling you that you need to. Just like the pain of the Muslim seeing a drawing of Mohammad is a pain he doesn't need to feel; and would not feel, if his own sick culture wasn't telling him he needs to. You may think this comparison is unfair and hurtful because Muslims who call for beheadings are obviously crazy, as opposed to you. But do you think those Muslims believe themselves crazy? They think they're justified &#8211; as do you.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Being a whore/slut is not a bad thing + + Before I begin, I would like to clarify that my definition of the word whore/slut/tramp and the like when I was growing up meant a Woman/Girl who had a lot of sexual partners, (not the other definition, which means to have sex for money) and this is the definition I will be discussing here today. A person's view of what sex is and how it should be done is different for everyone. Some see it as just a casual thing, others a sacred act. But in the end, I doubt anyone would dispute the claim that a desire for sex is one of the most natural things about being human, secondary only to wanting food/water/shelter, and on equal standing to a desire for life fulfillment and companionship. So why then, is having sex with a lot of people viewed as bad? Especially when you're taking the proper measures to make sure both you and your partner are safe, and you are not going to produce an unwanted baby.... Women in particular are the ones who get this sorta flack the most. It's very easy yet also extremely nasty to call a fellow girl a whore/slut/tramp etc when you want to discredit her. It's implied that a woman is somehow dirty or is a low life or what have you simply because she chooses to have a lot of sex. But what happens when a guy has a lot of sex? He get's applauded for it. It's seen as him "just doing what guys do." It's almost like it is encouraged. Even gay guys like myself don't get flack for having a lot of casual sex (we get shit for a totally different reason lmfao) but generally our straight allies don't tend to question our behavior all that much. At least, from my experience.. So why is it bad for a girl to have a lot of sex? I get that girls sexual "wiring" is different from guys as they generally leads to them having different/lower sex drives. But when a girl DOES have a high sex drive, and doesn't want a relationship, WHY IS THAT BAD? Footnote: Any girls out there reading this who like having lots of sex GOOD FOR YOU MAN. I support you.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Western nations have a moral obligation to help the people of poorer countries + + To be honest, I'm not sure I completely believe in the title opinion statement. The issue seems really complex to me, but at the moment that is what I think. Currently, the migrant crisis is one of the biggest items of concern for Europeans. Most Europeans say, with much accuracy, that the migrant stream has to be shut off because a) immigrants are a weight on the economy, and b) most migrants refuse to assimilate, creating a lot of social problems. However, I still feel like they have to own up to that problem. Western societies historically engaged in colonialism and imperialism and profited over it so much, that they achieved wealth that continues to earn their country the status of "developed/first-world." Often times when they did this, they ended up creating conditions in the colonized country that would be unfavorable to their future development. I know most Europeans/Americans would respond to this by saying "I had nothing to do with this, why should I take responsibility over the past?" but I find that to be a really weak argument. If my grandfather robbed somebody of something, died, and passed the stolen goods/money down to me, don't I have a moral obligation to return the stolen items, even if I had nothing to do with the crime? I think I would. Maybe the main problem with my view is that it is purely moral, and not legal/practical. But letting poor people work out the problems that are partly as a result of your people's past seems very selfish to me.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV:The widespread belief of religion is a sign of human weakness + + This is not meant as a disrespect to most organized religions, merely an observation i have come to. The widespread belief or following of most organized religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) is a sign of human weakness in a couple of ways. The need for an afterlife in most religions satisfies our general fears of death, and the impermanence and futility of our lives. The theory isn't backed by much scientific evidence as far as i know, so the reason to believe in an afterlife isn't that it makes more sense but that it makes life easier. A fear of death and impermanence so strong that one must believe in something that i would categorize as fairytale. This is what i would call a weakness. The need for moral guidance in life - to need guidance from religion to know the difference between right and wrong is also a sign of weakness in that it shows a lack of judgement and wisdom for one to decide for themselves what is right or wrong. Furthermore, the need of a consequence by eternal damnation as persuasion not to do "bad things", and the need of an incentive by eternal salvation to do good. Is a sign of weakness in that it shows that human-nature is bad, or barbaric in a sense.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: if you eat meat you have no grounds to be upset about animals being tortured and abused in factory farms. + + Thats the fucking deal and either you know it or youre wilfully ignorant, and choose not to do a simple google search about the pain and suffering youre supporting. They have to do regular mental health screenings on workers in normal abatoirs to make sure theyre not harbouring serial killers ffs can you even imagine the types of people who choose to work in factory farms? Can you even imagine how much torture and abuse flys under the radar and never makes it to the front page of reddit? It comes with the territory that by eating meat you are supporting torture and abuse of animals in many different ways and severities, there is no way around it, and yet you people act shocked when a post about it reaches the front page and pretend it matters to you. If it fucking mattered to you wouldnt be contributing to it. And yes obviously it is possible to not consume factory farmed meat products but the amount of people who exclusively do that is so small that it doesnt really have any relevance to anything and its safe to assume almost everyone who will post in this thread eats mcdonalds and buys chicken from the supermarket.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Nothing worthwhile has ever come from sub-Saharan Africa. No scientific breakthrough, medical innovation or brilliant philosophy was ever created by the the people from that part of the world. + + The only notable figures from this part of the world are known for pushing the idea of acceptance of their people, but there doesn't seem to be any merit to their people. No great contributions. When anyone talks about the great contributions to science and math from Africa, it's from areas above the Sahara. It's as though everyone below the desert failed to migrate and evolve with the rest of humanity. Not that they are worthless, but I fully believe they are inferior.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: One of the single most effective ways to reduce gun related homicide is to disarm front line police officers. + + I believe that the main incentive for carrying a firearm when committing a crime is that you may need to defend yourself against armed police. Because criminals tend to be armed normal citizens need to be armed in order to protect themselves against those criminals. Disarming the police would reduce the need for criminals to carry firearms and so generally reduce the perceived need to carry a gun by citizens. By removing this normalcy of this type of weapon is reduced and a reduced rate of gun related homicide should be seen. This is borne out in countries like the UK and applies specifically to guns rather than all non lethal arms. When asked, UK police officers say overwhelmingly that they wish to remain unarmed. A 2006 survey of 47,328 Police Federation members found 82% did not want officers to be routinely armed on duty, despite almost half saying their lives had been "in serious jeopardy" during the previous three years.	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 need to show support or acceptance of Trans individuals + + Let me preface this by stating that I don't believe in judging, shunning, or harassing people because of who they are, I just don't know why their choices are a thing to be celebrated and supported? Stories: * I was walking down the street in a large city and there was a homeless man sitting in a corner mumbling about how he was a starship flying through space. I pitied him, as he (seemed) to genuinely believe that he was an actual starship, and assuming no drugs were involved, I expect most of society also does. * A young man who frequents a card shop I visit believes himself to be a wolverine. Not the marvel superhero, an actual badger-like creature indigenous to the Adirondacks of upstate New York. Most people treat him rather poorly, as he acts like a wild animal fairly often, but I also pity him as he truly believes he is a wolverine. * A previously homosexual, previously male friend of mine recently came out as "trans" meaning that he(now she) would like to live life as a woman. Society seems to say that this should be celebrated, that this is a brave and good act. I view all these 3 stories as on the same spectrum and should be treated the same. Either we treat all three as varying levels of delusion/mental illness, or we work as hard as we can to make those people feel right in society. All three people think they are something that they are not, so I feel that societies responses should be consistent either: 1. Treat all 3 cases as mental illness. Realize that mental illnesses exist, and if there is no cure, it is something that must be managed, just as with bi-polar, multiple personality disorder, etc. 2. Celebrate this, and have the person live their lives in their own manner. My male (now female) friend can live and be treated like any woman, that young man (now animal) at the card shop can live and be treated like a wolverine, and that older man (now starship) can be free to pursue a career at NASA as a test shuttle or whatever. (It's an extreme example, so the metaphor doesn't quite hold up) Now I have no problem with any of the three people. None are hurting anyone, and unless they are disrespectful I have no qualms about interacting with any of them. But why is being a "Trans woman" (used to be man) so much more acceptable than any other form of delusion?	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Many aims of the transsexual community contradict many 2nd and 3rd wave feminist views + + I hear a lot about modern feminism being closely related or even incorporating LGBT+ into itself, and this makes very little sense to me. Equality of opportunity can only truly exist if male and female people are perceived as equal in every way as long as humans and inherent human bias are still factors - this is one issue I have with Feminism in general, but not the point of this CMV. My view is that this directly contradicts the very idea of transgenderism and even to an extent homosexuality in that it removes the unorthodoxy in interaction between gender in non-traditional ways not via acceptance, but by unifying the genders. Ideally, in a feminist world as I see it, genders would be identical in interaction both socially and in work, and biological sex either disregarded or put onto a 'spectrum', in which case transgenderism could be considered a purely cosmetic change (which would be undesirable to undergo seen as the perception of you would not change despite the effort you put in). The current reason as I see it is that they fit better into their reassigned gender roles, which I respect, but gender roles would be eliminated by many feminists, given a chance. Beacause of this, I see transgenderism as either meaningless in the context of Feminism, or a stepping stone for a pseudo-Orwellian future of counter-constructive normality. Please CMV.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Speed limits should be based on the stopping distance of the vehicle. + + On a given stretch of road, say school zone or stretch of rural road lined with homes or city street, we should dispense with speed limits and implement a Stopping Distance Limit (SDL). If we collectively decide that in a school zone the stopping distance should be 30 ft, I, in my Porsche, should be able to drive 22mph while a fully loaded Semi should only be allowed to go 15 mph. On a freeway where my 14 year old Ford Focus can stop in 175 ft why should a semi be allowed to be traveling at the same speed when its stopping distance is nearing 300 ft? SDL would of course calculate for driver reaction time. Still, we are either unnecessarily slowing drivers with able cars or risking lives by allowing vehicles to travel at speeds they are not capable to dealing with in an emergency situation.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Tougher gun laws would not have prevented yesterday's tragedy where Bryce Williams killed Alison Parker and Adam Ward + + Firstly, my heart goes out to the victims and by no means am I making excuses or defending any actions. Yesterday's events were a tragedy. Having grown up on Smith Mountain Lake and spent countless days on the very docks that the incident took place and having gone to the same school as Alison, the events hit really close to home. May Alison and Adam rest in peace. Secondly, I am not coming from the pro or anti gun legislation perspective. If I could remove all guns from the world and safely fill the sport and personal self-defense gaps with something else with a single wish, I would... after I wished for $1 billion and 22 year old Heidi Klum to be my wife. I wanted to talk specifically about premeditated murder and the role firearms play in them. While watching the comments role through in yesterday's /r/news thread, several comments mentioned the desire for tougher gun laws. However, I believe that in instances of premeditated murder (vs manslaughter or random acts of violence), tougher gun laws would not prevent these events. I am going to repeat myself a few times, but bear with me: Despite all of the reason for Bryce Williams not to commit yesterday's crime, he still decided to go through with it. Despite the consequences that he would face legally, he decided to go through with it. Despite the pain he would cause to the families of the Alison and Adam as well as his own, he decided to go through with it. Despite the hate and vitriol his memory would leave, he decided to through with it. Despite all of the reasons not to go through with it, he decided to go through with it. My argument is, if guns were more difficult or impossible to get access to, Bryce Williams would have just added it to the list of hinderances he ignored and still gone through with it. Hypothetically not having access to a fire arm, I believe he would have still gone through the act of trying to kill Alison and Adam by another means. I so badly want to believe that we can prevent incidents like yesterday's from happening through tougher gun legislation or any other way, but I cannot see how. Please change my view.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Funerals are a display of hypocrisy and egotism + + Christian funerals have no place in a secularized society. We are doing them mainly because it's a custom and tradition. The funeral ceremony is a display of hypocrisy and egotism. But let me explain: Grief is a display of egoism. To have grief is to put ones own concerns first. "She is dead and now I am alone." The hypocrisy of the funeral is that people mourn no matter if the person was good or evil. Instead, the proper way to have a funeral is celebration. The deceased should be the center of attention. It should be a celebration of the life of the deceased person. A presentation that shows the whole life of the person in all its grandeur. Sing and dance to cherish the beauty of life that has come full circle. In case the person was evil, it should be a celebration that the person is dead. tl;dr: Funerals should be a celebration of the wonder called life!	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Americans of all races should actively refrain form using the N-word with the hope that it fades from use entirely over time. + + The N-word - no other word in the English language has such a powerfully negative meaning or evokes such a visceral reaction from both blacks and whites alike. It seems African Americans in the U.S. attempt to "own it" or "redefine it in a positive way", as some kind of symbol of brotherhood - at least within their own community. This seems to me as ridiculous as Jews trying to re-appropriate the Swastika as a positive icon in their community. However, by continuing to use the word, they merely keep the term in use in modern language and create awkward circumstances for other races for whom it's not socially acceptable to be used in even the most positive contexts. There are plenty of derogatory terms throughout history that have faded from use and are no longer relevant and I think given the inflammatory nature of the word, as well as the shameful history it represents, it should be actively avoided - even in "positive" contexts which only serve to perpetuate its use. Lastly, how would language truly suffer by the removal of this particularly nasty word? Language evolves and adapts over time, and if the majority of people both black and white actively discourage its use, eventually it will die out - and the English language will be better for it.	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 okay for Lizzie Grant to call herself Lana Del Rey. + + A lot of people are angry at Lana for the cultural appropriation of 2 things: the legitimately insensitive [war bonnet](http://i.imgur.com/cm3tI.png), and her Latin-inspired stage-name. They say it's insensitive because many Cubans face discrimination and deportation for their foreign-sounding names. I honestly don't see how that's relevant. She picked the name because she wanted to sound like A "cuban gansta Nancy Sinatra". Could someone explain to me what's wrong with choosing the stage name "Lana Del Rey"?	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: I like anecdotal evidence. + + Whenever I want to know more about an idea, product, etc. I look to someone who has that idea or uses that product to learn more about it. Why, then, is it looked down on and dismissed as anecdotal evidence for someone to share an experience of theirs? I quite enjoy listening to anecdotal evidence to get new perspectives I wouldn't have thought of or haven't heard before. I understand that in an anecdotal case it is not scientific because it cannot be replicated and held to control standards, but I don't think this is grounds for dismissing the case as merely anecdotal and not worth mentioning. Am I wrong about this?	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: The journalist who trolled Trump, a Presidential candidate, during a press conference should be fired by Univision and shunned by the rest of us + + A journalist's job is to report the news, not to create them. Ramos made himself a news item when he trolled presidential candidate Donald Trump during a press conference. Political statements, being unruly, and making accusations does not constitute journalism and not why Univision sent him there. The press conference was not there to allow journalists to express their feelings about issues. After such unprofessional behavior became public and a national news item, Ramos should've been fired immediately. I'm not a fan of Trump, I would not vote for him, and I don't think he'll get the nomination. However, whether you hate him or not, trolling a presidential candidate during a press conference is an embarrassment to the nation, makes a mockery of out our democratic process, and coming from a journalist, should lead to a dismissal. If we instead agree that trolling presidential candidates is OK if they had it coming, then it opens the floodgates to anyone who dislikes a candidate to disrupt our democratic process. Who decides when a candidate can be disrupted or not? People mostly agree that the activists who disrupted Sanders were out of line, but when it's Trump, it's ok? The presidential race is an extremely important one for this nation and should be treated seriously and with respect. There are several Latinos in my family so please CMV.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Negative stereotyping and profiling can only change when the potential victims break the stereotype. + + This view of mine might sound obvious or simple but I think a lot of sensitive, complex social issues have simple underlying causes that are often ignored. In fact, I think they are so often ignored that I start to doubt my own view, hence this post. I'm a little embarrassed to share it. Here's my basic line of thought: * Stereotypes exist because the generalization is accurate. * Several of society's popular problems are blamed on other people acting with an awareness of stereotypes, or the stereotypes themselves. * A lot of cases regarding these problems are caused or made worse by the victim acting in accordance with a stereotype while blaming either the stereotype or something else. * If people made more of a conscious effort to not act in accordance with a stereotype in a situation where the stereotype could be considered relevant less incidents would occur. * When less incidents occur the stereotype changes or evaporates completely. 'Victim' is somewhat of a loose term here (I'm excluding people who are indirectly involved with an incident pertaining to whatever social ill anyone might refer to) so before you shout "victim blaming!" I'll freely state that yes, I believe victims are very rarely 100% free from some kind of responsibility. An example would be a black man being pulled over in a bad neighborhood and getting ticketed, arrested, or worse after arguing with/ resisting the police officer. We might be able to argue the man was unfairly profiled, but we can't prove something like that. It's much easier to take preventative measures (respect and compliance with the officer, no matter how shitty of a person they may be) and either avoid the situation completely or not make it harder than it needs to be. But once the black driver starts getting loud and upset, in the cops mind he's just another loud black person (fulfilling the stereotype) which could lead the officer to believe that the driver fulfills other aspects of his stereotype. Another quick example would be the stereotype of men only being interested in sex and men saying "not all men are pigs." Well, if that stereotype upsets you as a man, the only thing you can really do that will have any kind of effect is to not be a pig! But nobody seems to realize this, they just want everyone else to do what they ask. Obviously I'm not proposing an over-night fix to any social issue, but what I'm proposing would benefit our society a lot more than victims telling everyone else to stop stereotyping. Pointing the finger at the aggressor(s) doesn't actually help solve the whole problem; all that does is either end that individual incident or piss people off. That shortsightedness does absolutely nothing to solve the problem on any kind of large, lasting scale. I'm happy to edit for any needed clarification. CMV!	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: The United States is broken beyond repair, and it is only a matter of time before a total collapse of the nation + + I don't want to live in the USA anymore. I never really did. Only thing here for me is friends and what tiny family I have. If I had the resources and the guts to leave everything behind, I would leave at the first chance I am given. Here's a list of reasons why I believe the United States is unfixable, and the only thing left to do is jump ship: * Education is based on test scores and Scantron test bubbles, not how well any given student is learning. Privatized education is stealing from public education funding, resulting in crumbling public schools and a wealthy elite private school system. * There is no living wage, minimum wage is a joke ($7.25/hr) and some places even get away with customers paying for a worker's wages (tipping at restaurants, hotel valets, etc). [Corporate profits are at an all time high](http://ycharts.com/indicators/corporate_profits) while [worker's wages are stagnant](http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/wages) and barely increasing, if not decreasing. * Student Loans are out of control, absurdly inflated while students are having a harder and harder time finding work. Textbooks are overpriced and updated minimally for easy revenue when the latest version is required with little content improvement. * Media reports on nonsense until a tragedy, violence or a corporate agenda is at hand. * Police Force is over-militarized and over-protected. Police unions make sure officers are treated with impunity, even with sufficient evidence and contradictory eyewitness reports. Police brutality is not going away. * Drug War is a war on the people. Addiction and abuse is punished criminally instead of treated as a mental illness/condition. Tax money is lost on illegal drugs traded by armed criminals, promoting cartels and black markets. * Prisons are over crowded with non-violent offenders and poor Americans who couldn't pay ridiculous fines or fees. For-profit and private prison systems are an atrocity, some even enslave prisoners for manual labor. Guantanamo Bay is a violation of human rights. * Politics are corrupted and solely motivated by money. Lobbying is out of control. Campaign donations are essentially legal bribes, and corporations and mega-companies have to much political influence. * Military has an immense budget while producing useless, unneeded weaponry and equipment. United States fights unnecessary wars and infiltrates and overthrows peaceful governments. * Gun Control needs reform. Mental evaluation and criminal background checks need to be performed thoroughly before any firearm can be purchased or acquired. * NSA spying and the surveillance state need to be dismantled. Huge swaths of data is being collected, stored waiting to be misused. Spying on its own citizens and allies violates human rights. The TSA needs reform, right now it's a useless taxpayer void, where useless machines and invasive procedures are becoming more and more prevalent. * Copyrights and patents are creating turmoil for startups and new ideas. Large companies consistently and deliberately misuse and even change copyright laws to benefit themselves, while stifling innovation and hurting people's rights to free information. * Net Neutrality, free trade and personal privacy is daily being eroded and constantly in danger: SOPA, CISPA, Trans Pacific Partnership, PATRIOT Act, PIPA, [Special 301 Reports](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_301_Report)) * Social Security has been abused and taken advantage of by the Baby Boomer generation. The retirement age is ever increasing beyond what should be considered normal due to technology and computers, taking up jobs from younger people looking for work. Saving for retirement is becoming increasingly difficult. * Wall Street and the Big Banks steal/lose/launder trillions while facing little to no punishment, in the way of fines or breaking up the companies. Instead, these banks are bailed out by the government using government loans, causing inflation, devaluing the dollar, and increasing the national debt. Don't get started on predatory interest rates and payday loan schemes. The list could probably be longer, but I've run out of will power to describe my nation's flaws. They depress me and remind me every day that it's harder and harder to leave as soon as I can. If you need sources on any of the points I've provided, feel free to Google them unless I've already provided the link. I'm willing to change my view. But just look at all this mess. I feel so helpless being a lower-middle class, average joe kind of guy with the facade of the American dream vanishing further and further every day. I don't want to live like this forever. I want to be happy and support a nation that isn't corrupt and cares about it's citizens. So Reddit, can you 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:Fining drivers for accidentally exceeding the speed limit by 3kph won't prevent it from happening again. + + As you probably have guessed, I've been fined for exceeding the speed limit by 3kph. This was entirely by accident. I knew the speed limit of the road, but was observing traffic and and so did not notice when my speed crept up slightly. This may be anecdotal, but I don't see how fining me for this small increase will prevent or dissuade a similar situation from occurring again. There will be times in the future where my attention must be given to other road users or pedestrians and I will accidentally exceed the speed limit slightly. I think it is unreasonable and even unsafe to expect drivers to observe their speedometers 100% of the time if it means diverting their attention away from other traffic or hazards. To this effect I believe that fining drivers for these small infringements cannot - and perhaps should not - change their behaviour and prevent similar situations from occurring in the future. 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 disagree with the philosophy of not giving any attention to gunmen + + I'm not entirely sure if I agree with the "no attention to the gunmen" philosophy after tragic shootings. I think we can all agree that a major part of the problem is mental illness, and as hard as it may be to forgive someone for an atrocious crime like this, we have to understand that the shooter's reality is far far different from a normal reality. As strong as the urge is to call the shooter a piece of shit, I believe this behavior will only further alienate mentally ill and perpetuate the "us vs them" mentality they have. Contrarily, if we looked past the (albeit powerful) urge to dismiss the shooter as inhumane and instead welcome them to forgiveness and treatment, it may be an important step in bridging the disconnect between the mentally ill and mentally healthy; it may also prompt the mentally ill to seek help early before the illness becomes uncontrollable.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Polygamy should be legal in the Western world (United States, Canada, Europe and Oceania) + + I see nothing wrong with polygamy. The only problem I could see occurring in polygamous marriages is the destruction of traditional marriage, however this has been argued to have been a problem with same-sex marriage. Like same-sex marriage, I can see no ethical dilemmas brought upon by introducing polygamous marriages besides the religious. Our nation is not built upon religious foundations, we are a secular state, therefore using Christian morals to argue what is marriage what is not is not a viable reason to keep polygamy illegal. Prior to European colonization (headed by Christian leaders), many cultures from around the world practiced polygamous marriages for thousands of years. Now after decolonization, this has been shrunk to mostly the Middle East, Indonesia, West Asia, Myanmar and most of Africa. There have been some that have argued in the past that polygamous marriages have a higher rate of abuse of women. However, if we look at who is practicing polygamy and where it is currently legal, can we truly say that the type of marriage is at fault? Most (if not all) nations where polygamy is legal are Islamic nations. The religion in and of itself is not known for being respectful towards women nor tolerant of them deviating from the wishes of their husband (or government). Can we truly say that abuse would become less prevalent in Muslim countries if all marriages were suddenly turned to monogamous ones? Others will point to certain cults that have split off from the main Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and speak of their abuse against women and even rampant pedophilia. This is once again a bad example. Who in the United States is practicing polygamy? More often than not; cults. Cults are often cults of personality, the worship of a single person; the cult leader. Can we expect a person who has made themselves out to be something of a prophet (or more) to respect their spouses or basic human rights? Probably not. Let's think for a moment and say that a nation like India happened to be the first to legally same-sex marriage. If there was a high amount of abuse among marriages, surely this would be seen in gay and lesbian ones as well. Could we then not point to India and exclaim that same-sex marriage simply does not work? Some argue that there are simply too few people interested in a polygamous lifestyle for people to protest its ban or for legislation to be passed to overturn it. This is true, however it does not change the absurdity of being against it. Many things are legal (or are simply not illegal) that few people practice. Does that mean that they should be illegal because they deviate from the norm? This is does not exclude the possibility of non-abuse marriages by non-Islamic, non-cultist polygamous marriages. There has been the concept of non religious marriages involving multiple partners for men and women since the hippy era of the United States. We are a free society, a free nation. Why should we decide how many a man or woman chooses to marry? Who are we to deny these marriages? Are we so morally superior that we can dictate that marriage must be between two individuals? I do not see the appeal of polygamous marriage, however I do not see myself as one to judge.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Western women cannot validly claim to be trying to look 'good'/cute/attractive "for themselves" rather than "for men." It is always for men. + + The only reason that looking good/cute/attractive is important to women at all is because men have spent thousands of years coercing them into believing that looks are an important part of being a woman. No matter what your conscious reasoning, you cannot escape the fact that the reason you care about looking good at all is because you were raised in a culture where it is practically screamed in your face every day that "A GOOD WOMAN IS BEAUTIFUL! A GOOD WOMAN IS ATTRACTIVE!" Therefore, when a woman claims that she dresses/makes up so that she can feel good about herself (as opposed to doing it to please/attract men), it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter what you claim because the end result is the same: you ARE pleasing and attracting men, and you are valuing yourself based on attractiveness. It doesn't even matter if you're not straight. You are doing what the patriarchal system has dictated to you that you must do, and in so doing you are reinforcing that system. After all, isn't it a mighty big coincidence that the thing you 'want' to do just happens to line up perfectly with what the system wants you to do? DISCLAIMER: I am not judging women who dress/make up. I do not care what you do, but I think this is an important distinction that must addressed, because the closest you can get to choosing for yourself is acknowledging the motivation for the choice (the part you can't control) and accepting it for what it is.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Zoos and aquariums are good for conservation and worth having even at the expense of the animal's happiness. + + Point 1: Zoos and aquariums give people an opportunity to see animals up close in a way that they never would otherwise. The experience of seeing a Mountain Gorilla on the other side of a pane of glass is far more incredible than simply watching Animal Planet. Having the experience of seeing an Orca swim by and be in awe of their power and intelligence is not the same as seeing one in a Youtube video. I remember when I was a boy my parents took me to the zoo. It was when I saw lion up close that I decided then and there that I wanted to be a wildlife biologist. Now, life took me in a different path and I never arrived at that career, but my awe and love for wildlife has never lessened. Point 2 I understand some will say, "But if you love the animals why don't you care that some of them aren't as happy as they would be in the wild." I understand this sentiment, but I am torn. I'm torn by my previous reasons for why zoos and aquariums are necessary and my love for the animals themselves. Is a dolphin in the ocean better than a dolphin in a tank? Yes. Is a dolphin happier in the ocean than in a tank? Probably. I would bet my life on it, but if that dolphin is in the ocean I can't stand by the edge of the tank and rub his nose. I can't connect with the dolphin in that way that made me fall in love with them. So, I think that if some dolphins at Seaworld are not as happy as dolphins in the ocean, I'm ok with that. The tank-dolphin's happiness may be what is lain on the altar of conservation. Zoos and aquariums make us care about the animals. If people don't care about animals then they won't do their best to preserve them. Point 3: Zoos edcuate people. I remember as a child who hated snakes going to the zoo where the exhibit explained why snakes were important to the ecosystem. Before, I thought they were evil creatures. The zoo showed me the truth. People who understand the role of animals in our world will care more about conservation. Summary: Zoos and aquariums provide a face to face encounter with the majesty of wildlife. This encounter makes people care about the beautiful creatures they are seeing in person. Caring about the animals leads to conservation efforts. People who see the beauty and importance of these creatures will want to ensure the thriving of their species. . .	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: The United States is unfairly judged for wanting to stop illegal immigration, when the rest of the world is doing the same thing. + + If you've been following the political hoo-ha surrounding the upcoming presidential election then you are well aware of the controversial topic of illegal immigration. The discussion is pretty clear. The right believes in doing what they can to end it. The left feels that we need to give access to a better life even if it that access isn't attained legally. Regardless of which you believe, the reality is that every other successful nation is going through a similar thing. If you look at the growing problems with migrants in Greece & Macedonia. If you look at the refuge issues in places in the Middle East like Jordan and Lebannon. You will see that people are fleeing their homelands for the hopes of a better life. However these hopes come with the destruction of hopes for those who are already in that better land. There are limited resources and giving access to those resources to people who want to come to your country, means that they will not be available for you. This problem is huge and countries are taking varying measures. Places like Macedonia are blockading their border. Places like Hungary are building fences. Places like Jordan are setting up refuge camps not allowing for access outside of them. However when the U.S. suggests that they too need to be taking measures to protect their resources, they are left to handle stark criticism. Criticism that ranges from "racists" to "fascists". However this same criticism seems to be absent for much of the other countries in the world who believe in protecting their resources and their borders. I believe the criticism is lacking in Europe because people understand that these migrants are having a detrimental affect on the societies. If you look at the problem expanded immigration has caused in France, Germany, Greece, England and many other nations, you begin to sympathize with taking measures to stop it. For some reason this reality seems to be ignored when it comes to people over running U.S. borders. It seems as if people think the U.S. has unlimited resources and that any and all should have access to them. The narrative is often to say that these people just want to make a better life for themselves. Yes, as does every other person in this world. But in order for them to make a better life they need resources to do so. Those resources are being kept from people who should have access to them (legal immigrants and citizens). I see no reason why the U.S. should be criticized for wanting to protect the resources and keeping them for U.S. citizens and legal residents. Europe's problems should be a lesson that we learn from and try to avoid happening to us. This isn't just a problem that is social, political, financial it is all of that and more. Many experts believe the migrant problem will be the single greatest cause of the collapse of the E.U.. Reason being, there is no plan in place to stop this influx and no European commission to oversee this problem. Countries are left to fend for themselves and they will look out for "themselves". The U.S. should be wise enough to do something about this now or be left to deal with the same faith. I don't see why trying to avoid that faith is deserving of criticism. Change My View	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: It's dishonest when feminists respond to criticism of feminism with "It's just the belief that women are equal" + + I'll preface this with saying that I'm a guy and I consider myself extremely feminist and would disagree with the criticisms for feminism for other reasons. I think it's clear that modern feminism is much more than just that belief, and that it's totally reasonable to believe that women and men should be equal, but not be feminist. There are multiple valid perceptions of equality, some of which do not lend themselves to modern feminism The perception of equality that most critics of feminism would subscribe to would be a pretty basic "equality of opportunity," where women are given the same legal rights as men. For the most part, this sense of equality is achieved in the developed world, and feminism doesn't seem extremely necessary The more feminist perception of equality is a more complex view of equality of opportunity that attempts to achieve equality through other actions. For example, many biases prevent women from succeeding in certain fields, so feminists would often embrace some form of affirmative action or grants for women in these fields. I personally believe this is the right way to go about things, but it's it would technically violate the very strict interpretation of equality. Other policies like supporting abortion, maternity leave, etc. all attempt to create equality by making physical factors that advantage men over women less of an issue would fit the same argument as above. 3rd wave feminism is more than just wanting equality Feminism has evolved from just "women deserve equal rights" to a discussion about what it means to be female (or other gender and sometimes racial identities.) This type of discussion is really interesting and really important. However, it can be off-putting to somebody who doesn't really fit the identities feminism focuses on (mainly cisgendered men.) I think it's perfectly reasonable for a guy who isn't interested in discussing female identity in modern society to not identity as feminist, or even feel abandoned by it. There are plenty of ways that feminism helps men, but those issues tend to be on the back-burner. Unfortunately, there's not many misogyny-free communities for discussing men's issues. Until more of those exist and are promoted, it doesn't make much sense to expect men to identify as feminist.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: External validation matters a lot. + + The idea that the only one you have to please is yourself is not conducive to real word results. I could think I'm really attractive but get no dates. I could think I'm really likeable but have no friends. I could think my skills are very valuable yet make very little money. And it would all be pointless. Do you have to please everybody? No. Howard Stern has 10 million people who hate him but also 10 million people who like him, and that's why he's successful. Yes I can have internal value but I'd just be in a solipsistic bubble of nothingness convincing myself otherwise.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV:'Rights' are not a real thing. They only exist as much as the state allows. Talking about (or legislating) 'Rights' without mentioning 'responsibilities and 'limits' encourages faulty, destructive thinking. + + People talk about 'natural' or 'God-given rights', but all rights can be taken from you. If rights like "free speech" or "free association" are 'inalienable', 'natural', or 'God-given', how come so many people don't have them. "Rights" are created by the state, on their terms. I hear alot of people claiming "The right to free speech", or "The right to the pursuit of happiness". Looking at the world in these terms is false, misleading and detrimental to society. No rights are absolute- the world would be screwed if they were. Laws about inciting violence, truth in advertising, libel, slander, pornography, threats, extortion, racial vilification, sexual harassment, tax fraud and many, many more, all limit free speech, but are vital for society. Can I "pursue happiness" by running over the elderly in my F150, or selling crack to toddlers? But I got the "right"!! right? All 'rights' have limits. Looking at things purely in terms of "rights" creates a selfish, narcissistic, entitled, unreasonable mindset. Rights and responsibilities are two sides of the same coin, but there's no "Bill of Responsibilities". Talking about 'Rights' like this makes people think they can do what they want, coz "I got Rights!!". Rights are a myth, and we need a better model for thinking about personal freedom.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: I don't think Jesus was an actual, historical person. + + Right now there is almost an unanimous consensus among scholars that Jesus was a real human being. They even go as far as comparing the Christ myth theory to the Moon Landing conspiracy theories and Holocaust deniers. I think their confidence is unwarranted and here's why: We have ZERO evidence of any Christian activity whatsoever before Paul wrote Galatians around 40-60AD, and no conclusively Christian artifacts have been found dating any earlier than 70 AD. Supposedly Jesus was already attracting huge crowds during his lifetime, and Israel has been studied extensively by archaeologists for a long time. You would think we would find some sort of trinket or writing contemporary to his life, but we've found nothing. Israel was already very literate during Christ's time. Despite what people popularly say, we do have much more evidence for Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great than we do for Christ. That's to be expected of course, but considering how popular the Gospels portray Jesus as being and how much of Israel has been dug up, you'd think we'd have SOMETHING from his lifetime attesting to his existence. The attestations by Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius are very dubious. Scholars even admit that part of the Testimonium Flavianum was forged. Paul seems to be writing about a heavenly Jesus, not an earthly one at times in his letters. The Principle of Embarrassment is a very weak argument. We just don't know enough about the context of that era. The Gospels are written in Greek. Jesus spoke Aramaic. It's possible he also spoke Greek, but you would think the Gospels would have been written in Aramaic originally if they were genuine accounts of Jesus's life. The Gospels have huge issues. Aside from the fact that they describe magical happenings, they can't even get things like the year he was born right. One gospel suggests that Jesus was born around 5 BC, another suggests 6 AD. Since it's obvious the magical parts didn't happen, is it really that radical to come to the conclusion the whole story is a work of fiction? I think what happened is there was a preacher in Israel (who was maybe named Yeshua) at the time who claimed to be God and tried to overthrow the Roman client state with his followers and was executed for it. His followers, mostly poor illiterates, started telling tall tales about things he supposedly did while he was alive. Eventually decades later, some literate Greek believers, most likely in Anatolia wrote made-up biographies of this preacher's life and tacked on moral sayings they attributed to him. Some of these stories became very popular to the extent that people were willing to die for their faith. In other words, there may have been a person who Jesus was very loosely based on, but the Jesus that Christians worship is essentially a character from political fanfiction. Either that or entirely made up. Can anyone point me to some evidence that proves Jesus was in fact a real man, who was born under Herod, performed miracles in front of masses of crowds, and went fishing with his buddies in the freshwater Sea of Galilee, only to be killed for it? I'm not looking at this from a snarky anti-theist view, though I do happen to be an atheist. I just don't think the evidence is compelling or very convincing.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: To discourage illegal immigration, a child born in the USA should only receive birthright citizenship if the parents of that child can prove they are citizens or legal residents (but not legal visitors!) of the USA. + + I'm not super passionate about illegal immigration policy but I do think the birthright citizenship portion of the 14th Amendment has become a liability on our country and encourages people to move into the US illegally if only to provide a better life for their family. Regardless of their motives; they break the law, and the government should enforce the law of the land. Rather than addressing the symptoms of illegal immigration (building a wall), why not address the cause and try to find ways to defuse the magnet. Illegally immigrating to the US will become much less attractive if parents must provide papers or and ID to get birthright citizenship, and by denying legal visitors this right we can also dissuade the whole birth hotel and anchor baby phenomenon (which isn't as prevalent, but still disturbing). I believe we have the technology to document all legal citizens and residents and the benefits of illegal immigration seem to have dried up. This obviously doesn't address the 10+ million illegal immigrants already here, but it will do much to help stem the flow of further illegal immigrants from now on. I'm having difficulties seeing why people would oppose such a practice. Please explain to me otherwise.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV:nothing matters and everything is pointless. + + I just dont think anything matters at all. And anyone who thinks anything does matter is probly delusional. I want my view to change because its probly not good to think this way but i havent seen anything that would show anything different than everything being pointless. Is there anything that matters at all? I know some people will say does it matter if it matters? but that doesnt add or change anything. It just self perpetuates and doesnt really make a difference in the viewpoint. Thanks for looking at my post.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Day drinking is optimal. + + I will preface by saying, I am referring to the benefits of being drunk in itself. Being drunk generally feels good. However, alcohol consumption to the point of feeling drunk has negative health effects. Getting drunk at night, assuming a normal sleep schedule, typically entails falling asleep while drunk. Yet...Your body is still experiencing the negative effects of alcohol while you sleep through the benefits of being drunk. You are incurring the cost of being drunk, while not realizing the benefits. In addition and based on my personal experience, falling asleep while drunk does not lead to waking up well rested. The obvious arguments against this will be with regards to social life. I completely agree that if getting drunk with your friends gives you additional utility, by all means drink at night. However, if you are simply looking for that strong buzz now and again...Day drinking is the way to go.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: WIC money should instead be spent on providing free abortions to low income women + + I like making lists to discuss points, so here goes: 1) Women who need a program like WIC are not in a financial position to raise a baby 2) An abortion would be cheaper than 18+ years of food stamps and Medicaid 3) I acknowledge that not all taxpayers support abortion due to difference in moral opinion, but taxpayers aren't consulted on other moral matters anyway, such as war, corporate bailouts, etc. For example, if a vegetarian, a person is still required to pay taxes for farm subsidies to animal farms. 4) while some recipients of WIC may be in their position due to uncontrollables such as spouse death, job loss, etc, it still takes two people to make a baby, so both parties should be able to financially support a child without spousal help (through their own job, family assistance, etc) 5) one should not rely on government programs to assist with raising children, in event those programs are taken away	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: The theory of evolution is accurate, and the whole field of biology is dependent on it. + + Evolution through descent with modification caused by the methods of natural selection, sexual selection, kin-selection, artificial selection, and genetic drift is undeniable. We can clearly see it not only in the fossil record, but in labs (bacteria), experiments (Russia and its foxes are an example of artificial selection), medicine (anti-biotic resistance), pesticide resistance. This theory has been used to create methods to [delay pesticide resistance] (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/agriculture_04), as well as [antibiotic resistance] (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/%3C?%20echo%20$baseURL%20?%3E_0_0/medicine_03). How can someone deny evolution when it has been put to use in these fields?	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: A refrigerator should be a required condition of habitability, not just an amenity. + + Just moved to California starting look for an apartment. much to my dismay 9/10 apartments I viewed do not include refrigerators in the lease. I'm from Detroit - where every single apartment I viewed had a fridge included. The first apartment I went to I was like - WHAT? NO FRIDGE???? [In California, a refrigerator is not a habitable condition. It's an amenity.] (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/08/business/la-fi-rent-20120108) I found out via r/personalfinance that in Texas - an air conditioning unit is a habitable condition - meaning the landlord must provide and repair it. In fact, when your A/C unit breaks (and its not tenants' fault), you might not owe rent for days its broken because the unit is only livable while the A/C is working per Texas law. There are several reasons state law should change to make a fridge a habitable condition. * I believe every other state requires this as a habitable condition, correct me if I'm wrong. In my personal opinion an apartment without a fridge in not habitable, wouldn't you agree? but more importantly.... * There's a lot of illegal bait-and-switch going on in the apartment rental market. I'm shopping for an apartment now and I would say about half the listings that say "fridge included" are just outright lies. I caught a landlord in this lie just yesterday. He said "oh well I must have made a mistake online..." This also happens with dishwashers and with rent prices. You're not fooling any damn body, you listed imaginary apartment with fake pictures, just to get people to show up so you can start throwing sales shit at them. Sometimes, in areas where the market is really hot (such as West Hollywood), people sign for apartments without having seen the inside first (because the unit is already leased by the time previous tenants move out). Making a fridge an optional amenity gives landlords the ability to LIE and say the unit comes with a fridge and then when they move in, they find out that the fridge belonged to the previous tenants. You might say "well they should read the lease before they sign" but that logic only holds up in theory. In reality you know there are people getting screwed over on this issue. Such as people from other states who it never occurred to them that a fridge might not be included. * California law should mimc Texas law When a habitable condition appliance breaks, the landlord is losing rent money every day it sits broken. In Michigan, when a unit is unlivable, a tenant can break a lease with no penalty and no notice. That gives them very strong incentive to hurry up and fix it already. If Texas does this with air conditioners, why cant California do this with a damn refrigerator?	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 psychedelics are a not a tool for self-improvement, but rather a way to buy into our own delusions. + + Let me get this straight. I've had my fair share of psychedelic experiences, with the goal to improve, to learn more about myself. I have buyed into the movement that got accelerated by people like Terence McKenna, Joe Rogan, Steve Jobs and many more, that psychedelics might change the world and are a key to "enlightenment" (for lack of a better term). While I have always claimed that psychedelics have done something for me, I think that this is gradually changing. I cannot come up with many things they have done for me, except teach me the value of meditation. I believe that we are mostly lying to ourselves. That we use drugs like lsd to have fun, with the pretext that they help us grow. But they are called hallucinogens for a reason. They allow us to have delusions that vary in intensity based on the person and the dosage. We can then use those delusions for good or for bad, to mold our view of reality as we want it. But I constantly find myself having to reevaluate the ideas that I've come up with on trips, and find out that they are incomplete or wrong. For some people it works, and for others it is just a waste of time. CMV. How is our idea of the usefulness of psychedelics not just a huge delusion?	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: There is nothing wrong with animal testing + + So let me start off by acknowledging that I know absolutely nothing about this issue, about its history, or about the debate surrounding it. My only exposure is seeing bottles that say "not tested on animals" and the hippy kids at school with stickers and posters saying "stop animal testing" Let me also say that I believe in compassion for animals, I don't support battery farms or puppy mills because I don't believe that its necessary to subject animals to that level of degradation simply for economic benefit, and i'm willing to pay more money as a consumer to express that belief. However I have no moral problems with eating meat or killing animals, as I don't see that as cruel, and people need to eat. I'm not a big fan of hunting simply for sport though. Now that I've given you a picture of my general stance on animal rights, let me say that It seems to me that animal testing could be a cruel and painful thing to subject an animal to (i'm imagining chemical burns and poisoning), The only alternative I see is human testing. Either as part of the manufacturing process, or on the end consumer. And I think this is worse since human health and safety takes precedence over that of animals. (Edit: yes this last sentence is a personal opinion, not an objective fact) Even if people opt in and are paid to have mysterious substances tested on them, I'm quite sure it will be kids and mothers in the slums of bangladesh, or some other equally desperate section of the population who is taking extreme actions for money out of desperation, and to protect them I think that it is better to not give them such an option. The only alternative I see that is better than animal testing would be if we had the technology to reliably predict all effects on humans in a lab without any interaction with an animal or human. However I have not been able to find anything suggesting this is true. So either change my view on animal testing or prove to me that companies that don't test on animals test in a lab without involving humans or animals, and that their results are equally reliable to those based on animal testing.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: If people fully understood games in the vein of Dungeons & Dragons, they would be much more mainstream + + D&D, while it's managed to achieve pretty good cultural penetration (i.e. lots of people know what it is), tends to get a pretty bad rap. It's associated with basement-dwelling, BO-heavy obese teens and college students, particularly men. I'm actually not going to argue with that impression so much, because frankly I'm not convinced it isn't based in truth (actually, I think it once was, but isn't as much anymore). What I will argue is that this is irrelevant to what a game like D&D actually is, and what it offers a group of people sitting around a table with beer and pizza. I believe that if everyone were actually exposed to it, beyond just the basic idea and the cultural stigma, it would be widely played (it already is more widely played than it was twenty years ago, but that's not the same). For anyone who's never played it, or anything like it, here's the basic rundown: I tell you that you walk into the living room of a house. There's a table with a book on it, a door that's closed so you can't see what it leads to, and an open doorway through which you can see the next room, which is larger and fancier. You can choose to interact with any of these given things—but more importantly, you can do anything else. You can jump out the window. You can search the couch cushions for change. You can set fire to the whole house. And I will be obligated to provide more material for you regardless of what you choose to do. The story proceeds in our collective mind's eye with literally limitless choice and narrative flexibility. The only thing governing your actions, keeping this from being a game of straight-up make believe, is that there's a set of skills with accompanying numerical levels to determine whether you actually can do the thing you want. Are you perceptive enough to find those coins? Can you strike a match without burning yourself? You can peruse the book, but are you smart enough for it? Your number with that skill, along with a dice roll to add some randomness, tells you if you pull it off. There's an element of chance and risk. Since you can't do everything you want, what you do choose suddenly becomes much more meaningful. You have to know what you're good at, what your odds are, and what possible results your actions will have. It's basically a gigantic thought experiment, a hypothetical situation that you get to navigate. Ever become lucid at the end of a dream and wish you could stay? That's sort of what D&D offers. Sort of. For any given element of what the game requires, there's already a mainstream activity that revels in it. Do you like crunching statistics in the service of a non-real competition? Play fantasy football. Do you like to pretend to be a character? Play a murder mystery game—or, you know, act in something. Do you like rolling dice? Play a very, very wide variety of the things. Do you like dragons and swords? Watch Game of Thrones. What sets D&D apart from more socially acceptable pastimes isn't really in its actual execution, but in the demographic we associate with it, and our desire to not be of that demographic. But here's the thing: you can play sports without being stupid, perform on stage without being a prima donna. Who you are doesn't depend on how you spend your free time. We all intuitively understand this with most activities, but the view of D&D is so strong it makes us forget. If you take away the medieval dressing, and put yourself in the picture instead of the fat, pimply nerd, you get something not much different from, say, Monopoly or Trivial Pursuit. D&D is a fairly complex example, and I use it only because it's the most famous, but there are others that share the fundamentals while being much simpler and more casual. (Edit: I've bolded this due to several responses related to time commitment, although I would again argue that the time you spend on fantasy football or binge-watching Game of Thrones is no less than what you'd spend on a game like this one.) Boiled down to its essentials, the game is just a shared storytelling. I ask you to interact with an imaginary landscape, you explore that landscape with total freedom, and we both rely on dice to keep us from knowing how our own story ends. I'm a writer, so while I enjoy a normal, healthy social life, I am still drawn to D&D because it's the only way for me to engage the same parts of the brain I use in writing, but with my friends. I even loathe reading and writing fantasy, but I still love D&D for what it offers me creatively. There are a lot of reasons you could be interested in it, and they aren't all "Because I can't get laid on a Saturday night." I think if everyone understood this, it would be no less common to see it on people's shelves than any of your standard board games.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Hitler was a terrible leader. + + Often when Hitler or Nazi Germany is brought up on reddit you'll see a comment along the lines of 'Sure Hitler was evil, but you gotta admit he was a good leader' or something along those lines with the idea being that Hitler was a pretty sharp leader who pulled Germany out of a depression and made it great again. I disagree, Hitler was a godawful leader, as good leaders tend not to leave their countries into such total destruction. And the claim that Hitler saved Germany from depression is false, the economic reforms that pulled Germany's bacon out of the economic fire were done by [Hjalmar Schacht.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjalmar_Schacht) Hitler's economic policies set Germany on the course to [financial ruin](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3i78h9/why_do_some_historians_say_nazi_germany_was/cudz604) and forced them into a situation where the only way to survive was to invade and plunder their neighbors. So. Hitler ruined the previously successful economic situation, made military alliances with Italy and Japan that did nothing for him except get him in further trouble with an American enemy and an Italian ally constantly needing help, played hell with the warfront by sacking any general who crossed his opinion, and spent valuable resources creating internal strife by persecuting his own people. So I say Hitler was a good speaker, but a terrible leader.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: r/changemyview is essentially "Teach me How to Groupthink". + + First off, this is an exciting new subreddit for me and I love the idea. However, I can't seem to shake feeling that many of the posts here stem from people's discomfort with their own nonconformity and outlying ideas more than from a thirst for truth. Additional info: I am currently writing an essay on the phenomenon of 'groupthink' so the theme is ripe in my mind. I showed this sub to a friend of mine who immediately believes the moral statuses quo of Tumblr, including contradicting ideas, and has always seemed to me to have difficulty breaking social norms and thinking for herself. Her immediate reaction was to dismiss all posts she saw as 'stupid' (that'd be the first page of 'hot' at time of posting). This, no doubt, has influenced my view. I'd like to highlight again that I am excited to have found this sub and I'll be visiting here often. But I'd like to discuss this idea first. P.S. I'm so meta I post requests for people to change my view about /r/changemyview on /r/changemyview as a critique of /r/changemyview.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: It is neither derogatory nor a promotion of sexual assault when heterosexual males express their desire to have sex with females. + + I believe that in our current society, heterosexual men are often shamed for expressing their sexuality. Obviously, any specific incident in which a heterosexual male is criticized may or may not be misogynistic based the context of the situation. So this post is mainly inspired by a recent event in the news when a fraternity was suspended for posting banners on their house. You can read about it [here](http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Virginia-Fraternity-Suspended-Over-Freshman-Daughter-Drop-Off-Sign-322740331.html) or [here](http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/08/24/virginia-frat-suspended-old-dominion-university/32298193/) The basic summary is that a fraternity posted signs with the following messages: in response, the university president made the following statement equating the posters to condoning sexual assault: It is my view that the banners posted by the fraternity are merely expressing their desire to have sex with women, and never say anything about sexual assault. Equating the two is a fallacy, and is unfair to the men who made the posters. Furthermore, the Fraternity president made the following statement equating the posters to demeaning women: It is my view that no part of these banners were derogatory or demeaning to anyone. They might be vulgar because they carry a sexual implication, but implying a desire to have sex with women is not inherently demeaning to women. Equating vulgar language with demeaning women is also a fallacy.	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 laws requiring women to cover their breasts in america are no different than laws requiring women to cover their hair and faces in Islamic countries. + + So, people in my city are complaining that women are walking around topless in times square. Their fear is that the display of these sexual body parts is contributing to a decay in public decency. However, in Islamic countries, a woman's hair is seen as a sexual body part and their display is seen as contributing to the decay of public decency. I know that the punishments vary from country to country and it may seem more like a slap on the wrist in america, but I think both examples are based on a ridiculous premise. What is the difference here?	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: The stock market is a scam and only serves to make rich people richer by stealing from the labors of the working class + + Full disclosure: my BS is in engineering, not economics, and I'm an avowed socialist. Anyway, it seems to me that the stock market exists solely to perpetuate the accumulation of wealth at the top by people who do nothing of value. It seems immoral to me that people who don't work can make money by assigning imaginary value to the work that other people do and profiting on speculating about that work that they don't do. When their speculation gets especially irresponsible because of completely unchecked greed the economy collapses and the working class is left holding the bag, while the truly, fantastically rich laugh all the way to the bank. Can anyone explain to me why something like the stock market has to exist, or what benefit it is to the working class? I'm willing to do the reading if someone can point me in the right direction.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Modern feminism is hypocritical and flawed + + To say that women and men are equal is simply incorrect. I absolutely do not mean to say that one is better than the other, only that there are fundamental physiological differences between men and women that feminists appear to disregard. Now, in my opinion feminism seeks to advocate that anything that men can do, women can also but only when its convenient. To me it seems like feminists want to have their cake and eat it too. I will give a few examples that I always think about to illustrate my point. 1. The Ray Rice incident. What happened was unfortunate and of course he shouldn't have hit his wife. However, if this was Ray hanging out with another football player and knocked him out, this would not have been a story. Its because he punched a woman that this became a big deal. How can the feminist movement suggest "Men should NEVER lay their hands on a woman" but still say that men and women are equal. My answer is that its because men are generally stronger than women, but then that's my point. If you are going to advocate that they are equal then they should receive equal treatment. Again, CMV. 2. Rape cases. In college I have been required to watch numerous sexual harassment videos and attend mandatory training seminars on sexual assault. In these videos they always paint the male as a bad guy and its always targeted towards men. Perhaps I have misunderstood something but if a guy and a girl are both under the influence and they decide to have sex, the girl can then decide the next day that maybe it wasn't a good idea and that the guy should have known better. The guy is then facing rape charges. Why is this on the guy? People use the phrase "Victim Blaming" and say that its not on the girl regardless of the fact that she drunk. So what if she had gotten drunk and drove her car into a tree. Can she then say "Maybe that wasn't a good idea" and then get off the hook? 3. The draft. This one has also bothered me. According to the United States Selective Service Act, all men between ages 18-25 are required to register for the draft and may be picked for military service if the draft were to be implemented. Why are feminists all over the country not outraged about this? Shouldn't it be men AND women that are required to register for the draft? After all, men and women should be able to perform wartime duties equally right? It just seems like people pick and choose when its convenient for gender equality Of course there are certain things that should be equal. Wages, education, etc. However I feel that a push for gender equality in every aspect of life is fundamentally wrong. CMV!	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Weinberg was wrong when he said that "for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." + + The full quote from Steven Weinberg can be found [here](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Steven_Weinberg). I've seen people use this quote many times. To me, it's inflammatory anti-religious nonsense. I'm interested to see the other perspective. Have I misunderstood his quote? Is there something about human nature that I've misunderstood? First of all, I recognize that religion can cause good people to do bad things. It has done it many times and it will continue to do so. ISIS is the most obvious example right now, but there are countless other examples as well. What I can't understand is the last sentence: He seems to be saying that only religion can cause good people to do bad things. This seems like total nonsense to me. TONS of things can cause good people to do bad things. For example, soldiers who commit war crimes sometimes do so because they were "just following orders," out of a sense of patriotism, or in order to protect their families. Poverty can make good people do evil things. Drugs can, too. They can temporarily taking away people's sanity, which causes them to do stupid things. Or drug addictions can drive people to such financial desperation that they're willing to do evil things to get their next hit. --- Let me explain what I understand by "good people" and "evil things." Perhaps I haven't properly understood what Weinberg meant by these words? A "good person" is someone who wouldn't normally do an evil thing without the influence of some outside force. In the case of this quote, the "outside force" is religion. An "evil thing" is anything that society generally sees as extremely bad, such as murder. In order to CMV, please: * convince me that religion is the only thing that can cause good people to do evil things. * show me that I could've misunderstood Weinberg. * show me that my definitions of "good person" or "evil thing" are wrong (in the context of Weinberg's quote, of course). * anything else that shows that anything I've said is wrong.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Direct democracy is more sustainable than representative democracy. + + My main points against representative democracy are: * People vote for their own interests, and representatives are no different. * At some point(probably due to the accumulation of too much money in too few hands) the desires of the smaller group of representatives clash with the desires of the many. People get fed up with living under plutocracies that they feel they can't trust. * If democracy is a scale from 1-100, where that's a percentage of who gets to vote, so a dictatorship would probably be 0.000029%, and representative democracy might be 0.05%, then it implies that people who are partial towards democracy would prefer the ideal state of 100% democracy. If you prefer less than 100%, then you inherently think some people don't deserve to have their desires represented, and are by definition against the ideas of democracy. * There isn't a practical selection process whereby we could choose people to do what's best for others. A meritocracy is unachievable, because there is no good process to select them. Which leads us to --> * If we think that people are smart enough to elect representatives, why are they not smart enough to vote on legislation directly? * Participation in sites like reddit prove that people want direct democracy; which in government would be the ability to create and vote on legislation as if it were a post. Which is why representative democracies everywhere seem to have devolved into plutocracies. People are getting fed up with it, and starting to support non-establishment candidates or parties. Which is exactly what we're seeing, in new political parties like the pirate party, podemos, syriza, which all tend toward direct democracy. Even countries without strong direct democracy movements, are having candidates trending in that direction: bernie sanders and jeremy Corbyn. It seems inevitable that our governmental systems trend from power being concentrated in one person, to becoming more decentralized. If autocracy is at one end, and direct democracy is at the other, then representative democracy lies somewhere in the imperfect middle. TL:DR; People get fed up when the desires of their representatives clash with their own, and revolt against any concentration of power.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Country music is absolutely terrible. + + Country music was not always bad. There were legends such as Johnny Cash who defined what country music was. However, today the country music culture is full of songs about booze, trucks, tractors, and women. Almost every song sounds exactly the same, following the same chord structure, tone, and melodies. There is no creativity when it comes to country music and it has not had a positive influence on the music industry. Although there may be a few exceptions to this, the majority of modern country is awful, redundant, and lacks any sort of meaning.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: People who have sex with multiple partners (I'm talking many, many one-nighters here), are often deeply insecure or in some way damaged. + + I have a few friends who sleep around a lot. One person in particular told me yesterday that they had slept with 6 people in the last two weeks (I'm keeping this purposefully gender-neutral to avoid a biased response). They didn't massively like any of the partners as people, they just wanted to have sex. Which is fine. I love sex, and I think it's great, but I could never feel okay with having that many sexual partners in such a short space of time. I can't help but feel that there must be something deeply broken about someone who IS okay with it. Either they're very insecure and in need of some sort of validation, or they have no respect for themselves and a very low sense of self-worth. Change my view please!	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV:Most of the new jobs being created after the recession are low wage "McJobs" + + So I graduated from college in December of 2012 and started on my job search shortly thereafter. While on the job search I noticed that there were way more minimum wage jobs than actual careers and that the actual middle class careers were really hard to get into because they were sought after by so many people. I primarily looked on job boards like h2h.jobs and the local department of labor, but also applied on companies hiring portals that were known for providing well paying jobs. Further backing my anecdotal evidence was the fact that the city I was living in during my job search built a new shopping mall and a new walmart. Afterwards the politicians and several members of the community wrote letters to the newspaper boasting about all the new "jobs" that were created by the new shopping mall and Walmart and how much better the economy was doing. Additionally, there was a section in my newspaper about new businesses coming to the area - 82 to be exact. Each and everyone of these new "businesses" was a big box retail store, chain restaurant, or fast food restaurant. [This report](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/10/14/why-were-facing-a-mcjob-recovery) and [this one](http://lancasteronline.com/news/local/high-wage-good-jobs-outpace-mcjobs-in-recovery-report-finds/article_90713e96-44f8-11e5-a0c8-87843f54fdbf.html) make contrary arguments on the "McJobs" recovery but they both have data that says middle income jobs have not reached their pre-recession levels and low-wage jobs are higher than pre-recession levels. Please say it ain't so reddit! So do we all live in a low wage economy now? ETA: I had to go back and redo my HTML formatting. Also, I had to move to take a job after college in a different city. I couldnt be happier but I keep reading these doom and gloom articles about the low wage recovery and I believe them even though I hope they are false. While the city I live in now is bigger and has much more opportunity there still are plenty of retail outlets and restaurants.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: I think that private schooling and homeschooling should be made illegal, and everyone be forced to attend public school. + + I have never seen any benifit to private school. The only thing it does is creates social inequality from the start. The kids who go to private schools are usually rich white kids that already have a socioenconomic advantage. I was a regular upper-middle class guy who went to public school. I loved it. My school was great. We went on fun field trips, and even a trip to Europe. Homeschooling your kid is just insurance that he/she will be socially awkward, and disadvantaged. Lots of homeschooling involves religious indoctrination, and very one-sided opinions. In public school you are exposed to many different views, opinions, and types of people. These problems would be solved if everyone had to go to public school. Everyone would have an equal education, and equal opportunity.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: In the movie Jurassic World, Hoskins had a point + + In the movie Jurassic World, Hoskins was the head of the park security who wanted to use the raptors for military purposes. He argued that the raptors obeying Owen proved they could be trained to hunt down the enemy, thus saving human lives who would have been risked by having to do it themselves. He later becomes one of the movie's villains (the Indominus was just an animal following it's instincts so it's not a villain even if it's an antagonist) by inviting the military into the park in a coup d'etat to control the situation. They use the raptors to hunt down the Indominus, with the raptors obeying Owen, until they find it and realize it's part raptor. The raptors then turn on the soldiers, seemingly proving that they are too dangerous to use that way. Then Hoskins is killed by a raptor when trying to get the data on the project, which seems to be an ironic "he got what he was asking for". But then Owen manages to get the raptors to follow him again in his fight against the Indominus at the end. The movie tries to send a message that was stated in earlier Jurassic Park movies, "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should." The hero doesn't want to use the raptors and they obey him. The military man who wants to use raptors to kill ironically gets killed by raptors. But the raptors turning on the military was entirely based on the enemy being a giant raptor hybrid. Anywhere else in the world and the idea would have worked out great. The raptors proved how just four of them could decimate a group of highly skilled soldiers even when the soldiers knew what they were fighting against. And even after the raptors had turned on Owen, they showed their loyalty by coming back to him and fighting to the death for him. Which again points to them being very loyal against anything other than a giant alpha raptor. They are great soldiers and the movie shows this repeatedly while vilifying the one wanting them to be soldiers.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?