input
stringlengths 89
9.33k
| output
stringclasses 2
values | instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|
CMV: Internet access should be gated based on some as of yet to be figured out measure of intelligence, both in an intellectual and emotional sense. +
+ The amount of stupid people on the internet is completely out of control, not to speak of the actual human pieces of garbage that congregate in some of the most terrible subreddits here on reddit. Youtube comments are an absolute cesspit nearly anywhere you go. People everywhere believe that just because they're able to speak their mind, that that somehow means that their opinion is worth a shit. Now, I know that this is an infeasible task, but god damn do I want to live in a world where people like this don't get to partake in this level playing field of ours.
What good does it do our society to give people like this such a powerful tool of communication? | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Zoos are morally wrong (animal rights standpoint not environmental) +
+ I believe that zoos are morally wrong. I understand that zoos do some good in taking in endangered animals, but only a relatively small percentage of the animals in the zoo are endangered in the first place and I don't believe that the majority of the animals should sufferer for the benefit of the smaller. Side note, sanctuaries exist for this reason. They are capable of handling one animal well and they can also make money from donations/tours.
Even then, the endangered animals do not belong in a zoo. Endangered species are not sentient. The individual animal is. The individual animal has right to freedom, even if that means becoming extinct. Extinction in the wild is not an excuse to continue keeping individuals in captivity. The survival of the species does not justify the loss of freedom for the individuals in captivity.
Secondly, animals in captivity experience many mental illness signs such as depression, PTSD, shakes among others. These are symptoms that aren't seen in their wild counterparts. Some chimpanzees have even been seen to self-mutilate, repetitive rocking and consumption of feces, which again, are not seen in wild counterparts.
Now, these symptoms are usually seen in lab monkeys (which I will not be going into) however, this has also been seen in monkeys living in good zoos. All 40 of the observed chimps did some kind of abnormal behavior, ranging from poking their own eyes and other body parts, drinking urine, pulling their hair, bang themselves against surfaces and other things that wild chimps don't do.
Thirdly, animals are killed that have certain diseases. I can't recall the exact article, however there were a group of monkeys in a zoo (I think they may have been in England) they had a disease that was nonfatal to them. In the wild these monkeys would live normal lives and do monkey things. However, this disease is fatal to humans, and as suck they put them all down. Now while I believe this is a rather rare scenario, it can happen.
Lastly, and I *know* this will be brought up because it's brought up a lot. People always mention how good zoos are for showing children animals they would otherwise never get to see in person. While I do agree this is a good thing, and it makes children appreciate the world (and get into science more at a young age) I do believe that museums can fill this same role, and without the moral issues that I brought up.
To summarize, I don't think that the pros of zoos outweight the cons. You wouldn't say the that [insert hate group/military group] is good because they protect their own people. You can't subtract the bad because of some good things.
If I had to give this post a TL;DR it would basically be: Zoos are immoral places that do some good, but in the end, I believe that anything a zoo does well, a museum or sanctuary can do better.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: If our society thrives on competition, I should just massacre everyone and hog all resources. +
+ When we attempt to superimpose the Darwinian dictum of 'survival of the fittest', isn't it going to lead us this obvious conclusion? Earth is going to be populated by a bunch of fat, rich warlords ordering their subjugated population to garner hold over global resources. If i decide to take the pacifist route, I get killed, or alternatively the 'leaders' passively attempt to bridle my growth through manipulation and domination. Hence I should become proactive and get rid of their lackeys(general population), and finally cut off the head of the snake as well. Please do change my view.
P.S. Is this footnote etiquette some kind of moderator powerplay? I'mma lace your mod-drinks with Polonium at the next meetup!
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: All people who are healthy enough should be an organ donor +
+ I believe everyone who is in good health, but has passed away or is about to pass away should be an organ donor. You have the chance to save lives while yours is being taken or has just been taken. I don't see a reason to just waste your organs by burying or burning it after death.
I know it's your body so you should have a right to do with it what you want, but why not make your last act mean something to someone and/or a family?
Those who aren't organ donors can you explain why you aren't?
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Dog fighting should be legalized, taxed, and regulated at animal shelters. +
+ In much the same way as drugs, prostitution, gambling, or other "victimless" crimes, dog fighting is going to happen irrespective of the law. Legalization would lead to increased tax revenue, less organized crime. and safer, more humane environments for all those involved. It would also end the practice of baiting game dogs with helpless puppies and the like.
I understand that many would argue that the dogs are victims (as are drug addicts and prostitutes for that matter), but only in the sense that eating horse meat (which is illegal in many places) victimizes horses, or even horse racing, which is already legalized, taxed, and regulated in controlled environments.
The fact is countless dogs are already being put to death in animal shelters, often at the taxpayers' expense. Revenue from dog fighting could alleviate this cost considerably, perhaps even allowing animals to be kept longer, increasing their chances of adoption. Highly aggressive dogs are unlikely to ever be adopted however (except perhaps by illegal dog-fighting fans currently), nor should they be.
It would only be the aggressive dogs used in fights, as they're clearly willing. That's why they need to be kept in separate cages, otherwise they'd be mauling each other of their own volition. Dogs too old, young, sickly, or cowardly to fight could still be put down as usual since they would make for unentertaining match-ups and would be bad for gambling.
Even the dogs that do fight would receive better medical treatment afterwards from veterinarians on hand, and/or humane euthanasia rather than drowning, hanging, etc. You certainly wouldn't get the likes of a Michael Vick doing a Pete Townshend impression with a terrier in place of a guitar.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: /r/changemyview is the only safe place on reddit to express any viewpoint and play devil's advocate +
+ "Safe" = Don't have to worry about the majority of the community using the downvote button as a disagree button
*Example:*
[The most recent example that is driving my view](http://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/3ahvzg/are_there_any_moral_or_rational_arguments_why/)
In this thread, I am calmly attempting to offer an answer to the question, without any personal attacks, yet my comments are getting downvoted. Of all the times I've posted on CMV, this issue has literally only happened one time.
*Justification:*
The tone of at least one responder to any post that doesn't conform to popular opinion on every other debate/discussion sub is: '**You** are wrong, therefore everything you say is invalid'
The tone on CMV is: '**Your statements** are wrong, and this is why'
The CMV community can have a calm, rational conversation about anything, even views that are extremely unpopular. I feel *safe* here, and I think others do as well. Just check out this [Hitler wasn't that evil](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/28ydjm/cmv_hitler_wasnt_that_evil/) post on CMV.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Muslim here. Devoutly religious people are usually morally higher and a better person compared to the average Westerner or the common people of the world. Hence they should be held in high esteem and follow their moral examples, even if we don't agree with their religious views +
+ Hello there.
I am a guy from Bangladesh, a highly conservative Islamic country. English is not my native language. I will still try to explain the issue to the best of my ability. If you do not understand something, do ask for clarifications. Furthermore, I do not intend to offend anyone, so please don't take it otherwise.
I should also say that I am very irreligious, and I am just a Muslim officially. Other than that my views fall in the camp of Liberal Agnosticism. In other words I tend to support contemporary Western social values on morality to some extent.
Anyways the thing is, I believe that most devoutly religious people are on on the whole good people. If you take a weighing scale and place their good and bad deeds, the scale of righteousness will be many times more heavier than the scale of evil. This would be mostly true for followers of any religion. If someone has lead all their life strictly adhering to their religion, it is highly likely that these people are on the whole *many times moral than the average Westerner or the Common people of the world*
Since they are many times more moral than the common people of the world, especially the West, these people should be held in high esteem. Even if we don't agree with their views, we should still accept that they are a better person than us and we should aspire to follow in their moral path, even if we do not follow their religious path. We should also place them on a pedestal or have a very high esteem for them and make them leaders among our people.
I have seen a lot of hatred and mockery towards this group by most Westerners, especially Reddit. People here are always saying "Dont Preach here, you ****" and things along those lines. People seem to consider themselves on par or atleast better than devoutly religious people even if they are themselves sleeping around.
Sure you could argue that there are examples of religious people being criminals, but that is in the minority. This ofcourse does not mean, that their actions against other human beings would be ignored. It would be left to the victim to either forgive or enforce the justice that he owes.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I cannot return to "normal" after an existential crisis. +
+ I don't even know where to start.
I am generally a happy and healthy person. I was raised Catholic. I am not a strict Catholic. I enjoy the community of church. I don't take everything at face value or for fact. About 8 years ago I came to terms that there is probably no Heaven. Death is just ceasing to exist. I was okay with that. I still felt we had souls or spirits. I still hoped for or had affection for the possibility of a God, even though it probably didn't exist. I still hoped for an afterlife of some sort, even though I didn't know what it would manifest as and that the chance of one was actually quite slim. I felt my children were a blessing. Their births were the most beautiful, tender days of my life. I took joy and pride in everything my kids did. Some days I would just well up with pride and happiness, so happy that our lives have been rich and lucky. Any thoughts of death or mortality were far, far from my mind. I just didn't think about those types of things. Sure, the thoughts flitted through my mind every now and then and I would think about them. I would discuss it with my spouse. Usually I would take comfort in the intense love and happiness we have and know that no matter what happens at the end, somehow we would still go on, whether it be in the hearts or memories of others, in some type of spirit/soul that survived death, in photos or videos . . . The jury was out on what happens, but I was at least accepting or positive about it.
Now, I feel like a shattered, empty person.
As I've gotten older, I have developed high blood pressure (family history). My doctor put me on Atenolol 50mg once a day. About four days in, I started to feel sad and question my mortality and my family's mortality out of nowhere. Things just spiraled out of control after that. I learned about nihilism, atheism, existentialism, what happens after death, that we are just computers, emotions aren't real, just by-products of brain impulses ... just lots of things I never thought about before and I became incredibly depressed. Crying everyday, scared of the eventuality of our lives, the meaningless of life, the possible lack of a soul, no proof of an afterlife ... I feel like I've been down a horribly dark rabbit hole and I want to get out.
I went back to my doctor and he said Atenolol, being a beta blocker, can cause depression, so he took me off of it. I was on it for two weeks. My last dose was about 96 hours ago. I'm not feeling much better. How long does it take the medication to get out of my system and for all my brain chemistry to start working again? I'm having a lot of trouble finding meaning in what I do, and what I do with my family since there's no point. We won't remember anything after we die. Why do I care if I get some award at work? What do I care if my kid gets in the school play? Why celebrate someone's birthday? I feel empty. I feel hollow. I do not want to feel like this.
Could this really all be a cause of the medicine? Or did I do this to myself? Will my feelings of happiness and excitement come back? Will I find meaning again? How long until I could be "back to normal?"
This current depressive state is so unlike me and nothing I have ever experienced before. I'm scared I'll always have these depressing thoughts about mortality and life's meaning that I just don't want in my head anymore. I want to rewind the last two weeks and go back to my jovial, excited, proud self that I was. I want to believe in what I used to believe in. I feel like now that I've researched what really happens after death, or researched that we probably have no souls, that we are just a product of brain chemistry, that I can never go back to how I was. I WANT to, though. I feel like now that I've gotten a peek at what we really are (sophisticated computers) that I can never be happy again. I don't want to know these truths. I want to go back to how I was. I am losing meaning in anything I do. I am becoming detatched from my children and spouse. I don't enjoy doing anything with them. It's all just a reminder that they will die someday, too. I don't want to live in a world where they don't exist, but that's where I am destined to be and it destroys me. I can't look at my kids and be happy anymore, knowing that anything we do is meaningless. Yes, I know there are the arguments that YOU have to provide meaning and make something out of the life you are given, but that doesn't help me feel better at all. It makes me feel worse. I feel like I have to work now to assign or find meaning, rather than it just naturally occurring and flowing and being part of my day-to-day life. My kid drew a picture today and happily showed me. All I could muster was a "nice job," instead of my usual effortless pride and happiness in how he was developing and growing.
Each time I try to make myself feel better, I ruin it. I tell myself that it is possible all humans, animals have souls. I know there is no scientific proof right now (except for the Lanza theories which I am not sold on), but I feel it's possible for everyone to just have that essential spark in them. Then I feel better, but then realize that our consciousness is just our brains tricking us into thinking we are an "I" or we are a "self." That it's impossible for a soul to exist. Where in evolution would we even have developed one? What happened to all the beings in death who didn't have souls? Or were souls present in the primordial ooze we came from? See, that's just not realistic. I look up stuff online which just confirms this bleakness. There's no hope anymore. Pre-Atenolol me wouldn't have thought these thoughts. Now I'm destroyed by them. Now I'm just thinking that every memory I make, every experience I have is for nothing.
I just want to go back to my happy, silly, proud self. Is this all just the medicine? I want to take pride in my family again. I want the little things to become important again. I want to be carefree and hopeful again. However, I feel now that I've gotten a glimpse of the dark and painful truths of our existence that I'm going to never be able to get over this crisis, never get these thoughts out of my head, and never be happy again for the rest of my life. This terrifies me. I just want to be who I was again, but it think that's impossible.
Please, please change my view.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I want to be a Doctor of Medicine. +
+ Why do I want to be a doctor? Here's my best attempt at distilling the major motivating factors:
* Knowing that even if I end up being less than thrilled with the lifestyle, at least I will be making a difference in the lives of others
* Prestige - More specifically, respect
* Job Security - Opulence is **not** a motivating factor
* Intellectual Challenge/Stimulation - I love it
* Living up to "potential" (I.e. feeling like I'm making the most of my natural abilities) - I don't want to look back on my life and feel like I took the easy way out by doing something less challenging
So why am I posting this? I feel like some of my reasoning may be flawed - that maybe I have preconceived notions that need changing.
Willing to provide more info if anyone wants it.
Curious to see how people respond to this.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Governors of states have no business "calling" for the death penalty for the perpetrator of a crime. (At the moment, I'm looking at you, Nikki Haley.) +
+ Governors execute the laws that their legislatures pass, they respond to disasters, they act as a backstop to the judicial system if someone is harshly punished through pardoning people, they guide economic policy, they are chief cheerleader for their state. Basically, they have plenty to do, and plenty of places to show folks that they are leading through doing leadership things in a very leady way.
They shouldn't be inserting their opinion into a system that has police, district attorneys, prosecutors, and judges who all have their own roles to play. It's bad enough that juries are already tainted by the media coverage of a story, but now your own governor is telling you what you ought to do.
I feel like consoling the people by throwing despicable criminals under the bus is a cheap and dishonorable move. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Telling someone "They're alive in your heart" after a death is callous and flippant +
+ The advice to remember someone so they don't really die is stupid. If someone's dead, it tears you up inside and that doesn't change just because you remember them. The only things that heal are the religious belief that you'll see them again someday (if you are religious), time (which will eventually numb the pain somewhat), or ressurrection (which doesn't happen).
All of these things may be helpful IF it appears that the person doesn't already know it and would benefit from this point of view. Even then, I don't believe it should be said at all until after the main thrust of the grieving process has passed. There's no point in talking to someone of coping with the loss of their leg while it's still bleeding.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:Breath testing should be a police officers first response to suspected drunk driving. +
+ In Australia if you are pulled over by a police officer and they believe you may be drunk they breath test you.
Why is it in the states you have to perform redundant tasks to see if they can breath test you when we already have a method for deducing if you are drunk that is infinitely more reliable then waking in a straight line?
I was wondering if anyone could change my view on the matter as it seems strange and backwards to me and my view is that changing the procedure to breath test anyone that is suspected of drink driving will reduce the amount of people that drink drive as there is a significantly higher chance of being caught if you are pulled over.
I understand that some people believe they can hold their alcohol better then others but reduced reaction times due to having consumed alcohol occurs after any amount of alcohol. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Continuous consciousness doesn't exist, and I am not the same person I was a second ago +
+ This might be kinda hard to explain.
Our consciousness is our ability to perceive the world. It is what makes me me, and you you. However, consciousness is not some kind of magical unexplainable thing. There is no one physical object that can be called "consciousness". It is simply a result of how our brains are wired.
There is no reason that we don't "die" every few seconds, and get replaced with a new consciousness. However, because of our memories, we get the illusion that we are still the same person we have always been.
Both our body and our brain are changing all the time. Old cells get replaced with new. But even if that wasn't the case, we would probably still not have a continuous consciousness. For example, take the famous argument about teleportation.
If you got zapped out of existence, but a completely perfect copy of you was built somewhere else, would you still be you? The answer is, probably not. So why would I believe that I am still the same person I was years ago, or even seconds ago? Especially with the brain changing itself over time, the chance of a continuous consciousness seems really low.
CMV!
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Please CMV: I have no problem whatsoever with animal cruelty +
+ I'm making this post because people have called me "heartless" or "a monster" because of this view and I really don't understand why. So please don't vilify me for my views, I'm asking you to please change them.
Also, when I say "animal", I mean animals that aren't humans. I see violence/torture of humans completely differently.
Basically, I have no problem with torturing, killing, doing anything imaginable to animals, and they don't set off an emotional response. We (read: most Westerners) eat animals, we kill millions unconsciously because of our actions, and we actively eradicate tons of insects and rodents every year. We even enslave them to either give us joy or provide manual labor for us.
There are a few caveats to my "indifference" though:
(1) I understand most people are offended when animals get hurt, or see this as cruel. Because I respect other people, I won't hurt their pets since this would distress them. By the same token, I would never harm service animals (guide dogs, therapy pets, rescue animals), but more so because I respect the value they provide for other humans.
(2) I do not condone killing species of animals recklessly. We live on a planet that depends on tons of fragile ecosystems. Allowing one species of animals to go extinct could damage our planet (and therefore by extension come back to bite us) and therefore I support conservation efforts to save animal species world-wide.
If you're confused as to what exactly my view is, basically I don't see a problem when people abuse animals. Calls to save animals from cosmetic testing, stop pet owners from hurting their pets, or (even going so far as) save animals from bestiality, all fall on deaf ears.
So that's my view. Please explain to me why I should care about animals. | 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 like GMOs are one of, if not the, greatest inventions by humanity +
+ I see a lot of business advertising that they are GMO free. Chipotle, for instance, claims that it doesn't beleive GMO are any better than non-GMO ingredients but I am unconvinced than non-GMO ingredients are any better than GMO ones. After all humans have been selectively "breading" or cross pollinating crops for probably as long as there has been agriculture.
So please tell me how can GMOs be bad when they are able to be grown in harsh soil and climates, resist disease and bugs, consume less water (in light of the Californian drought this seems especially important), and in some cases contain more nutrients?
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: [The Martian] Earth would not have expended the resources to try to bring Watney home. +
+ **Massive spoilers below.**
I just finished the book version of The Martian, which has Mark Watney, a NASA astronaut, stranded on Mars when the rest of his crew leaves, thinking him dead.
Watney is not dead though, and has to survive on Mars via his wits alone til he can make some contact with Earth (his crewmates having taken all but one radio, and the one they didn't take having stabbed him before flying off.
In the book. Watney establishes contact with NASA by driving over to the Sojurner rover and stealing/fixing it to transmit to Earth (which...*awesome*).
A few plans are developed to save him, one involving a hastily built probe to resupply him which blows up on takeoff. That first one I buy. But the latter plans I don't. And I have two principal objections.
First, it seems like NASA executives make the calls on these. This would not be the case. It would be the President of the United States making the ultimate decision to greenlight projects. And at that level, it seems very unlikely that they'd get the greenlight. The independence of NASA in the book is greatly at odds with how I see government agencies working.
The Chinese government would not give a large booster over to NASA like they did. This is portrayed as happening at the agency level coordinating with the Chinese space agency and then presenting it to political leaders as a fait accompli.
The plan is super-risky though, and depends on a single resupply mission with a quickly built supply ship - one of which just blew up on the pad. If the resupply doesn't work, all 6 astronauts die. Or 5, if they do space cannibalism.
I just don't think the governments of two countries who don't get along great would coordinate to waste hundreds of millions to billions of dollars (the plan also scrubs Ares 4 by taking its ascent vehicle), all to have a very low chance of rescuing one guy at the substantial risk to 5 more people. And the Hermes mutiny to force the government's hand just seems absurdly implausible to me.
Much more likely is that Watney would have been asked to compose letters to whomever he wanted, perform science til his food ran out (assuming he was willing) and then take a lethal dose of morphine.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Ignorance SHOULD be a defense against the law +
+ So the common saying goes "Ignorance is not a defense." Even though we joke around about white people saying "I didn't know I couldn't do that," the claim of "I didn't know" does not go over well in court. You're still guilty of whatever you're guilty of.
However, the law code in just about every civilized country is more confusing than Chinese Calculus. Every one of us probably breaks at least one law a day. I also took one year of law classes in community college, which makes a reddit expert, so here are my thoughts:
1) It should be misdemeanors only. You shouldn't be able to claim ignorance on a felony. Those are too severe.
2) It should be an affirmative defense, which means you have to prove your ignorance. You can't just say "I didn't know." You'd have to prove it was an obscure law that defies common sense. This puts the burden of proof on the defendant which means it couldnt be abused.
3) Examples of this could be:
If you're going 35 in a 25 and get pulled over, but the path you took on that road did not contain any speed limit signs. You're from out of town. 35 is a reasonable speed limit for the surrounding area.
Or
In Denver it is illegal to lend your vacuum cleaner to your neighbors (not making this [up](http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/colorado)). There is no reasonable person would would believe that this a law. Proving ignorance may be hard, but not knowing this is a law should be a perfectly valid defense.
In short, there are too many pointless, stupid laws out there and it is impossible to know all of them - and not knowing them should be a valid argument if certain situations present themselves.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: "Blackface" is not Racist +
+ First, I'd like to point out that I'm well aware of the history of blackface, and the older utilization of it to offensively portray some awful stereotype of black people is racist. However, I don't think that has any bearing on blackface today. What if an actor of another race simply wanted to portray a black character, and so they darkened the color of their skin to make their appearance more accurate? There could be absolutely no mocking of race going on, and people will still shout "racism!"
For example, I know a white girl who tried to do an impression of Michelle Obama. She dressed up in blackface and made jokes about healthy eating and vegetables and whatnot. She got torn apart on social media for being racist. Although I can see how this impression is in bad taste, I cannot see how it is racist. She only made fun of Michelle Obama's campaigning, and she never once made fun of her race at all. And yet, it was still considered racist. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Goldeneye 007 is useful only as a historical artifact and is, functionally, vastly inferior to today's FPS games. +
+ Let me preface this by saying I own Goldeneye 007 and have played it in both single and multiplayer. Neither particularly impressed me. Note that I don't blame Goldeneye's developers for this; they did the best they could with what they had at the time, and if you compare it to Duke Nukem 64 or SNES Doom it beats them by a landslide.
Goldeneye was absolutely revolutionary for its time, and shaped the path of future FPS games. However, by today's standards, it is absolutely awful and is outclassed in literally every way by today's games. This is for a number of reasons, including mechanics, controls, and map variety. Despite this, many people choose to play Goldeneye, even though it is crap.
It's not even moderately close-ish who wins between, say, Battlefield 4 or Goldeneye. However, since I know you guys are going to point out the massive price disparity between buying a PS3/X360 with 4 controllers and an N64 with 4 controllers, I'm going to instead compare it with Timesplitters 2 on the PS2, which I believe to hold up far better today. A PS2 with 4 controllers and TS2 costs you $50 + $10x4 + $10 = $100. (Amazon prices) An N64 with 4 controllers and Goldeneye costs you $50 + $20x4 + $15 = $145. (Amazon prices) All of this is used.
Let's first compare game mechanics. It makes sense that Goldeneye's game mechanics are less complex than Timesplitters 2's because the controller has fewer buttons. In Goldeneye you have the ability to do the following: aim, move, zoom in, fire, perform contextual actions, and switch weapons in one direction. Timesplitters 2 offers all of that as well as the ability to crouch and reload, as well as cycle backward and forward through your weapons. Of course, both of these games' mechanical complexities pale in comparison to today's FPS games, which add sprinting, jumping, and more.
Next, controls. The N64's lack of dual analog makes the clear winner TS2. Other than that, they pretty much have the same control scheme. Props to Goldeneye for having more variety, but most of the variety is exceptionally poorly thought out schemes where moving and aiming are mixed between the C buttons and the analog stick.
Finally, there is map variety. Due to the limitations of the N64, all of Goldeneye's maps are basically the same: completely indoor mazes of hallways and doors. Granted, there is much more variety than on most games of this type in that era, but compare this to TS2. You can CREATE YOUR OWN MAPS and many of the pre-created maps are outdoors. The maps also feel very different: the difference between Caves and Library is nothing compared to between Circus and Hangar, for instance.
All these points are why I feel that Goldeneye 007 is a relic of the past and if you're looking for a multiplayer FPS experience you are better off looking elsewhere. In fact, other than "because I played it as a kid," or "because I own no consoles newer than the N64," I don't think there is any reason at all to play Goldeneye. CMV!
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The reddit-famous "Correlation does not equal causation" cop-out needs to be revamped. +
+ Just a while ago there was a post on /r/athiesm I think? About graphs that showed similar heat signatures on a US map of where the bible belt was and another map of something negative that was pronounced in the same area. The argument being that being religious was a cause of this other negative attribute. While I do agree that those maps aren't "necessarily" related, they *could* be, and one of the top comments being the famous "Correlation does not equal causation" was posted to refute it.
Okay I decided to stop being lazy and [found it.](http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/3a5yid/these_3_maps_seems_to_be_similar/?ref=share&ref_source=link)
In my opinion, this is a popular cop-out reasoning that is posted and highly valued on reddit as truth, and it needs to be re-vamped to say "Correlation does not necessarily equal causation."
My argument is simple and is portrayed through an example: My workers have been moving slower and are less productive recently, and I post a notice on the bulletin board that someone will be fired by the end of the month if productivity isn't increased. I look at the end of the month and productivity *has* greatly increased . Now, it is technically true that it could be possible that me threatening them to speed up wasn't the causation to them actually speeding up, even though it was correlated, but lets be realistic. It is only in these simple scenario's that the blurred line is a lot more simple, and in ones like the reddit post above, the information given is far more complicated. But just because the information is more complicated, doesn't mean that we should imply there isn't a possibility of the causation *actually* being correlated by making the bold statement "Correlation does not equal causation" as opposed to "Correlation does not necessarily equal causation."
| 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 disingenuous to downplay political motivators in favor of mental illness when discussing mass murders. +
+ So if you haven't heard already, there was a recent [shooting in a Charleston church.](https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/3a8k4r/breaking_active_shooting_downtown_charleston/) Many reports are coming out with evidence that points it as a racially motivated hate crime. (I'm not here to argue whether or not it was, as the investigation is still ongoing and many developments have yet to come, but for the purpose of this discussion I'm going to assume it was.)
Much like with the Elliot Rodgers case, there are many people already stating that this is purely a mental health issue and it's just the liberal media drumming up a race war and etc.
I don't think it's fair to detract from those arguments, as there are many many people with mental illnesses living non-violently. Even if people with certain mental illnesses have a higher chance of committing violence, and even if most mass murderers do have some kind of mental illness, it shouldn't detract from the fact that there are social motivators that led them ultimately to taking others' lives. The reason I say it's "disingenuous" to downplay them is because it allows people who believe there's nothing wrong (eg. that racism is still a major problem) to persuade others that there's nothing wrong, even though there's evidence in the form of the killings that there's still a problem.
In this case, it was the suspect's surrounding himself with racist rhetoric that led him so far down a path of hatred towards black people that he acted violently against them. In Elliot Rodger's case, it was his intense hatred of women not sleeping with him (and resentment of other men he saw as his 'competitors') that ultimately led him to go on his spree.
I believe that bigoted hatred should also be addressed alongside mental illness, and shouldn't be downplayed by the media or the public whenever these issues arise. Especially since not all killers are mentally ill, and so addressing these motivators will still help reduce violence. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Nearly all landlords should allow dogs in apartments +
+ I have lived in Boston for nearly five years and am currently searching for my 3rd apartment in the area (my moves have been because of either price or commute). I have a small dog (12 pounds, 5 years old) and my probable roommate also has a dog (70 pounds, 10 years old). During each move, I have had trouble finding a landlord who will accept dogs, and finding one that accepts two feels nearly impossible.
I have always received full pet deposits back and have reference letters from previous landlords, but this does not seem to factor into their policies. The most common reasons they bring up are noise, yard waste, and possible damage to apartment (mainly floors and walls). Having lived next to families with young children and beneath freshly minted college graduates, I cannot understand the bias against dogs.
Yes, my dog barks when the doorbell rings or there is noise in the stairwell, but she calms down after a couple minutes and has been trained so I can get her to sit and quiet almost immediately when I'm home. On the other hand, the baby I lived by would cry loud enough to be heard in my apartment and was often difficult to calm down. The young guys upstairs often play music loud enough to be heard in other apartments (even outside the building) and we had a lengthy struggle with our property manager to get their behavior under control. Why should dogs be singled out as being a noise issue?
And yes, my dog's nails have made some scratches on the floor and in the paint. Children often play with toys that can and do cause the exact same damage. The stairwell in my current building is all scratched up from neighbors moving furniture (and the entryway light was broken during one move) and the guys upstairs constantly drop beer cans (by their own admission) and have weights they shift across the floor almost daily. Again: why single dogs out as problematic? And isn't this exactly what the security deposit is intended to cover?
Regarding the yard, which I suppose is dog specific: I have a scoop and clean up after my dog every time. This is exactly the kind of information contained in the references from my previous landlords. If considered on a case by case basis, I see no reason this "issue" isn't avoidable.
In short: why is it okay to single dogs out as potential problems and usable as an excuse to refuse tenancy? I understand that the laws *allow* them to do so whereas they can't deny an application based on age or having children; I disagree with this as well. Either landlords can discriminate for *any* reason that may cause sound or damage, OR they must allow them all (including dogs). I hesitate to use a loaded word like "discrimination", but it's hard to resist, especially seeing as people who choose to have children are protected but those who choose to have pets are heavily restricted.
FURTHERMORE, I believe changing their policy would actually benefit the landlords (especially early on). When so many apartments disallow pets, the ones they open their doors would have a wider pool of potential tenants. In many places (definitely in Boston), the rental market has numerous issues that need to be addressed and the landlords currently hold all the cards, so this benefit isn't immediately obvious. Still, I believe it would bear out in an overall more fair market.
PS - I would understand some policies relating to location and breed, such as not allowing dogs over 100 pounds in an apartment with less than 500 square feet or something, but that would be for the dog's safety. Restrictions on breeds for being "too violent" seem very problematic and I believe should be examined on a case-by-case basis.
TL;DR: Dogs are, on average, no worse than children or simply irresponsible/inconsiderate adults, so landlords should not be able to deny tenancy to pet owners.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Nothing is wrong with homosexuality, or gay marriage. (Sorry if this was talked about previously) +
+ Hi Reddit,
I know this topic has probably been spoken of millions upon millions of times on this sub, however I'm still semi new to Reddit.
Anyway, last year I had an assignment to write about any opinion I had and why. I am pro gay marriage, always have been. Part of that paper was to write an opposing side, how someone of the opposite view could shut down my opinion. I had difficulty doing this myself, so I turned to my dad. He is completely against homosexuality. However, when I asked, he couldn't give a LEGITIMATE reason. All he said was "it's gross" and "against the Bible." Well, "it's gross" isn't necessarily a valid point I can include into a formal paper, and not everybody agrees with the Bible or religion, so I couldn't really use that either. I turned in the paper using the Bible excuse, got an A, but it's still bothered me since. With all of the people I've talked to, nobody has given me a real opposition.
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: People who complain about the Yulin Dog Meat Festival, but gladly eat other animals are hypocritical and cannot see past their own cultural biases. +
+ Recently, I have noticed a mass amount of people campaigning to stop the Dog Meat Festival that occurs in Yulin, China. While I can understand the uncomfortableness that arises from large amounts of dogs being slaughtered, I feel like it is no better or worse than the mass killings of other animals such as chicken or cow. I feel most of the people who are against the festival are too enamored with their own cultural views on dogs to see why their hypocrisy. If the people who are campaigning against the festival truly believe it is health issue, that is one thing, but it appears most people are just concerned about the fact that dogs are being slaughtered.
| 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 like the Republicans are the 'bad guys' PLEASE CMV! +
+ I've drunk the koolaide. I'm becoming a biased partisan hack. I believe that one of the biggest problems with this country is the deep, seemingly irreconcilable animosity between the followers of the two parties, and I am part of that problem.
Yet as much as I try, I cannot bring myself to view the Republicans as anything but a regressive influence on the USA. On some deep level, I've accepted the stereotype that Republican voters are bible thumping, gun wielding, blindly patriotic semi-racists. I'm not talking so much about the elected officials but rather the voters. I feel that, from what I can gather through the 'liberal' media and my personal experience, Republican opinions are largely formed (at least more so than Democrats) on ignorance, xenophobia, religion, guns, and hatred for Obama. I know such a broad and negative stereotype can't really be true, but I still can't shake it. I don't pretend to understand much about economics so most of my feelings come from my revulsion with the party's stance on social issues.
Here are a few bits of my limited understanding of the party's platform:
Social Issues:
- Opposing gay marriage: I have tried to find a credible argument against gay marriage, but have repeatedly failed. Currently, their argument before the supreme court rests on gays being unfit to raise children/procreate and the floodgates opening for polygamy etc.
- Downplaying racial/gender discrimination as out of control political correctness: This seems like mostly suburban/rural white men being unable to empathize with groups of people they've never/rarely met. And some genuine racism.
- Defensiveness over religion/guns: The gun debate is too muddied for me to have a strong opinion on, but I feel Republicans' fears over attacks on Christianity are largely unfounded and that, if anything, Christianity has too large an influence on our culture/government.
- Immigration: I don't understand the positives/negatives of different approaches to immigration, but the Republican voter's opposition seems to come from xenophobia and trumped up fear about terrorists/freeloaders sneaking in.
Security Issues:
- Support for aggressive policing and invasive homeland security: I realize Rand and Co have been at the forefront of action against the NSA, but my personal experience has left me believing that most Republican voters are for strengthening national security and increasing military spending. I also feel that the strongest voices to come out in support of the recent police-on-black violence were conservatives.
- Hawkish foreign policy: I feel that Republicans have an emotional and aggressive reaction to Russia, Iran, Syria, ISIS and would be more willing to intervene militarily without regard to whether or not such intervention would be beneficial. They seem willing to pursue cathartic violence and disinclined to examined our militaries checkered past.
Economic Issues:
- Welfare Queens: Again, I really don't understand enough about economics to judge a good policy from a bad one, but I see the Republicans as using the idea of welfare queens to scare up opposition to social programs and further stigmatize the poor. They view Obamacare/Goverment assistance as handouts given to the undeserving.
- Blame the poor: It feels like Republicans push the idea that, without regulations, people will be able to pull themselves out of poverty and that the only thing keeping them down is either the government or their own laziness.
Environmental Issues:
- Global warming skepticism: This seems motivated by the party's ties to fossil fuel, fear of change, hatred for anything Obama, and anti-intellectual disdain for 'nancy-pansy' green stuff.
TL:DR - I feel like the Republican voting base is motivated primarily by religion, xenophobia, fear of change, hatred for Obama. Their positions are ignorant, contradict available evidence, short sighted, and selfish.
What would change my mind?
-Evidence of a largely liberal leaning media/culture that suppresses honest Republican voices and prevents me from seeing the other side of the picture.
-Evidence that Republican news media (Fox, Breibart, Drudge, Talk Radio, etc) are reputable and not fear mongering propaganda barkers.
-Strong arguments supporting the Republican platform and evidence that Republican voters share these views.
-Surprise me!
THANK YOU and please please please help me shed this ugly bias!!!
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:One should be ashamed to call themselves "white". +
+ Whiteness is a normative social construct. As such, it is used as a benchmark--those not meeting the criteria of whiteness are automatically (by the internal logic of this system) inferior. This benchmark is subject to change, but always exists--e.g.: Italians, Irish, and some Hispanics are now eligible for whiteness, but this was not always the case.
No good has ever been brought about by a person acting "as a white". Acting as a white is always concurrent to causing harm to "nonwhites". In claiming whiteness, one has ipso facto claimed superiority over others purely on the basis of meeting some loosely defined criteria centered on skin tone. Being proud to be white is tantamount to white pride, which is of course tantamount to hate. As a corollary, black pride is not hateful, and is a positive defense to the harm caused by whiteness.
I am ashamed of my perceived race. You should be too.
...
I will award a delta if I am convinced that:
* Race (not ethnic background) is not a social construct.
* Within the context of race, as a social construct, white is not the normative value.
* (Cringe) Whiteness should be the normative value.
The above is not exhaustive. CMV!
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: We should be tolerant of ALL people regarding what they identify as, including transracial people +
+ Here is what I believe: **We should be tolerant of people regarding what they identify as, EVEN if it looks odd or even wrong to us, IF:**
1. **We have reasonable reason to believe they honestly identify that way.** Since identity is a personal, subjective matter, we should default to believing people, with the only exceptions being something like someone caught on a recording saying "i'm just trolling people lol".
2. **They work to appear consistent with that identity.** What I mean here is that it is silly for a person to say, "I identify as a blueberry pancake," but otherwise look and behave like a human being (because pancakes don't). For people to be accepted by others as their identity, they must realize it, or at least try. Just saying "I identify as tall" is not enough for a short person to be accepted as tall, but the short person could wear lifts, or undergo surgery. It might still be impossible for them to "pass" as tall even with those things (given current medical science), but still, we should be tolerant of them - they are doing their best.
3. **The person must cause no harm to others** while doing so. I do **not** include "making others a little uncomfortable" here, but rather actual harm, solid evidence that accepting people identifying as X would cause undeniable harm to other people in some way. For example, accepting people that identify as something that prevents them from vaccinating their children could be debated as causing harm to others.
I think these 3 conditions are general rules by which we should handle all cases, in order to be fair. And we as a society have been, and in some ways still are, very inconsistent. Here are some examples:
* 100 years ago, a trans woman had no options for hormones or surgery. The best she could do is makeup, women's clothes, and so forth. but **she still qualified** by my 3 conditions: She honestly identified as a woman, she worked to appear consistent with it, and no one was harmed by it. So society should have accepted her, but sadly back then they mostly didn't.
* Today, Rachel Dolezal **also qualifies**: She honestly identifies as black (lived as black for 10 years, studied African American topics all her life, used darker crayons to draw self-portraits even as a child, etc.), she works to appear consistent with that identity (and indeed she passed as black for 10 years), and no one is hurt (she was even president of the NAACP in her area, a productive and respected member of her community). (She might have some personality issues as well, but those are separate from her identity as black. One can be transracial or gay or whatever but also an idiot or a criminal, the categories have no connection.)
* [Trans-abled](https://liberationcollective.wordpress.com/2013/05/11/trans-abled-just-another-disability/) people also qualify.
* As already mentioned, a short person identifying as tall could qualify, even if we don't currently have surgical options for them. The same was true of trans people 100 years ago, but they were still trans and should have been accepted as their chosen gender; ditto for trans-tall people (and hopefully better surgical options for increasing or decreasing height will show up, no reason why not).
Now, I agree it might look "silly" to us for Dolezal to say she is black. But what counts as "silly" changes! The test of whether we are a tolerant society is in precisely those situations where someone seems a little silly, or makes us a little uncomfortable, but we should still tolerate them despite that. It's their life, their identity, none of our business to judge them.
Note that scientific evidence **does not show up** in my 3 conditions, above. It is **not** going to convince me if someone says "Rachael isn't biologically black" (whatever that could even mean), see for example [this discussion](http://www.reddit.com/r/FeMRADebates/comments/39twuk/what_are_your_thoughts_on_the_biology_of/) regarding trans people, showing both how confusing the science is, and how it shouldn't matter. This isn't a matter for science, it is a matter for society. It's a matter of basic decency and ethics.
tl;dr: We should be a tolerant society, **even** of people that look "silly" to us.
CMV - am I hopelessly naive here?
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: If you support the right for transgender people to use the restrooms and locker rooms of their choice, you have to let all people chose which room to use +
+ Given the claim that transgender people should be able to choose whichever restroom or locker room they choose based on their own self-identification, it is illogical to say that I, as a man, should not be able to choose to go into a women's restroom or locker room. For simplicity, I will use just "restroom" going forward, but mean for these to be treated equally unless you have an argument that hinges on a distinction between a locker room and restroom.
Let's leave aside the single-user restrooms, as we know that people of all types use the "wrong" room at times due to lines, messiness, out of order, etc., and no one thinks that's a big deal.
Let's assume it is valid for a man to say he feels like a woman and that identity crisis / condition justifies his choice of restroom. If that is the case, surely it is not his wearing of women's apparel that conveys that right upon him. If that were so, any man could dress as a woman and that would earn him the right to use the restroom of his choice. The same argument would be made for any gender specific behavior (wearing of lipstick, shaving his beard, carrying a purse, etc).
Further supporting the claim that it cannot be behavior is the idea that is a logical prerequisite for transgender to be an accepted idea: that gender is a social construct. If this is the case, a natural man can dress and act in ways that society expects of women and still fully identify as a man.
Therefore, it is only the internal situation, the mental state, that makes the difference between whether he can go into the women's room or not. If that is the case, there can clearly be no independent rule for determining if he is "serious enough" about it to make it acceptable (and legal, depending on local laws) to stroll into a women's restroom.
I can anticipate two substantial arguments:
1. Most transgender people have brain chemistry / structure that corresponds to the opposite sex (sex dysphoria), so there is a biological link that is definite and verifiable. Rebuttal: This is not the case for all transgender people, so while some people may be "certifiably" qualified to use the other restroom, there isn't any bright line to tell us who isn't so qualified. Further, there are those who do not identify with either gender. Should those people be told that their gender identity doesn't matter and that they should have to use a particular restroom based on sex at birth?
2. Transgender people have years of therapy and possibly surgery, and that is what gives them the right to choose to use the restroom of the opposite sex. Rebuttal: This would mean that any transgender person who hasn't sought therapy or surgery, for any reason, including cost, availability, etc., does not have that right.
I am sure some will also focus on the safety issue, saying that it is safer for a transgendered person to use the restroom that corresponds to his/her identity. However, that does not in any way impact the argument that others should also be able to have a choice.
Obliviously, some support unisex restrooms as a solution, but that is a technical solution, not a rebuttal to this argument.
In short, I should be able to use whatever restroom or locker room that I want, without question, because no one has any way to verify or validate my gender identity. If it is not based on my genitals, there is no valid basis for telling me I must use the men's room.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The United States lags behind other nations because of its size and heterogeneity +
+ Hello CMV,
As I'm sure many of you know, there have been a number of reports and studies that bring to light the lackluster ranking of the United States in comparison to other nations in categories such as [infrastructure](http://www.statista.com/statistics/264753/ranking-of-countries-according-to-the-general-quality-of-infrastructure/), [poverty rates](http://www.epi.org/publication/ib339-us-poverty-higher-safety-net-weaker/), [education](http://thelearningcurve.pearson.com/index/index-ranking), and so on. Usually, these show other nations, typically Scandinavian and other European countries, consistently coming out on top.
This leads to a somewhat negative and unhealthy perception of America for both citizens and non-citizens that I think is unfair. This is because, in my view, there are 3 factors which hinder America's ability to keep up with its developed nation counter parts:
* Land Size
* Population
* Cultural Heterogeneity
First, here is a top 5 list of the largest nations on Earth by square mileage, in order from largest to smallest:
* Russia
* Canada
* China
* United States
* Brazil
The US is the 4th largest country on the planet, and as such, I think its ability to manage and update infrastructure is limited. A bullet train similar to those in Europe would be difficult in the US. Also, land from coast to coast is extremely diverse, ranging from plains, to mountains, to desert, to swamps, and so forth. Such a diverse biome requires diverse management of resources and is pretty difficult in my opinion.
Now here's a top 5 list of countries by population, from largest to smallest:
* China
* India
* United States
* Indonesia
* Brazil
Not only is America massive in terms of land area, it has a massive population as well. This high population puts financial strain on social nets, public education, and other public programs that can lead to problems. (This is not to say America *wisely* spends its money on its people, but that is a separate argument for another day). And yet compared to the other 4 most populous nations, it still maintains a high standard of living, relatively low poverty rate, and economic mobility.
The only other country that hangs with America in *both* categories is China, which is massive in size and population. But America differs from China in one way, which is my third point -- a heterogeneous culture.
The US was founded by immigrants, as a nation of immigrants, and diversity is only growing into the future. America features such a mixing pot of ethnicity and culture that it makes it difficult to enact programs that benefit everyone equally. I think this is most evident in education, where the US has the difficult task of creating a system that benefits *every* child in the best way possible. In China, a largely homogeneous population with high value on education *should* produce high results.
And yet, despite having all three of these factors to consider, the United States is ranked [5th on the Human Development Index](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index) as late as 2014.
So, basically my argument is this -- The United States, being huge in size, huge in population, and having a heterogeneous culture, is at an instant disadvantage in comparison to other nations, and is doing pretty well for itself all things considered.
CMV!
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Gender fluidity is not a thing. +
+ In response to this [article](http://www.elle.com/culture/movies-tv/a28865/ruby-rose-oitnb/). I believe you can be a man or a woman or trans, and you can be any sexual orientation you want under the rainbow! Every persons orientation is a little nuanced. I don't believe you're gender can be nuanced. You are a man or a woman, whether you were born that way or you underwent physical changes later in life because you knew deep down that you were a man/woman under the skin you were born in. I don't believe you can make a daily choice to identify as a different gender. So you are a girl who hates skirts? You aren't a man because of that, you are just a girl who hates skirts. Not conforming to gender roles doesn't mean that you have the choice to identify yourself as a different gender whenever you please.
When a trans person switches, they have to jump through all sorts of hoops to legally be a gender. If we recognized "gender fluidity" all sorts of problems could arise, such as "which change room should I use?". Would it just change depending on how they were feeling that day? Would we all be okay with men, deciding that they are more of a woman today, going into female change rooms and stripping down in front of children?
I don't believe that people really feel the need to change their genders on a daily basis, and I don't agree with those who would try to force me to respect their "fluid" gender. There is already a term for people who don't conform to gender stereotypes and it's androgyny. I consider myself to be a very open person, especially when it comes to other peoples personal choices that don't affect me so please CMV.
That being said I understand how they is a good term over he/she. It sounds weird to call a girl a they but if someone asked me to refer to them that way, obviously I would. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The term "African American" should be cast aside in favor of a more accurate classification, likely "Black" or something like it. +
+ I believe that "African-American" is an invention of an overly-PC culture that doesn't actually address what it intends to address. Clearly this post deals most with the US, as I don't even know what other predominantly white countries use as an identifier.
The vast majority of the time anybody uses the term "African American", it is intended to speak to the person's appearance, not their centuries-old heritage. When discussing issues like racism, your appearance is what matters and your appearance isn't "African American", it's a darker complexion. If you were at an African cultural festival or something, then the term might be appropriate, but otherwise it's not.
"Black" is by far a more appropriate classification for conversations about race. Were you harassed by police because of your skin tone, or because your great-great-great-great-great-great grandparent was from Africa? There are obviously other physical characteristics (hair, facial construction, etc) that generally go along with the complexion, but the one that is most readily identifiable is skin tone. People also already associate "Black" with those attributes.
Further, many Black people don't identify as African American. Many of them immigrated directly from non-African countries or had parents who did the same. A Black person from England isn't classified as an African-European-American, despite that being more accurate. Additionally, many White people DO meet the requirements of being African-American, having been born there or had some family stop-over there, but obviously in a discussion about race, their experiences were not the same as a black person. | 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 when older comedians complain the younger generation is too politically correct, it’s more that they don’t understand our comedic sensibilities than that we really can’t take a ‘politically incorrect’ joke. +
+ In the last year or so I’ve seen at least three major comedians complain that the younger generations are politically correct to the point of stifling humor: Jerry Seinfeld, John Cleese, and Bill Maher. I think there are other people who were every bit as incorrect as those men but understood better what young people want from their comedy, and that indicates the problem is with the jokes, not the incorrectness.
In Jerry Seinfeld’s recent complaint, he used the example of comparing people’s use of cell phones to a gay French king (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/10/jerry-seinfeld-political-correctness_n_7552132.html). Maybe people hearing that joke would look particularly sour when he brought the homosexual stereotype into it, but I think that’s because there wasn’t really any humor there to justify it in the first place - talking about cell phone culture and people not seeming connected to each other is an incredibly stale topic, and I seriously doubt he would have gotten more of a laugh if he took the ‘gay’ part out of it.
John Cleese appeared on Bill Maher’s show (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCj6YNIpqmA) and complained that he could do jokes about some ethnicities/nationalities and not others - citing the example that he could say “Why are Australians so well-balanced? Because they have a chip on each shoulder” but couldn’t tell a Mexican joke. Again I think a lot of the issue there is that laughter at the Australian joke was already bordering on a sympathy laugh - it literally sounds more like something you’d get out of a joke book than what you’d expect from one of the lead members of Monty Python.
And Maher is one of the worst - on a weekly basis, he delivers a monologue at the start of his show and inevitably makes a politically incorrect joke and complains that the audience doesn’t laugh - but a lot of the rest of the monologue isn’t that enthralling either, it’s just that the audience is willing to be good sports as long as no one’s being shit on.
Meanwhile, there are other sources of comedy that I’ve never seen someone in my generation take issue with, despite them completely ignoring political correctness. George Carlin would have been nearly eighty this year, and made points about abortion, religion, family, and government that were incredibly politically incorrect - but no one complained about it, because his points were novel, clever, and generally punched upward. Same thing with Dave Chappelle - he’s in his forties, but his comedy is still fresh and hilarious to young people because he was saying things they hadn’t heard before and was clearly doing it out of love. Danny DeVito is over seventy, and appears on the show Always Sunny in Philedelphia, which is horribly ‘incorrect’ - they’ve made jokes regarding women, homosexuals, transexuals, Jews, Catholics, Muslims, the poor, the homeless, the mentally ill - and yet I’ve never seen anyone from my generation take the slightest offense because the material is handled with a genuinely warm and ludicrous humor. Other shows like Weeds, Workaholics, South Park, and almost anything Seth MacFarlane worked on (a little overdone now, but we laughed when his shows were new) couldn’t get through an episode without being wildly incorrect, yet it was rarely our generation that was taking issue with them.
So, if you feel the younger generation (say 30 and below) really has a problem seeing humor in the politically incorrect, now’s your chance to argue for that.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Humans do not have free will +
+
Hey, Reddit!
I have recently been giving a lot of the thought to the notion of free will.
A concept of free will and moral responsibility is central to religion, criminal justice systems, and many aspects of society.
However, I can not find any way to rationalize the idea, and see no justification whatsoever for believing in it.
My main argument is this:
Any action that we take, thought that we think, etc. is directly caused by a specific physical state of the brain.
Those physical states of the brain MUST be due to some mix of the following 3 things.
1.Genetics
2.The environment in which you were raised, formative processes during youth, etc.
3.This one doesn't necessarily merit inclusion, but I believe it reasonable to include it as a catch all. If the fundamental nature of reality is random on some level, and this randomness has some sort of an effect on the physical world, then this could possibly be another factor that contributes to the physical states of the brain.
I don't see how anything we do can be explained in any way other than with some combination of the above 3.
If we don't choose our genetics, we don't choose the circumstances in which we were raised, and we (obviously) don't choose #3, then how do we have free will?
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:Star wars episode V (Empire strikes back) is one of the weaker star wars films +
+ So Episode 5 is often cited as the best star wars movie, I find that this is not the case (for reference, best to worst: 4,3,6,5,2,1). While I wil not deny that there are some great bits in it (the hoth battle and the cloud city fight) but the rest of the movie is dull.
First of all, dagobah the entire sequence with yoda is essentially pointless as Luke goes in knowing nothing and comes out knowing a tiny bit more but still is wrecked by Vader.
The millennium falcon story is also fairly dull to me, they hide form the empire for a while then after some fake tension they get away to cloud city.
| 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 all drugs, including prescription pills, should be legal without needing a prescription. +
+ This includes all of the currently illegal drugs like crack, heroin etc. People should have the right to be able to take whatever they want. Doctors, psychiatrists, and pharmacists will still be necessary for advising people on what to take.
● In the US, our prisons are overcrowded with drug law offenders. Jails are filled with people who had a personal amount of weed on them. Way too many people have their lives ruined over a single pill, or enough weed for a week or two.
● The amount of effort the police put into drug and drug related crimes would disappear, leaving more police to be able to respond to violent crimes and protection of property. The taxes we would save towards police catching people with drugs could be put into rebuilding roads, Bette public schools, ect.
● Legalizing and regulating drugs would be safer for the consumer than goiing through the black market. If we regulate everything like our current over the counter medicine, ingredients, warning labels, directions, and safety labels would be in place.
● We could focus our efforts towards education and rehabilitation instead of making the problem worse and putting them in jail. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Specifically choosing to select a woman for the face of a US dollar isn't empowering for women. +
+ Choosing a face for the dollar shouldn't be an act to satisfy any given group. Inevitably, a woman's face would've ended up on a dollar eventually, by more natural means, such as an open vote in which a woman won, and in my opinion, that was going to be coming very soon! But now, it's going to go down in history as an act of pandering, in an attempt to 'empower' women.
Women are not a hive mind, so putting someone who owns a set of ovaries on currency, they are not all affected by it, or given strength by it. Women do not assimilate respect and admiration and add it to the collective, like the Borg.
Yes, if we grew as a nation during a time that was *not* racist, sexist, and generally terrible towards so many people, a woman could've been president, and easily been on US currency long ago.
*Yes*, women have been oppressed throughout history, but that's not something that you can make up for by suddenly going out of your way to put a woman in the spotlight every so often. It shouldn't be such a monumental deal.
To me, it's like approaching a black fellow and whilst shaking his hand, saying "Hello good fellow, I am not racist, and I hardly even noticed that you are of a darker complexion. I am glad to make your acquaintance, fellow valuable person."
I don't think you should go out of your way to be NOT exclusive, by being SUPER *in*clusive. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:I think we should define "man" and "woman" biologically relating to sex organs/hormones +
+ Yes, another thread about transgender people on CMV.Sorry, if this particular view was already expressed and I also don't mean to offend anyone. I am in full support of people living their lives as they please and transitioning if they please.I also believe that gender dysphoria is an innate trait related to hormones and genes like homosexuality/bisexuality.
I had a discussion with one of my long time friends which was born with female genitalia and who identifies as male. This person often gets angry when people refer to him as "she" or a "girl"(this person looks female). To him, he is a male, a transgender male.
Now,my understanding is that a transgender individual is one who doesn't identify as the sex they were assigned at birth.(Ex: feeling like you are a woman when you possess a penis and testicles)
To my friend being a man/male would basically be defined as the following.Personally, I found his definition circular,hence flawed, as it seemed he was using the very term he was trying to define within the definition.Man: Person who identifies as a man.
The arguments generally used against my stance of defining it according to sex organs are the grey areas one may encounter doing so, for example intersexed people.However, I'd argue a circular definition is worse than one with grey areas as it outright doesn't tell us what we're trying to define.Other responses seem to be that we ought to define according to neurology/psychology of individuals being more masculine/feminine, hence not using the "X: Person who identifies as X". However, I feel that a psychological portrait ( and hence neurological portrait) is going to generate a greater amount of grey areas than a general physiological one.I also don't understand why we would reject an account based on physiological properties like sex organs/hormones, but then use the brain instead which is a much more complex and less accessible system and hence harder to use for classification.
Definitions are not objective facts ,they are subjective association that we make between terms and concepts for the sole purpose mainly to facilitate discussion and communication. There is no logical reason "a plane figure with four equal straight sides and four right angles." as to be the term "square" anymore then it has to be term "carré".
I personally agree with what somebody else said on the issue of definitions in general "there are no good or bad definitions just useful ones" which. A definition should be as clear as possible, we should favor definition which are less vague. A definition should not be circular as it doesn't really tell us anything, how could we understand the definition fully when the whole reason we are looking at it is because we're unaware of the sense of one of it's components?
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The middle class is shrinking because our definition of "middle class" keeps inflating. +
+ To start, I'm not here to discuss wealth distribution, or income inequality. They are real issues that need to be addressed, and as much as governments like to talk about the middle class, they aren't doing much that actually helps them.
The inflation: Middle class families used to live in 2-4 bedroom 1-2 bath bungalows in the suburbs or small towns. Quite often siblings would share a bedroom, there would be fights over who got to shower first because there was only one shower and a finite amount of hot water. You packed a sandwich for lunch, dad drove the one car the family owned and would own for the next 10 years to work and mom walked or took transit if available. Clothing was handed down to younger siblings or cousins, there was one modestly sized TV in the house, and when families got a computer it was for the entire family to share. Vacations where often to go camping somewhere which would involve tents and no electricity, not 50' trailers with full kitchens, bathrooms and wifi, and if you were to go on a trip to another country or something, it was something the family saved up for and didn't happen every year. If something was broken, you fixed it instead of throwing it out and buying three more.
While all of that might sound like it came out of Leave it to Beaver or The Brady Bunch, I grew up in the 90's.
Now, "middle class" people are shopping for luxury/designer brand clothing, cars, and other goods. It's practically considered child abuse to suggest that kids share a bedroom or don't have their own computer, tablet, and phone, and there is no way they would wear clothing handed down or two years old. Suburban/small town homes are multi level McMansions with granite counter tops, stainless steel appliances, multiple big screen tvs, and master bathrooms with Jacuzzi tubs and rain showers. The family car is two or three cars, potentially more if there kids old enough to drive at home, and instead of the kids going for a weekend at grandma's while the parents drive three hours away for a vacation where they stay in a motel and go out for a nice dinner, the whole family flies to an all inclusive resort in another country.
Yes, many of those things are cheaper than they once were, but many of them would have been considered luxuries or unattainable a generation ago and that would have been perfectly acceptable. Instead we lament the decline of the "middle class" while we continue to inflate what a middle class lifestyle is supposed to look like.
**tl;dr the "middle class" is shrinking because what used to be defined as middle class would currently be considered below it, and what is currently "middle" class would have been upper-middle to "rich" in the past. Instead of lamenting the decline of the middle class we should reevaluate how we define it. CMV**
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I support resources and help centers for male rape victims, but I don't see male rape as severe as female rape. +
+ Hey fellow Redditors! I'm a male myself and I just have trouble equating female rape with male rape. I perfectly understand that non-consensual sex is rape regardless of gender, and I encourage all men who have been sexually abused to immediately seek help, but I have trouble feeling as bad for men who are raped and it's hard for me to weigh the impact of that rape on their lives.
The reason is because whenever I think of women getting raped, I think of a strong (and sometimes old) man who clearly has power of a much weaker woman forcing her to do things that she finds derogatory. The fact that women are the prominent gender in the sex slave trade doesn't help. That only makes me feel like a man raping a woman is essentially treating her like property and belittling her humanity. Also, although I can't prove this scientifically, we all know at least that society views men as horny fucks who are out there just to fuck women. This evokes some feeling in me that women are men's "prey" and they are the victims who have to put up with this feeling of worthlessness.
Whenever I think of a man getting raped however, I think of a guy who has had a little too much to drink and is being coerced into sex by a woman who finds him attractive. Yeah, he may not want to have sex with her, and yeah at that point he is way too weak to resist, but because he's a man, there's something inside of me that feels like he can deal with this and it's simply just another night that didn't go so well. Now as for gay men, that's different and I can sympathize with them more, especially if they were the ones who were penetrated. Even though I feel that way with gays, I still don't think of rape of gay men as bad as rape of women.
I guess I may see being penetrated unwillingly as worse than having to penetrate someone against your will. But the fact that toughness and security are associated with males and feebleness and innocence are associated with women also doesn't help.
I really do hate my stance on this because I like to think of myself as a benevolent person who wants the common good for everyone. Please tell my why I should *think* of male rape as bad as female rape. Again, I really want my view to change.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Pansexuality is a completely unnecessary term and not a legitimate sexuality +
+ To start off, let’s establish what pansexuality is. Googling the definition of pansexuality, we get **an individual not limited in sexual choice with regard to biological sex, gender, or gender identity.**
Because the definition mentions both sex and gender, I think that it’s important to acknowledge the difference. Sex is scientific. The only way that one can change their sex is undergoing an operation that would change their sexual organs to resemble the other sex’s sexual organs. One cannot simply choose to identify as male or female— it is 100% genetic. Gender, on the other hand, is the whole of society’s view on the attributes of that sex. For example, a very simple society might choose liking cars to be a “man trait” and liking flowers to be a “woman trait”. This makes it very possible for a male to identify as a woman because he likes flowers vice versa.
However, when discussing something such as sexuality (notice the sex part of the word), the concept of gender feels rather irrelevant. The term heterosexual, for example, is defined as someone who is attracted to the opposite sex. That’s it. The term doesn’t mention that the member of the opposite sex must like cars, flowers, males, females, or anything. A man that likes women with large breasts isn’t a “breast-sexual”. He is just a heterosexual who, just like almost everybody else, is slightly more complicated than loving every single woman he comes across.
Keeping this in mind, there are only two sexes according to biologists: male and female. There are rare cases where an individual might have parts of both sexes, but a sex is always determined nonetheless. Thus, speaking to which sex an individual is attracted to, there are only four possible sexualities:
1. Asexual – Attracted to neither sex
2. Homosexual – Attracted to the same sex
3. Heterosexual – Attracted to the opposite sex
4. Bisexual – Attracted to both sexes
This is what makes the term “pansexual” so unnecessary. Since a pansexual does not care about a person’s sex, they are attracted to both sexes. This makes them bisexual by definition. There is no need to add anything more to the word because sexuality is not meant to give a complete overview of what you find attractive. Otherwise, if people asked me my sexuality, I would say I am a brunette-female-who-is-shorter-than-me-but-not-too-short-and-has-a-good-sense-of-humor-as-well-as-an-appreciation-for-science-and-has-an-attractive-looking-face-sexual, which is absolutely ridiculous.
**TL;DR: Pansexuality is just a subset of bisexuality. This makes it an unnecessary term since almost all attraction is a subset of sexuality (I.e. A heterosexual male who only likes blondes) and we could not possibly give a term to each.**
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: 51 "New" Gender Options are Over-the-Top and Useless. +
+ Awhile ago, Facebook released several new genders - many of them seemed to come out of nowhere and almost all are incredibly confusing, over-the-top, and redundant. To preface this, I am *not* against anyone in the LGBT community and welcome the idea of gay marriage and things similar. However, I've never really been on-board with all these new genders.
Anyway, some of the terms that come to mind are *Agender* and *Androgynous*. The mean the same thing, to not identify as any gender, so why are they two separate words? *Genderfluid* and *Bigender* seem completely redundant too - so, why even have them? I'm also not entirely sure why people can't just dress the way they want to while remaining whatever sex they were given at birth.
Does it really matter if a man dresses as a woman? Does he really have to be classified as *gender-fluid* because it really just seems like a word that would be less blunt than *cross-dressing*. Again, I have nothing against that, but it seems like people are trying to make other words to someone glorify what they're doing.
Also, what's the deal with "cis"?
* Cis-female.
* Cis-male.
* Cis-man.
* Cis-woman.
* Cisgender.
If the definition of "cis" is basically people acting within the confines of their gender, why can't they *just* be called women and men? Why do they have to have a special name? Considering that people are giving away names to things that already exist, it seems really indicative of how strong other words in their dictionary are (see: gender-fluid and bi-gender redundancy).
Again, I can't stress this enough, I have no issues with people being who they want to be and how they want to be that. It just seems overly unnecessary to have a million new Facebook gender options for things that clearly overlap each-other. A lot of this also seems more of a ploy for attention, not someone *actually* identifying as something.
With that being said, am I just seeing this the wrong way? I get incredibly annoyed when someone tells me they're "gender-fluid" or "cis-female". It makes me believe that I may be seeing this the wrong way - or maybe these terms really are inessential and pointless?
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Because I cannot tell if killing and eating a fish is in keeping with my morality, I should abide by the precautionary principle, and not do so while on a trip where lots of fishing will take place with my partner's family. +
+ I'm a lifelong veggie, and I've been vegan for a while in the past although I'm not anymore.
I don't believe you can make a rock solid case for being veggie, unless you refer to climate change, and once you look at that I think the case for being vegan is unanswerable, I still have regrets that I'm not vegan, although not major ones, as otherwise I'd not eat pizza quite so much.
That said I do think there is also an ethical argument against harming animals who can feel pain and have a capacity to suffer. I certainly think this is the case with most medium to large size mammals like cats, dogs, pigs, chickens, dolphins and whatnot. For that reason I wouldn't eat those animals even if it was sustainable to do so, unless I was sure they had been reared and killed humanely.
When it comes to animals who are clearly less conscious I don't feel the same way. I don't have any qualms about swatting flies, and I also recognise the need for pest control. I wouldn't have any problem with lethal rat traps being used in a restaurant (although obviously that should go hand in hand with taking measures to discourage them being in the kitchen in the first place like not leaving food out overnight).
I don't know if fish can experience pain or not. I don't know if they can suffer like other higher mammals can.
As I don't know for sure, I'm reluctant to join in with the fishing that'll take place when we go and stay with my partners family at a cottage near a river which allows for excellent fishing.
I quite like the idea of fly fishing, I feels it's pretty sustainable (I might be wrong), and also that fish probably don't have the mental capacity to suffer (I might be wrong again). I'd rather avoid doing something I'll learn that I shouldn't have done in 20 years though than take the risk.
CMV
Convinced by https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxvoDCWDlQPqdjZsU2F0TVpaZUU/view / http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/faf.12010/pdf
Delta's awarded.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Elements created in a lab that cannot exist in nature or in quantities greater than a few atoms for microseconds at a time have no place on the periodic table +
+ I'm no chemist, but I do study science as a hobby, and in reading up on elements such as [ununpentium](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ununpentium) or [ununtrium](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ununtrium), I got the feeling that it's almost cheating to call these things elements and add them to the periodic table.
The atoms are created in a lab, usually by slamming two other heavy atoms together in a collider. The resulting atom decays in microseconds and does not naturally occur outside the lab.
Calling these things new elements strikes me as the same thing as grabbing two random objects, (say a water bottle and a book), holding them together in your hands and saying, "Look! I've created a bookbottle!"
The object will only last until you let go of it, and then be torn apart by the stronger force, in this case, gravity. It's not a new tool or object and you can't file a patent for it.
Ununpentium and its ilk are not elements if they can't be found outside the lab, cannot exist as more than a few atoms at a time, or last more than a few microseconds. They are interesting experiments to be sure, but they are not new elements.
Change my view.
Wow, I really didn't see how many gaping holes my argument had.
What I've learned:
It's short by our human standards, but that means nothing on the universal scale. Our lives are nothing on the scale of the universe, that doesn't mean we aren't alive.
This is just a limit on what we're able to synthesize. Massive quantities could theoretically be created in a supernova.
Where it is synthesized doesn't matter. The lab is still in the universe, so it could be said that the universe is creating these atoms.
There are lots of convincing arguments here, and I'll respond to all of them and delta the ones I feel really swayed me. Thank you for the discussion. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Employment background checks should be abolished. +
+ I’ll keep this as simple as possible because I’m at work. Someone commits a crime, they do their time, and afterwards, because of background checks, they can’t get a normal job. Someone who may have had hope for a better life after prison will soon begin to feel hopeless after getting rejected each time the background check comes up. They already did the time for the crime. Why should they keep being punished afterwards? Not being able to find a job will only lead a criminal back to the streets, and inevitably back to prison, helping no one. I know the counter argument – would you feel safe working with a convicted murderer? No, I wouldn’t, but our current system doesn’t help either.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Having more than two children is an absolute evil +
+ Allow me to explain.
You and your spouse/partner want to have kids for one or more of the following reasons:
* because your hormones are screaming at your your whole life to do so,
* because you or your spouse's biological clock is ticking,
* because it would make your parents proud,
* because you want to play catch with something,
* because you need strong backs for the wheat fields,
* because you think your genetic profile is so important and precious that is deserves to be preserved throughout the ages,
* or maybe just because you'd like to see what you'd look like if you didn't eat so much cake.
Now, let us accept that overpopulation is a cause of the most important problems facing mankind: drinking water, food availability, climate change and pollution, deforestation, etc..
Reproducing new people (by using your own cock/balls/snatch, not by adoption) can therefore be seen as a you casting a vote on how you feel about this problem. **You have no child**, that's two people being replaced by no people, and excluding just going around killing people, is practically the best thing you can do to curb overpopulation. **Having one child** is one person replacing two, that is you saying that overpopulation is a problem and I'm going to do something about it, just not as much as I could. **Having two children**, that's two people being replaced by two people, that's you casting your vote for "population is perfect the way it is."
Now, having **more than two children** is you casting a vote for population growth, and in doing so your are knowingly exacerbating the problems mentioned above, actively creating more human suffering in the world. Therefore, having more than two children is an absolute evil. From [wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/evil):
**evil** Adjective
1. Intending to harm; malevolent.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Religion as a whole does not need to be abolished. +
+ **Disclaimer:** I'm an atheist.
With that out of the way, let me explain my view. [Many people on CMV](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/general#wiki_against_religion) have expressed views that religion is harmful to society and has stopped the advancement of science in society. Common examples are used such as killings and wars that have took place on the premise of religion.
However, I do not believe that religion as a whole needs to be abolished. While I feel that certain fundamentalist views need to be abolished, in general most religious people do not engage in such activities, and instead seek to carry out the values of peace, love, etc. that keeps a society together. I think that as long as religion is kept a personal matter, it is alright for religion to exist.
By "personal matter" I mean that people should not engage actively to uphold their own form of morality, and instead follow the rules that keep a community together. For example, while Christians may be against homosexual rights, they should not engage in activity that discriminates against homosexuals or support anti-homosexual policies, but instead advocate against homosexuality on a moral basis. This is under the assumption that homosexuality does not cause any harm to society, which I will not discuss further.
Assuming that people do abide by these conditions, I see no reason why religion would cause harm to society. CMV.
---
**Clarifications (will update as time passes):**
1. By personal matter, I make an exception for the spreading of ideas (such as discussing religion with your children or converting others). The crux is that your actions must not harm others.
2. I'm proposing that by keeping religion as a "personal matter", most harm will be curbed.
---
**List of common arguments (will update as time passes):**
**A** stands for argument, **CA** stands for counterargument.
**A:** Publicly endorsing beliefs that are not supported by strong scientific evidence can be seen as causing harm to society and slowing down progress.
**CA:** I do not think that publicly endorsing religion will cause a significant effect. People are already inclined to believe many things that are not supported by strong scientific evidence. For example, superstitions, pseudoscience, stuff on the internet on sites such as *cough* Reddit *cough*, and much more.
**A: ** Particular parts of religion clash with science. You are either forced to continually change and amend all religions to keep in line with the current scientific world view, or you are telling people to choose religion over science, harming scientific advance.
**CA: ** I'd opt for letting people decide, since it is impossible to amend all religions to keep in line with science. This will definitely harm scientific advance. *[to be completed when I sort out my thoughts]*
---
After spending an hour, I couldn't think of a counterargument to the above arguments. I've awarded the deltas. Thanks for changing my view, /r/changemyview!
I will try to come up with a modified solution and see if that works out. Hope I've at least inspired some discussion on this matter.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: There is a stronger stigma in the American workplace against men who choose not to get married and/or have children, than there is against almost any other group +
+ In the workplace there is a clear stigma against people who choose to not marry and/or have kids. The married guy is seen as more stable, more reliable, more financially adept (somehow), and generally more mature. The man who is single is looked at with apprehension, if not suspicion. The married man needs time off? Sure, you need to take care of the kids! The single guy needs time off? What could you possibly need time off for? Get to work.
What about people who are discriminated against on the basis of their race? Sexual orientation? These are protected classes under the rule of law. However, if a man is single, that is a life choice, and that is looked down upon.
A common response to this may be "what about atheists? Surely atheists are more strongly discriminated against." Atheism is something that is much easier to hide. I am an atheist myself, and I have experienced more friction with my employers and colleagues regarding my marriage/breeding views rather than my religious views, which frankly have never come up.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Your job is not a right and thus any associated benefits are not a duty for your employer. CMV. +
+ I have been thinking a lot about the ACA and recently watched the Last Week Tonight on the Hobby Lobby case which I disagreed quite a bit with. It brought up a lot of thoughts about what I think about the interaction between business, employees and government.
So my basic presumption is that your job is not a right, because if you do your job poorly your employer should have the ability to find a better employee (feel free to CMV here). Thus, the associated benefits associated with your job (read: heath insurance but also including pensions, paid vacation, etc.) are not duties to be provided by the employer, but rather *benefits* to incentivize better employees to work for that business.
It mostly stems from the idea that even if just theoretically, the basis of the Hobby Lobby case could dis-incentivize business. Say for example Hobby Lobby had lost its case in the Supreme Court. If the owners of the company were truly opposed to providing whatever certain contraception they had been forced to provide, they would close their doors or sell their company. Should this be an acceptable potential outcome?
Please be aware, I am NOT saying that health care is not a right (nor that employers do not have duties to their employees). I am saying it is not a duty of an employer to provide insurance or for a law to state employers must provide it. Rather health insurance should be, in regard to an employer, a benefit that should incentivize the type of employee to apply at the company. If a company didn't find they were getting enough, or skilled enough employees, the company could choose to alter its considerations and provide things they would not have otherwise. This puts the decision clearly in the hands of the company (and the market for labor). A universal healthcare could be provided by the government, and taxed for.
Feel free to address the statements like "My boss shouldn't control what I do with my body." It seems a bit exclusive. I hear "provide me additional benefits at your cost but if it isn't to my liking I would still rather keep this job and blame you for providing me more than pay but not enough stuff instead of taking my skills elsewhere."
I've been awake for a long time so I probably could've formatted this better but I think most of my thoughts are here. Is a job a right? Is employment as a general whole a right but not any specific job? Is it a duty for an employer to provide benefits like insurance, retirement plans/pensions, vacation etc. Am I incorrect that it could provide negative incentives to business?
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Police that infringe on constitutional rights of citizens should get the death penalty for treason. +
+ Police take an oath to uphold and enforce our laws, the most important of which are laid out in the constitution. Moreover, they are agents of the state and swore a service to the nation that they serve. Minor mistakes are made my everyone, it is a part of human nature. However, police are expected to know in full detail what is laid out in the constitution and what is expected of them is quite clear. If a cop breaks someone's constitutional rights, we can only assume he did so knowingly, thus betraying the nation he swore to serve.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I hate those little minions from the Despicable Me series +
+ They're *everywhere*. I know people that love them, they're even getting their own movie. But I just can't stand seeing them in any situation. They just seem annoying to me, or somehow "gross". Like a particularly smelly toddler with snot on their face who wants to give you a hug. Im going to Universal again this summer and they're all over the place there, so im hoping having some appreciation for them will make my time better.
This is very subjective and hard to really "Debate", but I suppose just hearing why people like them is nice. Most of my family and friends agree with me, and the lone friend I has who loves them just says she thinks "They're cute!". | 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 choosing to be celibate for non religious reasons +
+ So I am a 24 year old guy who is probably gay. I have had sex with a couple of guys and it was fun at the time but now I just regret it and I don't want to have sex anymore.
I don't really think I need sex, despite what society expects of people don't need sex, its not going to kill them if they don't have any and well without it life is less complicated.
I have talked about this with a couple of people i trust and they both think I am crazy or its "sad" that I want to live my life that way and i just gets me wondering why society has got this attitude towards sex whereby if you don't actively want it then there is something wrong with you. My body may on occasion want it but it also on occasion wants a smoke (something which i am trying to deny as well)
I guess I just do fine on my own, I don't have any siblings or that many friends and I don't care, I just really need someone in my life and I sometimes think that doing without sex will also make my life easier and more time to focus on more important things
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Hillary Clinton is obviously the best candidate for 2016. Reddit's love affair with Sanders stems from a dislike of establishment and an unrealistic understanding of the presidency. +
+ While I align more so with Sanders, politically speaking, I can see that Clinton is absolutely the better choice. She's well-connected, influential, and has many allies across agencies, in the private sector, and in governments across the world as well. As president, your job is not only to be the figurehead for the movement, but the backroom dealer who makes the coalitions you need to win. Clinton may not be signaling the way I like, but I would damn sure take a centrist who can get stuff done over a socialist with little pull.
Sanders is a great figure, but he has zero influence in the Beltway and, if he were to win, he'd be shut out of most circles of power. Politics is messy and Reddit's fascination with Sanders is a reflection of the user base's youth and black-and-white understanding of D.C. politics.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Abraham Lincoln was the best President in all of American History. +
+ From his personality to the way he handled Southern Succession there is nothing to dislike about him. He had intelligent, moderate religious views, he was compassionate and held the moral high ground (He criticized the American annexation of Mexico) and he literally died for the preservation of the United States. I think if he lived we would have avoided the problems of Reconstruction.
To top it all off, he literally is the highest rated president among scholars on history. So change my view.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I think it's a selfish motive to purposely try to have children. +
+ I want children one day. Part of me wants to have my own children but I can't justify birthing my own kids when it's such an extremely selfish motive. Sure, once you've had the kids it's selfless because of how much you have to give up for them. But the initial desire to birth them in the first place is selfish. I want my own children because I want to carry on my own genes. I want to have a little human that resembles me. As a woman, I want to experience the feeling of a baby inside of me. These reasons are the main reasons why people choose to birth their own kids.
Here's a few reasons why I find it selfish.
1. There are plenty of children out there without parents. Over 150 million orphans, not to mention foster children. Then here are people who are trying to birth their own when there are so many helpless children without a loving home.
2. There are over 800 million people starving in the world. People are dying from hunger and you're trying to bring another mouth that needs feeding into the world.
3. This reason may be a little unexpected but it's something I'm personally afraid of and so I feel it's a valid reason. I'm agnostic. You can believe whatever you want about the afterlife but that doesn't mean you actually know what will happen to us after we die. Whether we go to a heaven, a hell, are reincarnated, cease to exist or whatever else people can come up with. You just can't know for sure and anyone who says differently is lying to themselves. Now that being said, say hell is a reality. I hope it isn't but you never know. What if you birthed these children out of your selfish desire and they did just whatever it took to have themselves sent to hell forever. Even if you did pick the "right" religion doesn't mean that your child is going to believe it.
Honestly, I would love for someone to change my mind. My ex and I broke up over this because I want to adopt children and he wants biological children. I just can't morally justify purposely bringing children in 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: Street racers should not be charged with manslaughter if the person they're racing dies. +
+ I remember hearing on the news that two idiots were racing their Porsches at 120mph, down some back road in Florida. Driver B lost control, at no fault of Driver A's, and crashed into a tree; he was killed instantly.
Driver A was charged with involuntary manslaughter and faced up to 15 years in prison.
The reasons I feel that this is wrong:
1. Nobody forced driver B to break the law. He knew, or at least should have known, the risks he was taking.
2. Let's look at another scenario:
Driver A and Driver B race their cars down the same street. Driver B does not lose control of his car and both finish the race safely, however they are trapped by police and both arrested for illegal street racing.
Driver A did *exactly* the same thing in both the first scenario and second scenario, yet he faces serious prison time in the first and only a petty misdemeanor in the second.
Let me finish by stating that, had either of them killed an innocent bystander, I would wholeheartedly agree with the charges.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I shouldn't kill Hitler. +
+ Let's assume I have a time machine, knowledge of the temporal/spatial coordinates of Hitler across his entire life, and means with which to end his life. However, I can only use this time machine once, so any alterations of history caused by my time machine are permanent.
In the present, the holocaust has already happened. At this point in history, there is a fixed and finite quality of tragedy attached to it. However, as it stands, the Holocaust was not my fault. I wasn't alive at the time, and had no role in the buildup to these events.
If I kill Hitler, I may prevent the particular tragedy that we know in history from happening. But if in preventing this tragedy, a new one that I didn't predict happens, this IS my fault. By altering time, all new fatalities can be directly linked to my action.
In short, I would rather attempt to repair damage done by someone else than undo old damage and potentially cause new damage.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: "Love" and "Hate" are both irrational emotions sitting on extreme ends of the very same spectrum. Both are dangerous to feel. +
+ **Context:** As I've been re-organize how I view the world lately, my very conception of Love has come under fire. When dealing with emotionally lofty concepts such as love and hate, things can get messy and abstract. Additionally, these are both words that are used in many different ways, but I am positing a specific semantic distinction that I feel applies to both Love and Hate. The mild caveat is that because people hyperbolize both words, they have lost some meaning colloquially, but if you conceptualize "Love" as romantic love or the feeling of being "In Love", it may be easier.
**Argument:** Both love and hate are on the same spectrum of a type of emotion. They are the very opposite extremes to an emotion that is felt by a human being so strongly that it actually destroys that person's ability to make rational, controlled, and logical decision making.
**Hate** is a little easier to understand, and I certainly contest that it’s an irrational emotion. Hate is experiencing feelings so negative and upsetting that one is unable to think rationally about the concept. If one hates a concept, a person, or a thing, and I mean *actually* hates – not just hyperbolic expression – then that person is undercutting even understanding their own reason for feeling the way they are. A person who hates a concept isn’t even willing, interested, or capable of thinking in a level-headed way about that concept. Stubbornness, blindness, willful ignorance or what have you, hate destroys the ability to reason. I’d contest that due to this, hate is never worthwhile and should never be applied to anything or anyone. There isn’t a singular concept, person, or thing that one should hate. Hitler, pedophiles, racism, malaria, or hot-pockets, actual hatred towards anything seems to imply a misunderstanding of the thing.
**Love**, on the other hand, is when you have emotions so positive about a person, place, or thing that the person who "loves" it cannot actually think rationally about that thing. That person is so caught up in the emotions that the ability to weigh out other perspectives, to reason in a different way, or to think objectively about that thing is quite literally disabled. In this way people often talk about romantic love. People may debate that experiencing love is obviously positive, and it brings about so many beautiful expressions… yet it can also lead to de-prioritizing important life events, self-survival, and contemplation of one’s situation. It's very, very rare to have someone so emotionally impacted over an object, however. One example might be Bruce Willis’s character Butch Coolidge in Pulp Fiction, who risks his life to retrieve a watch with significant sentimental value.
The true essence of experiencing love for someone or being in love, is then an emotion that simply disallows rational thought. It, like hate, has an inherent risk. While some desire this type of expression, it can be very unsettling and even dangerous to human beings.
As such, I believe both hate and love are on the same continuum. The actual expression of these emotions (and not merely semantic expression) is borderline unwanted. However, because the emotions that lead to those ends of the continuum are easy to quantify (happiness, pleasure, comfort vs anger, fear, disgust) one seems more appealing than the other.
**Semantic Usage:** I don’t believe that I am suggesting that no one should use these terms, because hyperbolic statements and exaggeration are natural to humans. I do believe that maybe, just maybe, there are better terms to express our unyielding, overwhelming expressions of positivity and negativity. It’s certainly healthier to identify a conscious dismantling of the thing one “hates” and advocate against it, logically and with supporting evidence. And it almost seems much sweeter to identify to a partner that your feelings come from a place of reasoned, mindful, and intentional consideration… and not just mere gut feelings.
**Considerations:** Do y'all think that Love and Hate are rational emotional expressions? Are there times that it's beneficial to a person to feel irrational? If so, then maybe Love and Hate aren't dangerous to experience all the time. Is my underlying assumption that irrationality is dangerous also wrong? When is it ok, and more specifically, when is experiencing Hate as I define it ok?
**TL;DR:** Love and Hate both sit on the same spectrum of emotions. They are defined by emotions so strong that one actually is unable to think rationally when experiencing them. I contest that these are both dangerous emotions because irrationality is dangerous to a human being.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Parents who bring a baby onto a plane are committing a mild form of child abuse +
+ They're deliberately putting their child in pain. Not only do babies not know how to pop their ears for the pressure, but I've read that they are more sensitive to the pressure changes in general and experience more pain because of it.
The only situation I can possibly imagine for it to be acceptable is if the infant themselves requires medical care and you're taking them to get it. Otherwise, what could justify putting your infant through pain they don't understand?
Funeral for Uncle Bob? Your own mother? Find a sitter or part of your grieving process will have to include not being able to attend the funeral. Part of the planning that goes into having a child should be having someone who can watch the child in the event of such an emergency. If you don't have those contingencies in place, or if you can't deal with the hardship of letting your child out of your sight, then that's one of the tough parts of life for *you* to deal with - not to inflict upon your helpless baby.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: "Clickbait" is good. +
+ Let “Clickbait” be defined as an intriguing title that gets people to click on a link and read or view the content associated with it. I would prefer to call this a non-revealing headline, as “Clickbait” has a negative connotation, but we can call it clickbait if you like.
A non-revealing headline leads people to follow the link and view the content. If a headline is too revealing, people will just read the title and move on without even reading the article. This is detrimental to the spread of information because people will assume that their surface knowledge of the title is enough to know the content of the article, and they will miss too much important information.
If the content and substance of an article could be expressed with a single phrase, there would be no need for articles. To try and express the content of an article with one headline is an insult to the article itself because it suggests there is only one phrase of meaningful content in the article. Paraphrasing and summarizing can be useful, but that does not imply that they aid in the titling of an article. They are better suited in the conclusion, and possibly the introduction of an article.
The following arguments do not effectively apply against “clickbait”:
1) Clickbait is just used to make money, so it’s an insult to ‘real’ news.
A vast majority of news is published by companies for profit. Thus, the titling method is irrelevant.
2) Clickbait is used to link to malware and spread viruses.
Anything imaginable on the internet can and has been used to spread malware.
3) Clickbait is sensationalism, which is bad.
Whether or not sensationalism is bad is an entirely different argument altogether (Let’s not have it here). Much of modern news is sensationalism, so it changes nothing. Also, an intriguing headline is not necessarily a sensationalized one.
"Officer pulls over black woman, you won't believe what happens next!" is okay (this is what i mean by clickbait).
"Officer pulls over black woman and changes her tire" is fine, but less people will actually read the article.
"Black woman changes heart of officer who pulls her over" would be misleading and wrong. (unless that's what actually happened)
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: People who enjoy horror movies are crazy and should be in asylums. +
+ I don't understand why people would enjoy watching anything with other humans they can relate to suffering and dying. I just don't get it. This goes for horror movies, /r/watchpeopledie, or just some TVshow with abnormal violence like my beloved games of thrones or Walking Dead (never watched though). I can't stand watching a scene when someone is suffering for "free", but so far in my life I felt like the only one feeling disturbed in those moment; so far, everyone I know has no problem watching. But I keep thinking I am the normal one and people should not enjoy (it sounds weird but I am not forbidding people to do anything. People should not enjoy drinking bleach. But if you want to drink a full bottle I have no problem with that).
On the front page right now, there is a r/WTF link with 4k upvote (or score): 3972 Man Still Alive After being Cut in half by train [NSFL].
I think you would have to pay me something like 1k$ to have me click on this link. But 4k people clicking on it **and recommending it to others**, I don't understand. Whatever gore picture is behind this, is it fun ? What is the motivation, the enjoyment ?
I guess I should be a bit more clear, why would people choose to feel fear (like in horror movie, from which windows is the killer going to come from ?) or feel sick (let's see some dead body in a bad condition but with blood everywhere) when they could avoid that ? Isn't that madness/psychopath demeanor ?
PS: The asylum thing is of course exagerated.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: As a feminist I'm really bothered how male-to-female trans-people portray what it means to be female +
+ I feel like they're acting and it often feels very campy. I don't like how they say "well my brain is more feminine", like excuse me that's something that women have been trying to get away from for 1000 years. Why did Caitlyn Jenner feel the best way to become a woman was to get all trussed up in a corset on the cover of vanity fair? Why are so many m2f trans people so into makeup and fashion?! If that's what being a woman is to you then why not stick to drag? In conclusion, an article that lines up with my views. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/opinion/sunday/what-makes-a-woman.html | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I don't see anything wrong with Rachael Dolezal claiming that she is black. +
+ I found that there was some hypocrisy in the media and among my social group when I would hear people running to the defense of Caitlin Jenner, and then immediately attacking Rachael Dolezal afterwords. I felt both stories where instances of fluidity. One was on Gender Fluidity, the other being Ethnic Fluidity. Assuming Rachael actually feels much more comfortable as a black woman, I don't see why she should not be one.
I understand that it might be seen as an unfair comparison to say a sex change has the same weight as an ethnic change, but I can't help but think this decision on who we can and cannot be should not rest on society, but rather on ourselves. If we allow this, then perhaps we would see questions of "yes you have decided to be a girl, but are you the right kind of girl?" or "you believe to be a christian, but are you the right kind of christian? Oh, you are transferring from being a Buddhist? No, you can't do that, religion and spirituality isn't for you to decide."
Now I know that these particular examples the best in this circumstance, but I guess I'm trying to get at what happens when we have society decide what is the "right kind" of race for you to be.
TL;DR-
Caitlin Jenner didn't get flack for a similar transformation, and what this should come down to is an individuals right to be who they feel comfortable being, not who society wants them to be.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Being a 24 year old male virgin, Indian, having a small dick, having very little money, and not being as successful as everyone else makes me a woman repellant. +
+ Well the title is pretty self-explanatory but recently with seeing all of my friends being super successful and happy on facebook as well as in real life, Ive become super depressed and really need help changing my view.
The good things about me: Im kind, caring, a good friend, and an overall decent human being. I have my own interests and career ambitions, I take care of my physique, and I dress well.
The bad things: Everything that's in the title. The whole "size doesn't matter" "money doesn't matter" "sexual experience doesn't matter" isn't shit I'm willing to believe. Size matters, money matters, and sexual experience = more confidence. The fact that I have none of these things has led me to fall into a negative cycle that I can't break out of.
Most attractive women of all races (even Indian women) aren't attracted to 24 year old virgin Indian dudes with a small dick. That's not opinion, thats just fact. Im not in med school yet either like the rest of my Indian family and friends, instead I got a research associate position at a med school doing cardiology research making a measley 35K a year before tax. So its not like I have money or med school status either.
Please help me change my view that these negative beliefs aren't deal breakers for dating attractive women and that there are attractive women out there who are willing to see past all that.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Our society should be run by the rich. Your voting power should be dependent on the amount of taxes you pay. +
+ Voting without paying taxes is a conflict of interest. Why should I get a say in how something that I don't pay for is run? I could just vote myself more and more money without bearing any of the expense. I lost my job last month and I’m on unemployment. Why should I get a say in how much money I get when I am living off the work of others? This is just like when you are a child. You don’t get to make the rules because you aren’t paying the rent, and you don't get to set your allowance.
Money is a medium of exchange it is received when you provide a good or service of value to someone, and spent when you take a good or service of value from someone else. Therefore the more wealth you accumulate, the more net value you have provided to society. These people should have more of a say in how our society is run because they have given it the most.
Also this would be for the best since rich people are generally smarter and more competent than poor people, and would choose better politicians that don't just appeal to emotion. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Prisoners shouldn't be able to have any kind of intimate relationships with opposite gender while locked up. +
+ Please leave the footnote below the following line, but remember to delete this sentence by replacing it with the body of your post. Thank you!
in light of the recent new york prison break, i don't get why prisoners should have the perks of being able to have sexual relationships with anyone whether employees or visitors let alone talk to them, espcially murderers and rapists. yet i hear many get married and give birth to children which is wtf to me. i can't think how healthy this would be for the children's childhood and support. these guys are in prison for a reason and to get punished by isolating them from the outside world, and they don't deserve these outside relationships with the exception of the occasional prison visits behind a glass window. i have no sympathy for them, would this be wrong?
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Seltzer is superior soda/pop. +
+ I have recently realized that plain soda (seltzer) is superior to all other sodas.
1. No health risks! No sugar, no weird sugar substitutes.
2. Great Flavor! You get the popping sensation from the bubbles, and the carbonic acid generated by CO2 dissolved in water provides great slightly sour/bitter flavor.
3. Because the flavor is unobtrusive, you can drink Seltzer all day without getting tired of it. In fact you can replace all water you drink with seltzer, something you can't do with any other soda.
4. Seltzer tends to be cheaper than other sodas.
So go ahead, CMV, what soda should I be drinking instead?
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The state should provide a painless method of suicide to those who want it. +
+ The state should provide an easy, painless method of suicide (for example, Nembutal, a barbiturate that is lethal at a certain dose but is quick and causes no known suffering) to those who want it, perhaps with some basic restrictions (i.e. showing that they have had a certain amount of therapy)
People should be free to make the choice to end their own lives if they wish, for whatever reason. This should not be restricted to the terminally ill - anybody should be free to make the choice for themselves. Some people decide that they just don't want to be here any more, and society should accept that.
Currently, society takes every possible action to prevent people from taking their own lives - e.g. placing tight restrictions on certain substances/items, forcibly detaining & "treating" people who appear to be "at risk" to themselves, even basic discussion of suicide methods is banned here on Reddit and elsewhere. There is a mantra of "Saving lives at all costs" - even if the cost is the person's own well-being & freedom. We place far too much emphasis on extending people's lives as much as possible but almost none on actually doing anything to improve them.
This leads to a number of problems - some people are afraid to talk about their problems and seek help for fear of being forcibly detained, or have restrictions placed on them (such as being unable to buy firearms, for example). Someone who has simply decided that they have had enough and just don't want to continue won't be able to discuss their feelings with anyone due to the fear of being labelled "mentally ill" and sectioned.
People who are unable to access a painless and "mess free" method still take their own lives anyway - often resulting in public, gruesome suicides that affect others (jumping in front of trains, for example) or failed attempts that could leave them in a vegetative state.
"Suicide on the State" would solve a lot of these problems. People could be more frank about their feelings. Public suicides would be a lot less common. It would far less of a shock to loved ones - they'd get notice, and the person would have the chance to get their affairs in order before their departure - giving notice to their employer, for example. Suicide would have much less of an impact.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: BitCoin will never be the most widely used currency because of its inherently deflationary nature +
+ I'll start off by saying all of my economic knowledge comes from some highschool courses and the internet, so I'm bound to get something wrong.
That being said, my actual argument:
Because the ammount of Bitcoins is limited to 21 million, these coins will increase in value as the world economy expands and some are lost.
If the value of a currency increases relative to goods and services, that is called deflation.
That sounds like it's not a big deal. And if you're an investor, it isn't. But if an economy relies on a currency that is undergoing deflation, that economy slows drasticly.
The reason: If you can increase the worth of your money just by sitting on it, many people will do so. Why go through the trouble and risk of investing it if you are guaranteed to make profit (in terms of value) by putting it under your mattress?
Without investments, the economy grinds to a halt. This is why most economists think that moderate inflation is more desireable than even small deflation, some going so far as to say that some ammount of inflation is healthy.
Most people of course already treat Bitcoin as an investment instead of a currency, as you can see by its wild swings in value.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Moral relativism is the only true moral principle. +
+ What prompted this post was the question at the end of this [thread](http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/35hzj2/92_of_married_women_in_egypt_have_undergone/cr4rqc6?context=3)
I feel that actions such as rape and murder are abhorrent. But I also understand that this is just a belief. There's no data set, equation, or natural observation that can prove certain deeds are wrong on a metaphysical level.
Are morals are completely created by the natural world. Starting with physics and how we came to be leading to biology with its principle of evolution. Much of what we believe is right in wrong has to do with what gave the best chance at extending an organisms genetic line. If an action is harmful to the completion of this goal, then the organisms less inclined to do so will more likely have its genetie materiel passed on. This works similarly with cultures. The groups of people that take on attitudes and beliefs that make a culture more invasive and enduring will be the ones to set the moral code. Furthermore, just as there is genetic drift in biology there are traits in a cultures moral code that spontaneously came to be.
I know that all the various feelings i have on determining right or wrong fall apart when looked at objectively. Any thought of love, empathy, duty, honor, fear, or horror are just the axons and neurons firing in our brain. For simplicity's sake "just because" is the only valid argument for our moral codes. When I really step back and look at the most infamous figures in history and their most villainous acts I see that their evilness is manufactured by society. Those who lack certain required traits are labeled as psychopaths and narcissists.
All this said I am cultured to believe in moral principals just as much as the next person. I don't advocate for an anarchic society, as that would bring much less pleasure to myself. But I do find the inability of many people to except this principle annoying. They make it difficult to discuss issues involving humanity and its definition. The reddit community for all its merits is particularly confounding for its violent and antagonistic vitriol in response to those who are anti-gay, pro-choice, and those who enjoy harassing others for entertainment value. One issue that I struggle with in particular is animal cruelty. For better or worse I don't feel any major sense of empathy when I hear about an animal being "brutally" treated or killed. In reaction I simply act horrified so as not to be burned at the stake while secretly I wonder in confusion at other's outrage.
**tldr; There is no right or wrong, just what you believe is right or wrong.**
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Everybody will have to be switched to basic income eventually due to automation and the elimination of human labor. +
+ Automation is coming. It will more than likely replace every job there is. Even if there still are some jobs left over, it will be too small of a pool to create a sustainable humane capitalism.
However, to prevent automation would be both silly and irresponsible. Machines will be more efficient than humans, and it's our responsibility to make the most out of the resources we're given. It would also cripple our economy. If we pass up automation another country will take the reins and we will become economically weak.
What other solution is there besides a basic income? What else can you do when the majority of you're population isn't just unemployed, but unemployable?
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The authority of the police must always be challenged +
+ I'm not a cop hater. I like to think I'm a relatively reasonable person but I'm honestly not even 100% sure how I really feel with the constant barrage of news stories about police breaking the law and victimizing regular citizens.
I replied to another redditor saying to basically always do what a cop says [here]
(http://www.reddit.com/r/AmIFreeToGo/comments/39xujz/are_any_of_you_lawyers_or_have_credible_sources_i/cs7s7x6)
Section of his comment
and my reply
I do believe this but reading it back to myself and trying to see it from someone else point of view I feel like I sound like some kind of deluded government conspiracy theorist.
Cops have authority. I fully support that. I believe it's necessary for a society to function for there to be people to enforce the law by means greater than what the average citizen should be allowed.
I also believe those enforcers should be held to a higher moral standard. That they should not violate the reach of the powers we give them. And that if they do, we, the very people that gave them the power in the first place, have our own duty to not allow it despite such disobedience being an often unsafe and likely consequential undertaking.
Might doesn't make right. I definitely don't want to get my ass beat and/or thrown in jail for pissing off the wrong cop by not letting him violate my rights and despite my position I don't know if I would have the courage in the moment to stand up to a weaponized bully but I do know it would be the right thing to do. Maybe not the smart thing, but the right thing.
I'm not saying to go around saying the fuck the police and disobeying them for no reason. I'm saying only show deference when they are acting appropriately. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: No one over the age of 16 and under the age of 65 should celebrate a birthday. +
+ Celebrating your birthday is the most attention whorish thing you could ever do. There really is no need to celebrate a birthday because you didn't do anything on that actual day. If anything, one should celebrate their mother or father on their birthday. They did all the hard work. When I see grown ups celebrate birthdays I cringe a little bit.
The one exception is senior citizens (those who are past 65 years of age). Then it's acceptable to celebrate a birthday because it is a true celebration that you're still alive, and you could die soon.
Even worse is grown men who celebrate their birthdays & throw parties to do so. If you're a grown man, there is no need to go out & celebrate your "birth".
I think one thing that should be celebrated is your work anniversary (or school year completion if you don't have a job). This is something that you have to put effort into, and requires something on your behalf that requires a cause of celebration.
Thanks for the responses. I posted this here because I was hoping for some answers that would "Change my view". I know what birthdays are for celebrating. | 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 reasonable for humans to own animals such as dogs as pets, then it is also reasonable for a sufficiently intelligent alien species to own humans as pets. +
+ I think most people intuitively agree that the pet-owner relationship is on the whole beneficial to the pet. While the possibility exists for neglect or abuse on the owner's part, we say that those downsides aren't enough to find the practice in general morally objectionable.
Suppose we encountered an alien race whose intelligence as can be determined via every measure is greater than ours by a factor equal to the factor between humans and dogs/cats. (Ex: If humans are 10x smarter than dogs, these aliens would be 10x smarter than humans, and 100x smarter than dogs.) When it comes to communication, their culture and society is so hopelessly complex and nuanced that we'll never be able to communicate with them as they do with each other. At best the aliens may attempt to speak to us using signals we can comprehend. (Just as humans attempt to do with pets.)
Suppose also that the general attitude towards pet keeping with these aliens is the same as our attitude. Humans should given food and shelter to satisfy all their physical needs, and humans should be given enough freedom so that they can exercise most of their physical, intellectual, and creative desires. Emotionally, the primary bond a human can expect is of companionship with it's owner, but it's possible that they will be able to interact and form strong bonds with other pets. Of course, these things are no more *guaranteed* to happen then they are with humans and their pets, but the aliens feel that their standard of care is strong enough that those concerns don't necessitate outlawing pet keeping, or finding pet keeping in general morally objectionable.
On the whole, I believe this would be a beneficial relationship for humanity, to the same degree that the pet-owner relationship humans have with dogs/cats is beneficial for those dogs/cats.
*One final disclaimer: There are many different kinds of pets humans have, that posses many different levels and kinds of intelligence. Fish obviously don't generally receive the same standard of care and freedom as dogs do. I'd like to keep the discussion focused on animals that we treat similarly to dogs and cats. I've focused so much on dogs and cats because they're A) very, very common as pets. B) pretty dang smart, but still nowhere near us. I don't totally discount arguments that make use of analogies with pets other than dogs and cats, but the hypothetical scenario I'm assuming places us in the same relationship with these aliens as dogs and cats are with us.*
**Breaking News**: a delta has been awarded [here](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/39ymxu/cmv_if_it_is_reasonable_for_humans_to_own_animals/cs7wne5?context=3) for a minor change in my position. Another delta awarded [here](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/39ymxu/cmv_if_it_is_reasonable_for_humans_to_own_animals/cs8a6pu?context=2), for another minor change in position.
Alright folks, I've got to head off now, I've been doing this for like 6 or 7 hours now. It was a pleasure talking to all you guys. My favorite exchange occurred [here](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/39ymxu/cmv_if_it_is_reasonable_for_humans_to_own_animals/cs7qbbx) it didn't totally change my view, but it made some progress. I think if some really strong arguments were made I might flip my position. But for now I think I'll still be welcoming our new alien overlords. I might make some more comments tomorrow, we'll see.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: If brothels were legal then the 'by-the-book' strip clubs would go out of business. +
+ Admittedly Strip Clubs have come to be seen as a fun and even ideal environment for partying. The 'by-the-book' clubs don't allow clients to have sex with the strippers, though of course it most likely happens a lot and many strippers are prostitutes, but not all. The two jobs aren't all that dissimilar (sex work), though stripping is more of an art and I imagine the best performers take it quite seriously and don't sell themselves (cheaply).
On the client side, I think the only reason strip clubs came to be is due to a crackdown on 'out in the open' brothels and the type of men who would go to a strip club would also go to a brothel if they didn't feel like criminals. If brothels were legalized I can see some of those businesses eventually reaching a similar level of social acceptance, thus brothels will become more than a series of dark rooms full of sex-slaves and may become the amusing harems and menageries of historical fiction.
I find that not only will clients prefer the legal brothel with a nice entertainment budget. Why just go watch a girl dance around naked? Why not touch her as you like and even have sex? Or watch people have sex etc. The type of men who regularly go to strip clubs most likely only go because they cant get attractive women to pay attention to them and are willing to deal with teasing and stripping because an illegal brothel can result in infections or jail time.
I even suspect that the performers will end up working in brothels rather than strip clubs. Seeing as there are women who will have sex with them without legal repercussions men won't throw as much money at a girl who is just taking her clothes off. No doubt brothels will end up having some of the girls strip to entice clients to go into the back rooms with them. The artistic side of stripping, which only exists due to the illegality of brothels and male willingness to throw money at attractive women, will lose a great deal of funding and talent.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Hockey is the best sport to watch, according to my definition inside +
+ Best Sport: If a random person who was familiar with no sport was shown every sport on earth and given a month to appreciate each of them the sport they'd be most likely to choose as their favourite is the best sport.
I think that hockey deserves this title because of a combination of factors. It moves at a ridiculous speed, but given time to watch it, it becomes obvious where the puck is. It has a significant amount of strategy, but not so much that an average person needs to understand the strategy to follow along. It has a good amount of violence with the hitting, and fighting is something else thrown in for more fun. Also, unlike other major team sports, the movement of your legs, that is, skating, is just as if not more important and difficult as your upper body and control of the puck.
What will not change my view: Arguments against my definition of best sport or an argument that this is subjective, I get that, this is mostly hypothetical.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: New York City should abolish rent regulations. +
+ NYC currently has two schemes for limiting rent: rent control, and rent stabilization. Both of them should be abolished, though gradually. I would propose that currently controlled units remain controlled, but that:
* Current units cannot be transferred to a new tenant. If the original tenant on the lease at the time of the decontrol law vacates the unit, the unit can be listed by the landlord at market rates. Currently, other occupants related to the lessor can inherit the lease, meaning units pass down in families indefinitely.
* Newly constructed or rented units are not subject to any controls.
* Rents in all controlled units can rise by up to 5% per year.
* Rent decontrol be coupled with large scale upzoning to allow more housing to come on to the market. This will include infill construction in NYCHA housing projects where developers are willing to pay market rates for the land.
* Buildings which received Mitchell-Lama or other tax subsidies must pay back the subsidies with interest before decontrolling units which were built as a condition of the subsidy, on a pro-rated basis.
The reason I want to abolish rent regulations in NYC is that it drastically reduces the available housing supply and harms people looking to move to or within the city. Anyone who has won the rent regulation lottery never moves out, and you end up with a highly inefficient allocation of apartments within the city.
It also hugely depresses the creation of new rental units within the city, because new landlords see what happened to old landlords who got stuck with controlled units.
I don't think there should be a property right in a rental. If you want a property interest in the place where you live, you should buy it. If you're renting, you should be subject to the market forces that come with that.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I would rather be a neandertal than a human. +
+ Neandertals were bad in the best sense of the word. They were ridiculously ripped, and regularly took on big game like wooly rhinoceros in hand to hand combat, and won. They had thrusting spears. Not throwing spears. They had to get up close and personal with their prey to hunt. Once they killed an animal, they had to fight off all the lions and bears and hyenas and wolves that lived in europe at the time. Once again, they took them on up close and personal in hand to hand combat.
They were just as smart as we were. They had art, made jewelry, clothing, maybe even musical instruments. They cared for their sick and wounded, they buried their dead, and probably had rituals to do so.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Game of Thrones is a terrible show with a cheap strategy of evoking basically one emotion—sadness. +
+ I would warn against spoilers now if it weren't for the problem that the spoilers are really bloody predictable and if you haven't realised a pattern, you should have by now. By the way, I would like to also mention how addicted I am to the show, without knowing why. This is the point of the CMV...I want to know if the show is actually good, or if this is just my one stupid show I can't not watch.
All this show does is build characters and engage the audience for a little while before the same old rubbish happens—someone you love dies horrendously. It's just so cheap on the level of jump scares in a horror movie. Only the horror movie's central plot is based around a few cheap jump-scares. That is what Game of Thrones is, only it's filled with mildly entertaining bits in between, and some steadily-improving CGI.
You know it actually reminded me of [SEASON 1 SSSSSPOOOIILLLEERRRRR] the f**king torture scene where the guy helps Reek (forgot his actual name) escapes with the help of that guy, only for it to turn out to be part of the torture, as he is brought back to his captor and his hope is crushed to dust (and his dick is chopped off). We, the audience, are constantly given hope that the good people will triumph and everyone will get justice (which sometimes happens, admittedly) and live happily ever after in a peaceful kingdom. Then that does not happen. Gory shit happens to out beloved protagonists.
What kind of entertainment is this? Where you get your hopes built up and crushed repeatedly? An entertainment for psychos? In conclusion, George Martin is a psycho. | 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 a father who hates Father's Day. +
+ I am a husband and father of two. I love my wife, and I love my children, but I am not a fan of Father's Day. I feel the "holiday", if one can call it that, forces people to adopt a tradition that bills itself very similarly to a birthday...which I already have once a year. If you want to appreciate someone it should be done on an individual basis and *not* based on some yearly Hallmark Holiday. Yes, I feel the same about Mother's Day, but I'll be damned if I don't go through the motions.
I feel much the same way about many of the other "appreciation days" (e.g. Administrative Professionals Day, Thank a Mailman Day, etc.). You are thanking someone for doing what they *chose* to do. Society should not force an expectation on others to give you praise for the things you choose to do or become.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Gypsies and european immigrants are nothing but negative +
+ I might have my opinions heavily influenced by seeing/reading only things about these groups running scams on tourists, setting up tents wherever they can and other general no good activities. I don't see a lot of positive things coming from these groups and with the front page video of the immigrants swarming around the trucks going into the UK it seems ridiculous. I hate to think of myself as small minded about anything so I want to know what the other side of this is. Please source anything you can I really do want information.
To clarify when I say European Immigrants I mean the illegal immigrants. I cannot edit my title but am saying this to clarify
To further clarify, I see issues of the romani culture and illegal immigrants in eastern European countries, they seem to add nothing to the countries they are in. Is there a side to this issue I am not seeing?
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: To Secure Economic Interests is a Reasonable Cause for Military Action +
+ I should start by saying that I believe all other options should be pursued to the fullest before putting the lives of anyone in danger.
That being said, I believe that protecting, and even strengthening our economy and therefore our nation is a moral enough cause to put lives on the line. The role of government, especially in the modern world, is to protect not only the lives of its citizens, but to increase their quality of life. A stronger economy leads to better infrastructure, more social services, less crime caused by necessity. (theoretically, though obviously not always true in practice)
Whether it be:
* Securing trade routes
* Security of natural resources
* Military action that stabilizes regions in which we do commerce
* Assisting allies who strengthen our economy with military aid
Real world examples of this could be:
* The money spent, and the lives endangered by patrolling coastal waters for pirates.
* The soldiers we sent to defend Kuwait from Iraq
* Soldiers on the DMZ of the Korean Peninsula
Keep in mind the assumption of this post is that the military action is a peace keeping, security purposed, deterrence force. Not a raiding party to steal the oil tile from the Mongols in CIV5.
For the entirety of existence, humans have felt that putting the lives of the few on the line for the prosperity of the many is not only morally acceptable, but commendable. (To carrying degrees of willingness and volunteering vs drafting and consignment) In the modern world, the "World War" is not over land or sovereignty, but economic prowess. You are still fighting for your country, even if it is not for it's "very survival". | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Economic Refugees should be deported immediately. +
+ Europe has a hard time dealing with refugees from all over africa.
Because of a variety of reasons. From persecution because of race, gender, sexual orientation or religion. Because of war or because of famine. This are all valid reasons to seek refuge.
But many people enter europe to have a better life here. To work here because we are rich.
I think those "refugees" should be send back immediately. Because they have no right whatsoever to stay here. They dont have to fear imminent risk of life or property and currupt the economic system of the EU through illegal emplyment.
And they make it harder for those who have real reasons to enter to get access into the Union.
Instead of fleeing they could risk their lifes in a more meaningfull way and change their respective countries to offer a more prosper future. Because risking their lifes is what they do anyway.
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: Taxing the rich more isn't necessary, reprioritization of where taxes go is. +
+ Many people say the wealthy should pay higher tax rates because the utility they get from their money is much lower than than a poor person and that we should use this money for things like free college and more social welfare programs to improve equality and equality of opportunity.
Except, in the US the top 5% pays more taxes than the bottom 95% and the US has the most progressive tax system in the OECD. I don't think that the rich not paying their share is really the issue here.
The real problem is that more of our taxes get spent on corporate subsidies, the military, and on the War on Drugs which has been expensive and ultimately ineffective. This takes away tax money from being spent on social welfare programs.
So, it would make sense we should arrange our priorities differently as opposed to taxing the rich more.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: "Cultural appropriation" is fine as long as it's not overtly racist or disparaging. People have a right to use the art, styles, etc. that they like, and those who are offended are overreacting. +
+ I think that people have a right to those artistic, cultural, and aesthetic forms that please them, and openly sharing and partaking of diverse ideas and styles makes the world a richer, more innovative, and better place. Saying that a particular style of dress, manner of speech, way of doing things, or cultural icon "belongs" to a particular group of people who have rights over who may use it and how is dogmatic and dictatorial. If a person wants to wear a kimono or headdress to imitate and mock Japanese people or Native Americans, that's obviously racist and offensive. But if someone wants to wear a kimono or headdress because they like the way they look, the usage of those forms is at worst benign and at best potentially a show of admiration for them and the cultures whence they come. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Creativity in "the West"* is stagnant +
+ This is the hackneyed opinion of someone who may be losing touch with the younger generation. **Please, show me something new.** I'm specifically addressing this view at what is loosely called "the Arts". I am aware of and enervated by technological and scientific progress. Everything new thing I see and hear today seems inherently "revivalist" in nature. Perhaps this is the nature of the new, that it builds on the past. And perhaps the nature of post-modernism is that it "remixes" what has gone before. But surely, sometimes, there are "leaps" you can point to, like the birth of rock n roll, or the explosion in graffiti/street art. **Where is the cutting edge, and what am I missing?**
[.](https://i.imgur.com/IAt9wjT.jpg)
*By "the West" I mean the first world, anglosphere, US & Europe kind of deal. I don't feel I can speak to the lives of others outside of this definition. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Climate change effort is a red herring and humanity is doomed to extinction due to stubbornness and backwards thinkers. +
+ The issue is more prevalent now more than ever and conservative senators (i.e. TED CRUZ) are pushing to shut down NASA's climate research to push their agenda of denial. Pretty much everyone I know drives to work, doesn't carpool, and fills up at least twice a week. In addition there's hardly any mention or raised awareness about the situation in the news. I'm convinced that scientists are aware that people don't care and know that our grandchildren are doomed to an inhospitable planet. My parents and I are almost ready to give up conserving energy and raising awareness. I'm dead tired of rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. We've hit the iceberg and everyone around me is pretending there's no water in the hull while they dump buckets onto the deck. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Killing baby cows for food is no more immoral than killing adult cows for food. +
+ Cows are neither sentient nor intelligent. They don't anticipate the future, they don't make plans, they're not moved to tears by bringing a new little cow life into the world. Given that killing animals for food is not generally immoral^1 , there is not such a great difference between the experience of a baby cow and an adult cow that one will experience death any differently than the other; neither is the life of a cow so rich and fulfilling^2 that it's immoral to deprive a baby cow of it before it dies.
Therefore, I should not feel any worse eating veal than I do eating a hamburger.
^1 If you disagree with this, that's a different argument entirely; I'm glad to hear your opinion on the matter, but you won't change my view unless your argument assumes this point.
^2 Just the opposite, presently; the lives of cows are full of pain and discomfort, because our (American) food-raising process is horrifying. I *do* think that this is unethical, just based on the principle that pain is a bad thing, but it's not a massive priority for me because I think the amount of human suffering is significantly greater at this time than the amount of animal suffering (due to the greater capacity of a human to experience suffering). Again, this isn't the topic of my CMV, but if you want to give your opinion on the matter I'd be glad to hear it.
| 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 having sex in elementary school would accelerate a boy's maturity. (So should I have had more sex in grade school?) +
+ My gut feeling suggests that having sex while an elementary schoolboy would have made me mature faster - whether behaviorally or in other useful ways. I thought even as a grade schooler, I seemed too immature so I wish I had more sex in order to mentally / psychologically / emotionally grow up faster.
Wouldn't all the endorphins and other neurological pleasure chemicals cause my mind to progress faster than I would have otherwise? I'd like to think so...
But if you think early sex doesn't mature a boy, well why, and what'll it do to him instead? And despite all that, would it "still be worth it?"
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Reddit is better off without /r/FPH +
+ Thought about this for days, and I can't think of one aspect of the FPH community that made Reddit better:
- They are ignorant: Proven by the overwhelming number of their threads that complained about their free speech being violated. Reddit isn't the government, free speech isn't a factor here.
- They are hypocritical: The mods would ban anyone who stated things they disagreed with. And yet they get upset when they are banned themselves.
- They are narrow-minded: Anyone who disagrees with them is assumed to be fat themselves. The idea that non-fat people could find what they say idiotic and lacking any value is completely foreign to them.
I just can't think of any way in which my life, or Reddit was made better by FPH.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: All our airforce bomber pilots are disgusting violent savages +
+
This idea hit me when I came across this [NSFL video](http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c5f_1309711220) video of two men who stole potatoes getting beaten with bricks then burned alive. I was full of rage and anger thinking to myself how humans can be so extremely evil. Taking a persons life is already horrendous but doing it to a innocent person in this manner is just atrocious.
But then I realized, this is the exact way civilians die in the cities we bomb and help bomb. When Israel bombs Gaza, what happens? Do the over 1000 civilians drift peacefully into death and become a statistic or do they suffer like in this video? Or when we relentlessly bombed Iraq, what happened to the people? Bombs cause fire. Bombs cause bricks to hit you. What's different? The fact that we don't see it?
We all can agree that the perpetrators in this video are disgusting violent savages, but the pilot that does the same thing in Iraq is regarded as a hero. We can't even think for a second about how evil a person that does such acts is. A bomb both causes fires and ruble to fall on people. In fact, that's usually how most people die of airstrikes. So why do we call one person who does it a disgusting pig while the other we call a hero.
It's no secret that nearly all our bombings result in civilian casualties so this leads me to the conclusion that all our bomber pilots are at the same level of the people in the video and thus are disgusting violent savages. CMV
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: If people can "decide" gender identity, they can also "decide" racial identity +
+ First, let me start off by saying I placed decide in quotations to note that I recognize people do not choose their gender identity. I believe that it is possible for born sex to conflict with your gender.
Now, with the recent news of an [NAACP chapter president possibly lying about being black](http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/12/us/washington-spokane-naacp-rachel-dolezal-identity/) there has been some outrage at her deceit. She has come under intense scrutiny and anger from people all over the country. Understandable considering the fact that the likelihood that she is lying is high.
That being said, what if one were not lying?
Say that we have a child named Andrew. He's an orphaned white boy adopted by a black family who live in a predominately black neighborhood. Growing up he is surrounded by his black family and black friends where he experiences love and acceptance and comes to know nothing other than black American culture.
Would it be unfair to say that this white boy when he grows up could claim he identifies as a black man?
Right, but I feel like that makes no difference. Nature does not outweigh nurture. A man may have his penis but may feel like a woman. Their natural physical state is a man, but their mental state is a woman. Andrew was born white but feels like he is "black", so physical state of white and mental state of being "black".
Don't be silly, you know what I mean.
So reddit, CMV.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Transsexuality is just about having the emotional profile of the opposite gender, not about being born in the wrong one +
+ I've researched the issue and come to the conclusion that transexuality is nothing but a big misunderstanding, please let me explain.
Society had a definition for "man" and "woman":
Man:
-Has a masculine body and male genitalia
-Has a masculine personality
-Is only sexually attracted to women
Woman:
-Has a feminine body and female genitalia
-Has a feminine personality
-Is only sexually attracted to men
Now society has progressed and homosexuality and bisexuality have become more accepted, and thus we have the following definitions:
Straight man:
-Has a masculine body and male genitalia
-Has a masculine personality
-Is only sexually attracted to women
Gay man:
-Has a masculine body and male genitalia
-Has a masculine personality (possibly a bit effeminate)
-Is only sexually attracted to men
Bisexual man:
-Has a masculine body and male genitalia
-Has a masculine personality (possibly a bit effeminate)
-Is sexually attracted to both genders
Woman:
-Has a feminine body and female genitalia
-Has a feminine personality
-Is only sexually attracted to men
Lesbian woman:
-Has a feminine body and female genitalia
-Has a feminine personality (possibly a bit emasculate)
-Is only sexually attracted to women
Bisexual woman:
-Has a feminine body and female genitalia
-Has a feminine personality (possibly a bit emasculate)
-Is sexually attracted to both genders
See the problem here? What happens when someone has a masculine body with male genitalia but a feminine personality? Or a feminine body with female genitalia but masculine personality?
That's what society calls "transexuality", but that's a misconception, society can understand (now) a man that likes other men, possibly a man that acts a little effeminate, but they can't understand a man who wears dresses and loves the idea of being perceived as cute, just like society can't understand a woman who likes to have short hair and wear tough clothes and wants to impose herself and be perceived as powerful.
And for those people who defy the rule man = masculine, female = feminine, society calls them "transexuals", because it's somehow easier to comprehend the concept "being a woman born in the body of a man" and "being a man born in the body of a woman" than to understand that some men simply prefer to be feminine just like most women do and that some women simply prefer to be masculine just like most men do.
This is my point and I'm completely open to the idea that transexuality might be something beyond having the emotional profile of the opposite gender, so please try to reason with me :D
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: If casting white actors/actresses as traditionally minority roles is not okay, casting minority actors/actresses as traditionally white roles should not be applauded either. +
+ This is something I've been struggling with for a while. There have been a few headlines lately that brought this topic up, namely about the new [black Human Torch in the upcoming Fantastic Four reboot](http://comicbook.com/blog/2014/02/22/fantastic-four-why-casting-a-black-actor-as-the-human-torch-might-make-a-better-movie/), and the casting of [Emma Stone as Allison Ng in *Aloha*](http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/03/entertainment/cameron-crowe-emma-stone-aloha-apology-feat/). Now, I know both of these examples aren't perfect opposites, but the reception has been wildly different. When Michael B. Jordan was cast as the new Human Torch, people were thrilled. Despite the Human Torch [never once being black in the comics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_versions_of_the_Human_Torch), people said this was a good step forward in the superhero film community, and even that changing the typically white role to an black role would add levels of complexity to the story. On the other hand, critics called Stone's casting "culturally insensitive," despite Cameron Crowe stating that the fact she's predominantly white, and has to constantly explain her "unlikely heritage," was an actual aspect of her character, based on a real life redhead with 1/4 Chinese heritage.
I don't mind casting people of color in typically white roles. I think it's good and it should be as inconsequential as POC involvement in other areas of life in the 21st century. In fact, in areas dominated by white characters, like the Marvel Universe, I'm completely open to the idea of adding more roles for POC. But when usually white roles are filled by POC, there's a lot of praise for reaching out and involving other races. Why not just focus on either creating films that feature black or other minority characters, like the [Black Panther](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_(comics), or even start creating more original POC characters to reflect the changing racial landscape? Why is the casting itself of a mixed race character portrayed by a white actor "insensitive?"
I'd love to hear other thoughts. I've only seen these two issues (minority casting of white roles and white casting of minority roles) tackled separately.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The "Fuck Pao" crowd has no end-game. +
+ A few days after the banning of /r/fatpeoplehate, the dust is beginning to settle. There are still multiple posts at the top of /r/all from subs like /r/EllenPao_IsA_Cunt and /r/gasthesnoo, but with every passing day, it's relenting.
However, many people remain steadfast in the belief that they can get Ellen Pao ousted from the CEO position. One of the top posts in /r/all right now is this:
I don't think those people are really thinking this through, and it will ultimately prove to be a waste of time. Board members aren't going to look at a bunch of people (most of whom are upset because their hatred of people has been censored) calling the CEO a cunt and say, "Boy they're making a mess of things. We'd best give them what they want." A far more likely scenario is, "We don't want those assholes on our site anyway. Good riddance."
I also don't think any great exodus is inbound. /r/fatpeoplehate had 150,000 subscribers. The two subs (that weren't direct responses to this whole incident) that seem to be the most outraged are /r/KotakuinAction (41,000) and /r/conspiracy (313,000). Even if we put all of those together and assume they're separate people, that comes to 504,000 people. Hell, to account for users who don't log in, we'll even double it, and say 1 million people. Against Reddit's [172.7 million monthly unique users](http://www.reddit.com/about/). I don't think anyone is going to sweat that, especially when most of the site (even those who decry the censorship) didn't like /r/fatpeoplehate to begin with. I think at most one million people ultimately leave Reddit for Voat, and I don't think that number is nearly high enough for any of the higher ups to care.
So ultimately, I think all this outrage will prove fruitless and nothing will come of any of this. CMV.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Climate change should be every politician's first priority, and we are doing too little about it, since no one seems to care anymore +
+ Climate change has been a problem for decades and we have done very little about it. The Kyoto Protocol had obviously failed, and had since become forgotten. I'm not an expert on climate but statistics do serve as solid evidence for this issue, and it had been viewed as one of the fastest growing problems of the century.
I understand preventing climate change is not as feasible as it looks, regarding economic, environmental and societal factors; not to mention the controversial opinions and theories surrounding it. But the key is that the majority of scientists agree on the same consensus that it is indeed a human caused issue, and all promote the cliched "decrease greenhouse gas emissions" solution. But obviously its place in the media has become less prominent while it should be a considered growing problem whose severity should be taken seriously.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Society is mature enough to accept human genetic engineering. +
+ This is in response to a recent thread about Elon Musk and his refusal to engage in human genetic engineering because of the "Hitler problem". As it were, there are already genetic differentials between people. Some people in society suffer from Downs' Syndrome or various other genetically inherited problems. Yet in most developed western societies, we do not discriminate against these individuals who have "poorer" genes, at least not as a matter of state policy. We donate programs to research about these problems and in the case of Downs' Syndrome, we try to find ways and means to accommodate and integrate these individuals into our society. This is to say I argue that in most Western societies, we can live with the idea that people are genetically different in a very substantial way without any genocidal tendencies. I argue that Mr Musk's fears are at least partially unfounded. Change my view.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: It is completely OK to not have any interest in the 2015 Womens World Cup if you're a fan of men's football/soccer. +
+ Generally speaking, I could easily change my CMV to something to the extent of "it's completely OK to not have any interest in women's sports if you're a fan of the male equivalent i.e. WNBA to the NBA." however, given the FIFA Women's World Cup is being played this month, I figure I would give more focus to that competition.
I was having a conversation with a friend who is a fan of both the US National Team and the US Women's National Team, and when asked if I was going to hang out with him to see the Women's World Cup matches, I simply told him I did not have any interest in the tournament. He asked why, justifying his reasoning that if I support the Men's side, that the Women's side require just as much support from me in order to grow the sport for both sexes.
While I am all for growing the sport of football/soccer in the United States, I just cannot care if the sport has success on the women's side. My simply reasoning is that the women's side of the sport is every way, shape and form, inferior to the men's side. To back up this, the USWNT was torched in a friendly in 2012 by the US Men's U-17 side with the final score being 8-2 (see more info here: http://forums.bigsoccer.com/threads/uswnt-vs-u-17-usmnt.1939180/). On the other token, I have quite a bit of interest in our U-17 and U-20 side, knowing that we have coaches raising these players with the potential of making the main side that competes in the Gold Cup and the FIFA World Cup.
I am by no means saying that young girls shouldn't go out to watch the Womens World Cup if they feel compelled to. I do know that positive, quality, female role models in the sport, or rather in any field, are needed in this day and age. However, watching women play the sport is not entertaining or interesting to me.
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 United States lost World War II +
+ I believe that, at the end of the day, America (and to a lesser extent, the UK and USSR) ultimately lost the second World War in every way that matters.
I am not disputing the fact that the United States achieved its principal military/political goals (defeat of the Third Reich and the Japanese Empire), and I of course recognize the fact that the US managed to do so with virtually no civilian casualties/ destruction of the homeland, which is especially impressive given the sheer scale of civilian destruction seen in World War II.
What I am arguing is that, having 'won' (as much as it is possible to win) the war, the United States promptly lost its soul, and has ended up in a worse position than Germany or Japan. The reason (I claim) that this is true is because, even before the last Germans had surrendered and the war in Europe ended, the Cold War had already begun. The United States quickly exchanged one enemy (Nazi Germany) for another enemy (The Soviet Union). From 1945 to 1990-ish, combating the Soviet Union and the spread of communism was perhaps the centerpiece of American foreign policy, and led the United States into a variety of fights where we otherwise had no business (such as Vietnam), and ultimately begat a lot of hatred for the United States, leading to many of the foreign policy difficulties America now faces (particularly anti-US terrorism). The Truman Doctrine and containment strategy eventually gave way to a neoconservative 'Pax Americana' ideal, that the United States is some kind of global police force tasked with maintaining order.
I think it is clear from Iraq that US military presence generally does not breed goodwill, and therefore the United States (in trying to maintain global power) has led itself into something of a downward spiral. In trying to eliminate one enemy (for example, Iran), we adopt what may seem like a reasonable strategy (arming their enemies, the Iraqis), which eventually backfires and requires later invention (the Gulf War and Iraq war), which itself leads to further issues (like the emergence of ISIS), and on and on and on. It's a cycle that only leads to cartoonishly large military budgets and American blood spilled in conflicts where we don't belong. In short, hegemony has not been kind to the United States, and we would be better off if we weren't a world power.
Contrast this with the Japanese and Germans, who are (arguably) doing rather well for themselves. Sure, each country was broken and defeated at the end of the war, and it took a very long time for them to recover, but they came out better. I say they came out better because neither the Japanese nor Germany have the 'obligation' to police the world. In fact, both countries forbid themselves from taking offensive military action. While these countries can be (and often are) considered 'western', and are sometimes the target of anti-western hate, they are not widely hated like the United States, and are not tasked with maintaining ridiculous global military presence. Rather (and forgive me for oversimplifying), Germany can focus on Germany and Japan can focus on Japan. One need not look long to find a wealth of statistics to indicate that these two nations have far superior social safety nets, education, healthcare, etc. than the United States. While this superiority can, of course, be attributed to a wide variety of factors, I believe that one cannot ignore the important fact that these nations have their priorities straight, having suffered the shame of defeat, having gone through the experience of rebuilding and being free of any expectation of global military prowess.
What really solidifies this belief for me is the existence of universal health care in most of western Europe. I apologize that I don't have the source, but if I remember correctly, I remember watching an interview with a worker in the UK's NHS, who attributed the success of socialized medicine in Europe (versus the US) to the fact that Europe had to rebuild after World War II. Effectively, when you have to start from scratch and pick your life up from the rubble, there's a greater sense of common bond with the rest of your nation. The US, having not been hurt in the war in the same way, never had to rebuild and instead developed a more violently individualistic character, where the idea of potentially paying for someone else's health care is utterly repulsive. Americans, by virtue of having won World War II without civilian casualty, has ended up with a far worse society than those who 'lost'. If that's the case, aren't we the real losers?
Sorry if this post got long. Please, CMV!
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The current anti-abortion movement is more about punishing sexually active women than saving the unborn +
+ I can understand and respect the point of view of those who hold a sincere belief that life begins at conception and that an embryo or fetus should be treated as a life that should be protected. However, I think that much of the current anti-abortion stance is more about punishing sexually active women than about protecting unborn children. I believe this because many or most of the people who are against abortion simultaneously hold the point of view that access to birth control and aid to poor families should be reduced or eliminated, and maternity leave (or lack thereof) should be left up to employers. Birth control prevents pregnancy, and free or reduced birth control goes a long ways to prevent unwanted pregnancy and subsequent abortions. Paid maternity leave helps new mothers and their babies bond, heal and generally get a good start. Aid to poor families provides a basic safety net to keep young families from going hungry or homeless. The knowledge of a basic safety net would encourage those who become pregnant unintentionally from aborting due to financial pressure.
I find it disingenuous that many of those who claim to be in favor of protecting the unborn are against the very policies that make life easier for young families. I think by simultaneously holding the views against abortion, birth control, paid maternity leave, and aid to families one is displaying that they care more about punishing sexually active women, and by extension their children, by creating a situation that virtually ensures a live of struggle for those women who do not have a supportive partner.
I am not sure what would change my mind, but I am a reasonable and logical person. If it can be demonstrated to me how individuals who simultaneously hold the views that I described can truly interested in the well-being of the unplanned fetus and the person it will eventually and the family unit in general become I am open to changing my mind.
------------
Note that this does not change my point of view of being pro-choice, which is based on a belief that an embryo/fetus is a potential human, but not an actual human early in development and that choices should be left between women and their doctors. Nor does it change my option that improved policies to support reducing the cost of birth control and providing aid to families in need would be effective in reducing the number of abortions.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Transracial is fundamentally the same as transgender. +
+ As most of you probably know, Rachel Dolezal is a biologically white woman who identifies as black. Recently, Dolezal was outed as caucasian by her parents, and her story has blown up (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/12/how-did-this-white-woman-convince-everyone-she-was-black.html). To me, Dolezal seems very similar to Caitlyn Jenner and other transgender people. Dolezal was assigned a white body at birth, but feels as if she is black. Accordingly, she has a perm, a deep tan, and lives the life of an African American woman. Similarly, Caitlyn Jenner was assigned male body at birth, but identifies as a female. Consequently, Caitlyn Jenner got a sex change and lives as a woman. All in all, Dolezal and Jenner are in similar positions. So why are people demonizing Dolezal, but not Jenner? Is there a difference between being transracial and being transgender?
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |