input
stringlengths 89
9.33k
| output
stringclasses 2
values | instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|
CMV: Slipknot is bad. +
+ My boyfriend really likes Slipknot so I've been listening to it a lot recently. I think they are bad, all their songs sound similar, and they cater to an immature audience. It's the kind of music I would have listened to in 7th grade when I was feeling rebellious. I think if you are an adult listening to it then you probably are immature. I don't think it's quality music, I think the screaming and horror-esque nature of their music is a shtick that is way over played. I don't think any mature balanced adult would listen and enjoy their music.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Age of consent laws are based on faulty anecdotes +
+ Age of consent laws around the world vary dramatically, and even within the US there is a wide range of things that are acceptable or unacceptable depending on what state you are in. Most people are in support of age of consent laws, and will very aggressively assert that they want to protect the children. Many people will tell you that a sexual relationship between an adult and a child who is X years old is unquestionably damaging to the child, where X is usually a completely arbitrary number.
There is no doubt to me that an adult is capable of abusing a child in a relationship, and that the adult is capable of abusing the child in a way that the child believes they are consenting and does not believe they are being abused. I also believe that adults are capable of doing this to eachother in relationships where both people are of the consenting age.
Where things start to get shaky is the point when people start asserting that all sexual relationships are abusive once the 'victim' is below a certain age. I do not believe that there is sufficient scientific evidence to back up this claim. I do not believe that healthy sexual relationships occurring between adults and teens or children are given the proper room to breathe or prosper: as soon as a child is discovered to be in a sexual relationship with an adult, that child will be told repeatedly that their sexual partner is a bad person and that their sexual partner has abused them. I believe that this alone is sufficient to damage the child, regardless of whether the sexual relationship itself was damaging. Children are highly vulnerable to suggestion.
I believe that more rigorous scientific investigation is necessary to justify the age of consent laws, and that once the scientific evidence comes out, the age of consent laws should be adjusted accordingly. I know that, as a teenage boy, especially by 14 (but even, to a smaller degree, as early as 8 or 9) I would have been excited to engage in a sexual relationship with an attractive female. I don't see how this would have resulted in abuse or psychological damage (assuming, of course, that my partner had my best interests in mind). But that's just the problem, it's nothing more than an anecdote. People who oppose my views also provide anecdotes.
The amount of scientific research in this area is lacking, and lots of the mania surrounding child abuse laws come from unproven ideas about child innocence and susceptibility to abuse. As an even bolder step, I believe most age of consent laws are largely baseless as far as genuine evidence is concerned. (as a side note, these beliefs also extend to other child abuse laws, and also extend to student-teacher relationship laws).
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: The Koran wants us all dead. +
+ Unless we convert, of course.
Let me just say that Islam has been through many reforms and most muslims don't wish for the death of anyone. There is a great deal of integration between Islam and modern society, but this isn't about the moderate majority. Also, terrorism and warfare in the Middle East are heavily fueled by politics.
If we accept that the Koran is the primary source of all that is Islam, and we accept that some (hundreds of millions?) individuals believe that the Koran is the unqestionable word of God, and we accept that the Koran clearly calls for the murder of nonbelievers (In the form of over 100 verses and the violent actions of Muhammad himself), then it follows that we've got a serious problem on our hands that will persist for as long as Islam remains.
So, what am I missing here? Why are we all tolerating it? Nothing we can do about it? Afraid we'll be murdered for speaking out? Even the most brutally honest public figures, like comedians, will never mention Islam. Penn Jillette has some serious balls just to say this much during an interview about his show "Bullshit".
"Are there any groups you won't go after?"
"We haven't tackled Scientology because Showtime doesn't want us to. Maybe they have deals with individual Scientologists –- I'm not sure. And we haven't tackled Islam because we have families."
Bonus CMV's:
The crusades were clearly justified. They were a defensive war, and a response to muslim aggression into Europe and the Middle East.
If Muhammad was alive today, he would be a supporter of ISIS, or maybe lead it himself.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I feel as if North and South Korea should resume the war for the sake of reunification and prosperity in the big picture. +
+ I'm Korean-American and I have family in Korea. I disagree with many of those I encounter who usually tend to also be of Korean descent when I don't get all too frantic about the idea of war on the peninsula. I feel as if this conflict, whether it is dormant or tense or whatever, must be dealt with in the future and we're just kicking the can down the road.
1. Many people would die, regardless. People are dying under the famines and in the concentration camps. The longer we wait, the more people will suffer and die. Taking action as soon as possible would cause a high death toll but can potentially be made up for it by the fact that we'd be taking action soon and not "whenever unexpected situations lead us to." Plus, it's arguable that simply leaving things be is 'inhumane'.
2. Long-term, a unified Korea would turn into an economic powerhouse. We have two countries with very strong work ethics, a country with a ton of technological advancements and billionaire tech companies, another country with a ton of cheap labor (that can help jump start the economy after unification), lots of natural resources that would offset the costs, and infrastructure that must be built in the northern half of the peninsula. Some experts say a unified Korea can surpass Japan in economic power.
3. I highly doubt China would be as uncomfortable having a unified, US-influenced Korea on their doorstep like people say they'd be. It's not like people aren't able to fly from Beijing to Seoul or New York City; they're aware of lifestyle in first world countries. China and South Korea are, contrary to popular belief, close allies. The number of refugees who would attempt to cross the Chinese border would probably be minimal if China expresses force in the region and South Koreans distribute food effectively and quickly. Furthermore, they know they'd have to go through sex trafficking and risk of death if they want to go through China... and then go where?
I have a very open mind when it comes to this issue. The reason why I am posting this is because I see others worrying a lot when seeing news of a potential resumption of war while I feel a sense of hope. But my thinking may be entirely backwards. I'd like to see opposing arguments to this topic. Thanks for reading!
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Airshows are totally unnecessary +
+ Hello folks,
As you may have seen footage of a disaster in Sussex during an airshow, it made me think. I am always met with an argument that "Anything can kill and you should probably hide in a bunk." or "Driving is dangerous too". Well, this is different. Driving is a necessity right now and I cannot wait for a day in the future where driverless car can save millions of lives. I can understand a show in a remote place where people consciously make the decision to take their kids and watch it. I am fine with that although it makes me question the human race. Are we so limited in finding ways to entertain ourselves that we're okay to risk lives of the pilot and innocent children who are not adult to make the decision themselves? People also bring the argument that the accidents like this are rare. A quick search on google tells me that such accidents happen every year. Again, how can you live with your conscience that something that you support and feel entertained has killed people and brought grief in someone's family.
I am still struggling to find answer to this. How can you explain a show in Sussex where the people who died may not even be remotely interested in the airshow? It's a matter of luck. A brain freeze to a pilot and it's instant death depending where the plane might crash. Today, it's the road. Tomorrow it could be a school. Also, I have heard arguments that airshows provide money to the museum. Again, are we so limiting in our intelligence that we cannot find other avenues to fund the museum? I wouldn't lie that it's amazing to watch the feat we can perform in the sky and the adrenaline rush that people crave but when it has costed lives and traumatized people living in that city, it's one form of entertainment that we can totally live without.
Thank you.
| 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 political attack ads are a misuse of public funds and should be banned +
+ I live in canada so I don't know how this affect other countries but
You often see many youtube, TV, Radio and poster ads attacking other candidates and parties that mainly talk about how the other party/candidate would be bad for this country, the ads I have a problem with are **endorsed** by a political party that used taxpayer money to attack another political party. I think that to use taxpayer to further your own agenda is wrong.
I think that instead of using money to fund public dialogues that they can put on public networks, this would allow them to talk about what problems they have with other parties with the the other parties having the ability to respond and rebuttle if they have proof that they are wrong.
I am also not that smart so I would love to hear any problems with my logic! CMV reddit
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Land claims based on historical prevalence are ridiculous. +
+ My main issue is with groups of people claiming particular lands are theirs due to the fact that their ancestors lived there. The idea seems ridiculous to me, it would be like someone who's good at a particular video game being beaten, but still claiming he's the best at the game because he still has 2nd-10th place, and has been playing it longer. I hear this the most when people are referring to Palestinians in Israel, that the Jews shouldn't be there because "it's Palestinian land." I don't have any stake in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, my question is with land claims in general. Doesn't the current government determine ownership?
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Donald Trump would be a bad president +
+ Donald Trump is a decent businessman who inherited his capital. He's a punchline. A rich punchline, but a punchline all the same.
His views on immigration would not only alienate the countries south and north of the border, essentially saying they can't be trusted not to "send" their criminals here, but it would make us look paranoid to the rest of the world. People can come to the U.S. as tourists from several countries, not just Mexico, completely legally. They then can slip into the sea of people and stay, illegally. The problem with illegal immigration is much more complex than he seems to realize.
The man has no foreign policy experience. Boardroom deals with businessmen and bureaucrats from another country does not equate to nation-to-nation diplomacy.
His national defense ideas that I've heard seem to amount to, "more guns and let's tell other countries to screw off."
The Democrats' stance that the rich want to influence policy to get richer does not exclude Donald Trump. Who is to say he wouldn't endorse policies that would make it easier for both him and his kids to double their fortune?
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Divorce, no matter the kind, shouldn't punish anyone, and no one should be forced to pay the other being. +
+ Before I begin, I would like to point something out. I assume that this is bound to be brought up, so I will answer this first. "That means that marriage isn't as special and you can just drop out freely whenever you want". I don't see this as a viable argument, because if someone is going to leave, then they have a reason to. Even if its a bad reason, or a really good reason, making the person stay by the threat of losing lots of money and/or possessions will only make the marriage worse and worse and cause the couple to fight more and more.
I see no reason whatsoever why anyone should be able to take legal action if their spouse decides to leave then. If someone leaves a marriage, it means they are unhappy with it, or have lost feelings for the other person. And like I said in my first statement, making the person stay in marriage until a joint divorce is (if ever) made by the threat of the person leaving losing a lot of money and/or possessions will only make the marriage worse and worse, leaving 1 or both of the people suffering for years.
Another reason why this is bad is if one person is unhappy in their marriage, and the spouse is forcing them to stay by means of threatening legal action, will leave the unhappy spouse in a terrible marriage for years, or possibly for the rest of their lives.
Change my View Reddit!
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: No bird should ever be a pet, nor does it want to be. Get a cat instead +
+ Birds are meant to fly, not to be caged, and having a bird as a pet, in a cage, is incredibly selfish on your part. Get a cat. What is the allure of having a bird in a cage anyway? It just sits there, somtimes flies around it's little cage but on the whole it feels trapped. Birds should NEVER be pets.
If you're that lazy that 1) you want a pet, but 2) you don't want to put very much effort into it, get a cat. They are very low maitenance and very self reliant. And unlike birds, there are cats out there just begging to be rescued. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: In "Mad Max: Fury Road" Immortan Joe isn't the bad guy (Spoilers) +
+ In Mad Max: Fury Road, the director sets up Immortan Joe to be the ultimate villain devoid of humanity, despite the fact that his actions shown in the movie prove he is not a terrible person but contains the purest and most positive versions of conservative political values. Under the guise of an action movie George Miller has created a propaganda piece to unconsciously convince its audience of his political leanings.
1. The appearance of the characters tells the audience what to think of them. Joe is covered in tumors and has a Darth Vader mask to look menacing and evil. The actresses who play his wives are all clean, healthy and models in real life.
2. Immortan Joe never hurts any of his wives during the course of the movie, or uses violence to do anything but protect his family and friends. There is also no evidence to suggest he raped them or has physically abused them, as they have no bruises or scars except the grazed bullet wound from Max that they point out.
3. Immortan Joe did not treat his wives as "objects" only for the purpose of bearing his children. Max is treated as an object only kept around for his blood and constantly chained up or in a cage. The quick pan of Immortan Joe's palace shows that there was a blackboard, books, a piano, and private quarters for the wives. This shows that he cared enough about them to provide for more than their basic needs to make him sons he wanted them to love him.
4. Immortan Joe created a society in the middle of a nuclear wasteland. That must have been incredibly difficult, but he gets no praise for that only criticism. The vuvulani had a source of fresh and their own farms and they messed it up, but they don't get any blame. Immortan Joe is accused of having "Killed the world" despite having saved it and reestablishing a stable human civilization.
5. The wives write on the walls the reason they left was that they didn't want their sons to be warlords. But after realizing the green place didn't exist they decide its better to murder hundreds of people to take the citadel for themselves rather than to take 160 days to find a new place to live. In the 2 days that they have been driving they have seen 5 places that can evidently support human life. With the 160 days it is very likely they would find another. Once again they are let off the hook for this bloodthirsty rampage because they are depicted as the protagonists.
6. Nux becomes a good guy because he gives up his religion and becomes an atheist. That is his entire character.
7. Immortan Joe and the war boys become very upset about the death of the unborn fetus.
8. Joe gives up significant strategic resources and strains relationships with his allies all in an attempt to get his wives and future child back. In any other movie that would be admirable and make him the hero.
9. Despite water being a valuable resource needed to trade for guzzoline and for his farms, Immortan Joe gives it away charitably to the vagrants on the outskirts of his society and advises them not to become dependent on he generosity.
10. In contrast many of the protagonist are only selfishly motivated. Max doesn't care about helping the wives escape, he is only doing what is best for himself. The group doesn't turn around to get the pregnant one who fell off and survived. The Vuvulani don't care about what is best for the people of the citadel they are only trying to put food in their own mouths. They let Nux kill himself so they can escape, even before the engine was torn out the plan did not look good for him.
**Things That Will NOT Convince Me**
-statements from the director, cast, or those involved in the production about their intentions
-any evidence from the extended universe, this was a stand alone work with a self contained story and should be analyzed as such.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I know I am wrong, but I feel robbed when I have to pay taxes. I don't feel evasion as a crime and I hate the Government. Please, change my view. +
+ I've been living in Romania and there have been almost 70 years since our Governments have been stealing our money and spent it on things which didn't concern our welfare but only the interests of an elite. That's why I formed this condition to consider paying taxes a stupid thing.
Recently though, Romania has started to spend the budget more wisely (thanks to our Justice which has been sending to jail lots of corrupt politicians), by my reflex seems to have survived: I simply cannot cope with the idea of paying the Government. I feel it's a waste of money (even though I know it isn't necessarily) | malleable | 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 to pay people money to do embarrassing things. +
+ There's this Russian youtuber who's a grandson of a billionaire and he makes videos where he comes up to random people on the street and pays them (usually around 100-300 bucks) to do different things like lick his shoe, take their dress off in public and eat a bunch of ruble notes. He paid this one guy 200 bucks to drink a cup of his pee, which caused quite an uproar in the community.
I feel like there's a good reason why this is bad, but can't really put my finger on it so my current stance is that it's okay as long as he's not forcing anyone and his actions don't cause any real harm.
CMV | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: It's irrational to keep a gun in your home for self-defense +
+ *[This article](https://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2012/12/health-risk-having-gun-home) does a pretty good job of pulling the relevant statistics together that I find convincing. In searching for critiques of those statistics I found [this article](http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/defensive-gun-ownership-gary-kleck-response-115082.html#.Vdm1n_lVhBc) that lays out some criticisms of the first article's source study, along with a rebuttal from another journalist who's written on the topic.*
I believe that:
1. You, or someone in your family, are more likely to be killed by your gun either purposefully or accidentally than you are to use the gun against an attacker successfully in self-defense.
2. Therefore, if your goal is to make yourself and/or your family safer, then choosing to keep a gun in your home explicitly for that purpose is an irrational decision.
I do believe there is one exception to this. If you have a particular reason or belief that you are likely to be attacked, then, since the odds of being attacked have increased dramatically, then it may be rational to have a gun in the house for self-defense. For example, if you have a stalker. If you have received threats on your life. If you have any reasonable belief that someone will try to harm you specifically. If government or police forces have broken down. Basically, if the odds change so that for you the risk of you or your family being attacked is greater than the risk of having a gun in the house, then it would be rational to have a gun.
But we do know, statistically, on average, that is not the case. So for the average person, the risks are such that the rational decision for maximizing safety is to not keep a gun.
I further believe that if you get other uses out of the gun other than just self-defense, then the other added benefits of having a gun would make it rational to keep one in the house. For example, if somebody was a hunter and or target shooter and they get a lot of joy out of their hobby, that could be worth the risk of gun ownership. Or even if someone cited tradition, or the need of an armed populace as a check on the government, that too could be a perceived benefit to them that makes the safety risk worthwhile. I'm strictly speaking about what's the best decision for maximizing personal and family safety.
Change my view by showing me that the risk of harm to you or your family is lower by having a fire arm in the house.
| 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 incestual marriage should be legalized. +
+ My view is that I believe in incestual relationships and I'm going to give a few reasons why:
The reason behind my post is the recent legalization of homosexual marriage in all of the US. To expand, think of marriage and sex, it's between two people that are willing (and old enough) to give consent, so gay marriage fits these guidelines and therefore was legalized. So if you apply the same logic, incestual relationships should be legalized as long as the couple involved are of legal age of consent, but many will disagree because of the fact that the offspring of the incest couple will be more likely to be disabled (which is true), however, it's not illegal to have babies if you have illnesses such as Huntingtons. Feel free to change my view, and let mine embrace you.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: It is more valuable for an English speaker to learn an East Asian language than any European language +
+ If you genuinely have an interest in an European country or language, then that beats any reason to learn an East Asian one. However, learning Mandarin Chinese, Japanese or Korean is more valuable than learning any European language.
-Travel
It's easier for Europeans to learn English and harder for East Asians to learn English.
Most Europeans at the very least speak basic English, and most East Asians only know English words.
You can travel across Europe only knowing English, but in East Asia it helps more to know the language.
I don’t consider places like South America and China to be developed enough to travel through, other than tourist spots catering to English speakers.
-Media
When it comes to media, East Asian countries have their own isolated worlds. Going through their music, films, television and books can almost feel like visiting an alien world since so little reaches the west.
Specifically Japan and South Korea are economic powerhouses and understand the importance of [soft power](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_power), and as a means produce a lot more films, music, games, comics, literature and TV than any European or South American country.
-Availability
European languages have more speakers than East Asian languages, but most Europeans already speak English.
For an American there may be a lot Latin American immigrants, but there are Asian immigrants everywhere in the world.
East Asian languages might not be as widely available, but their populations are educated, travel a lot, and have [more native speakers than other European languages.](http://i.imgur.com/SDrGTr8.jpg)
-Difficulty
East Asian languages are said to be notoriously hard by Europeans, but with technology in just the recent years it has become a lot easier. Chinese characters, hangul and Japanese writing systems can now be learned on your smartphone by playing games with apps like memrise or anki.
A lot of European-language speakers complain about how complex European grammar tends to be, whereas East Asian grammar often is “logical” and straight to the point (with exceptions, as any language).
If you disclude writing systems, East Asian languages would be easier to learn as a spoken language than European ones for someone who has experience with neither.
-Cultural benefits
It’s almost as if their worlds are isolated from ours.
Learning a widely different language helps us understand the structures of our own languages. Learning about a completely different culture helps us understand the uniqueness of our own culture.
European cultures are often so similar that we only tend to think of simple things as being differentiating between countries, but what makes us unique as westerners becomes much more apparent when compared to a country at the other side of the world.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Guys with sexy women as their phone's background are socially awkward. +
+ I see a bunch of these posts on Reddit. Guys posting their cool new lockscreen or wallpaper of some half naked chick and it simply amazes. Odds are, you will have someone using your phone at some point. Maybe you're asking a stranger to take a picture. Maybe a friend's phone died and they need to borrow yours. Maybe your mom needs it for a second, for whatever reason. What could possibly go through someone's mind thinking that this is a normal thing to do? Every time I see someone starting one of those threads I automatically assume they are socially awkward and don't spend time with people. | 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 hope for mankind or this world, life is pointless and all our best efforts are empty, as nature is set up in a way that evil, destruction, and ignorance will always win in the end +
+ Basically, I was looking at some YouTube videos from different places, doing some research on the internet, reading political polls, scientific polls, and reading about history and psychology when I finally reached a conclusion. Because of the way the natural world works, destruction, ignorance, and evil, will always win.
Let me start out by saying, philosophically, I'm a cynic, fatalist (not in the spiritual predetermined sense, but more in the sense that the laws of nature predetermine reality), and an existential nihilist. Basically, nothing really matters, this world and especially mankind are hopeless, and despite our best efforts out struggles are ultimately sadly, but surely, futile.
Why do I say evil and destruction are predetermined to win? One simple fact, destruction is just so much easier than creation. I have some examples:
1. Look at the Twin Towers, they took decades to build, had hundreds of construction workers, planners, managers, and businessmen that went into building them. Upon completion they housed thousands of workers and was a center for economics. Hundreds of workers, decades, and thousands of lives, all of that torn down because one day a couple hijackers with an airplane decided they wanted to hurt our country. In response our country then killed millions of their people.
2. Next, nearly three years ago now, young children all went to enjoy just a comfortable day at school, they went to spend time with their friends, learn, and go home and tell their parents all about it. Some teachers watched over them. Love, care, money, billions of years of evolution, all of it ended when one day a deranged man decided the best way to make a point was to go to that school and end the lives of those innocent children and the teachers that watched over them.
3. In our modern world, billions of years of evolution and biodiversity are being destroyed because the human race needs more and more. The planet we inhabit is far behind our singular, greedy goal of accumulating power and wealth. And then, rather than accept the hard truths, most humans would rather listen to the politicians that would happily stick a knife into their back. Billions of years of biodiversity, all destroyed within 500 years of industrialization.
Honestly, in this world, how could goodness, creation, and knowledge possibly win? How could creation and life win if destruction and death is so much easier? How could knowledge and wisdom win if fear always drags people to ignorance? How could good win when the core of a human is entirely selfish?
My view is simply this, the world will not change, for it *cannot* change. It doesn't matter what happens, the victims will either always remain the same or switch out, destruction will always reign supreme, and fear and ignorance will always lead to one man killing another for his resources rather than working together to cultivate them.
I implore you to change my bleak views, because, honestly, on a dying planet, as a member of a species that has begun to pride itself on ignorance, where things like race and sexual orientation matter more than survival and cooperation, where a group of friends can spend weeks orchestrating a magnificent picnic only for a maniac with a gun to decide their lives don't matter ending it instantly, I don't know what else to think other than that evil has such a massive advantage over good and will always come out on top. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Allowing your prepubescent child to become severely over/underweight is child abuse. +
+ It is absolutely essential to keep a child at a normal weight. Parents in this day and age should have advice and information on what healthy eating actually is. Allowing your kids to develop a condition such as obesity, which leads to severe cardiovascular damage on all levels and a shortened life, could be seen as bad parenting. Parental failure to provide their children with adequate treatment for a chronic illness (asthma, diabetes, epilepsy, etc) is a well accepted reason for a child protection registration for neglect. I believe that childhood obesity become a child protection concern when parents behave in a way that actively promotes treatment failure in a child who is at serious risk from their weight and when the parents or carers understand what is required. Even though others may point out the existence of factors such as the marketing of unhealthy foods, the primary responsibility falls on the parents every time. Existing laws could be applied. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: How is it moral that we are tossed into jail prior to being convicted by a jury of our peers, by simply being arrested? +
+ This question focuses on the US justice system, though it seems to be prevalent in all countries I know. Essentially by virtue of the law, you are innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, how is it fair or sensible that you can be arrested and put in jail with potentially other violent criminals, and treated like one yourself; without being convicted? No proof has been presented to incarcerate you.
In short, how is it moral to treat people like criminals before their conviction?
I do understand that if an arrest is made, it is sensible that that person be detained (rather important if you literally catch someone committing murder or something violent like this). But until proven being a shadow of a doubt, should you not be detained in a location that is more humane and safe? At the very least, your on room with privacy and no danger. Is this simply not a practical? Would it just cost too much?
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I should avoid relationships my whole life. +
+ I am 23 and have only had one actual girlfriend before, but I had 5 or 6 sexual partners in college, off the top of my head. I don't consider myself socially awkward in the least, but I am often quiet and have had a couple girls I know tell me I am "aloof" and "reserved." Several girls I've been with have told me that I could get any girl I want based on my looks and intelligence, but instead of making me cocky, it hasn't done anything to improve my lack of confidence. I have a quick temper, but I'm good at controlling it. During the work week, I don't socialize much just because I don't have much time to. When I socialize on the weekends, I usually "bro-out" and go grab a few drinks with a couple of my buddies, although I do often get invited to large gatherings/parties and my friends almost always let me know if there's a big gathering happening. So basically, I'm not meeting girls on a frequent basis and I'm not really sure how to do it doesn't include drinking in some way or another. Sometimes I try to imagine what life would be like if I never get into another relationship to prepare myself for that possibility. I did well with the college hookup scene, but am clueless when it comes to post-grad socializing...
There are very slim pickings at my work for potential dates (by that, I mean there is only girl I would consider dating, and she is basically one of the guys) and I don't believe I'm going to find the love of my life in one of the dive bars near my house, so I am not meeting a lot of girls that interest me with my current lifestyle. I'm not interested in online dating, either, so I don't really have a lot of options, which is why I'm considering giving up.
| 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 religious studies should be a required aspect of a student's curriculum +
+ I would first like to clarify that I am aware that some countries do this, laws are different, some places like the Bible Belt would likely use it to push a single ideology etc., but this is more focusing on the concept instead of the logistics. I believe in a non-biased environment, a course covering religion (ancient myths to modern religion and secularism) is an extremely important subject to learn. Regardless of individual beliefs, religion has played a massive influence on art, culture, conflict, and civilization as a whole. In addition, with the ease of mass communication that we have now, religions are becoming much more mixed in certain areas. It is often the case that people, do to their environment, have certain incorrect presumptions about different faiths that are never discussed (e.g. "Atheists are immoral individuals", "All Christians believe the earth is 6000 years old", "All Muslims are violent terrorists"). I believe a course would help people understand more of other faiths, and perhaps cause them to question their own (which they may not have done) or consider others.
| 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 Keep the Nipple Contained +
+ I believe supporters of the "Free the Nipple" (FTN) campaign are miss guided. The movement's aim is to increase gender equality by ignoring our differences and allowing woman to show body parts everyone one in OUR society acknowledges as sexual. I believe that people should have the right not to be exposed, with-in reason, to sexual content in public. The human race is advanced enough to be able to acknowledge and celebrate our differences and create laws that address the real nature of things, as a society I believe we can have true equality and acknowledge we are all different.
From an ethical point of view the FTN campaign beliefs are too simplistic, they don’t go into the real ethics behind the issue. FTN looks at the issue like this: Men are allowed to show their chest, to be equal women need to be allowed show their chest. But if we allow one group to show sexual parts of their body, which most people don’t want to be exposed to without consent, are we more equal? Or less? Would men be able to show their testicles under FTN’s reasoning? If women can show their sexual parts that people don’t wanna see can men show their sexual parts that people don’t wanna see.
We should accept our differences and create deeper laws that fit all, with true equality. Right now I think the laws we have are fair, there’s no “women can’t show their breasts statute” there are public decency laws. I think public decency laws are extremely fair they generally aren’t specific, they let the society choose what is indecent and what isn’t, I think the greater society should choose. If breasts weren’t sexualised as much as they are in our society the laws we have now wouldn’t prosecute free nipples.
Although in most instances I believe the "We shouldn't focus on this issue because there are bigger issues" argument is wrong… we really should be tackling real gender inequality where there are actual principles being violated like the pay gap and female under representation in government.
Let’s take the golden approach – try find absurdities,
You wouldn’t want a man or woman to flash their respective vagina/ penis a you or your kids, I think shown breasts are as sexually thought of as a vagina. If a man flashes his penis at someone it’s quite fairly considered sexual assault.
If we take the simplistic approach that the FTP movement does, men and women should be treated exactly the same, woman wear G strings on the beach, then men can wear G Strings on the beach, if men wore G strings their testicles would show, try telling the mothers that their kids have to exposed to deez nuts to have an equal society – bullshit.
CMV! Goodluck
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The government should fully fund continuing education and certain degree programs that increase productivity. +
+ The most important determinant of a country's standard of living is productivity. Since I've so commonly gotten this response, I want to dispel the notion that wealth is determined by relative skills and represents some finite pie to be divided in different ways; wealth is not a zero-sum proposition. While relative skills determine the proportion of the pie you receive, it has no bearing on the total size of the pie. Therefore, if more people were highly educated, a highly educated worker may not receive high wages relative to the average citizen, but those wages would buy significantly more because the workforce would be hugely more productive and efficient.
Let's start with the low-hanging fruit. I think the easiest way to increase productivity is to help computer-illiterate people. How many people waste time each day typing out 10 emails instead of creating a group that automatically sends it out to a predefined list? How many people even use email filters? Given that the average person spends a few hrs per day going through email, I think teaching the less tech-savvy some shortcuts could realistically allow them to do in 2.5 hrs what they previously did in 3 hrs.
Simple computer skills that could be taught in a three-day seminar and easily save millions of people 30+ minutes a day are not being taught. Instead, we are asking workers who may already be overworked to spend money and time doing something they may not even be sure has value. What if we pay these workers to get basic computer certifications or at least cover their tuition costs? Let's say we pay these workers $1,000 for a week-long course on some basic computer literacy. What's the ROI on that? Well, if they can spend 30 min less per day going through email b/c they know how to do some advanced queries, filter incoming emails, and automatically assign labels depending on who that email is from, that is their wage x money saved. If their wage is $10/hr, that generates an ROI in the first year alone ($5 per 30 min x 300 working days/yr = $1,500). This efficiency will continue to pay dividends throughout that person's working life. Let's say it would have taken 5 yrs for this person to learn these basic habits on their own - we will have increased productivity by $7,500 in that time ($1,500 x 5 yrs) by intervening and paying them to learn to be more productive.
This basic logic applies to areas where there are shortages of workers. Why aren't we paying people to learn computer science? Or nursing? Let's say it costs the government $100k to finance the degree. If they were previously making $50k/yr and now are making $70k/yr, they are generating $20k more per yr. If they have a 30 yr career in this field, they will add $600k to the economy over the course of their career. That's an easy investment to make and a noble one - educating and empowering the people through education.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The SAT should not include trigonometry in their math section. +
+ Most colleges do not require trigonometry for admissions, and do not require students to take a trigonometry course. It seems unfair that the SAT would include this in the math section. Some will argue that it makes sure students are "well rounded," but it's incredibly unfair to use this to test a student's aptitude for college. When I was in high school, I had an 89% overall GPA. I got mid-range scores on the reading and writing sections of the SAT, but did very poorly on the math section. Because of this, I was denied admission to many colleges which I applied to. I understand that my scores in reading and writing were average, but it was the low math score which really hurt my chances of admission. This might seem like a personal argument, but the fact remains that I'm sure many students would agree with me. I understand including algebra and geometry, but I don't see why they include trigonometry. This is a person's future which they are dealing with.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Ignoring religious reasons, it's okay for for towns prohibit the sale of alcohol on Sundays +
+ I think when most people think of liquor laws that prohibit the sale of alcohol they imagine it was conceived of by antiquated religious zealots decades, if not a more than a century, ago. Therefore, if they're opposed towards any sort theoretically motivated law, they think it should be repealed. While that sort of secular thought is sometimes commendable, I don't think this particular kind of law is that bad, and it even has some benefits.
I'm no crusader of temperance. I'm perfectly happy to have a beer with anyone who wants to chill ...on Saturday. The fact is, even though I consider myself very liberal in what kinds of substances people should be allowed to consume, I recognize that many of them, even used properly in moderation, have consequences for health in the long term. Alcohol will do a number on your liver (besides all those carbs you're drinking), so you probably shouldn't drink it everyday. If there was any good day to abstain, it'd be Sunday. Why not go to bed early and sober to start the week fresh?
And if you absolutely, positively want to have a drink on Sunday, you still can, it just takes a modicum of planning ahead. So I don't see this as any serious infringement of 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: It is not vain to listen to, and enjoy your own music that you've created. +
+ I often come across people that react to an artist listening to, and really being into their own music, as being a vain person. Like they are so in love with themselves.
However, when an artist creates music, what they are doing, is just creating exactly what they want to hear. Their guide for what they decide what to do is whether or not they like it. If they don't like something, they change it, or re-work it.
So, when an artist creates music, it makes perfect sense that it would be music they would really enjoy listening to.
It's like making a sandwich. When you make a sandwich, you make it with all the ingredients you want it to have. You choose the condiments, and cuts of meat or whatever, knowing how it's going to taste. You might re-work your sandwich to build a sandwich that you really like. But eating your sandwich and enjoying it, isn't vain. It's not like you're in love with yourself because you made a sandwich you really like.
It's like that with music. You create music you want to listen to, based on your taste in music.
Just because you make a sandwich you like it doesn't mean nobody else can make sandwiches you like, but it also doesn't mean you are vain, and in love with yourself if you love eating the sandwiches you learned to make.
So, I don't think there is anything wrong with listening to your own music, or dancing to it, or acknowledging that you like it, any more than acknowledging that you like your sandwich you made.
Especially during improvisation, because the ideas you are coming up with are often nearly as much of a surprise for you, as they are for everyone else, it's just you thought of it a fraction of a second earlier than other people heard it. And on top of that, they are your honest idea of exactly the type of thing you want to hear, or feel, that's why you chose to play it. Of course hearing interesting ideas that you would never think of in a million years, is also cool. But anyways, 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 am pro-gun, and against most forms of gun control. +
+ Nothing unusual here. I believe people have the right to defend themselves to the best of their ability, instead of relying on the Powers That Be to protect them. I also think it is a useful check on the ultimate power of the State.
To elaborate, when you are under attack, the single best tool you can have is a gun. It immediately redefines the situation and makes death a very real possibility for your assailant. If a mugger comes for an unarmed man, the risk is the guy yelling or maybe trying to punch you vs. the reward of his smartphone and whatever's in his wallet. Not bad. If he has a gun, it tips the scale way, way over to the risk side. A gun doesn't even have to be fired to defuse a situation. Without one, you are reduced to giving the guy every valuable thing you have and hoping he's feeling nice at the end of it. In other situations, calling the cops. After all, when seconds count, the Police are only minutes away. I don't think the government can reasonably expect their citizens to place that much trust in them.
Also, guns are a tremendous equalizer. Barring unusual circumstances, a women is very unlikely to win a physical confrontation with a man. If she has a gun, and her attacker does not, she has a tremendous advantage. If the attacker does as well, they are evenly matched at worst. Significantly better odds than giving away all your stuff and placing your faith in human decency. This is also true for the elderly and any man of below average fighting prowess. Put simply, guns empower the weak and put them on even terms with the strong.
I think guns are also a useful check on the government's power. To be clear, I am not some crazy redneck living in the mountains planning on toppling the government. It is simply an indisputable fact that mass ownership of guns is power to the people. Now, you may argue that "the people" are stupid and can't be trusted with that power. A valid perspective I suppose, though not one very compatible with democracy. If the citizens are armed, the state is much more limited in what they can do. There's a big difference between people throwing bricks at jack-booted thugs and shooting bullets. In countries with strict gun control, the government can push their people much farther before facing serious retribution. It tips the power balance strongly in favor of the government. Nobody is happy with the US government, but they could never descend to the level of actual tyranny before we overthrew them.
Also, an armed citizenry makes your country much more formidable in a war. The US obviously doesn't have to worry about that, but there's a reason no one ever messes with the Swiss. Fighting the entire population of a country instead of just the army is a daunting proposition, and a significant deterrent to would-be invaders. Not everyone has to be worried about this, but it is a factor.
Finally, anyone who responds saying "Lol, what's a rifle going to do against an M1 Abrams?" really needs to google the words "guerrilla" or "Afghanistan". Or perhaps "tactical literacy".
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Hunting is an antiquated sport that should be banned. +
+ First, what I refer to as "hunting" is the killing or trapping of any animal, with the purpose of doing so, as sport, whether it be to eat them as food or keep them as trophies. I am not talking about the regulated hunting of threatening species or the killing of animals in situations where they pose significant danger.
Recently, we've seen the story of Cecil the lion become big news across the country and in the world at large. The fact that we as humans hold dominion over all other earthly creatures necessitates the notion of a responsibility we have in keeping balance and order to the food chain, considering that humans are the top of it.
Killing for sport is something--one could argue--not inherent only in humans, but we've taken it beyond what it means if an animal were to kill another animal for sport just by sheer organization. I'm speaking of our current gaming rules and regulations in place, meant to keep this balance--one would want to believe--but a system well beyond anything an animal killing another animal for sport could come up with, for obvious reasons. And, as the story of Cecil the lion illustrates, the system governing wildlife from being hunted and killed is flawed, to say the least.
In regards to the act of hunting, and then using prey as food, I would argue that in our modern society, this is completely unnecesary, given the obvious institutions in place all ready, i.e., the supermarket.
The bottom line may be that hunting exists because we as humans enjoy it, it is thrilling to us, but should that condone its existence? We condemn the murder of humans. Why view other animals any different in that regard?
Admittedly, the quandary I have with my argument is that I feel it should be banned all over the world. However, due to the problems and beliefs of other societies around the world, some of which being so underdeveloped that hunting game is a valuable source of income, I have to limit my banning to the United States alone. By doing this, I'm brought back to the senseless killing of Cecil the lion, which was done in a different country. I argue, though, that it was carried out by an American, one who believed in the sport of hunting, who willingly paid tens of thousands of dollars to do it, and that, had he come from a society that looked down on the sport, he might not have had such determination to carry out what he did.
Lastly, I say it is *antiquated*, but that is a reflection of my opinion based on the notion that hunting was a means of surviving which is no longer necessary in our current society. This definition recognizes that at one point, there was a reason at some point in history for its existence, however.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: For women, sex is a "want" and not a "need", please CMV +
+ First of all, i do not like to believe this because i've been told over and over and over that it isn't true, but i keep seeing more and more evidence of it as the years pass (and in fact i feel a bit guilty for actually believing it, therefore this post), and second i'm speaking of average people here, i know there's asexuals and sex addicts, but those are the outliers, not the common case.
What i see is that while for men sex is a *need*, like hunger and all (a need that doesn't kill us but instead makes us suffer if unsatisfied), for women it's more of a take-it-or-leave-it thing, something they can enjoy but that they don't really need, a nice thing to have but that doesn't really matter much if they don't have it, like, say, chocolate (although women would be far less willing to give up chocolate in my experience).
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:Washing your hands after using the restroom as a woman is oftentimes unnecessary. +
+ As a woman, I don't really get my hands dirty when I pee. I wipe myself with toilet paper, and very rarely do I actually touch anything with my hands other than toilet paper. If I do, I obviously understand the need to wash them, but that is not the typical case. After I use the toilet, most of the time, the flushing is done either automatically or with a long handle that I touch with my foot (because the handle is usually gross anyways). Some toilets with shorter handles do have to be touched, but usually those are personal toilets in my house that I know are clean. Perhaps I may touch the bathroom stall door, but I really don't think it's so disgusting as to warrant hand washing.
Don't get me wrong, I usually do wash my hands after using the restroom. But I do it not because going to the bathroom is inherently dirty, but rather because my hands are dirty. I think it's important to wash your hands, after touching everything, once every few hours. So I see going to the bathroom as a kind of natural reminder that perhaps I should wash my hands soon. However, I drink a lot of water and go to the bathroom more often than I think I should wash my hands. If I wash my hands every time I pee, they get really dry (even with lotion) -- but I have to do it anyways in public restrooms because of societal conventions, whatnot.
I know this is a dumb topic, and it isn't real a big deal in my life. I also see the overall societal benefit pretending you should wash your hands after going to the bathroom. And no, this isn't something I think about all the time. But goddamn, my hands are so dry right now.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Much modern and contemporary art (i.e. non-figurative, "ready-made", conceptual etc.) is of profound and deeply expressive merit +
+ Thought I would flip the usual "Modern art isn't real art" stance around and present a muscular defense of the various 'radical' branches of 20th and 21st century art. Come at me with all you've got about the poverty of modern art! I'm going to start with a rebuttal of some of the common points raised against the worth of modern art, and then list some of the artists I like and why I like them.
So here's what I see as the commonly raised objections to the value of modern and contemporary art (the distinction between these two terms is somewhat ambiguous, but basically modern art is most of what was created from 1900-1960s, and then a shift to 'contemporary' art gradually occurred).
* No effort/technical skill is required to create it
* "I don't get it/it's just colors"
* It's not pretty/beautiful
Please let me know of any others you can think of! But, to address these I've listed:
First: No effort is required to create it. Yes, in many cases very little traditional technical skill is necessary to create any number of famous pieces of the last century. And by the same token, often very little quantifiable time or physical effort would have been necessary to create the same pieces. But why do we want art to require technical skill or effort? The answer seems to me that it makes worth quantifiable in terms of man-hours spent or technical skills applied - we assign worth to goods with money, and we earn certain amounts of money based on the time we work at a particular job. That feels simple - but actually we know when we think about it that even the apparently firm valuation possible with money is linked to arbitrary process - the economic status of the country which issues it, political contingencies and emergencies, the variability of market prices for goods and services, etc. And time itself is subject to the same instability - it zips by when we're having fun, and drags endlessly when we're working on a tedious task. Similar insights to these are driving factors in the way the artwork of the 20th century moved gradually away from traditional technical representation of subject matter. When we acknowledge that all processes of valuation are, at bottom, arbitrary, we are liberated from the requirement to adhere to traditional systems of valuation, but also forced to confront the problem of using any system of valuation at all. If all value is arbitrary, can we value anything? Is creation valuable? Life itself?
This brings us the 2nd objection: "It's just colors/abstract". A common whipping-boy for Reddit's typical reaction against modern art is Mark Rothko, whose monumental color blocks are often presented as a sort of "Emperor's New Clothes". And of course, while there actually is a great deal of technical canvas and paint ability which goes into Rothko's works, traditional figurative techniques are abandoned in them. But we must take note: the 'effort' Rothko is putting into his work is not technical effort but rather effort towards discovering a system of valuation which he can stand on and for after he has abandoned traditional systems. For Rothko, his paintings represented man's transcendental relationship with his own consciousness, a kind of pure, experiential expression of pure Being. It is noteworthy that the dominant philosophical trends of the time were phenomenology and existentialism, which were attempts to find a fundamental ground for consciousness in a newly modern world whose science had demoted God from his throne but neglected to nominate a new Fundamental Arbiter in replacement. So, while Rothko does not use traditional figurative techniques, his work is effortful in the sense that it tries to express a new sense of modern spirituality without God. Variations of the same can be said for much of the various avant-gardes of the first half of the 20th century; traditional artistic valuation was being abandoned (and concrete and universal measurement along with it), but the search for a new ground from and of which to create art was a consuming occupation.
And finally, number 3, "It's not beautiful/it's ugly": This point obviously is answered to some degree by the points I've previously made - in dismissing traditional techniques, traditional standards are also held up to question. Beauty becomes something that is not necessarily inherent in a particular nude figure painted with particular colors and brush-strokes, if it is even something to be strived after at all. Duchamp's 'Fountain', among much of his other work, was a fairly direct critique of traditional concepts of artistic beauty, and later Conceptual artists would work with ideas which were in many cases almost totally devoid of physical manifestation, or any object with which to invest with traditional beauty. That doesn't mean many of their works are not beautiful however - the simplicity and poetic elegance of Hans Haacke's [Condensation Cube](http://www.macba.cat/en/condensation-cube-1523) would, I argue, meet many updated standards of beauty; a simple transparent figure which manifests changes in the heat and pressure of the room it is within it, providing a sort of spiritual residue of the minds and bodies which perceive and surround it. In any case, the gist of my rebuttal to this last point is that just as artistic techniques had to shift fundamentally to address our experience of living in the modern age, so did standards of beauty, and even the valuation of beauty itself.
So those are my initial defenses against some of the more common critiques of modern art - please do your best to pick them apart, as well as point out other points that I've missed. Take your best shot! But now that I've put up a defense, I'm going to launch a little offense - examples of some of my favorite artists of the last century, all having worked at some points at least in very untraditional mediums. Perhaps some of you will appreciate these artists as much as I do - and perhaps others of you will gain new fodder for the pointed attacks against my favorable stance towards modern art that I am hoping for!
I love [Marcel Duchamp] (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f6/Duchamp_Fountaine.jpg). I love [Dieter Roth](http://blog.art21.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/moma_roth_literaturesausage.jpg). I love [Martin Kippenberger](http://www.markorton.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/kippenburger-moma-032809.jpg). I love [Bruce Nauman](http://inhalemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/bruce-nauman2.jpg). All of these artists have in common their use of non-representational artistic techniques. Duchamp introduced the 'ready-made', and irreverently demonstrated the contingency of artistic value through his 'Fountain'. Roth frequently incorporated real food into his work, which inevitably would decompose and change form (and smell). His use of this material points towards the mortality and changeability of things, as well as linking the traditionally abstract realm of artistic production to the corporeality of bodily functioning. One of Martin Kippenberger's most famous pieces is his 'Happy End of Franz Kafka's America', which assembled dozens of pairs of chairs around desks on a sports playing field, with books commissioned by friends of the artists on many of the desks. The work is almost all 'ready-mades', so to speak, with most of the furniture being found and the books written by someone other than the artist, but that's exactly the point - Kippenberger's conception of the creativity of the artist rejected the traditional image of the solitary genius plucking ideas from the ether. Rather, art for Kippenberger was an inherently social function, a variable form of communication of the same type as talking or writing - although a communicative form of imperative spiritual importance. Kippenberger repositioned the artist within the social milieu from which he is at bottom inseparable. Nauman is a mercurial figure who works in many mediums - from sculptures that look like rags tossed in a corner to blinking poetic invocations in neon. What they have in common is an ambiguously anti-monumental sense; if art can be anything, as Duchamp demonstrated, then much of what the artist does in his art studio can be art, as Nauman intuited, even if appears to be trash or built in a gaudily commercial medium, or even if it's simply the act of walking around the studio itself. Here the social role of the artist creates the work as much as the artistic concept. Thus Nauman's dispersed and abject sculptures, or his [lists of neon words](http://beautifuldecay.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/bruce-nauman-1-e1299486791926.jpg) which, as portions constantly blink on and off, modulate to new ambiguities the ambiguity already present in each phrase, demonstrate a freedom of creation bound to the realm of play opened by the identification of the artist with his social role.
OK, so that's enough theorizing from me - change my view! Make me realize that modern art is worthless. I don't care how you do it, but I want to be feeling deep existential dread at the way I've wasted years of my life on a total void by the time I wake up tomorrow morning! Have at it.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Most software shouldn't be patentable. +
+ As a software engineer, I always say there are two kinds of problems everything can fall into and besolved:
1. You can build a rocketship
2. sort a deck of cards
99.9999% of all software engineering work falls into the latter, most things that you try to accomplish and solve tend to be easily explained and solved by any person not in the field and for people in the field it is OBVIOUS (patents are for non-obvious things)
Even more sophisticated things such as predicting what other users would like is obvious to anyone in the machine learning field.
for example, 1-Click -- make it that you need to click once to order a product online using your previously entered information.
Any software engineer will tell you that this could be completed in a few hours and they already have 99% of the design (baring any existing infrastructure to code around)
So you ask **how do I protect my software from being copied?** simple, you copyright it.
A good example is Voat vs Reddit, AFAIK, voat is open source reddit is not. Reddit is Lisp/Python wheras Voat is C#. Completely different languages, database structures etc. However, if reddit as a site was patentable Voat would never exist even though it's an independently coded and created product. (and if you are going to go on about how they look similar, reddit should file a DESIGN patent as well as Trademark protection NOT a software patent) | 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 European countries should only take in female refugees +
+ This post is about Europe because that is the only context I am familiar enough to argue about. Feel free to bring up other contexts, though.
I believe Europe should only take in female refugees due to three reasons. Women and girls are harmed far worse in the conflicts and in the refugee camps than men and boys are. The receiving countries suffer from the violence and criminality of those refugees who fail to integrate, and lastly having clear lines on who can enter and can not does not create false hope and unnecessary deaths. At the moment refugees are over 70% male, which in practice means we mostly ignore the most vulnerable population.
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Share_of_male_(non-EU)_asylum_applicants_in_the_EU-28,_by_age_group_and_status_of_minors,_2014_(%25)_YB15_III.png
Women are the primary victims of these conflicts:
http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49c3646c1d9.html
http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2014/jan/24/syrian-women-refugees-risk-sexual-exploitation
http://www.ibtimes.com/syrian-refugee-crisis-girls-sold-sex-slaves-aged-wealthy-arabs-1589863
Some reports have found that 95% of refugee women have been raped:
https://books.google.fi/books?id=DMOD6bRtMl8C&pg=RA2-PA194&lpg=RA2-PA194&dq=women+refugee+feminism&source=bl&ots=ou_oE3IbIO&sig=8AnyFCzgJilHzmtYo1gSfjykTh8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBGoVChMI--iR-KO6xwIVyJ5yCh3XVQl3#v=onepage&q=women%20refugee%20feminism&f=false
Crime. Higher criminality of men is well known.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_crime
As is that of immigrants and refugees from poor countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_crime
Recently Sweden Democrats, an anti-immigrant party polled as the largest party in Sweden, after an asylum seeker murdered two people in Ikea for no apparent reason. The debate about refugee criminality seems to be leading many to rather extreme positions. Since women commit next to no sex and violent crime, especially in patriarchal cultures, this would relieve some of the fears of the native populations.
The last argument is admittedly weak. People are very bad at probabilities. Therefore it might be best not to take in men at all, as that would create false hope and cause many of them to risk their lives and property in hopes of an asylum. From a cost perspective, it would be easier and faster to automatically deport all men. Some family exceptions would of course be appropriate.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The American educational system sucks +
+ I have spent a year in Sweden. As you can probably imagine high school is much different there. High school is three years and it's called gymnasium.
In Sweden you choose between programs instead of classes. There's a natural science program, a medical program, an art program, technological ect. In my case there were fewer classes than in the US.
I only had around 5 classes and we didn't have them everyday. Maybe Monday I had two hours of math and then a two hour break then lunch then science then that was it for that day.
What I liked the most about school in Sweden was the teacher-student relation. First of all they can dress guerre m however they want (and you know trendy swedes) and also students call them by their first name. It's a much more casual and friendly relationship. Teachers never tell you to be quiet or to put your phone away.
Also you have unlimited bathroom breaks. And you don't have to ask the teacher, you just leave as you need.
Not to mention that swedes get paid around $100 a month to go to school, and during breaks, you can leave the school and come back for your next class.
The schools have more of a "you're the one fucking up if you don't do things right" kind of attitude. For the most part it works pretty well.
Then here in the US teachers treat students like children. They herd us like sheep. They yell, they tell us to shut up, they tell us to put our phones away.
Why do they do this? I mean psychologically, students will behave the way they are treated. If they are treated like children, they will behave accordingly, but if they are given more freedom and a shit ton more responsibility, they will realize that they are adults and should behave like it, or they will fail completely.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The black community is perpetuating stereotypes and self-segregating itself. +
+ I am a young black male, who is torn between both sides of the aisle regarding race relations in America.
I have experience racial profiling and understand that there is a prevalent problem with minorities -- specifically African-Americans and Latinos receiving lengthier prison sentences and disproportionately being targeted by law officials.
I also understand that my experiences do not relate to all of the black community. By that I mean, just because I was able to make it out of the 'hood' doesn't necessarily mean every black person is awarded that opportunity.
However I also believe that police brutality should not be the pressing issue within the (urban) black community. I believe that the black community is a ''riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma''. And that movements like Black Lives Matter only polarize the country. The American consciousness does not change overnight.
Obviously I'm not going to be able to go into deep analysis of my views but I'll try touch on some view points.
* Mindset
Black people throughout American history have been disproportionately impoverished, and throughout the last 30 years have developed a mindset of "hustlin". Now I understand that "hustlin" can translate into any race/culture as just another medium in which to get money. But black culture seems to value poverty and the 'hustlers mentality'. If I turn on the radio to HOT107.5, I am very likely to find the radio announcer perpetuating this stereotype. "Hustlin'" is glorified while education is not.
There is very little initiative towards the Arts, STEM, etc. Sports/athleticism seems to be the major avenue to which black people feel they can ascend from poverty.
Hip-hop is attached to black culture, and it seems that black culture (which has churned out great literary works and ideas) cannot distance itself from hip-hop. I don't believe hip-hop is bad. Quiet the opposite, but it is the black community that has embraced the hip-hop scene and made the world associate it with us & crime/street life. Even TV shows portray this, everything from sitcoms to drama. You are less likely to find the token-black guy, and more likely to find the 'reformed thug'.
Black people want to be included in mainstream society, yet reject it at the same time. We want to have black casts in popular TV series or movie franchises, but we also want black-only things. I believe you can't have your cake and eat it too. America works best as a soup, not a salad.
The black community has yet to tackle black on black crime, yet it sees police brutality as more important. We HATE to be labeled as thugs, criminals, yet social media has only made our stereotypes more transparent.
/r/blackpeopletwitter, albeit funny, is also embarrassing because black people are again perpetuating a stereotype or being cast a stereotype. Tweets about is 'how fire is my mixtape, 'bruh' 'nigga this, nigga that'. We have normalized it to the point weere teenage white girls are saying "nigga" and "bitch" like it's a pronoun. Political action by black tweeters seems to also alienate other groups of people. The issue of police brutality for example seems to be marketed/targeted as a black-only issue. Again, creating polarizing opinions/slogans like "All Lives Matter"
* Black nationalism
In my eyes, black nationalism is dangerous because it perpetuates a lot of misinformation and half truths. It is on the scale as 'white washing' history. Social media has become a breeding ground for misinformation by/for the black community. Black nationalism will ultimately lead to polarizing the nation.
i.e. "Ancient Egyptians were black, Jesus was black, Mohammed was black, etc" or teaching talking about slavery only in terms of black v. white.
* Homophobia/Racism/Misogyny
As I stated earlier, the black community hasn't made a very active attempt in stemming the mindset that mainstream hip-hop culture perpetuates. All I can tell you is from my own experience but homophobia and misogyny seems to be rampant in the black community. Not so much in terms of violent actions but insults through social media and subtle homophobic/misogynistic remarks made on radio and TV.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: US women should register for Selective Service and, in a time of war, be drafted as 15% of the force. +
+ The US military is currently about 15% female. The draft should keep in line with the amount of women currently in service. An influx of 50-50 genders would cause logistics issues on ships, in barracks, and in the culture.
Note that the US military is beginning the formal inclusion of women in most combat roles. Some will likely remain closed, and others like artillery and machinegunning will require physical standards that will deter most women.
The Anti-War Argument: People won't want their daughters dying overseas. Knowing that a draft will include all young Americans will make our beautiful nation less quick to jump into foreign quagmires.
The Equality Argument: Women are included in the burden, playing a role proportionate to the military's current demographics. Women have proved capable in a variety of combat and leadership roles in militaries around the world, and the SJW generation could offer up a few fierce warriors (especially since a lot of fighting these days is done on a keyboard).
The Excellence Argument: With women in the draft, the 85% that are male can be selected more rigorously. The 15% females will also be the tough, smart women that can hold their own. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Human existence is futile. +
+ Ah, like it says in "Dust In The Wind." Every line in that song is correct except for "nothing lasts forever but the earth and sky." Probably won't last forever either.
I believe that it doesn't matter what you do in life. Well, not in the big scheme of things anyway. Human endeavors such as developing a cure for cancer or ending world hunger are all very noble, but futile nonetheless. Maybe we'll get there someday, but does it matter? For now it seems like it does, but when our species dies out it won't. God probably doesn't exist and nobody gives a shit. "You create your own meaning in life" is wishful thinking, because your "meaning" ultimately doesn't really matter to anyone or anything but humanity at large, if that. And if it doesn't matter, it's not meaningful.
I'd love to be wrong on this one, so go ahead and 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: The death of privacy is a good thing +
+ With the Ashley Madison leak and the NSA revelations, I've come to the conclusion that the death of privacy is good for society. While I might have some minor embarrassments that come out, it's worth it because the scumbags of the world will have their deeds outed. Most of the elite have much more to lose than I do. I'm willing to sacrifice some temporary shame to see tax dodgers, cheaters, liars, murderers and sociopaths either put in jail, or lose their positions of power and influence. My shames will be mitigated by the fact that every regular person has them, but the crimes of the 1%ers will end their era of influence. From here on out, only those with integrity and honesty will be able to rise to power, as all of our deeds are laid bare for all to see.
| 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 sexual partners is more balanced across the board in men than in women. +
+ So, it's obvious to anyone who took a math class that the average number of sex partners between straight men and straight women **must** be the same.
However, the median can be different.
According to the CDC, the median number of **opposite-sex** partners in a lifetime is **6.6** for men, and **4.3** for women. Basic mathematics concludes this: Take two sets of numbers (set M and set F). M and F have the same mean, but F has a smaller median than M. Therefore, the numbers in M are more balanced across the board than the numbers in F.
What I mean by this is that, according to the data, promiscuous women are **more promiscuous** than promiscuous men, and celibate women are **more celibate** than celibate men.
Math never lies, but feel free 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: I am racist against Gypsies +
+ I am racist against gypsies - There, I said it. When I say I'm racist I don't mean that I think they're an inferior group of people, or that they should be exterminated and kicked out of my country, it's just that I can't stand them.
In every country in Europe you have groups of people who are marginalized, profiled and suffer discrimination - Gypsies are frequently included on the list. And why is that? It's not because they have darker skin color, in fact I'd argue Gypsies are ethnically a diverse group with sub-ethnic group - It's because of their culture.
It's hard to not be racist against these people when everytime I see one of them on the street they will either beg and try to pickpocket you or try to sell illegal products (or legal products without license) and if you're lucky they won't threat you with a knife to handle the money.
And don't even get me started on Gypsy neighborhoods, ghettos and places where they live, it's impossible to go in there without goods and leave in one piece, those are literally no go zones in my country and the police goes in there with a group of fully armored cops with MP5's (similar to SWAT in America).
They always complain about how racist society is against them, yet they don't allow their kids to go to mandatory school years and basically force them to work for cultural reasons. They complain about discrimination, but they have no problem starting a fight with you for no reason, and if you dare fighting back be 100% sure that they will call the entire family to kick your ass and possibly put you in a coma. There's no escaping that.
You are all thinking that I'm terribly racist, but this is the only ethnic group I have a beef with, I don't have problems with Africans who are a very discriminated group in my country as well - In fact, my girlfriend is half-Gypsy and I love her very much, but she was adopted and raised by a non-Gypsy family and so she doesn't have the culture in her - And trust me, if you think I'm racist you'll be surprised to know she hates Gypsies with a passion that isn't even comparable to what I'm exposing here.
What should I do? I feel bad and terrible and evil, but I can't help it, it's the only group that I'm prejudiced against. Oh, and if it's relevant I was robbed by a group of 10 Gypsies when I was younger - I didn't lose valuable goods, but it affected me deeply.
If people want to be integrated in society, they need to minimally adapt to cultural norms. Of course people don't hire Gypsies, no one wants to risk hiring someone who, at the slightest disagreement and beef with you can call an entire family to kick your ass. Oh, and obviously not speaking native tongues with a proper accent and lacking basic education because your parents voluntarily choose to deprive you of it also doesn't help.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Iran getting nuclear weapons would not be a huge disaster +
+ The common assumption and statement repeated by politicians (at least in the U.S. and Israel) is that a nuclear Iran is completely unacceptable. I agree that it will be an inconvenience and complication, and a negative for Western interests, but it will not be a disaster. Iran obtaining nukes may actually encourage internal liberalization/reform. A nuke provides ultimate protection from invasion. Hardliners use the threat of invasion to scare people away from reforms, so their position would be weakened by having a bomb.
Anticipated replies:
- If Iran has a nuke, it will (try to) destroy Israel.
Iran would not use a nuke because that would be absolute suicide. The country would be invaded and the leadership executed.
- Iranian leadership is not rational, and will do it anyway.
Iranian leadership has shown itself to be very rational. Yes, it uses terrible rhetoric and incites hatred in its people as a means of control. However, their strategy seems similar to Nixon's ["Madman theory"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory) - act like you're crazy to get more out of negotiations.
- Iran will give nuclear material to terrorists
This would still be suicide. There is an extremely high likelihood it would be traceable back to them. Besides, while they are happy to sponsor terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, they would have no interest giving away a superweapon to an unpredictable third party.
- A nuclear Iran would cause a nuclear arms race in the Middle East
This is the phrase generally used, but as far as I can tell the only one "racing" would be Saudi Arabia. However, Saudi Arabia is both a U.S. ally (and could work out a defense pact if Iran had a bomb), and has no nuclear infrastructure, which apparently (considering that Iran has been "a year away from a bomb" for 20 years) takes a long time to create. Furthermore, I'm skeptical of an arms race since Israel and Pakistan already have nukes and this has not caused one.
- Iran will become more influential in the region, which is bad because it funds terrorists.
Having a nuke would only increase its influence because it would be able to act without the threat of a U.S. invasion. However, this is hardly different from the status quo, where it is common knowledge that there is little public appetite for an assault on Iran's borders. The U.S. and allies are currently engaged in proxy conflicts with Iran; Iranian nukes would not change these conflicts. For example, the U.S. and U.S.S.R. engaged in such conflicts but kept nukes to themselves.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: asylum seekers should be deported if they commit a crime. +
+ My view is that asylum seekers should be deported when they commit a crime, even if that means the asylum seeker might be killed in his or her country of origin.
I feel like there is a backlash against immigration for multiple reasons, like racism, not immigrating well, and crimes.
I feel that people might be more welcoming to asylumseekers if they are known to not be criminals, and that that causes both racism and not immigrating well to lessen.
On the other hand if you come to another country because you fear for your life, and know that you will be kicked out if you commit a crime then being a criminal is apparently so important to you, that the country would be completely justified in kicking you out.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Computers should become less user friendly in the future +
+ Hello. I think a vast majority of our security problems on our networks and computational devices stems from technical illiteracy from the everyday user.
Also, the functionality of a computer nowadays is being restricted heavily by catering computers to the lowest common denominator of computer users, ie "I just borrowed my grandsons computer to send a virtual e-mail to Susan".
Points:
-Computers have become easier to use, but generally do this by removing choice, not by improving usability. Most people these days do not know how to do simple tasks on computers. How do you instruct a computer to copy all files that start with July and end with .jpg from a folder and all it's subfolders to a separate folder titled "Camping Photos"?
-The population of Americans who are brand new to computing is shrinking every day, and will continue shrinking due to death. As such, it is illogical to have them be the standard to which software is designed.
-People who have had computers available their entire lives are incapable of troubleshooting the machines that they've grown up with from a small age, as their interactions with the machine have been simplistic and uninteresting. How many times have you seen someone "link" to a photo or a document by saying; "Here, click this: C:\Users\JCena\Files\pr0n.gif"
-Modern computers have many abstraction layers that separate a user from the actual actions being taken. People develop metaphors for interactions with machines, and some of these become standards. For instance, I won't sit here and tell you that the "Files and folders" metaphor for organizing information on machines wasn't successful. Microsoft is especially guilty of this. What is a "briefcase"? When I say "Library", are you thinking of "That folder that isn't a folder that contains shortcuts to all my shit", or are you thinking "A file full of programming functions that allows a programmer to utilize features without having to write it all themselves"?
-By hiding machine functionality, the quality of that functionality degrades (or at least, doesn't improve).
-The "user friendliness" leads to a paradigm where users are not expected nor required to in any way expend any effort in learning how to use a machine that they will be using a lot. This means users are dumber, and more likely to break things.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Low information voters who are not interested in learning political issues should be discouraged from voting. +
+ People who have no interest in politics, and are not interested in learning about the candidates and issues should not be encouraged to vote under the pretense that it its their "patriotic duty" or that they are "supposed to". I believe it is the duty of all citizens eligible for voting to do so, but only as informed citizens. If they are unwilling to become informed, they should not be encouraged to vote. Please note that this does not mean that their right to vote should be infringed, simply that other people should not encourage them to do so. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Politicians should be able to make 'Unbreakable Promises' in the election season +
+ Dutch politician [Mark Rutte](http://www.bnr.nl/incoming/678218-1312/rutte/ALTERNATES/i/rutte) promised voters that not one extra penny would go to Greece. Voters liked that and Rutte's party became the biggest party in parliament, and Rutte became prime minister of the Netherlands.
Rutte broke his promise and kept sending billions of Euros to Greece.
Lying politicians are a problem in many countries. I think there's an easy solution: let them make Unbreakable Promises.
An Unbreakable Promise would be some kind of legal contract that describes what a politician certainly will or will not do when he is elected. For that politician, the Unbreakable Promise would be like some kind of extra constitution. He cannot break it when he is elected.
These Unbreakable Promise should be fully available online for all candidates.
I think this is a great idea, and I'd love to know if there are any significant downsides to these kind of promises. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: women's breast are not sexual organs +
+ growing up in america i was condition to believe women's breast are sexual organs do to the fact that we over sexualized them too much. it wasnt till recently that i came to conscious and started realizing that there is practically no way a woman's breast could be sexual organs. i mean obviously we men have breast too and our breast dont stimulate the opposite sex in any different way. and yes i'm well aware that during sex women could receive lots of stimulation through them in the act of foreplay. but so do other body parts, like the neck, the mouth, the foot, etc. lets also not forget that women do need their breast to breastfeed their children, which this obviously screams out that they cant be sex organs.
anyways it seems like the more i try to believe this the more negative reactions i get from those around me. people here still insist that women's breast are sexual organs and the fact that women here in america, unlike women in africa or other countries in europe are still too afraid to go topless outside when its too hot kinda punctuates this believe. we also must forget that or government does believe they are sexual breast as it is against the law either way for women to go topless out in the streets. so i was wondering if this is correct that maybe you guys can then convince me that they are sexual organs.
I also like to point out that i was watching that documentary [Free The Nipple](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2298394/) the other day on Netflix and it really touched me. i think it really is unfair that during heatwave days a man can take his shirt off in public yet women can't. i think we americans are too damn dramatic going judgmentally ballistic when we see boobs in public. at the same do to how we americans have been sexually conditioned since day one i'm actually amazed that there are women here who complain about not being able to go topless out in public. i thought that would of been the worst and most humiliating nightmare for an American woman.
ps= speaking of legal, not that i have anything against gay people or anything but i'm actually kinda surprised that today gay marriage is legal yet it's still illegal for women to go out topless in public.
| 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 wrong to look at/ expose people whose information was leaked with the Ashley Madison hack. +
+
Ashley Madison was a website for cheaters. And *generally* cheating is wrong, but it isn't always wrong. Maybe it's an open, non-monogamous relationship. Maybe the guy was cheating with the blessing of his wife. Maybe the wife was completely shut down sexually and the choice was between having an affair on the side to fulfill his sexual needs or throw away an otherwise happy marriage. Maybe we as society shouldn't be in the position to judge other people's personal lives just because we disagree with someone else's action. Just because you don't want to be cheated on it doesn't mean that you can judge cheaters who were in some situation that you know nothing about and are in no position to pass judgement on.
These people have a right to privacy. The internet leaking into people's lives ruins thing for people permanently. There was a vox(?) article about the lives of people who twitter has shamed after their shaming. I worry that the response to this leak is going to be out of proportion to the general social backlash that a cheater receives. Normally when someone cheats (without the consent of their SO) their relationship ends and that is more or less the extent of it. The nature of this leak is such that it will expose thousands of people to blackmail and professional consequences all for something that while, morally unacceptable in our society, is not criminal.
Also look at the fucking hypocrisy. Reddit collectively denounced Gawker for publishing the allegations that some businessman was visiting a male prostitute like a month ago. Now all of a sudden it is fine to go outing all these other men who were cheating or attempting to cheat on their spouses? It's the exact same situation that the businessman in the Gawker article was in, but because it is 1 million people instead of just one specific person we don't feel sympathy? That's bullshit.
TL;DR Keep your nose out of other people's business you judgmental asshole.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: its stupid to get excited about political candidates (eg. bernie) and expect their election to bring about any significant change. +
+ Same shit happened with obeezy. I have no faith in our political system, its fundamentally ineffective and archaic to the extent that i dont see a huge difference in policy no matter who ends up being elected.
I believe that if you want something to change that the best and more or less only way to do it is through grass roots activism, eg. We kept CSG mines out of our community by fighting the actual companies and protesting instead of relying on politicians, the same thing recently happened on a larger scale with the Adani coal mine, an example in the US would be the introduction of bodycams on police and heightened scrutiny of their behavior in general thanks to regular peoples social activism. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Transgenderism is a mental illness, and the only reason were treating it as a social issue is because we have the means to cater to them. +
+ Title is self explanatory, but I'll elaborate.
Mental illnesses are seen as a deviation of "normal" human thought or behavior. Behavior that we as animals find unnerving, dangerous, or anxiety inducing because of our *biology* are seen as mentally Ill behaviors, or thoughts.
An individual being born with a given gender, and appearing to be that gender, and functioning perfectly as that gender (biologically), but having a disconnect with how his mind feels about his body shows that his mind is sick.
The only reason were catering to these people instead of giving them the psychological care they deserve is because we have the means to. We can (to a certain extent) change your gender. So well make it a social issue as to not leave these people out, because now we don't have to.
But let's take a different route.
Let's say I genuinely believed I was a mermaid (Merman? Merhombre?). You'd think I'm a loon, my behavior and my belief goes against social norms, I would be labeled as mentally ill. But if the technological means came available to give me gills, and a tail then a social movement would gather around mermaidism, and people would expect to be taken seriously.
Or so goes my thinking.
I've fielded the other side and spoken to some transgender individuals, and I still don't buy the argument that it's not a mental illness.
CMV
Perhaps I should add: I'm a staunch libertarian, while the above is my view I fully believe that if that's what they want to do, then go for it, this is America god damnit. | 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 fairness stops at assault. +
+ CMV: I have a co-worker who believes in fairness in a fight. He believes that since Japan only had conventional weapons, we should have beat them with our conventional weapons, not unleashing the power of the atom which only America had.
He also believes that if he punches me in the mouth, it's a man on man fight. I should not use a gun or a knife, or any other weapon except for my fists, unless he pulls a greater weapon.
~~I told him if he punches me in the mouth I call that assault and that if I am carrying at the time, I'm going to drop his fucking ass.~~
I believe that if you are being attacked, raped, assaulted in any form that you believe may threaten your life, you can and should use any means possible to stop the threat. Same with Hiroshima.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I'm a straight male against dating bisexual women. +
+ I am a 100% straight male, as in, I'm ONLY into straight women; lesbians gross me out, though I don't care who's into who or who wants to marry each other; people should be free to do as they wish. Basically, I have a hard enough time as it is with straight women and a "bisexual" girl is triple the drama, with no added benefits. I've never been into 'bisexual' women and if I'm attracted to one or she's attracted to me and I find out she's into women or has sex with them, it's pretty much a deal-breaker from then on. I then just feel betrayed afterwards, thinking I was a fool for going after a girl who wants a girl (instead of me).
My biggest concerns if I dated a 'bisexual' girl are:
* **A.** Any girl who claims to be 'bisexual' would want a woman *way* more than she would ever a guy. She literally has double the options to potentially cheat or leave me for someone else, and cheating/being dumped is even a problem in straight couple relationships. (*I'm a guy and even I don't know why women would want us over other women and their soft, supple bodies just made for giving and receiving pleasure.*)
* **B.** Constantly having to compete with women for her attention. (*I can't compete with boobs!*)
* **C.** A 'bisexual' girl's very likely (in my view) not going to be monogamous, and I'm not into three-ways, lesbians, or an "open relationship."
* **D.** A 'bisexual' girl's very likely to not *want* a relationship; just casual sex and "fooling around." (*Men on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, and women on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and the weekend, I'd assume.*)
And I'm sexually inexperienced, so unlike the 'sexually advanced,' I don't have this whole "rainbow of sexuality Kinsey scale" level of experience behind me. If I had orgies and stuff, and banged every type of human being alive and had notches in the triple digits by now (at age 28), maybe I'd be more understanding of it all. But I'm pretty vanilla and virginal, at this point. So I don't get the whole "Kinsey sex scale" stuff beyond "Straight" and "everything else (LGBT, etc)."
To be honest, I *barely* even accept "bisexual" as a real thing. (It was never spoken of in society until around 10-15 years ago; now every other woman claims to be "bi" and says how much she loves going down on women.) But since science backs it up, I have to back it up as being real, as well. No matter how much I can't comprehend simultaneously being into both men and women at the same time, equally. I literally cannot even comprehend that; it's so far from what I'd personally want, sexually speaking.
However, with all this said, I am also a big hopeless romantic. My ideal girl, physical traits aside, would be kind, sweet, gentle, caring, loving, open-minded, an easy-listener and a best friend. Mainly, I want a girl just to be into ***ME*** and no one else. And the argument from the other side I've heard before are that 'bisexuals' (and pansexuals) tend to be more loving, compassionate, kind, and open-minded, as they judge less on the person's outer exterior and more on their inner personality.
And the *reason* I am so sexually inexperienced is [me](http://imgur.com/UOd924K) being a short, 5'11", overweight, ugly, dark-skinned man that literally no straight woman would ever call "sexy" or "good looking." So if the whole theory that "'bisexuals' (and pansexuals) are less shallow and more into who a person truly are," then they would be a *more suitable choice* for me to go after, assuming this is true.
So, I think that covers it all. I'm open to changing my mind on it, if people are intelligent and open-minded enough to convince me why I could potentially be wrong about my stance on 'bisexuals.' | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The Ashley Madison data dump did a lot more harm than good. +
+ I see a lot of posting on social media about how the Ashley Madison users are "getting whats coming to them" and the like, but it seems like people are glossing over a few key issues:
* There are couples who probably use this service to get with other couples to satisfy their kink. And likewise, there are probably many single people who use it to fulfill their own desires of satisfying that couple's kink.
* People's sexuality is now out in the open against their will, potentially leading to violence. Another user brought up the issue here: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskMen/comments/3hmlmn/anyone_else_feel_ambivalent_about_this_ashley/
See, I'm normally all good for hacking that exposes corruption or government abuse at high levels of money/power, but this isn't that.
Can someone give me a reason why hack doesn't do more harm than good?
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The best strategy on Cutthroat Kitchen is to dogpile. +
+ Cutthroat Kitchen is a reality TV cooking show where contestants bid on sabotages to make their competitors fail at cooking the dish that needs to be cooked, and keep the money remaining. Often, this requires picking a competitor who gets sabotaged. E.g. "One of your opponents will give up all their ingredients and have to make their tacos using just what they can recover from this day old salad bar."
This view is about what the best strategy for handing out a sabotage is. I think that in the first 2 rounds, when you have a choice, you should always target whoever already has a sabotage. So if someone gave another competitor the salad bar, and then you're handing out who has to give up all utensils for tinfoil, you should always pick the person who got the salad bar.
The reason is this: you do not win a round of CTK. You just refrain from losing. Having the best dish is no better than having the second or third best dish in round one. You are best off by trying to guarantee one person fails totally. Because then they go home.
Spreading out the sabotages means its less likely that they'll be crippling (since they're tested to be doable). If you pile them all on one person though, it becomes much more likely they'll totally fail, thus saving you.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Homo sapiens is in the end of its evolutionary path +
+ Human being can not evolve further.
Evolution requires environmental stress in order to select better adapted traits to spread to the population. Over time this spreading of traits drives evolution forward.
At this point in time, most people (especially in the developed world, but not excluding the developing world) has access to limit or even remove environmental stress from their lives altogether. Some broad example: heating and cooling system, medicine, nutritious food. Better access to these allow individual with less adapted genes to survive and procreate.
Furthermore, current social system hinders natural selection. In monogamous relationship, the chance of a person with better traits to procreate roughly similar to those with worse traits. Another example is that social security shares the risk through out the society: let's say a kid with diabetic can procreate and pass his/her gene to the gene pool because of access to treatment and medication (as opposed to in the wild, they most likely will not survive). I am not saying this is bad, but these characteristics dampen natural selection, thus evolution.
Taking these into consideration and without any apocalyptic situations, I think human can not evolve further and we are basically evolutionary dead end.
Please, correct 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:The Electoral College Should be Abolished +
+ I believe the electoral college was established at a time when much fewer people voted, fewer people had basic educations, and voting only took place in 13 states, leaving the possibility of a single large state (Virginia) dominating the election very possible. We live in a very different time now, and a popular election would be the best way to elect a president, as many people's votes simply don't count in our current system.
Our current system does not encourage voter turnout when you are in a clear minority. Conservatives in California and liberals in Alabama both have no real reason to go vote on election day. A popular vote would ensure every vote counts, and would even give independent and third party candidates a real chance fair shot at the presidency, where they don't now.
So what say you? Show me the errors of my ways, and convince me that the electoral college really is the best and most fair way to choose the president. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Republicans are trying to win through voter suppresion +
+ I try very hard to see both sides of any issue. I honestly believe that most "normal" people want what's best for their country, but they have different ideas either of what is best or what's the best way to achieve it.
But particularly since the recent limitations of the protections granted by the Voting Rights Act, the Republicans have jumped on every opportunity to limit voting - reducing hours, eliminating early voting, passing voter ID rules, and on and on.
I can see the argument for Voter ID in theory, but the other measures have one objective - make it harder for poor (i.e., Democratic) voters to cast their ballot.
There are some pretty damning quotes from Republicans about their true intent, [like these](http://billmoyers.com/2014/10/24/voter-discrimination/).
I can't imagine anyone who has any idealism about democracy, especially someone who considers themselves a patriot, not wanting all legal voters to cast a ballot.
I don't want to be cynical, but I don't see any other way to view this other than Republicans valuing winning over respecting the democratic process. Please, help me find another way to look at this.
[And, to save you some time, the argument that what they are doing is technically legal won't cut it. I know it is, but that doesn't make it right or defensible, which is what I'm concerned with.]
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: A third party candidate has no chance in the United States and therefore has to declare R or D to have any chance at the Presidency at all. +
+ It seems to me that even if an amazing candidate ran for POTUS as a Libertarian, Green Party, etc. they would not have a realistic chance based solely on the fact that they have not declared as one of Americas only two 'relevant' parties. This upsets people like me that find themselves very fiscally conservative but socially liberal. My views align with most Libertarians, but I find that I have to vote for the most moderate conservative candidate to find the best match with any kind of chance.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Only registered members of a political party should be permitted to seek and obtain that party's nomination for elected office. +
+ The 2016 US presidential primary race is well underway, and the large pool of candidates in both major political parties is exposing a significant gap in the nominating process. Some of the leading candidates are of questionable party affiliation (e.g. Donald Trump is now a registered Republican but has faced criticism for switching parties throughout his lifetime; Lincoln Chafee was a Republican while serving as a Mayor, Senator, and Governor, and only became a Democrat in 2013) or are unabashedly independent of any party affiliation (Bernie Sanders is not a registered Democrat but still running for the Democratic nomination).
This has led to a lot of controversy on both sides about throwing the weight of the party behind someone whose allegiance to the party is questionable, and with good reason. For the following reasons, I believe that by law only registered members of a political party should be able to seek and obtain that party's nomination for elected office.
1) Parties spend a substantial amount of resources to try to elect their nominees. These resources often come from contributions (in terms of money, activism, work hours etc) governed by election law made by party members or supporters to support fellow party members. It is inappropriate to allocate these resources to someone who, despite achieving the nomination, is not even a member of the party in the first place.
2) Many third parties with access to general election ballots often nominate the same person, which causes that individual to appear on the ballot several times for the same position. This duplication is unfair to candidates from other parties (especially third parties) who may only appear on the ballot once. For the purposes of the official ballot, parties should only be allowed to formally nominate their own members, or no one at all.
3) The members of a political party's presidential ticket are the de facto leaders of their national party during and (if elected) after the election. The same principle applies for nominees for Governor at the state-level, Mayor at the municipality-level, etc. Nominees' political positions are often absorbed into the general party platform, which can impact elections and party voter turnout elsewhere. It is nonsensical, and unfair to party members, for their de facto leaders to be from another party or no party at all, especially given that nominations are mostly a function of popular vote. (Tangentially, I am also opposed to "open primaries" where voters who aren't registered members of a political party can still vote in that party's primary election, but I suppose that's a topic for another CMV post. And of course, it should continue to be against election rules to be a registered member of more than one political party.)
4) There is nothing wrong with or prohibitive about running for office as an independent. Ross Perot staged a pretty successful third party run for president in 1992. Sanders is the longest serving independent in the Senate. Many other people have been elected to political office at various levels of government without obtaining a major party nomination. Our political system does not preclude independents from winning elections, so any argument that an independent's only real chance of winning is to seek the nomination of a party with which (s)he does not formally affiliate is historically and demonstrably invalid.
CMV.
| 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 more genetic variation within human populations than there is between. Therefore classification of humans into 'races' is meaningless. +
+ Quite a controversial topic. However due to scientific evidence I'm convinced that there is more genetic variation within human populations than there is between.
However I've spoken with some interesting characters who are convinced there is evidence to believe that there are quite large differences between so called human 'races' and they therefore think this is a justification for lets say 'proto-racism'.
The primary study I'll use as a source of my view is Richard Lewontin, "The Apportionment of Human Diversity" (https://dx.doi.org/10.1007%2F978-1-4684-9063-3_14). However there are a lot of studies that have repeated his findings and conclusions.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Hilary is the most qualified but Bush is going to be next US president +
+ * Trump and Bernie Sanders a popular fringe candidates that people like but wont really vote for come rubber meets the road
* Obama was not down-low uncontroversial president, thus the people in the middle of the political spectrum are going to go with the Republicans.
* The GOP (and people in general) have a *bizarre* tendency to vote for the best/older/serious looking guy.
* Bush doesn't look as butterface as he used too and Hilary smiles too much as well as doing this weird thing where she opens her eyes more when she does smile.
* Hilary has a long and solid career in top level politics and has a intimate insight to the white house; she serve as the Secretary of State which many people consider on par with the presidency in terms of work pressure.
-**but* she doesn't look like she would last long in the Hunger Games.
yay for the first past the post voting and the two party system
you guys may think I'm being cynical and overly condescending to the political process.... you're right
come back to me tho come Nov. 2016
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Human labor will become as redundant as horse labor +
+ Yesterday, there was this post in /r/futurology titled **[Technology has created more jobs than it has destroyed, says 140 years of data](http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/aug/17/technology-created-more-jobs-than-destroyed-140-years-data-census)**. In the comments, a lot of people concluded that this means that in the future, technology will keep creating more jobs than it destroys. **I disagree**.
At the moment, a five year old kid can beat a computer in a lot of things. For example, having a conversation is very hard for AI. So there are still lots of simple jobs that cannot be done by technology.
As long as our civilization does not collapse, technology and AI will keep getting better. In the near future, self-driving cars will replace a lot of jobs. This kind of stuff will keep happening until mechanical brains outperform human brains, at a similar or lower cost. When that happens, human labor will become as redundant as horse labor. **Change my view!**
**[Obligatory "Humans Need Not Apply link"](https://youtu.be/7Pq-S557XQU?t=3m31s)** | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I think women should not have combat roles in the military +
+ The primary focus of the military should be only to increase the efficiency of its operations. The military does not owe any group anything, and it has no obligation to accommodate women. Having women in the military will only cause problems. At best you will get a couple more people- the few women who can pass the physical standards. For that you take the risk of the women not able to endure properly and be able to carry heavy equipment, and the possibility of the women being a distraction to the men (or vice versa), among other unforeseen problems.
The arguments for women in military combat roles seem to center around appeals to discrimination, and this is not going to convince me. I do not see any way I could be convinced that men and women are 'the same' and 'not being treated fairly'. The purpose of the military is to conduct its operations the best it can, it does not owe anything to women or to treat people fairly.
The other main argument from the other side is to call people with my point of view terrible people and try to shame us. This also will not be effective. I have nothing at all against women. In fact part of the reason I hold this view is *because* I like women so much. I do not think they should have to endure the horrors of military combat like men do. Men are more expendable than women are. Being responsible for reproduction, I think a woman's life actually has a bit more worth than a mans, and therefore we should keep them out of harm's way.
In all, I don't see any reason why women should have combat roles in the military. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: You should be able to waive parental rights and responsibilities pre-birth. +
+ I think that bodily autonomy is important, however - I also believe that equal rights are important. The way our society is currently structured, a woman has 100% control over what happens to a baby, regardless of circumstances regarding conception. She can choose to carry it to term or she can choose to abort it. The male has few rights and none of them concrete in most countries - in the past, virtually every lawsuit to initiate or prevent an abortion has failed.
I think this is good. I think a woman should have full rights to control her body, and the pregnancy is *definitely* a matter of bodily autonomy. The child that ensues as a result, however, is not. I think, regardless of circumstances of conception, the biological mother/father should be able to opt out of parental rights and responsibilities. At birth, the baby will be delivered/retained by the person who did not sign the waiver, and raised by them - and them alone. Any visitation rights/contact/influence will be at the discretion of the now sole legal guardian.
This way, mothers who don't want the child but may be opposed to an abortion (for whatever reason) can surrender the child to the father without worrying about any legal ramifications. Similarly, any male who doesn't want to participate in the raising of the child should be able to sign a form and waive all legal rights and responsibilities including child support.
This is based on the logic that most pregnancies that are unwanted are either "accidents" (I.E. Nobody's fault, condom broke, hormonal B.C. failed, they were stupid and didn't even pull out, etc...) or intentional (Poked holes in the condom, raped, lied about B.C.). I don't believe there are many pregnancies where one party was solely at fault, though I may be wrong on this. As a result, if they choose not to be a part of/don't want that child, I think they should be absolved of pregnancy/birth/child rearing fees.
I don't think either party having to take responsibility for something they didn't want/didn't intend to happen is right. I think that our current system is pretty fucked, honestly, especially because of incidents like [these](http://www.ageofconsent.com/comments/numberthirtysix.htm). While rare, and definitely not the norm, the idea that *anyone* can pay so heavily for something they didn't legally consent to is pretty shocking.
Note: This should only apply to jurisdictions where abortion is legal. Any place where it isn't, both parties are conceivably being forced to bear the pregnancy, and any costs associated with bearing it should be split. That's only if it's going up for adoption, of course.
TL;DR - You shouldn't have to pay for a baby if you didn't want the baby and just got unlucky/were stupid.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Elders do not deserve respect +
+ So, this will be hard to pad out, as it is the absence of a thing. Basically, we've all heard that we should respect our elders. The only real reason seems to be because *they are older*. This seems like a really flawed basis for deserving respect. Not even talking in the line of respect like EMS and defense forces deserve (it can be a fuck ton for them in some cases).
A few people I've brought up mention things like "well they lived through x". Again, simply living through a national or global event hardly seems worthy of respect.
In short: respect should be earned, and the mere act of not dying does not suffice for that. 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 Don't Like Political Correctness. +
+ I don't always think before I speak. In sales, the ability to respond to questions quickly tends to be an asset, and it's a skill that I'm lucky enough to have naturally.
I'd never intentionally contribute to our culture of racism, and so far I haven't. Still, I might make a mistake some day. There's nothing I can do to make sure I don't slip up that doesn't also hurt my ability to make a living.
So why would I want to live in a world where all it takes is a single gaffe to wind up in HR? Why would I support civil rights causes, despite the fact that they're dear to me, if the only way to support civil rights is to join groups that demand PC compliance as well?
Censorship is the enemy of the glib, and all of the people who are considered witty or fun to talk to are glib. I don't think it's strategically sound to alienate the people who are the best at convincing people of stuff from causes that require the majority of people to be convinced in order to be effective.
http://i.imgur.com/oyjb1pd.webm
| 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 awarding participation trophies. In fact, rewarding participation is essential to preparing children to be citizens of a democratic state. +
+ NFL retiree James Harrison is facing controversy after he stripped his children of participation trophies, i.e. "trophies for nothing". The result has been a bitter debate on Twitter under the hashtag #TrophiesForEveryone. The big problem is that this is a false dichotomy:
1) Awarding trophies for participation =/= not awarding extra special trophies for winning. Victory and accomplishment deserve to be celebrated, but so does being part of a team and of a larger whole.
2) Adult society awards both victory and participation. [When did you last get one of these](https://thestruggleembraced.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/i-voted-sticker.jpg)? This is essentially a participation trophy; as long as you are an adult US citizen without (depending on the state) a felony record, you can get one of these every year just for showing up. But does that make them any more hollow? Do we only congratulate people who vote for the winning candidate? In fact, "participatory" is a huge buzzword in everything from design to governance, reflecting that we in the West do not aspire to a winner-take-all, might-makes-right society, but instead encourage the *broadest range of participation*, even if it means that the losers get to have their voice heard.
3) A participation trophy is not necessarily the PC SJW "Everyone's a Winner :)" thing that it is sometimes made out to be. Instead, it reflects that participation is a chosen value, indeed *the* chosen value of democratic society.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Philosophy is Not Distinct from the Scientific Method +
+ First, I'm not saying philosophy is useless. I'm claiming that everything of use in philosophy is included as an integral part of the scientific method.
What we normally refer to as the distinction between philosophy and the scientific method is really a matter of degree and not of kind. A good philosopher takes observations about reality and tries to fit them into a logical scheme of explanation that is consistent with everything that has been observed in the past. That *is* the scientific method - or, more accurately, it is a part of the scientific method. The extra part is the empirical work of trying to validate the explanation (or hypothesis) by making further observations.
I'm arguing that what makes us call something "philosophy" instead of "science" is the distance the conclusions are away from the observations being used. If we are musing about the theoretical possibilities of a probability density of quarks, then we're doing science. If we're musing about what kind of actions lead to living a content life, then we're doing philosophy. The only difference being to what degree our hypotheses have to rely on logic alone to extend their reach because available and confirmed observations for such complex subjects are still way beyond our reach. We're still doing science. We're just out on the ledge.
I think the only reason this is even confused is because of a historical coincidence. We discovered philosophy first. It makes sense, because at the time the range of empirical observations we had available to us was tiny. I argue we discovered religious hypotheses first because they only need intuition to get off the ground. The next thing that would occur is the discovery of logic. We still can't build particle accelerators, but we can start to get serious about self-consistency in our arguments from intuition. This helped, but we still had another breakthrough to make. That was the scientific method. Where we finally realized that logic and intuition must be tempered by careful and exact measurements. Otherwise, it will all just collapse into my seemingly self-consistent logical framework versus your seemingly self-consistent logical framework - or as we usually refer to it: the Middle East conflict (it has many other names).
And so because of the circumstances of history, we came to see the scientifc method as separate from the philosophical method. They even referred to science as "natural philosophy" at first. It soon became clear that this wasn't just another aspect of philosophical study. I think the situation was the exact opposite. Everything useful in philosophy is contained within the "forming a hypothesis based on existing information" part of the scientific method. In this sense, philosophy is distinct from biology. Biology is a specific application of the scientific method. Philosophy is a key part of the process, but it does not exceed the process.
Or at least I think it doesn't. 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: Spotify is far inferior to other music services, and Google Music should be its replacement. +
+ Most people have heard of and use Spotify, many of my friends included. I've tried and tried to like Spotify but after using a ton of other music services, I've concluded that Spotify is incredibly terrible and doesn't deserve the fanbase it has. Since Spotify and Google Music are priced the same ($9.99/month), I'll compare the two. I'm using the web version of Spotify, so maybe the desktop app got way amazing since I last used it a year ago. But my criticisms are specific to the web app.
**Web version is very under-maintained**: First of all, Spotify comes in desktop, web, and mobile forms. The web version is not maintained very well, and doesn't support rearranging playlists or dragging at all, nor does the UI respond well when deleting a song from a playlist. When I delete a song, the song after the deleted one shows as playing, but it's not. The song I deleted is still playing. I have to click away from the song and click back just to have it showing the right song playing. (This is on both Windows and Linux.)
**The right-click menus are bad**: The menus when you right-click on songs in a playlist are not intuitive. When I right-click and select "Save", I don't know where I'm saving to. Adding to playlist requires two clicks. You can Play and Add To Play Queue, but you can't Play Next. There is no option to skip duplicates when adding to a playlist, it just silently adds the duplicates without asking.
**Searching and selecting songs is a multi-step process**: I want to search for a song and immediately add it to my queue or playlist. I don't want to have to click on it, wait for it to load, right click the song, and THEN add it to my queue. That is twice as many steps as there needs to be.
**The UI is pretty terrible**: Clicking on the burger bar on the right-hand side brings up the Play Queue, but while you're on the queue you can't see anything else. And clicking away to anything but the left sidebar is impossible. I have to click the back button just to go back to where I was. And this makes it impossible to see the queue update as you add songs without multiple clicks, as well as making it impossible to drag songs onto the queue. (This, to me, is much more intuitive and easy than being forced to right-click to add songs.) You can't select multiple songs, you have to add/delete one at a time.
**Bad offline download policies**: Spotify Premium allows you to download songs to your device...but only for a maximum of 30 days offline. I don't know if you just have to go back online to keep the songs, or you have to re-download them, but it's pretty inconvenient to come back to find that a bunch of songs you thought you had aren't there.
**Laughably horrible selection of music and stations**: This was the first thing I noticed when using Spotify for the first time. Any artist even slightly underground has entire albums missing from the collection (e.g. Pere Ubu, Odesza). And searching for an artists brings up an incoherent blob of song results (e.g. Nick Cave). I have to individually select whether I want "Nick Cave" or "Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds," because when I look at the song list, the first eight (EIGHT) songs don't even have Nick Cave listed as the main artist. And there aren't a lot of radio stations to choose from, unless I'm missing something. Just artist-based radio and a couple of genre-based stations. A lot of playlists though; I'll give them that.
**Google Music is better**:
First of all, you can add your own music libraries to Google Music, so if there is something missing you can just supplement it with your own copy of the song you want. You can add it into your playlists seamlessly. You can sync your libraries across all your devices (I have ten million computers, and I have music saved from all of them. And the songs are still there even after I stop using my old computers.) Also, if some songs are missing, there is Youtube integration which will probably have the video somewhere for that song. Even besides all that, the music selection is much, much better than Spotify. The only better selections I've seen are Youtube (which is covered in Google Music) and Grooveshark (RIP 2015 **:(** ). There are also a ton of radio stations for almost any mood/genre you could think of, along with a bunch of playlists available along with any search results. You also have "My Library," where you can save songs and albums so you can easily find them later. I'm not sure if Spotify Premium has this.
The web and mobile versions work as expected; they are both maintained equally and both have the same features. And the glitches found in Spotify are missing; deleting a song from a playlist automatically plays the next song without having it show some other song playing instead. And the play queue can be brought up in the lower corner of the screen, so you can scroll around on the main screen while your queue is still up. Unlike Spotify's web app, you can drag songs around in your queue and playlists, and you can drag songs from the search results directly into playlists, something which requires the multi-step right clicking frenzy I mentioned. You can also "Play Next" along with "Add to Queue," which Spotify doesn't seem to have. And of course, unlike Spotify's web app, you can select multiple songs at once and add/delete them as you wish.
Offline playing is a lot less locked down. The downloads are yours for as long as you have the paid service, with no 30-day limitations. You can select whole playlists for download, and it will auto-sync whenever you add a new song to the playlist, and automatically download it. You can, of course, download individual songs as well. You can "Add Playlist to Playlist," which is useful for when I want to pare down my ten thousand playlists into one master playlist. Spotify makes me do it one by one. And Google Music actually asks you if you want to skip duplicates...unlike Spotify.
Last but not least, you can use it without being signed in to a special service. If you're signed into google (which, if you have gmail, you probably are), you can use it. You don't have to make a separate account or link anything to Facebook.
*Things I don't like about Google Music*:
1.) You can't yet add Youtube videos into your playlists. They have to be played separately.
2.) You can't drag search results into the queue. The only service I've seen that did this was Grooveshark (RIP **:'(** )
3.) You can't use your queue to "Save As" an existing playlist. The only service I've seen that can do this was, you guessed it, Grooveshark. (RIP)
*Possible Objections*:
1.) *No one uses the web app!*: Well, I use it because I don't want to download an extra program onto my computer. I'm sure if I was a true Spoify fan, I would. But I argue that since the web app is the first to be seen by people new to Spotify, you'd think they would put more effort into making it actually functional. They openly admit that their web app is less maintained. And even if you do use the desktop app, if you happen to want to do a quick check-in without loading up the desktop app, maybe move around a song or two in a playlist before a party, you can't do it. Any songs you add automatically get added to the end of the playlist no matter what. For a simple thing like that you have to load up your big old desktop app.
2.) *But Spotify has the friends feature!*: Obviously, the answer to this is to use last.fm to scrobble your music. Last.fm has extensions that scrobble music from *all* your services, not just Spotify. You're essentially locked into Spotify for all your music if you want your friends to have an accurate view of what kind of music you listen to. And Last.fm shares your scrobbles with everyone, not just signed-in people on your friends list.
Since Spotify seems to be the de facto standard for most people in my 18-24 age bracket, please CMV and let me see what the fanboys see.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump gain popularity from the same underlying reasons +
+ This is how it appears to me as a non-American. In effect, people are moving to support these two candidates mostly in response to the same set of events:
- Disillusionment with the political establishment. Voters are fed up with the highly polished and spin doctored politicians, with overtly similar views, that make up the rest of the leadership candidates. Moreover they feel the insularity of groups within political circles leads to a strong divergence from doing what is best for the people to doing what is best for the elite. In response they support people with seemingly strongly felt policy proposals, messages, and who have only - if at all, existed at the forefront of mainstream politics.
- A response to the emergence of political dynasties. Hillary and Jeb both feel like rehashes of past presidents, and voters fear an arrogance and weakening of democracy if familial dominance is extended.
- Anger at cronyism and corruption. Support for people percieved to fall less into donor's pockets. Sanders stands against this kind of "selling out" and Trump would seem to be rich enough to fund himself. (Reality isn't important here, only what people think).
- Upset at being left behind financially. Sanders talks about raising the minimum wage, organising co-ops and unions and making trade deals beneficial to the American people. Trump talks about forcing companies to situate factories in the USA, especially in cities on steep decline like Detroit. Voter feel these two
- Upset at the pace of change. (This goes in alternate directions so may be less suitable). The USA is deeply split in its range of ideologies, Obama felt it prudent to oppose Gay marriage officially when he first ran for President due to this in order to gain enough votes. With Trump, to quite Iain Dey in the London Times "Large numbers of Americans are struggling to get their opinions up to speed with the liberal agenda and they are fed up with being ignored...[which] is why a candidate currently percieved to be a joke is leading the race for the Republican presidential nomination" . Conversely others feel that Sanders would push their nation towards a more tolerant and open nation, and more supportive of minorities and the less well off.
So please, change this l'il Limey's view that these two candidates gain support for offering their (differing) responses to many of the same problems.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV - Long debate posts are ineffective at changing views. +
+ On my mobile, so I'll be short, also it would be ironic if I wasn't.
If you can't make your point in a paragraph then you're not going to convince anyone.
1. Attention spans are too short.
2. If you can't distill your point into a few well chosen sentences you probably don't have enough mastery over the subject to convince anyone.
My point of view is more about rhetoric than being rigorously correct. I'm aware that there exists concepts that cannot be expressed in short form. I'm saying that communicating these concepts cannot reliably survive the medium of the Reddit post and still be effective at changing views.
----
1. The optimal length doesn't have to be a paragraph. However, I contend that there is definite diminishing returns and negative returns associated with making points overly long.
2. For ideas complex enough to require long explanations, I still believe that the internet is a much less effective medium for this discussion than other options. However, I will concede that it is not **ineffective**. That was an overstatement.
----
----
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Life is boring +
+ I'm in my late 20s. I've traveled a bit, done a bit of drugs, had some nice relationships. At this point I'm just so fucking bored with everything. Everyone I know is just working an office job for some corporation and getting drunk on the weekends. Over and over with no end in sight.
Life used to be exciting. I feel like at some point I thought about it too much and you know that effect where you say a word over and over and it loses all meaning? I think that's what has happened with my life or my attitude about this planet in general.
I feel like this makes me sound a bit depressed so don't worry Reddit, as Rust Cohle says "I lack the constitution for suicide". I'm just bored.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: If it is racist to not date a certain race, it is sexist to not date a certain gender (aka be straight or gay). +
+ I apologize if this question has been asked before, but I couldn't find it in the CMV wiki/frequent topics.
In modern society it is racist to say something like "I'd totally date you if you weren't [this race]" or "My daughter can marry whoever she wants... as long as that person is [of our race]".
Things like "you're the only [person of this race] I've ever been attracted to!" are also grossly offensive.
Obviously there is no such mindset when people say "I am only sexually attracted to [gender]". No one calls you sexist or a bigot for being monosexual (straight or gay).
Why does this double-standard exist when it comes to romance but not for job opportunites, education, and politicians?
**Why don't we think being monosexual is sexist the same way we think not wanting to date certain races is racist?**
Both are judging someone for who they are on the outside. A person's race and gender is something they were born with/they didn't choose/they can't easily change.
Even though I genuinely "feel" that it isn't sexist to be monosexual, I still haven't found an arguement convincing enough to make me think otherwise. And as absurd as the thought that "if you aren bisexual/pansexual then you're sexist!!!" sounds, my brain can't reconcile the logic with how I feel.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Race was invented by racist white people. IF we were to be able to dismantle white supremacy we would need to dismantle the historical construction of race. Race is therefore a paradigm that should be reconstructed or rejected altogether. +
+ I am not advocating that all too often view of white people, that 'I dont see race, and therefore it does not exist.' Complexion exists. Racism exists, and racial preferential treatments exist. But...
Negroid, Caucasoid, mongoloid are conflations that have no accurate definitions. Black and white are terms used to describe people that have such disparate variations that it is ultimately only defined by complexion, and even then it is not accurate. It is as accurate as calling someone African, European, and Asian- peoples from continental masses that have massive disparate cultures, languages and histories. These groups are varied in such dramatic ways that there is little similarities between them. Ethiopians are not like Nigerians, Irish are not like Russians, Japanese are not like Burmese, it is an inaccuracy to try and group them together based on physical characteristics such as complexions, and hair types. Furthermore these definitions have been altered over the course of [history](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_race_concepts), so much so that the only definition is a recently socially constructed definition.
Socially constructed, psychological, cultural definitions of 'race' exists, as in black, white, Latino. These definitions ultimately only have tangible realities in post colonial societies, places that were subjected to racial laws in the past specifically. These racial definitions, like the racial laws of the past, serve only the interests of those invested in the notion of racial segregation.
I also cannot see the value of describing ancient Egyptian society as being 'black' because 'black' was a term invented thousands of years after the ancient Egyptian civilization ended. Similar descriptions of Irish civilization cannot be accurately described as white, or Ming dynasty as being mongoloid.
These terms have maintained racist conventions historically and will continue to maintain such conventions as long as they exist and are used in colloquial discourse. Since they have been alerted in the past it is my conviction that they can and will be altered in the future. I believe that we can use these words to either maintain the conventions or discredit them to abandon these conventions.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: If your religious beliefs are the sole reason for thinking something is wrong, then it does not make sense to ban/make that thing illegal. +
+ Personally, I'm not religious, so I guess I'm trying to get some insight here. Here's the deal, say you live in a world where it is impossible to do anything morally wrong. Then in that world there would be no reason to praise or reward someone for doing the moral thing because there is no other option. Likewise, there is no one who could possibly be punished (like sending them to hell for instance). Clearly we do not live in such a world, but religious individuals/groups who insist that something should be illegal or made nearly impossible due to religious views are trying to make our world more like the one in the scenario I suggested above where it is impossible to do anything morally wrong. Thus, forcing people to comply with the rules of your religion actually seem to make the rules less meaningful which seems like something that religious individuals would want to avoid.
Note, I'm only talking about things where the main reason for believing them is religion - like beliefs about gay marriage, premarital sex, drinking alcohol, etc. Therefore, things like the belief that you should not murder people would not count as having a primarily religious nature because most people also find murder horrific in a separate sense from religion.
To phrase it differently, if all alcohol disappeared from earth tomorrow and humans somehow could no longer make it, would abstaining from drinking alcohol mean anything? I don't think so.
Without having the choice to do the 'wrong' thing, then doing the 'right' thing is meaningless.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: IDs should be required to vote +
+ There's a federal law which prohibits anyone from buying a vote or paying someone to withold their vote, or accepting anything for a vote. The spirit of this law is that the vote should be your own, informed choice, rather than letting someone else make the decision for you.
Point 1 - http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-verification-without-id-documents.aspx
The ncsl site details some terribly inefficient and time consuming ways to verify someone's identity without an ID. Time needs to be used to look up data and then more time needs to be spent comparing data. And then more time after that when things dont match up and you have to fix / argue your want through.
Point 2 - I have trouble understanding the argument about how requiring IDs to vote is discriminatory in a bad way. The argument is that requiring an ID would discourage poor people from voting. Even the poorest citizens engage smoking and drinking, which are activities that they probably have been asked for an ID for. I find it inconceivable that someone without an ID would be someone capable of making an informed vote. If you couldn't find the time out of all the years in your life and maybe 10 dollars to get an ID, then I believe that you are the exact type of irresponsible person who should not be voting at all.
Point 3 - There are long lines at voting and requiring IDs would cut it down. The government requires employers to pay workers while they take off to go vote. I can think of many employers who will tell you to take the whole day off rather than pay you a full day for half a day's work. This is a partially broken law which only works for full time employees. Part time employees, which generally make less money, often cannot take advantage of this. I'd make the argument that by not requiring ID's to vote, they are discriminating against people whose time is more valuable than voting. I believe the best way to encourage voting is to make voting easier and less time consuming.
Point 4 - Perhaps instead of trying to tackle enormously expensive projects like free healthcare and free college, we can start with the easy and low cost / high benefit ones like free ID cards. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: America cannot continue the quasi-permanent state of war we are currently in and remain a true Republic. +
+ The Constitution, as well as laws passed by Congress with the understanding they were specifically for war, and would be used to target enemies, grant the President the ability to expand certain powers and limit certain rights during wartime. However, now that America is fighting a literally unwinnable war on Violent Extremism, those powers, which were meant to be temporary and only used when absolutely necessary, become a permanent part of the Executive Office, and they begin to be used in situations they were not intended to be used in. Two obvious examples that come to mind are the US Government attempting to prosecute Edward Snowden under the 1917 Espionage Act, and the way that RICO laws have been used against everyone from Anti-Abortion protesters to divorce cases.
In the words of James Madison: "Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: ‘Be yourself’ is a totally useless piece of advice. +
+ What does it even mean? How can one not be one-self?
Now I’m mostly talking about the everyday use of the phrase – where it is typically offered moments before an uncomfortable or unfamiliar social interaction, like a date.
And in this scenario, I assume it means something like ‘be yourself but without any of the debilitating neurosis and subsequent façade’.
But this is just as useless. Don’t you think if people could magically wish away such impediments, they would have already done so? It’s possible that some people are able to do this – but then they presumably wouldn’t be in need of such banal advice.
But even if you are held back by anxiety / hiding behind a façade etc. – are these things not an integral part of the ego that constitutes the ‘self’? Wouldn’t someone co-existing with these neuroses be closer to their ‘true self’ (whatever that is) than someone trying to change their mental state? Perhaps. Though how can anyone be ‘other’ than ‘themself’? It seems like whatever a person does, by definition, is being themself.
Maybe ‘be yourself’ means ‘don’t pretend to be someone you’re not’? Again, this very act of pretending is still ‘me’ being ‘myself’. If I pretend, then I am a pretender, and that’s who I am.
Does it mean ‘be your best self? If we could just flip a switch and become our ‘best self’ – wouldn’t everyone leave it on all the time?
‘Don’t overthink’? Fuck you. Don’t underthink.
Is it just empty rhetoric meant as bit of comfort / a morale boost? Well then don’t dress it up in misleading instructions. ‘There, there’ would be more useful / plain.
Also, even if my ‘true self’ is for some reason a ‘me’ without these hang-ups - much of this assumes I have any choice or ability or inclination to change it, and that free will exists (which I’m inclined to doubt – but that’s another issue).
Finally, it’s usually a cop-out on the part of the advisor, who incites this cliché in lieu of anything more profound or nuanced or comprehensive or useful.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Podium girls are not a problem +
+ The subject of Podium girls is quite controversial on cycling subs, good enough to generate all-time top and controversial threads and I would like to know what people think about it.
My position is simple: When the issue is brought to discussion I always end up concluding that **the** problem is the lack of TV coverage of women's cycling and not the concept of podium girls.
Obviously there are some podium girls moments that belong on r/cringe like [this one](http://static1.squarespace.com/static/53dd44b5e4b0a4970a8b838e/t/5599bf8ce4b0b41e79752cf8/1436139405145/?format=750w) or [this move of a fan-favorite cyclist some years ago](http://static1.squarespace.com/static/53dd44b5e4b0a4970a8b838e/t/5599bb6be4b00d130d5cdf9b/1436138348644/?format=750w), but these are extreme examples which do not represent the majority.
I really like to watch women's cycling and would really be pleased to see more of it on TV (there's like 3 or 4 days of racing a year on Eurosport right now) and the fact that women on the sport are more visible on the podium than on the bike is the problem, IMO. I've seen examples on twitter of happy parents talking about little girls thinking "ooh I can do that too?" when La Course was on TV on the last day of Tour de France. And that is an example that there's a lack of coverage (but that's not the issue I want you to discuss).
Then there's the semantics, "podium girls" sound quite worse than "podium women" which would sound much more reasonable, and I agree with that, let's change the name of it. There's a very recent example of "podium men" on a Norwegian race, which sounds a fair way to balance the absence of men on the podiums of women's cycling and apparently would be a reason for people to say we're in a fair position.
**Yet, people think the idea of podium men/women is disgusting and distasteful.
And that's the part I really don't understand and the reason I came to CMV** - maybe because I see podium women since I was a kid?
There's the argument of objectifying people, but they are models which are pleased to do their job.
Also it's a thing that takes seconds, kisses are a way of congratulate people and how many times have we joked about it and created similar photos with our friends, while having a good time?
Some argue that there's embarrassment between podium girls and the riders, and that may be true, but they're not displeased. [Slightly out of context - this video was spread on the web](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V70R9hYECW0) and people think it's cute while being a much more embarrassing thing at the start.
I've seen riders a little more embarrassed when they had to greet politicians.
The argument against podium women that I agree with is the fact that most of them don't know about cycling. On a recent event on my country, only 2 out of 8 or 10 (I can't recall) had good knowledge about the sport according to a TV report which only had the intent of talking a bit about those girls. Young riders or kids could be there on the podium congratulating the riders and meeting their heroes. Yet, we should consider that podium girls usually represent brands, and they're a way of sponsoring a race and that would need to be rethought if we replaced them.
Note that I'm talking about cycling, on other sports you can see examples that could be easily labeled as sexism, which do not apply to the regular cycling podium, even though I welcome your arguments if you talk about other sports.
And well, if you disagree with me, [just don't do this](http://i.imgur.com/LayxpFt.gif), I want to know why you think I'm wrong and I want you to 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: A Conservative will never be US president again +
+ I recently saw a video on why the Republicans [can't win](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFrsmi-wazI) the 2016 election. If we go by raw numbers, Hillary will most likely win the next election. This got me thinking.
Demographics are changing in America. Firstly, Non-whites become a higher percent of the US population seemingly every year. This could be for a number of reasons, like immigration, but it's a good thing for the democrats because non-whites are statistically more likely to be liberal. I don't see this trend changing so I have a hard time seeing how the a Conservative will be voted into office again.
Secondly, Conservatives are aging. Statistically, older people are typically more conservative whereas younger people are typically more liberal. The older Conservatives will eventually all die and be replaced by young liberals.
I must be overlooking something, or missing some way that Conservatives can get votes in the future. Has a situation like this happened before?
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Instead of focusing on making self driving & eco friendly cars, we should focus on improving and expanding public transportation. +
+ It is my belief that self driving cars and cars that pollute lesser than their gas powered counterparts are an unnecessary diversion in creating a safe cleaner people transportation system. We already have it! It’s the trains! If public transport such as railways are expanded and given priority over road vehicles in infrastructure, then we can achieve the goals that the automotive industry is trying to achieve very quickly.
We should divert the resources that we spend on making smarter cars (finances and human capital) to making smarter, faster, safer, public transport and expand the rail network. If we just expand the rail network then people will automatically shift from driving a car to riding on a train as their preferred choice of daily commute.
Some of the points I have against road transport for individuals.
• Environmental impact- A vast majority of cars are running on fuels that emit pollutants in the environment.
• Safety- Road injury was one of the top 10 causes of death in the world. According to WHO, road injury took lives of 1.3 Million people in the last decade.
• Stress– While driving for enjoyment is really fun on your off days, daily commute hardly is. We are spending a nice chunk of our day that we can spend relaxing, reading or working to complete the last minute project on a rather stressful, and repetitive driving route facing traffic jams and asshole drivers.
• Energy efficiency – A car owner takes a Ton of metal with him just to get from point A to B. Fuel efficiency of trains is superior to that of cars.
• Maintenance – a car requires frequent upkeep and maintenance of its parts and components.
• Economy – Transportation is lot more expensive in cars.
Here are some points that I have for expansion of public transport.
• Bonus free time – When I’m in a train I can browse my phone, read a news paper work on my presentation without the fear of killing someone. This is something driverless cars are trying to achieve and are still years away from it.
• Potty Breaks – trains can be modified to have them, cars don’t. I’d have to pause my driving, find a gas station and then resume it again, why do that when you can go on the go.
• Fuel Efficiency.
• Noise reduction.
• Skill Transfer- People who graduate in engineering and were thinking of joining an automotive manufacturer can just as easily join a locomotive manufacturer.
I am not arguing for an absolute ban on using cars, I just think if we focus on public transport more than we would solve a lot of problems that automotive market is trying to eliminate. Problems such as energy efficiency, pollution, and vehicle automation can be achieved with technology that we have **today.**
| 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 want Sanders to get the Dem nomination because I think he can't win a general election +
+ So much Sanders hype on Reddit lately, yet despite some of the good ideas he has, I don't want him to win against Hilary for the nomination. Isn't he a really far left candidate? This is a country where Trump is #1 currently among Republicans, and to win the general election you have to appeal to moderates. I don't see how he can do that with a lot of the very liberal positions he's taken (not to mention his unabashed acceptance of the 'socialist' label), and my fear is that if some moderate Republican like Jeb Bush takes the nomination, he will win a general election in a landslide by taking all the centrist votes. Or am I being too pessimistic?
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The best gender-neutral pronouns are 'they,' 'them,' 'their,' etc. +
+ For hundreds of years (I'm assuming), if a writer or speaker was discussing a hypothetical person or a person whose gender they didn't know, they would use the pronouns 'he,' etc. Recently, this is thought of as sexist, since it obviously assumes that whoever the speaker is talking about is male.
Attempts have been made to come up with a gender-neutral pronoun. Each of these has failed, in that they have never caught on with the general populace, so if someone uses them, it causes confusion in the audience.
Sometimes you see people write or say "His or her." This just requires extra syllables/ink and usually sounds forced, at least to my ears. Other writers or speakers alternate, using "he" and "him" for one example, then "she" and "her" for another. This sometimes works, but often (at least for me) trips up the reader, causing them to reread sections. If nothing else, it usually stands out as a "I'm trying to not be sexist" sign.
However, in English we already have a perfectly serviceable gender-neutral pronoun: they, and its relatives. In everyday speech, we often say things like, "Who left their shoes here?" "Every student should place their test on the desk," or similar things.
I believe they, them, their, etc. are the best gender neutral pronouns. Here's why:
1) Every English speaker understands them without a problem, and uses them fluidly.
2) Any attempt to create a new word will never catch on. New words that catch on usually do so because they describe a new thing that lacks a word, such as 'google,' 'selfie,' etc. Compare those words to Bing's attempts to get people to say use 'bing' as a verb in the same way we use 'google.'
3) Any confusion between the plural use of 'they,' etc. and the gender-neutral, singular use will be minimal, especially since, colloquially, 'they' pretty much already has this meaning.
My primary view is that we should just embrace 'they' as our gender-neutral pronoun, and use it in daily speech, formal speeches, articles, essays, etc. CMV
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Voting Day Should be A Public Holiday +
+ In many democratic countries, the day citizens vote is a public holiday. This is not the case in the US where citizens have to vote before or after work or during a lunch break. I'm from a country where the day people vote is a public holiday. The lines are pretty long in some areas, and the whole process can take a few hours, even if you are quite early.
So it makes me wonder, why one earth wouldn't the US not have voting day as a public holiday? It seems like it stops people from voting and that it results in less ballots being cast. This is because people simply do not have the time! People have to juggle a job, family obligations, basic errands needed to survive the day as well as transport and on top of this have to still make time to vote for their futures. It seems counter-intuitive and undemocratic, in the sense that it makes the democratic process less accessible.
Also, surely the people who won't be able to vote would be from a certain social class or demographic? For example, I’m imagining that a single mother holding down two jobs won’t be able to find the time to do what’s required of her to support herself and her child(ren) in addition to having to find the time to vote.
In the case of it being a public holiday, I imagine people will say that this will just be used as a day off to relax and people won’t vote anyway. I think the only people who won’t vote would be people who didn’t want to in the first place for particular reasons, such as cynicism or apathy toward the democratic system, not caring about who’s in charge or no interest in the political system as they don’t think it has an effect on their lives.
I think people will probably also point out that some businesses will likely stay open and citizens will have to work anyway and thus be excluded from voting. In this case, the majority of citizens will still be off work, so this wouldn’t be a complete argument against not having voting day a public holiday. The people who have to work on voting day, would most likely have shorter shifts as this is a public holiday and be allowed to vote. Being that this would be a public holiday, businesses would be forced to pay workers overtime. This would be an incentive to shorter shifts and it would be treated like any other public holiday.
In addition, there would be a wider viewership of news networks and other sources of information as citizens would have more time to access this information.
I understand that I come from a different country, so perhaps what I’m saying isn’t going to be particularly applicable to the US. On the other hand, perhaps this is the wake up call that Americans need! In any case, I am greatly interested in discussion and would welcome the chance to change my view.
Aside, from picking apart my own argument, I'd greatly appreciate to hear what the arguments are in the US by people who don't want to have citizens take the day off on voting day. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I'm a liberal progressive young person with a college degree in a low paying job. I think Bernie Sanders seems like the perfect candidate for someone in my position. +
+ I'm not asking about bias. I'm not asking about the politics of why he won't win (I.E. too extreme, won't impress the moderates). I'm a liberal progressive young person with a low paying job and a college degree. What I'm asking is why voting for Bernie Sanders would go against my interests. How has he contradicted what he's currently campaigning on? What has he done in the past that would not live up to my standards?
No candidate is perfect. I know that. They all make mistakes, voting for the wrong legislation for whatever reason. What has he done?
Basically, I want to know how fake he is. I'm of firm belief that no candidate can be all real all the time.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Ken Ham is an intelligent person and a very logical thinker +
+ This is the Ken Ham from the Bill Nye vs Ken Ham debate.
By the way, I'm agnostic, and believe in evolution and such.
I do not believe that he is right, but I think that the arguments he makes are well thought out and properly reasoned, assuming the the axiom that "God is good, God is great, and the Bible is the word of God".
I am not above believing science at its core is a set of axioms - its main axiom is something along the lines of one cannot dispute that which is observed. It's not fundamentally different from God is good, God is great, and the Bible is the word of God. I just happen to come to believe that the former set of axioms is better, and disagree with the latter set of axioms.
In the debate Ken Ham talks about the difference between observable sciences and unobservable sciences. The former is physics, chemistry, engineering, and in general things we can measure or reproduce.
The latter includes evolution, Big Bang, and all the other controversial stuff.
I think his argument of why those didn't happen is logical. In fact it's pretty much just Bayesian statistics. We gather evidence and we add those to a prior. We come to the conclusion that is either most likely, requires the fewest assumptions, or some other means of deciding which is "best".
Evolutionary biologists have of course constructed a large theory with which the gathered evidence is consistent. Most people, including myself, believe this is the most likely. I however, am not above saying there is a chance it is just completely wrong. Again, unobservables.
For Ken Ham he includes the Bible in his prior. With the Bible in his prior, the story as told in the Bible of course becomes the most likely, and has the bonus of not requiring any assumptions other than the validity of the Bible as a source. In fact it's the only logical conclusion.
The only hole I could really find with his argument was the assumption that the Bible was correctly transcribed for two centuries, a series of events he could not have observed. But this is more or less inconsistent with his axioms, and I don't think flies as a counterargument.
This is motivated in part by a lot of CMVers with the notion that science is inherently superior to religion. I either want to have MV C'd, or open other peoples' minds about taking science > religion as granted.
So, CMV!
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Faith based organizations (i.e. religious groups) should not be allowed to discriminate against people on the basis of their beliefs. +
+ (Inspired by [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/3hcpw9/point_79_of_the_conservative_party_policy_allows/) post.) My position is that faith based organizations (i.e. religious groups) should not be given any special protection and should follow the same laws as every other organization with respect to discrimination against protected classes.
For the purposes of this discussion, I am using the "[Canadian Human Rights Act](http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/h-6/)" as the thing that defines discrimination. The protected classes from this act are:
1. race
2. national or ethnic origin
3. colour
4. religion
5. age
6. sex
7. sexual orientation
8. marital status
9. family status
10. disability
11. conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted
My position is that the right to have freedom of religion does not superseed these rights. If your religion is not able to be tolerant with respect to these rights, then your religion has no place in our tolerant society. These quotations also aptly describe my position:
“Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice.”
― Ayaan Hirsi Ali
“Don't get so tolerant that you tolerate intolerance.”
― Bill Maher
-------------
Some possible criticisms to this position and my response below:
--------------------
Q: But this means that churches would be forced to do Jewish ceremonies!
A: This is not the case. Section 5 of the Human Rights Act states that discrimination occurs when someone is denied a "provision of goods, services, facilities or accommodation customarily available to the general public" based on the above protected classes. It is only discrimination if the service is generally available but specifically denied to a protected class.
---------------------------
Q: But this means that churches would be forced to hire atheists as priests!
A: Section 15.1.a of the Human Rights Act already allows for an exemption for positions established by an employer to be based on a bona fide occupational requirement, which I think would qualify here.
-----------------------------
Q: But this means a bunch of bozos can come in and make a mockery of my church!
A: Being respectful is not a protected class. If someone is not being respectful of your church, it is not discrimination to ask them to leave.
------------------------------
Q: But this means that churches would be forced to perform same sex marriages!
A: Yes, and my position is that if a religious group is not tolerant with respect to sexual orientation, then this religion has no place in our society. I realize that this facet in particular is the most controversial part of my position.
-----------
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: If a redlight camera is enough to give a ticket for running a red light, then automatic toll systems should be able to give fines for speeding +
+ The basis of this viewpoint is that a system that does not require an official review (such as automatically giving out tickets for running red lights) would also extend to other laws. That has set a precedent where it would be legally acceptable to issue fines to other violations without human input.
If a driver passes through toll A, then passes through toll B (10 miles away) after 5 minutes, it's possible to determine the driver's minimum speed as 120 mph. It's possible the driver went faster then paused before they crossed toll B, but it would not be possible for them to have traveled at a legal speed and still pass through toll B within that time.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Signing people up to vote in elections is bad for the general populace. +
+ I don't have an incredibly detailed post on the matter. My general logic is if you HAVE to sign someone up to vote, they will most likely be too lazy to take the time to read up on their candidates or what they're voting for. I believe everybody should have the right to vote and access to voting, but when you're cajoling people into registering you're adding fluff votes based on color, party, or sensationalized issues.
I feel like most people I've brought this up with believe I'm wrong so I just want a well constructed argument as to why. Not here to argue at all, thanks for your time!
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Self harm is not inherently bad or wrong +
+ I'm not asking anything about why we self harm—trust me I've got many answers for that. My problem is that everyone seems to agree that self harm is bad, but no one can give me a logical argument for why.
So far this is the logic I've heard again and again:
Self harm is bad because it is dangerous. It is dangerous because you could die, or could get an infection.
The problem I have seen with this is that you can replace "self harm" with so many other things and still follow the same basic structure.
Lacrosse is bad because it is dangerous. It is dangerous because you could get a concussion.
Cooking is bad because it is dangerous. You could get burned.
Taking Lithium for Bipolar Disorder is bad because it is dangerous. It is dangerous because it could give you kidney failure.
So I can not accept the false-logic of dangerous = bad. That means anything dangerous is inherently bad, and that is not true.
It is very easy to self harm without any danger. Sterilize tools, clean and cover wounds, etcetera.
Of course this can still leave permanent scars, but so can getting a tattoo or a piercing, so once again, self harm isn't inherently bad just because it leaves scars. Lots of things leave scars, so scars aren't what's bad about it.
Okay, but it's a symptom of a bigger problem. Yes. And the bigger problem is the thing that should be fixed. But that *still* doesn't mean that the symptom is bad.
If you have a bacterial infection, you treat the infection. You don't just cover any redness up with makeup to treat the symptom. So self harm, the symptom of many mood disorders, isn't what should be treated.
So besides the ridiculously flawed "it's dangerous" argument, explain to me why self harm is inherently bad.
Tl;Dr, something being dangerous doesn't make it bad. Give me a real reason why self harm is bad.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I think government tracking and personal data collection are good and should be continued/expanded +
+ I'm a programmer, and I am really interested in data science and machine learning. I think it started at my current job, where occasionally I was told to scrape websites and collect leads for the marketers (which is probably me favorite part of the job). It feels really fulfilling to me to make something (a bot) that does what a person couldn't do in a month's full time work. That, and it feels rewarding knowing I gathered something(s) with immediate marketable value. That, and that, and the idea of all of the potential uses and benefits to having this information.
I've been to a lot of hackathons (programming-marathons) and open-data is an awesome opportunity to make something cool and resume-building quickly (hackathons are usually only 24-48 hours overnight). The more data out there, the more possibilities there are to help the public or invent something novel.
I think of the government the same way, if the data they collect and use helps their ability to govern then I am all for it.
And on a personal level, I don't care that whoever is tracking my phone, reading my emails, whatever. I'm just glad someone is using my information to make my life and the lives of others to be better.
-If the NSA collected less information, it could be more useful and usable.
-Your Emails, much like music or physical letters, *should* be your own private property, even if they aren't now
-I can't both agree that the NSA should collect this information and the NSA should do this legally, because they are collecting it illegally it is a logical fallacy
-By agree to this, I take away other people's privacy rights, and that's not okay
-There could be new data or ways of analyzing it that would more seriously violate privacy or give power, and this is setting a bad precedent
-Mass surveillance is bad historically
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Bringing your kids to church is indoctrination and they shouldn't be allowed in any church until they reach an age where they can decide for themselves. +
+ Disclaimer: I am very anti-theist so that's why I have such a negative thought of bringing your kids to church.
Bringing children to church starting at a young age is very likely to make that person blindly follow that religion without them having much of a choice. At a young age, kids are impressionable and tend to believe whatever an adult/parent says to them. Thus, the odds of them changing their beliefs are lowered. I am not saying that they will never switch, it's just the odds of them doing so are severely lowered.
I believe that any church or religious meeting areas should have an age restriction (I will leave that age number up for debate). And not to make them not believe in religion, that violates the constitution. But to let them make the choice themselves, and purely by themselves. I know that the parents could just teach them about it, but hey, if some people are going to indoctrinate their child, might as well make them use their own time to do that.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Attractive women have easier lives than everyone else. +
+ My view is that, in Western society, conventionally attractive females have an easier go of things than everyone else.
My first observation is that quality of life improves with a wider social circle, which attractive people at least have a greater potential for. There are more opportunities for networking / employment, a stronger emotional safety net, and a wider pool from which to select and develop close relationships (in other words, they can afford to be choosey about their friends, lovers, etc.)
My second observation is that men are usually brought up to ignore or otherwise not respond as strongly to each others' level of attractiveness. Classic female icebreakers - "You're so pretty!", "I love your hair!" - don't really exist in the straight male world, and even attractive men have to rely on other factors (humour, athleticism) to maintain their social standing among both sexes.
I'm sure I'll be able to explain my view further in response to some of your comments, so CMV.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Property taxes should only depend on the value of the property. +
+ This is fairly straightforward. I think all real property taxes should be assessed based solely on the fair market value of the property. It should not matter what the use of the property is, or who lives there. If you own a plot with a value of $300,000, you should pay the same tax as any other owner of a plot valued at $300,000.
The most egregious example against this to me is [California prop 13](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_\(1978\)) which freezes property taxes when you buy a house, essentially subsidizing long-term residents at the cost of more recent arrivals.
The basic reasoning for this is twofold. First, there's a fairness question, since the taxes you pay should be the same no matter who you are. In the case of property taxes, they're already progressive in as much as they depend on the fair market value of an asset you own.
Second is an efficiency issue. Giving people tax abatements encourages them not to move (as in prop 13) or to not sell when they don't have good use for the property, such as [this woman who is being sued for failing to maintain a property she can't afford to renovate, but keeps paying the very low taxes on.](http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20150817/central-harlem/owner-of-dilapidated-landmarked-harlem-home-sued-rare-move-by-city)
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: My enjoyment of Bill Cosby's comedy has not decreased at all. +
+ Bill Cosby almost certainly raped a number of women. That's horrible. It's awful. It's inexcusable. It also has nothing to do with whether Bill Cosby is funny or has intelligent things to say about family life (within the boundaries of his comedy). I grew up listening to his comedy, I loved it then, and I love it now just exactly as much as I ever did. I don't care what personal faults, foibles, or felonies the man has. CMV and tell me why the art someone creates is degraded because of the artist's unrelated transgressions.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Talking about race, racism, and racial issues along with racial preference programs actually makes any existing problems worse, creates new problems, and divides people rather than unifying them. In my opinion "not seeing color" IS the attitude we should cultivate. +
+ In this post I am going to be very blunt. This is because I want to show exactly how all this impacted the thinking of myself and the people around me. I was born here in the US but I am of Chinese and Thai descent. As a child I grew up not really caring at all about race, I just sort of assumed humans came is all different colors and shapes and that was normal. I didn't even know there were names for the different races and ethnicities. The only thing I was really aware of was if people actually came from a different country.
As I grew older, my classmates and I were bombarded with racial messages during school and everywhere else. We were taught that white people were somehow inherently racist. We were taught that everyone else was perfect and every bad thing they did throughout history was somehow righteous and justified. I started to see lines forming. White kids were told that they were somehow responsible for everything some people in the past did. Black kids were taught that they were owed something. I noticed kids start self-segregating. It wasn't anything dramatic, no one attributed this to the things we were being taught, but people knew they were different now.
I grew older still. I started paying attention to the news and the internet,. Race was discussed alot. I learned about affirmative action and it made my blood boil. If you didn't know, Asians are hurt the most by affirmative action. I would need a MUCH higher SAT score and GPA than a black person to get into the schools of my choice. I started to resent black people for this. Why was I being hurt because an entire race was apparently performing poorly and my entire race wasn't? And if discrimination was the reason, well my race was discriminated against in the past too! This was opinion shared by my friends. It led us to think that if this was the case, black people didn't try very much and were lazy in school. Otherwise why would they need help? I was infuriated to learn that a black girl who took all level classes and wasn't even close to the top of the class was accepted into my first choice college while I was not, despite my excellent grades and test scores. When I went to college, I made sure to avoid going to black doctors and other black professionals for fear than they got their position due to unfair preferences.
I learned about the black crime rate, and prison population. I started to become scared when I saw a black person on the streets. All the commentary about how this was racist merely solidified my opinion. I saw how violent black neighborhoods are, I was catcalled constantly by black men in the streets, I worked in a leasing office and saw black tenants who lived entirely off the government and complained about everything. If I hadn't heard about race my entire life I would have written all these off as "Man those specific people suck" rather than lump the entire race together. People address these issues as if everyone else is to blame for these peoples actions, instead of saying hey, those are just bad people. Instead they make it a race thing where those bad people are actually VICTIMS. I heard about the police shootings and the publicity around them. I heard about the riots, and the more people talked about how the senseless destruction was justified the more I distanced myself and the more scared I became. I started to involuntarily see black people as a threat. My friends all secretly talked about how they wished all these people would go back to Africa so we could all live in peace. In the past couple years after all the discussion about race I have seen SOO many non-black people become essentially racist, and so many wonderful black people become entitled and vitriolic.
So basically, I feel like if we brought our kids up to not see color and talk about Americans as Americans, rather than african-american, asian american, etc, racism would soon become a thing of the past. If we keep bringing up race in EVERYTHING, kids start drawing lines and lumping people together as their race, rather than as Americans. They start noticing and being hyper-aware of differences between races. Crying racism in every situation just annoys people and defeats the goal of ending racism. Racial and diversity programs make people resentful, and make the benefitting parties feel entitled. People should be chosen on merit alone. "Not seeing color" is treated as ignorant and is laughed at, but I feel that this is the best way to operate if we are ever going to solve our problems.
I'd like other opinions on this because the way I see the world right now truly sickens me. I don't want to keep feeling like I am different because I am Asian, I want to feel American and be okay with the way people talk about race. I want to feel okay with the way we as Americans are dealing with these issues. I also want to understand why "not seeing color" is ridiculed. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Statistics should be a mandatory part of the high school curriculum, but NOT as a replacement for any standard mathematics courses. +
+ Increasingly, many argue that elementary statistics should be a mandatory subject in the high school curriculum. I agree with this wholeheartedly, as the discipline has become central to civic and economic literacy in the 21st century. But to argue, as some have, that this should *replace* the traditional "algebra to calculus" high school math sequence makes about as much sense to me as arguing that history should replace English. While the two undoubtedly share some skills and mechanics, they are fundamentally different disciplines with fundamentally different roles in the curriculum, and both are necessary for a complete education.
Although the underlying mechanics of statistics are undoubtedly mathematical, increasingly it is becoming recognized as a discipline in its own right, with its own methodology and best practices distinct from those of pure mathematics, and the structure of high school should reflect this divergence. At the high school level, the focus of statistics pedagogy should be on core concepts, the appropriate use of technology, and interpretation-- you are teaching a student to turn data into an accurate, precise probablistic statement, and to have an intuitive understanding of the probability concepts underlying the meaning of that statement. These are important skills, but they aren't really *mathematical* skills in the traditional sense; you are reasoning in a different mode.
In a well-taught algebra, geometry, or calculus class, by contrast, students learn to reason deductively rather than inductively, learn the theory underlying core mathematical notions such as function and equivalence, solve non-routine problems, and use mathematics of all types to analyze real-world phenomena. None of these skills except arguably the last play any role in an elementary statistics curriculum.
You can argue that a deep facility with "abstract" math has little importance in the "real world," but increasingly the 21st century economy *does* reward individuals who have a high capacity for abstraction and problem-solving, even if you are never directly using specific skills (the classic "when will I ever need the quadratic formula in real life" bugbear). Finally, learning these mathematical concepts is a necessary prerequisite for any further study in STEM fields, which statistics training will not replace. Thus, BOTH statistics and math, as separate disciplines, should have a role in the high school curriculum.
As a final note, I should mention that I am here presupposing that both statistics and pure math can are taught *well.* Obviously, a well-taught statistics class is much more useful than a poorly-taught math class, and vice-versa. I'm well aware that bad mathematics teaching (and bad statistics teaching, for that matter) is rampant in the U.S., so I'd prefer to keep the horror stories along those lines out of this particular discussion and stay focused on the best-case possibilities of both subjects.
**To those of you more interested in debating the logistical nuts and bolts (concerns about burdensome mandates on schools, etc.):** thank you also for your participation in the conversation. Some have made arguments that all state mandates on school curriculum are unnecessarily burdensome or will cost too much; I believe this premise has empirically denied, so these arguments are not convincing to me. Others have made the point that, in the event that states are unwilling to add new credit hours to their diploma requirements, we risk adding statistics at the expense of electives or core courses. This is a more compelling argument, but ultimately a risk I am willing to take, since I believe that in most if not all states there is room in the existing credit structure to responsibly add statistics in place of at least one course. As a separate issue, I think increasing credit hour minimums and extended school days are serious proposals that should be given consideration as possibilities, though it is not my intent to make a full argument in favor of them here. Unless you have something substantially different to offer than the above two arguments, I doubt I will be convinced by further discussion along these lines.
Thank you again to all who responded.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The default provision of water at restaurants is often wasteful and should be stopped. +
+ Throughout my lifetime in the southwestern US I have been provided with water at restaurants whether I requested it or not. It's brought out even before drink orders are requested. I drink soda and will leave water completely untouched if it is provided. Often, despite my not requesting it, I've been brought a glass of water along with my glass of soda.
As many probably know, my area of the country is in a prolonged drought that has led to water rationing, limits on car washing and lawn watering, etc. We're all advised to limit water usage and waste by turning the tap off while brushing our teeth. We are trying to limit water waste but seem to overlook the waste generated by every diner, whether they will drink it or not, being provided a glass of water, sometimes even an additional carafe on the table. Furthermore, the extra glass that I did not need will now need to be washed, leading to more wasted resources, including more water.
I have been traveling/eating out a lot recently and have been observing many other diners who do not drink the water provided for them because they opt for alcohol or soda.
I certainly think water should be provided for free, but I see no reason that it should be provided preemptively rather than upon request. This practice should be halted in order to reduce water waste.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Many Parents Have a Lop-Sided Reaction to People Mentioning the Joys of Not Having Children +
+ I've noticed this in person, but it is even more apparent on reddit. Almost anywhere on reddit, if there is a comment that gets popular that mentions something good about not having children or something bad about having children it seems there will soon be people replying stuff like "Geez, apparently all of the child haters are out on reddit today." I find this to be an oddly aggressive pushback considering parents often spend a huge amount of time advertising to others exactly how amazing their children are.
To a certain degree, I think I can understand why this might be. It is kind of like getting a tattoo. Being a parent is something that only goes one direction. Unless you're willing to be practically socially ostracized, then once you have a child there is no going back. So just like getting a tattoo, people suddenly become much more aggressive about defending the practice in the face of even mild disagreement.
This also reminds me of a similar problem with religious belief. Where people will share their deepest religious convictions in public and make definitive statements about how the universe works and then respond with an out-sized reaction when someone posts something about how they don't really think any of that makes much sense. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Building a PC isn't worth the effort/headache +
+ I don't think building a PC is worth it unless you enjoy the process of doing so. The $100-200 you save isn't worth the work it takes to assemble the thing and troubleshoot faulty parts.
So I had a 100% functional pc I built years ago, and decided I'd "rebuild" it with a skylake CPU/new motherboard/new cooler/ddr4 RAM.
I was short on cash, so I decided to reuse the same GPU for now, 100% functional before I built the new PC.
Package arrives, I take a couple hours to assemble it as the cooler is a bit tricky. But I get it right, but the system only outputs to the onboard VGA. Onboard DVI and GPU outputs don't work, but the GPU fans are spinning. Yes, the PCIe power connectors are connected, and yes I properly seated the GPU.
So I look online, and people tell me I probably just need drivers. So I install windows just fine. Try to get drivers off of AMD's site, install fails. Not surprising, because the GPU won't show in the device manager. Great.
So I turn it off, open it up, and put a spare GPU into the same slot. Still no image. I then take that spare GPU, and put it in the 2nd PCIe slot. Magically, it works. But this PCIe slot operates at x8, and isn't big enough to fit high end GPUs because the SATA ports are in the way. So no bueno.
I decide that the PCIe slot is broken, and take the pc apart to get the board ready to RMA. I decide I need a PC while I wait for the new parts, so I reassemble my old build, which took even more time.
System boots, image displayed but now the video card fans don't spin. System restarts after a few minutes abruptly. Obviously, this means that the card is overheating due to no active cooling.
Put in spare card, works fine. So the new motherboard I bought fried the video card I own due to a falty PCIe slot, and chances are Newegg or ASUS won't cover that, judging by what I read online.
So now I'm down $600 I spent on new parts, 2 days worth of time I spent troubleshooting(which I could have made a lot if I worked those days), and now I'm stuck using a low end GPU as the motherboard fried my $200 one.
There's a reason that professional corporations just buy OEM PCs like Dell instead of hiring people to build them. The build process is all fine if you know what you're doing and all parts work, but the moment you get 1 DOA part that fries other parts, then it's pure hell to figure out what to replace, and what to keep. The time spent troubleshooting poor parts isn't worth the miniscule amount of money you save.
I've been working in a PC repair shop for a year, took a year long pc repair course, and I'm comptia A+ certified, so I know what I'm doing, for the most part. But imagine if this happened to a beginner, who is just going off of guides found online with no experience behind them in troubleshooting. They would have no clue what part to blame, what to RMA, what to buy.
Unless you're extremely frugal, or enjoy building PCs, you're better off just buying an OEM PC. The $100-200 yous ave isn't worth the time spent figuring it out, or the risk that you'll never get it to work at all(because of DOA parts or rookie mistakes) | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |