input
stringlengths 89
9.33k
| output
stringclasses 2
values | instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|
CMV: Fear mongers like (The Thinking Mom's Revolution and the Food Babe) and woo sellers like(Dr. Oz and Teresa Caputo) should be applauded and not disliked. +
+ This people are selling good feelings. Not really being able to talk to the dead or a magic pill to lose weight. They are like movies or video games. They sell a happy time and its not their fault if you believe them. If you watch Independence Day and really think aliens are invading Earth, its not Will Smith's fault even though says in the movie that aliens are invading Earth. They are entrepreneurs that have found a unique way of selling things. They aren't actually hurting anybody. People pay Teresa Caputo money and in return they get good feelings. Nobody is being hurt by her. The Food Babe may use psuedoscience and have people avoid food that doesn't actually hurt them, but people feel good about. They feel good paying extra money for her sponsors food then buying "junk food". The Thinking Mom's Revolution gives answers to parents on why their children are autistic. Sure the information is wrong. But they feel better knowing its not their fault.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: If you're ok with how athletes are paid, you should be ok with how CEOs are paid +
+ There's a lot of debate about how some people are "paid too much" for what they do. I frequently find that people who think CEOs are paid too much have no issues with how much athletes and movie stars are paid.
CEOs, athletes, and movie star pay are all subject to the same laws of supply and demand. The owners of the movie, owners of the team, and owners of the company, agree to pay the amount.
What's similar among them all are that they often don't last very long. These are high profile people. Mistakes, poor performance, and even bad luck means your contract won't be getting renewed and any chance of future employment can be lost.
These types of talents are what owners try to bring on board in hopes that they will make lots of money for them. To say that an athlete should not be paid so much is the same as saying the owner of the team should not be allowed to spend his money a certain way. I don't see how it is different for shareholders looking to employ a CEO.
At the end of the day, all of these are dictated by supply and demand. No one pays millions for an athlete if he doesn't believe that athlete would be an asset to the team. If someone is willing to pay the amount, there is at the very least, the belief that the amount is worth it. You pay a popular actor a lot because you're receiving the ticket sales of his fan base. You pay a CEO a lot because he knows how to negotiate better deals with suppliers or can provide the vision for the next product.
TLDR - There's no difference between CEO's, athletes, and actors being paid a lot. If you're ok with one, you should be ok with them all. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: All salaries/wages should be public information. +
+ Laying out a few reasons why I think this:
* There is strong evidence of pay disparities between genders and ethnicities. Making salaries public would effectively eliminate this overnight, and is the only way that this could be done.
* Private salaries hinder a new(or existing) employee's ability to negotiate. It's harder to negotiate a raise when you have no idea what everyone else is making.
* A company I worked for had its private salaries leaked, and ended up resulting in employment shifts that were overall beneficial to the workers.
Bonuses, and any extra benefits associated with a position also must be disclosed publicly. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I do not believe that there are real paid pro-Kremlin propagandists on reddit. +
+ This is an accusation I've seen hurled around the likes of /r/worldnews- someone will post something which is even *slightly* pro-Russian and you can guarantee that there will follow an accusation of being a 'Putinbot' or 'a shill', or paid by the Kremlin.
Now I do not believe that, whilst there may be those sympathetic to Russia posting on reddit (such as myself), there is any reason to believe that any of these sorts of posters are in any way connected to the Kremlin.
If anything, reddit would be a pretty poor platform to do so, given that there are quite literally thousands of subreddits and even a concentrated effort by a large amount of these Kremlin propagandists would likely be diluted because of this, but also because of the down voting system. Most pro-Kremlin posts I've seen receive such massive amounts of down votes, they are buried.
Plus it must also be said that even in default subreddits, such as /r/worldnews, Russian articles make up tiny amounts of total posts made, and so I cannot see the logic in any major organisation, and much less the Kremlin, throwing even moderate amounts of resources at tiny amounts of posts for propaganda purposes.
I also believe cultural bias plays a part. It's a safe assumption a decently large amount of reddit users are either American or European. With this, this lends itself to cultural bias, and what I believe has happened is that given the nature of reddit, this blurs the lines to the point where few redditors distinguish between merely Russo-appreciative posts and plain silly, biased posts, and so every post which is positive about Russia is deemed to be the work of a Putinbot.
You also see this in news sources- the same redditors who immediately jump on posts referencing RT (Russia Today) or The Moscow Times are the same redditors who will show nothing of the same discernment for posts which reference sources such as the Daily Mail, HuffPo or other Western news sources which could be argued to be biased.
So, CMV!
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:Race is not a real thing, its not science, yet it is stuck in pop culture and every time its used the amount of suffering in the world increases +
+
The very next paragraph nails it;
Race is a scientific theory its technical description is [biological essentialism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essentialism#In_biology). That theory has been proved incorrect and is no longer considered a reasonable category, it is illogical, it is obsolete, it is wrong.
There are many reasons to keep unscientific or illogical descriptions, or to tell stories which are not real, I am not calling for an end to them all, some are fun. I like stories about zombies even though I understand they are not real, but those stories don't actually hurt people. However, this particular one, this idea of race, it breeds hatred, its creates divisions where none exist, it causes massive suffering.
Notice there is no fact checking in pop culture, there is no concern for truth, it is only a label for things which people are doing.
To change my view you will have to show that race is real, that it is a scientific description. Or, for bonus points you could show that race makes the world a better place.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Fonts that have ambiguous lower case L and uppercase I should be phased out from use. +
+ Some of the most popular fonts today (Arial, Helvetica, etc) are ambiguous. I can thus spell IIIinois without using the letter L, and it will slip by completely unnoticed.
Why is this a serious problem?
Aside from the core value of having a discrete set of symbols to represent our written communication system (ie alphabet), the ambiguity can also lead to some serious problems. In computer security, usernames and websites can now be spoofed by this simple trick (eg by pointing someone to hotmaiI.com rather than to hotmail.com). Passwords may become confused or lost due to this simple affect as well.
We should therefore eschew these fonts. Since I know we won't, I really do want you to CMV.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Warning labels that state the obvious should be removed from consumer products. +
+ On a hair dryer: "Do not use in a shower." If somebody's dumb enough to use a hair dryer in the shower, they're not going to pay much attention to a warning label! Really those things only exist because corporations are so afraid of frivolous lawsuits that could have been avoided if the consumer had only applied common sense in the first place. (Those lawsuits just drive up costs for everybody else, but that's a whole another story.) So I say corporations should be allowed to remove warning labels that would be obvious if one applies common sense without fear of litigation when Darwin strikes again. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The US should make a $1,000 bill. +
+ Currently the largest widely circulating US note is the $100. And US $100s [make up the large majority](http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/11/-100-bills-make-up-80-of-all-us-currency-but-why/265518/) of paper US dollars out there. It is really all about the benjamins.
The USD $100 has been the largest bill since the 1960s, when larger notes ($500, $1,000, $5,000, and $10,000) were discontinued, [having last been printed in 1945.](http://web.archive.org/web/20070911204022/http://www.moneyfactory.gov/section.cfm/5/42)
Inflation means that [the 1969 value of $100](http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=100&year1=1969&year2=2015) is closer to $700 today. So a $1,000 bill would be pretty close to the 1969 $100 bill.
So what are the upsides?
1. It makes cash management easier. Legitimate large transactions in cash still happen quite often. It's simpler to do those with a small amount of cash, especially when counting out big stacks of $100s takes time, and in a public or semi-public place may attract attention, and result in [incidents like this.](http://www.dailybreeze.com/general-news/20081208/three-men-arrested-in-string-of-follow-home-robberies-from-casinos) Plus, it reduces counting errors in big transactions.
2. It helps out people in countries with confiscatory governments. A huge chunk of US cash lives outside the US and acts as a safe haven for people whose local currencies and governments are unreliable. Saving in the form of a smaller number of bills helps these people avoid detection, which is a good thing.
3. It gives us space to honor someone new on a bill without all the fighting that comes from taking someone presently on a bill off. Maybe FDR or Reagan (depending on your political leanings).
And the downsides?
A. Money laundering would be facilitated. I don't think this can be gotten around so easily, but I also don't think cash money laundering is a huge problem in and of itself. I don't know that it would be made much worse by this.
B. Counterfeiting would be a problem, since the new bill would be a very juicy target. The $1000 CAD [Birds of Canada note](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birds_of_Canada_%28banknotes%29) was highly counterfeited, and if you want to deposit one to a bank today, you need to have the serial number run to make sure it's legitimate. This seems more solvable, especially if modern technology like polymer notes are used. The [current Canadian banknotes](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontier_Series) are an example of extremely hard to copy notes that could be used.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Capital punishment is ethically untenable and should be abolished where it is currently practiced +
+ I am basing this opinion on several points.
To begin with, my view is a natural consequence of my personal belief that **every human being has a right on living**, a principle that is listed in [Article 3](http://www.claiminghumanrights.org/udhr_article_3.html) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - which has been signed by the United States of America, where Capital Punishment is legalized in some states -, [Article 2](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_2_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights) of the European Convention on Human Rights) and more.
The death penalty is strictly opposed to this tenet. While some people may agree, that by commiting certain crimes such as child molestion, mass murder, et al. forfeit their basic human rights, this is a highly subjective point of view that cannot be unambiguously established, as opinions regarding this topic vary between the various religions, cultures and nations.
Another reason why Capital Punishment should be abolished, is that it is not a punishment in real terms, but merely a "solution", to satisfy the immediate need for equal retaliation according to the principle of "an eye for an eye". By punishing murderers or similar offenders with murder, the judicial system essentially lowers itself to an ethical level akin to that of said offenders. While this is technically a kind of punishment, it is not the one we should advocate, as it conflicts with the moral principles we have determined for ourselves.
Furthermore, the fact that death is a final event - an irreversible one - means, that juridical mistakes have a much bigger consequences. If an innocent is erroneously put under arrest for years, he can still be released and even compensated once his innocence has been proven, but you cannot revive an innocent who was killed for something he did not commit.
Additionally, Capital Punishment is even [economically](http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty) more unfavorable than imprisonment, mainly due to higher defense costs for a death row candidate.
Resting upon these aspects, I hold the firm belief that Capital Punishment is ethically wrong and unjustified, while also being more of an economical burden than imprisonment.
(Note: Because English is not my native language, parts of my reasoning may be wrong or not make any sense. Thank you for your understanding.)
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Bernie Sanders has a better chance of being assassinated by his own government before Jan. 20, 2017 than he does of being sworn office in on that day. +
+ Bernie Sanders offers a categorically different approach than others, making him such a direct threat to the status quo that there is no way corporate America will allow him to come to power. No matter how popular his views become and no matter the consensus behind him, The Establishment (meaning big banks, big oil, coal, and establishment politicians) will resort to any means necessary to prevent that from happening.
Though he is a long shot in a "clean" election, the actual probability of his election is zero. Too much is invested in maintaining the present balance of political and financial power in the country, and incentives are so great to prevent the rise of someone like Sanders to the WH. Though such means of preventing this outcome are unlikely (a manufactured scandal is more likely), Sanders has a better chance of being assassinated before Jan. 20, 2017 than being sworn into office on that date. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Prisoners should have the option to end their life. +
+
I believe someone who has been convicted of a non violent crime should have the option to end their life in prison. So if someone is doing 20 years for drug distribution they can choose to die. This would decrease prison population and relief funding to the prison system. Less people = less taxpayers have to spend. The prisoner would get to choose if they want to die, but the state would perform the execution. This would only apply to people 18 years or older.
Prisoners sometimes have to endure very horrible things while in prison. Rape, sexual assault and violence affect many prisoners that are serving time for theft, drugs, etc. This would also apply to criminals who are terminally ill and suffer everyday from the side effects.
People are given life sentences without parole for non violent offenses sometimes.
link:http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/11/23-petty-crimes-prison-life-without-parole
I believe it is right to give these criminals an option to end their life's so they don't have to suffer in prison if they don't want to.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I don't think being the victim of child sexual abuse gives a person any moral standing to wish for pain, suffering, rape or even the murder of non-offending pedophiles. +
+ I came across [a post](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/360jfx/serious_what_is_you_opinion_on_nonabusing/) yesterday which was asking people what they thought about non-offending pedophiles who committed suicide as a way out of their situation.
Although I wasn't entirely surprised by some of the responses, I was pretty shocked by /u/ReasonsBeyondReason. Among other comments in the post, she supports the [rape](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/360jfx/serious_what_is_you_opinion_on_nonabusing/cr9ukiy) and [murder](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/360jfx/serious_what_is_you_opinion_on_nonabusing/cr9ueh3) of **non-offending** pedophiles and suggests that [they should be shamed for their feelings](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/360jfx/serious_what_is_you_opinion_on_nonabusing/cractq9), even encouraging one outspoken pedophile in the post to [kill himself](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/360jfx/serious_what_is_you_opinion_on_nonabusing/cr9upbg).
She makes it clear that [she was abused as a child](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/360jfx/serious_what_is_you_opinion_on_nonabusing/crawadv), so to a certain extent I can understand why she would feel the way she feels towards actual child molesters, but I don't think her abuse excuses her comments towards non-offending pedophiles.
In another comment which can be found on her [posts](http://www.reddit.com/user/ReasonsBeyondReason) page, she writes:
In response to a post about a [woman who was sentenced to 38 years in prison for murdering her boyfriend who she had **wrongfully accused** of child molestation](http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2015/05/colorado_woman_sent_to_prison.html#incart_river).
I think /u/ReasonsBeyondReason is absolutely disgusting for her comments and I honestly think she is more of a danger to society than the man that sexually abused her as a child.
CMV.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Morality and ethics are made-up and you can do anything you wish without remorse +
+ Hello everyone, before we proceed I want to make sure that you all understand one simple thing: I'm not a psychopath, I don't have any mental disorders beyond some OCD and I've had a lot of good moral influences in my life.
I just don't think that it makes any sense.
When I was 8 I couldn't understand what was the point of baptism, by age 9 I discovered what it was about: Religion. My parents were atheistic and I was so for my whole life so I immediately freaked out and became absolutely anti-religion. It seemed like a joke, you can't simply believe in things that can't be explained rationally, you can explain how a car works from the top to the bottom within a few weeks or months, but with religion at some point you're stuck with a huge "either you believe it or you don't", or even worse, "if you had faith you'll understand".
By age 10 I became interested in politics and philosophy, I was very interested in moral dilemmas, I was fresh in high school and I got to the library and started reading from time to time. There were a couple of really good books with several moral dilemmas that I read several times.
Until my 13s I kept developing those areas, I started off being communistic, then socialistic and then social liberal, I thought about life and death, morality, ethics, utilitarianism and everything else there was to know about those subjects.
Then when I was 14 I discovered it, I was on a car trip to visit my grandparents and I had nothing to think about for the whole trip, I had already been thinking at home (I was kinda bored of playing Age of Empires 2 for hours) and I kept thinking in the car. I don't exactly remember what made me jump, but after worrying so much about whether it was all about maximizing the total happiness, about whether embryos and fetuses should be considered human, about whether morality and ethics should be anthropocentric or not... I just gave up, nothing made sense.
"What if morality and ethics just didn't make sense?", that was it, I discovered it, there was no inherent reason to act in a moral and ethical way. I was stuck at the same thing that I got stuck with religion, I lacked faith, there was no reason to explain it all, morality was no car, it was a dogma, a wall where "why?" became "because someone said so".
Immediately afterwards I thought about what was the point of living: Happiness. Life is about being happy, everything that people do they do it for a reason: Because it makes them happier. I had already thought of that last thing before, but now I could put it all together. Life is just about being happy, even if at the expense of others, nothing mattered but yourself.
For some reason I even made a [terrible blog](https://whitepillarsinsidethevoid.wordpress.com/) (warning: engrish) and a few [quotes](https://whitepillarsinsidethevoid.wordpress.com/2012/04/09/quotes-updated-eventually/) that would probably baffle several psychologists:
“We are complex balls falling towards the end of our existence, our thoughts are just electrons moving in synapses and our memories just chemicals stored in our brain cells”
That was quite dark and completely unrelated, though you can get a perspective on how seriously I was taking it all.
Now regarding the arguments here are a few, they're similar or identical to the ones I made by age 14 and 15:
Exhibit A: Morality justifies itself. Why can't you kill an innocent person? Because it is wrong. Why is it wrong? Because you can't kill an innocent person.
Exhibit B: Morality has no clear limits. How can you be sure if your actions are right or not if they're not clearly delimited? If all humans should be treated fairly then why not treat animals in a similar fashion? First humans, then monkeys, then mammals, where does it end?
Exhibit C: Morality, just like religion, isn't learned rationally. Children are amoral and atheistic/agnostic, parents put ideas into them that shape them into dogmatic adult beings. The burden of proof is in the moral and/or religious person for this very reason, and thus there's no need on first place to disprove neither as long as the opposite is not proven.
Exhibit D: Solipsism. If you can't be sure that other minds like yours exist, then its pointless to treat them in any way different from the way you'd treat a mindless object or an animal.
I've explained my story and my arguments, feel free to argue against me since from the start I've tried over and over again to be wrong, without success. Right now I act in a completely egoistic way, almost like I would otherwise.
You read that right, turns out that being amoral doesn't turn you into a monster. Yeah sure, I could kill anybody, and remorse is just an emotion and I have good emotional control anyway so its not that much of a problem. How many people have I killed so far? Zero. Why would I want to kill anyway? Prison isn't a nice place and I have a good temper.
Stealing? Can still get caught. Rape? Same. Turns out that the mighty hobbesian sword is the main force keeping society together, not morality (I'm not actually into book-ish philosophy but I like to borrow some concepts). Being amoral still means having to obey the law (unless the benefits outweigh the risks), it still means having feelings for other people and it still means being compassionate and even altruistic, not because I have any obligation to do so, but rather because I feel good acting that way.
Conclusively, this is my story, my arguments and my life, just like everyone else but I'm freer as my range of actions also include those that go beyond morality and ethics, even if for the most part I have no need to use that extra freedom.
This is not the story of my life nor I'm trying to convince you, I just wanted to put things into perspective before explaining my position to prevent any misunderstanding, so please feel free to discuss any or all of my arguments for the sake of rational improvement, I've been open to new ideas from the start and this subreddit seems almost too good to be true.
| 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 affirmative action should be based on socioeconomic status, not race. +
+ | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Since it's inception, Christianity has resulted in more harm than good in the world. +
+ I'm not anti-Christianity. In fact, I was raised in church for most of my life. That said, I've come to the conclusion that at least as far as our physical world goes, Christianity has ultimately made the world worse. Things that happened centuries ago (e.g. the Crusades) to the Westboro Baptist Church today seem to outweigh the charity and good that Christianity has brought to the world. I don't think this belief proves Christianity is wrong or inferior. After all, lots of people have done extraordinarily awful things in the name of something good. However, I do think that it should be acknowledged that in general, the death and despair done in the name of Christianity far outweighs the virtue done its name. That said, I'm not fully educated on the topic, and I'm willing to be proven wrong.
CMV.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Terms and conditions for most software should be restricted to a few standardized licenses. +
+ Basically everyone that uses a computer has accepted some terms and conditions without reading them. It simply isn't practical to read through the terms and conditions for every $1 app you buy. It would make a lot more sense to do something similar to creative commons, where you have a set of standardized licenses that you can use without worrying too much about the legalese.
Easy to understand contracts and licenses are in the best interest of the consumer, and it's in the best interest of honest businesses as well, as there's less likely to be a misunderstanding of exactly what terms were offered.
Obviously some things are more niche, but if the thing you're buying is less than say $1000, you shouldn't need more than about 50 words to explain the licensing. If it's more expensive than that, you can probably justify having a lawyer look at the contract.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: A psychologist or psychiatrist can't do anything for my issues, other than prescribe medication. +
+ Basically I have some mental issues (mainly anxiety, OCD and trusting people). I realize the issues are irrational but what irritates me is when someone tells me I should "talk to someone about them"
I'm not sure what talking to someone would do, as from every experience I've had they will just parrot back at me what I already know about the disorder.
Aside from maybe giving me medication, I see absolutely no value in "talking" to someone, when I've pretty much analyzed the root of most of my problems.
When it comes to anxiety, OCD and trust, these are all things I'm extremely cautious about. Telling me to be *less* cautious about a valid threat is like telling me to be less cautious about walking through the ghetto at night.
I can't possibly imagine what benefit a psych professional would give to someone who is aware they are irrational.
The neurotic precautions I take aren't on the scale of not leaving the house because a meteor might hit, they are legitimate precautions that most normal people admit to me are a valid concern, but that they "try not to think about what could happen" and thus don't take precautions.
For example:
-Sleeping in my car instead of a hotel for fear of bed bugs.
-Completely writing off living in apartments as an option for fear of getting bed bugs/cockroaches.
-Throwing away food (as opposed to making a scene or eating it) if I see the food employee handle it with their bare hands, or inadvertently touch the side of the napkin that will grab my pastry with their dirty hands, before picking it up.
-Unscrewing my lightbulbs before I leave my house to confuse potential burglars.
-Taking alternate routes if I see a gravel truck a mile ahead of me on the highway, as opposed to being forced to inevitably pass it and get my car pelted with stone chips.
-Dating, at all. Would not commit to someone unless I was on a desert island where noone else could interfere. Dating in a dynamic world where I am anything less than a top 10% male is too risky, as all it would take is a determined individual with more to offer than myself and an opportunistic time.
-Expiration dates: When in doubt of how long a food item was opened for I throw it away, even if it's a condiment that tends to have a long shelf life. Unknown = toss. I wasted so much money doing this I now exclusively eat out to avoid having to throw food away.
So as you can see I have rational concerns but irrational worry about them. Telling me *not* to do any of those things is asking me to be more vulnerable to threats with relatively high probability of happening. IT isn't like I'm afraid of meteors and volcano's here... I spend too much time researching things and have become hyper aware.
For example, each one of the things I listed, a person in that profession may also do the same thing I do, for example a pest control professional might also avoid hotels, knowing the high risks.... a car detailer might also avoid highways if he sees a gravel truck, and a food safety professional might also throw food away if he sees a dirty hand touch it...
the problem is because I research everything, I have developed the "experts precaution" on just about all of it... and it costs me a lot of time and money, though I don't see what a psych could do other than prescribe me meds or tell me to be more accepting of risk.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:The media is unfairly excluding presidential candidates like Bernie Sanders. +
+ I like to visit news sites and ctrl-f candidates names to see who's getting the headlines, Clinton is being plastered everywhere but I see hardly any mention, still, of Bernie Sanders. I believe the media unfairly excludes candidates and this is detrimental to the election process, and a properly informed vote.
With that being said the only reason I care this election is that I support Sanders, an underdog candidate, whereas previous years I didn't. On a side note - I'm a Vermont resident and was well aware of Sanders before his reddit presence and presidential bid.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Social Justice Warriors are obnoxious and harmful to the very cause that they champion. +
+ So, here's the thing. I believe myself to be very liberal. I am for the ideas of Social Justice, but I am really sick of reading about "trigger warning" this and "safe space" that. I think that people who fall into the "SJW" stereotype tend to be flavor of the week armchair activists who like to yell and scream about social issues they aren't even remotely connected to, which really only gives fuel to the opposite view's fire. Articles like [this one](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/opinion/sunday/judith-shulevitz-hiding-from-scary-ideas.html?_r=0) really punctuate how absurd some of this has gotten. It frustrates me, because I do think we need to have a dialogue about racial inequality, gender issues, etc, but it just seems to me that these people who ["refuse to enact the labor"](https://melissafong.wordpress.com/2014/04/04/why-suey_park-wont-enact-the-labour-women-of-colour-dont-owe-you-an-education/) of explaining why their debate opponent's viewpoint is allegedly invalid are just making people who actually care and actually need the change look a little silly.
Anyway, I would like to better understand these people so that I can engage with the ones in my sphere of influence and help guide their energy towards effective discourse that actually might affect change.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: It should be customary to get a job before you go to college. (Having your first job at 22 isn't okay.) +
+ (A) Work part-time in high school ; Then go to college
(B) Work full-time before you go to college
(C) Work while you study in college.
I was a spoiled lazy kid because I never got a job. Had my priorities mixed up and flunked. I got a job in the real world, and it was painful, but humbling. If I had gotten a job at 18 (or sooner), I would've done much better in college and learned crucial life lessons sooner. There's also lots of other people who are deluded and spoiled because they don't work.
I won't allow my kids to go to college without having worked first.
* I'm not restricting this purely to retail, but retail teaches humility. It teaches you how to be diplomatic, how you're not the center of the universe, sometimes you have to tolerate shit, things won't always go your way. And after working a retail job, you'll treat other retail workers with more respect.
* Having a job also teaches the reality of the world versus theory. I used to be a hardcore Republican who thought poor people didn't have it THAT bad and wealthy people deserve to live 100x better because they work harder. Now, I see the real challenges average people face, especially in the ghetto.
* Having real world experience will help you just as much (you'll encounter lots of people, learn your strengths and weaknesses), if not more than spending years in college "finding yourself". If you have no idea what you want to do in college, you're going to waste lots of time.
* Lots of college kids are entitled because parents/government pay for everything. And they think they automatically deserve a high-paying job just because they graduated. Nope, gotta work your way up from the bottom. Nobody's too good for an entry-level job.
* Oh, and it doesn't hurt to have a little more on your resume.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Some nation's morals are superior to others. Norway > Somalia in this regard +
+ may appear ethnocentric by judging other cultures by my culture's standards, but actually I'm using logical moral reasoning valid for all Humans, because we have so much in common. Suffering, grief, and starvation are universally bad. Personal fulfillment and health are always good. There's nothing wrong with acknowledging what's working and what isn't, even across cultural boundaries. However, I don't support the kind of ethnocentrism that thoughtlessly assumes my own values are the best (aside from the universals I mentioned).
Some cultures are better at promoting the good and minimizing the bad. Norwegians are better at it than Somalis, overall. The two countries are near opposite ends of every ranking of national happiness.
A Nord could criticize a Somali for honor-killing his raped daughter because Nordic morals are more successful at promoting overall wellbeing than Somali morals.
The reasoning the Somali man is likely using is that consent is not a factor in sex, so she is culpable and profoundly sinful. Honor dictates that he protect his family's reputation by killing her. This conforms to his idea of Islam and is the best way to protect the immortal souls of himself and the remaining "pure" members of his family.
The Nord would see a misogynist man selfishly protecting his own standing in the community by harming a disenfranchised girl under the dubious pretext of preserving the purity of "souls," the existence of which no reliable evidence supports. What's more, helping oneself by hurting others should be discouraged because the Nords believe it degrades the level of wellbeing in a society, and they would know-- they're near the top of the happiness charts.
Some people practice critical thinking and do their own moral reasoning. Others follow the less mentally demanding path of tradition. The result is that some people develop moral skills that maximize health and happiness and minimize suffering. Better educated nations do better at this. Norway has great education, Somalia has terrible education. Thus some nation's morals end up superior to others.
| 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 deregulating everything for the same reasons we are deregulating Marijuana. +
+ Some of the strongest arguments we, as consumers in a market, make for deregulating the sales of marijuana can be morally, and empirically applied to nearly any facet of the market the government currently regulates.
I'm open to real evidence pointing to alternatives, but as far as history would have it, regulation on a consumer good usually is bad for the people the market serves. The negative repercussions vary widely in scope, but are almost always worse than the alternatives to deregulation.
An easy example is tobacco. A cash crop like weed, and the same basic stigmas attached to it. I understand the scientific discussion about the toxicity of both, but why not let the market drive the success or failure of the products based on their perceived dangers and benefits? And if pot is safer, couldn't it be a safer and more sought alternative than tobacco? Isn't this more effective than simply regulating tobacco? The most common argument for legalizing pot I see is that we should be able to choose our own safety for our own bodies.
Well, why not live by this logic? What about regulating airbags in cars? Shouldn't there be alternative choices for my own personal reasons?
Same with the practice of medicine. Why does the AMA decide an adequate doctor? Shouldn't I have as more say in a doctor's value than a license board?
I've truly yet to hear logical arguments against this, other than emotional appeals. I'm open to good insight into these topics!
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:I'm starting to feel that the only purpose of life is work. +
+ You're all familiar with is: people concerned about their education, people concerned about their jobs, people concerned about the economy, people wanting to start their own successful business, it seems like there is nothing else in the world to occupy your thoughts with than work.
You go to school, then either get a job or continue your education, and then get a job. you work until you're old and weak, and then when you finally have time to yourself, you're probably too old and weak to enjoy anything.
Please make me feel that I am overreacting and that life offers things that are just as important as working.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: nightmares are fun. +
+ Dreams are DMT trips or something, and bad trips are important for growth (good and bad; teaches balance). Also, it's a free trip, so it's got that going for it.
But let's say you don't care, or let's say I'm wrong about the DMT; bad dreams are interactive horror movies. How can you go wrong? Sure, you believe that everything happening to you is real, but you'll be safe and sound once you wake up. It's like a more intense version of those touchy-feely rides at Disney World or Universal Studios; like if The Shining was a ride like that.
Even if you didn't volunteer to be on the ride, you can just brace yourself for a nightmare every night.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Anti-GMOers are the same breed of moron as Anti-Vaxxers +
+ To my knowledge there are no peer reviewed sources that link GMOs to any negative health effects. There is as much reason to believe genes manipulated in a lab are inherently harmful as there is for genes selected through domestication. I am asking for a CMV because I have not done thorough research other than reading a few articles supporting my view including a recent cover story for Nat. Geo, a magazine I highly respect. However as a scientifically-minded person, I can't ignore the massive movement against GMOs without considering it first. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:It was entirely irresponsible of Rand Paul to filibuster in order to force the end of the Patriot Act +
+ On Sunday, Rand Paul spoke for 10 and a half hours in order to ensure that the Patriot Act, which contains sections used to justify government surveillance, would not be renewed. While doing this, his campaign was selling ["Filibuster Starter Packs"](https://store.randpaul.com/index.php/filibuster-starter-pack.html) in order to garner support for his presidential bid. He additionally used parts of his filibuster in a political video made for his campaign. While I know my opinion that it is important to renew the patriot act is unpopular here on reddit, I think that it is fair that anyone who agrees with the act or not should consider the fact that Paul intentionally stalled debate on the matter, a matter of national security. While Rand held the floor, shouting the same ideas over and over again in various permutations of the same couple lines about the government committing criminal acts and how American freedom is being violated, no informed debate on the matter could occur. To prevent debate on a matter of national security like this I believe is already irresponsible, but to then to blatantly use this restriction of informed debate for the sake of promoting his own presidential bid makes it even more irresponsible. I don't think that it is necessary for one to agree with the provisions of the patriot act (though I do) in order to believe that what Rand Paul did was incredibly irresponsible.
Now, I would anticipate that I will get some responses saying I likely find filibusters an irresponsible practice. I still have mixed feelings about them on the whole, but I do want to focus on this specific one as I believe that it was entirely irresponsible.
Finally, This is my first post on this sub, though I've been reading and commenting for some time. So I just want to say this sub is an awesome community, so Thanks everyone!
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: if youre from a western culture and you save up and have your first overseas trip in another western culture, youre probably a bit of a douche. +
+ I always have to hold my eyes to keep them rolling out of my sockets when i hear (australian) people talking about their trips to europe and canada and america.
To me you have to be pretty dull and boring and douchey to want to go overseas and experience a mild variant of your own culture instead of a different one. Its classic tourist behavior but at least retarded resort-bound tourists outside of the west are pushing their comfort zone slightly.
Travel isnt supposed to be a way to get away from your shitty 9 - 5 that you dont have the guts to quit, its supposed to be a journey where you explore other places and other cultures.
If other cultures are so scary to you that youd save up thousands to go to a place where language and climate are the only differences from home youre probably a bit of a douche. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Police officers not shaking hands with people is a dick move and is part of the reason public perceptions of officers are so negative. +
+ Police officers not shaking hands with people is a dick move and is part of the reason public perceptions of officers are so negative. It serves to reenforce an "Us vs. Them" mentality. The main reason for not shaking hands with the public is safety, as it would put the officer in a vulnerable situation. However, is that not the point of a handshake? Offering you empty hand to a stranger shows trust and a mutual respect. Soldiers shake hands with civilians for this very reason. If an officer is so bad at threat assessment they will not shake hands with anyone who is not an officer, they should find a different job.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Transitioned/ing transgender people are validating the gender archetypes that are oppressing their individuality. +
+ Having an identity/group/category provides false security. We will never, as individuals, perfectly fit into a category. We will never fully define our "true selves," but this does not mean we can't be happy with ourselves. This is part of being self-aware.
By changing one's outward appearance to better align with established archetypes, one sacrifices their individuality for the feeling of belonging. It is the individuals that act on this relentless need to belong that create/validate social categories. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Tattoos are banal. +
+ There are multiple parts to my view:
- Tattoos, as commonly seen in the US, are so trite and ordinary that their meanings have been eroded to the point where they have become empty fashion statements.
- In most instances, one is putting the artwork of another on one's body, indelibly leaving the mark of strangers, cheapening the body.
- Once a tattoo is obtained, a person has a choice to become embrace the culture, or reject it and cut losses. Most will embrace out of convenience, cost, or both, and this defines the remainder of that person's life.
I don't say that *people* are cheap, or that people are somehow trashy with tattoos (though that is the case many times - /r/trashy), rather that their choices and reasons for those choices are banal. I've met lots of good people that have tattoos, and when they explain the reasons for them I've been left with the impression that their choices were impulsive, tired, and uncreative.
*NOTE* A lot of the comments suggest I think tattoos are "bad" or that being banal is "bad." I don't think it's that simple; badness is completely divorced from the concept of banality, and I don't think one implies the other.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The human species' tendency to form "tribes" will never completely go away. +
+ The human species evolved to be part of small tribes of less than 500 people and that never completely went away when even now people have a tendency to box themselves into nationalistic or ethnic identities. You see this all the time with sports fans when people are placing bets on their favorite teams or fans of opposing teams get into a fistfight in the stadium parking lot after a game. World peace will never happen for as long as we're *Homo sapiens* not so much because of government propaganda as because people will always feel the need to enrich their own tribes even if it means they do it at the expense of others. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Advertisements for prescription medications should be illegal +
+ I'm very confused and bothered by the amount of ads for prescription medications that run on television and in magazines. In my mind, the reason that these medications can only be used when prescribed by a doctor, is because they are volatile substances, and only medical expert is qualified to determine which patients really need them.
I can't imagine what good these ads do. If someone is sick, she should go to her doctor, who will decide what medications will best treat her, if any. Prescription dug ads simply cause patients to think they need a drug they perhaps do not, and it puts doctors in a difficult position when their patients request a specific drug that the doctor doesn't feel they need.
So, in light of this, why are advertisements for prescriptions medications allowed? | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: A Millenial calling someone a "bigot" because of their views on same-sex marriage is taking for granted the time in which they were born. +
+ With Caitlyn (Bruce) Jenner making headlines recently, I've seen a lot more discussion on the topic of LGTBQ rights recently. Between Reddit and my Facebook feed (which consists mostly of liberal college students), you would think that the shift in public opinion on LGTBQ (and particularly same-sex) rights began a century ago, rather than just a few short years. Opposing same-sex marriage or other LGTBQ rights isn't *that* antiquated a view to me. After all, it was only thirteen years ago that sodomy was illegal in some states, and it was only twelve years ago that the first state legalized same-sex marriage. The massive reversal in nationwide public opinion on these issues is one of the most dramatic changes in public opinion on any issue in the history of US politics.
Now to be clear, I fully support LGTBQ rights. I'm straight, but I consider myself a strong ally. However, I think it's ridiculous for Millennials in their 20s to pass judgement on other people who oppose LGTBQ rights. If those Millennials had been born 20 years earlier, they would far less likely to have such a favorable view towards LGTBQ issues. I'm not defending people who oppose LGTBQ rights, but let's not pretend that those who *are* LGTBQ-friendly are somehow morally superior, instead of just happening to live in the first time period in modern history where being gay or transgendered is becoming socially acceptable. I think it's ridiculous to demonize those people, as though this is an issue that has been said and done for 50 years now.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Inkjet Printers Are A Scam +
+ I have never used a printer that hasn't made me pull my hair out at least once. That being said, inkjets are the absolute worst. They always jam or clog up or disconnect or simply refuse to work for absolutely no good reason. The worst part, however, is the ink. You buy a few massively overpriced proprietary cartridges of a foul-smelling substance they put in cheapo plastic pens, and they run out within less than a month, depending on your workload. Color compounds the problem by locking up the machine's black and white when you've got a term paper due, if you're short on yellow. I'm never buying an inkjet printer again.
Laser printers, though more expensive, are a fair few iotas more tolerable than this cheapo printer racket HP and Co. have cornered. For a higher initial investment, you'll save a ridiculous amount of money for a more reliable (read: semi-functional) machine that almost never needs to be refilled (by comparison). I'm honestly surprised there's any office market for inkjets. Outside more high-end, specialized applications in photography, I suspect printer manufacturers intentionally cut as many corners as possible in their crap inkjets to fleece bargain hunters for cartridges until they buy a laser out of frustration. I think these machines are intentionally programmed by internal clock to run out of ink just after the return period, and fail outright just after your warranty expires.
Is there any upside to Inkjets at all, 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: Stereotypes are valid and using them to prepare for social interaction is a good idea. +
+ First, I can present as arrogant and self righteous and I am aware of this but do not mean to be. I am black. I have friends of Caucasian and Chinese descent. When I interact with them, the stereo types I have heard about their race is usually reinforced by their own actions.
I'll get more in depth; i deliver Chinese food in southeast Dallas. A stereotype of blacks is that we are notoriously poor tippers. I cannot disagree. In the years of my employment, which provides for me and my son surprisingly well, I have learned through direct observation that that stereotype is based in reality. Whites tip me, Hispanics tip me, Asians as well; blacks...?ha! I digress but I hope my point is clear. I approach a known black customers house knowing the chances are that they will not tip me. It minimizes the dissapointment. It is beneficial to me to enter into these interactions using a stereotype to my advantage. Granted, my emotions are not *that* important but I truly feel better knowing how this interaction is *probably* going to go, and that's a benefit. Its safe to expect a tip from whited or hispamices, etc. and there's no cautionary warning in the form of a stereotype regarding these races.
I know that may be a flimsier example but I think it suffices to illustrate my point. If you are going on a date with a white person, assuming they can't dance may and provably will save one from a potentially awkward situation. Knowing, or expecting(due to the stereotype) that a Hispanic might work hard for cheap can and probably does lead to financial benefits for shrewd entrepreneurs.
I have no sources for this its just a gut feeling. I think stereotypes are usually valid and can be used to my benefit. CMV!
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Gender identity should be based upon the genitals with which you were born with and the hormones your body naturally produces. +
+ Hello everyone, with all the media coverage lately regrading transgender individuals I find myself uneducated on the particular subject and would love to be enlightened on the topic. I support the rights and henceforth of lesbians, gays, and bisexuals but can't wrap my head around the idea of transgenderism. From a purely medical/biological standpoint, it doesn't seem as if one should be able to claim to be the opposite gender when scientifically they have been classified to be the other. Even with the surgeries and artificial hormone replacements, wouldn't the artificial nature of these changes render the claim illegitimate? From a societal standpoint, obviously the idea of gender identity is one that has, for a majority of human history, been based around a singular core fact - we have two genders, man and woman, and you are either one or the other. Is there more to this perceived truth, or is transgenderism the result of a mental nuance that simply appears now because of the emergence of rights for the LGBT community, but has in fact, always been there?
This post isn't meant to attack/offend/etc. anyone, and again if I seem ignorant on the subject it is only because frankly I am and am only here to be educated. Thanks for any responses that can help me understand.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I believe in biological determinism. +
+ Given that our brain chemistry is purely a result of genetics and that our impulses are simply a function of chemical reactions, how could I possibly believe that I have free will in making life choices? How can I legitimately think that I have the ability to change on my own intent if everything I do is a result of reactions out of my control?
Besides just knowing some logical responses to this argument, I would like to think I have some control over the outcomes of my life or that my accomplishments have had something to do with my own autonomous choices; please CMV! :)
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The ONLY thing that matters is what other people think or do. +
+ In today's society, we are taught to think that "it doesn't matter what other people think, as long as you believe in yourself". However, I find this to be completely false.
In a world where we work in teams, as a community, in cities and in countries, the entire description of yourself is based on how other people view you, rather than how you view yourself. For example, no matter how funny you think you are, funniness is only determined by how funny OTHER people find you. You may be able to change how funny you are, but only by taking into account of what other people think is funny.
Furthermore, it is based on other people's decisions that get you to where you want to be. You can't sell a product without someone buying it. You can't get a job without someone hiring you. You do not exist until you are recognized to exist.
Please, change my mind on this. I'm having some really shitty thoughts, but can't help to get this mantra out of my mind.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Nonwhite people should be grateful for the accomplishments that whites have made. African Americans should be thankful that they do not still live in Africa and nonwhite countries should view colonialism in a positive light. +
+ In spite of the imperfections of the USA and Europe, it still remains a truth that pretty much all of the most desirable places in the world are run by Caucasian Westerners. The quality of life for all people, even nonwhites, is generally correlated with the percent of white Westerners in leadership; Black Canadians have better lives than black Americans who have better lives than Jamaicans who have better lives than Congolese. This is true on a global scale; lily-white cities and countries generally report the best quality of life and highest GDP per capita. [The most developed countries in the world are almost all white-run or dependent on white-run countries](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index); even Japan is dependent on white Westerners for trade, military, disaster relief, and [entertainment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hāfu), and in spite of attempting to [Charles Atlas](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CharlesAtlasSuperpower) its way to development with superhuman feats of education and work ethic, Japan's GDP per capita still lags that of France. South Korea is the same way, with an even more endemic academic cheating culture. The problem is that nonwhites look at the few atrocities that whites have committed as representative of the entire white race, when even [Chris Rock](http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/418164-if-you-re-black-you-got-to-look-at-america-a) acknowledges that white rule has had its share of pluses for the African American community.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The Witcher 3, if worthy of any note at all in regards to gender-bias, should be admired by Feminists - not scorned. +
+ POTENTIAL SPOILERS for both Witcher 2 and Witcher 3. I've completed Witcher 2 and act 1 of Witcher 3. I'll try and mark them, but I warned you.
For starters: I read an article today that really bothered me. [See here.](http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2015/05/31/why-feminist-frequency-is-dead-wrong-about-the-witcher-3/)
In summary: a pair of feminists apparently known as the "Feminist Frequency" are now throwing stones at Witcher 3. What I don't get is that, as far as I can tell from my non-Feminist masculo-mind, is that the game is almost a perfect representation of what so many people cry out for in regards to video games and breaking the trends of all of Feminism's buzz-words.
The McIntosh guy seems to be going on and on about how Geralt lacks emotion, men need to cry, blah blah blah - so on and so forth. See [his Twitter](https://twitter.com/radicalbytes). I have to agree with what Kain says in his article about McIntosh: either he hasn't played the game at all or he's intentionally choosing dialogue options to make Geralt a sociopathic murdering machine - in which case he needs to turn that all-powerful analytic mind of his in on himself. Geralt, despite the fact that Witchers are rumored to be stripped of emotions when undergoing mutations, is an extremely emotional and complex character with strong feelings for each of his companions. Hell, even the other Witchers you encounter throughout the game portray emotions as you explore conversation opportunities with them. I can honestly say I have never played a game that manages to make so many of its characters seem legitimately human. But this guy over here is screaming "hegemonic masculinity!"
Meanwhile, Sarkeesian is going on and on and on about [gendered insults](https://twitter.com/femfreq). My only response to that is: toughen the fuck up. People call me a dick, people call me an asshole, I don't get up in arms about it or take any more offense than if they'd called me a bitch or a cunt. The game is *extremely* immersive, that's part of the thing that makes it so incredibly popular. Regardless of the monsters and ghouls, the game is set in medieval times and with that comes a certain environment. If anything it's a reminder of how far we've come.
They're cherry picking an otherwise excellent title is such not only because of it's *immersive* content, but also because it (from my understanding) fulfills so many of the things that I see people in other debates here begging for regarding video games. But here's the thing: look at the feedback on their shit. There's far and beyond more people supporting what they're saying than against it. So wtf?
* I will concede that the main character is a male, and nothing you do can change that. However: there is some very serious character development around Ciri in which you get a feel for her personality. You get to play as her, and you play through her story just about as much as you do Geralt (as far as the main story is concerned). Not only that, she's tremendously more powerful than Geralt is.
* Ciri is not an "unrealistically gorgeous" female, unless you're going to try and say that she's portraying women should all go out and get bad-ass scars on their faces in which case I guess I'd have to concede that point. She isn't running around doing back-flips with double D's. She doesn't wear revealing clothing, and she's got the same "dirty" look that the rest of the (non-Sorceress) characters in the game do.
* **WITCHER 2 SPOILER** Speaking of sorceresses: there's a coalition of extremely powerful women who (at the end of Witcher 2) damn near took over the entire Northern Kingdoms with the end-game of taking over the world. Here we have a bunch of bad-ass chicks that no one is walking on top of, until the end at any rate when their plot is exposed and the entire Northern Kingdom begins a crusade against *magic,* not women.
* **MINOR WITCHER 3 SPOILER** At the point in the story I'm at now, Ciri is not a sexualized character - *at all*. The one dialogue I've seen where it was implied things might get sexy... well, let's just say it doesn't. Hell, there's one point where all the females she's surrounded by are in the nude but her "naughty bits," tits included, are still covered which to me says the developers were actively trying to ensure that you, in fact, *don't* sexualize her.
What am I missing here? Why is Witcher 3 being lumped in with the anti-womyn games like it's the old-fashioned Tomb Raider with Laura Croft's lack of personality and basketball sized boobs? Am I just not looking in the right places to see this point of view? Or is it just that a couple mainstream Feminists are making a big stink over nothing, as it seems?
So, in summary, the Witcher 3 falls more into line with Feminism than most video games that have come out thus far and Feminists should embrace it, not shun it. 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: I think an insurance company only for elite drivers is a great idea +
+ I believe that there exists a great market for auto insurance that only insures elite drivers. Personally, I have never made a claim in the 17+ years that I have been driving and paying auto insurance and I believe that I should be paying a lot less than I am. If I had the money to invest, I would start an insurance company that requires the following of all policy holders, no exceptions:
1) No less than 10 years of driving experience.
2) Zero at fault accidents in at least 10 years.
3) Zero claims filed with your previous insurance company in the last 10 years.
4) No moving violations in the last 7 years (eliminates one third of fatalities*).
5) No DUI or felony driving convictions, for your lifetime (eliminates one third of fatalities*).
*http://www.carinsurance.com/Articles/How-many-accidents.aspx?WT.qs_osrc=fxb
I understand that the qualifications are somewhat subjective, but I don't see a fair way to avoid that. You could say that you are still a very low liability if you have only 1 speeding ticket for 5 mph over the limit 6 years ago, but that opens the door for a guy who has 2 tickets. You have to draw the line somewhere.
To answer some likely questions: if you are on a policy and do something that causes you to no longer , the claim is paid but your policy is cancelled until you meet the requirements again. No, you cannot add your teen driver to your policy, no matter how great you think they did in driving school. Yes, your spouse is listed as an excluded driver if they do not also meet the requirements. All others are listed as excluded drivers.
I believe that enforcing the above would drive down claims enough that rates could be drastically reduced. The main people who are opposed to this would be those who are butthurt that they don't qualify. That's just too bad. This is a (hypothetical) private company that has the right to refuse service to those who do not meet its qualifications, just as other insurance companies do.
The following is just an observation that I tried to backup with data but I have not found anything. It does not seem to me that car accidents are evenly distributed. It seems that some people smash up their car every couple of years and others have never caused such an event. As such, the requirements are intended to disqualify about 90% of the people on the road today, and offer insurance only to those who have consistently demonstrated a high skill level and good judgement.
I believe many good drivers would flock to this service because they are tired of spending their money on a service they have never needed to use and have a very low probability of using in the future. This is not a service for everyone, but for those who qualify I think it could add a lot of value. To CMV, you will have to convince me that this is not a viable business idea. You will not CMV with responses that state any version of "I'm a good driver but I don't met X, and I think I'm special and should still be able to be insured thru this company." Thanks.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Labeling people as the "First African-American" or "First Woman" to do something does more to separate us than bring us together +
+ I think that all humans deserve the same amount of respect, all else being equal. In other words, if I don't know you at all, my respect for you won't change based on your gender, orientation, race, religion, etc (If I do know you, and you give me reason to increase or decrease my respect for you, I will, of course).
I think that referring to people based on their accomplishment is just fine -- being the First Person in Space is a grand title for Yuri Gagarin. But why is he referred to as the first *man* in space? To me, calling Valentina Tereshkova the First *Woman* in space simply emphasizes her difference -- she's female -- instead of her accomplishment.
If we're all supposed to treat everyone equally regardless of race, nationality, gender, orientation, religious views, etc; wouldn't referring someone as the first *whatever* to do something simply remind everyone that the difference is still there, and make it that much more difficult to ignore in the future?
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: If gay and interracial marriage is legal in a state, then polygamous marriage should also be legal in that state. +
+ A few things to note before a start:
1. I'm not arguing to the contrary against gay marriage. I am for gay marriage as I am for polygamous marriages.
2. I'm not arguing for forced marriage or arranged marriages where several women are forced to marry a single man, like in various religious sects, but the concept of a marriage containing multiple people as a whole.
3. I am as much for polyandrous marriages as I am for polygynous marriages. (i.e. women can have multiple husbands in addition to men having multiple wives.
4. Willing to discuss this *legally* and *ethically* in seperate spheres, but let's try not and mix the two together too much, unless absolutely necessary. It is assumed that gay marriage is both legal and ethical for the purpose of this discussion. If you believe gay marriage should be illegal or is unethical, then those arguments have merit towards polygamous marriage as well.
Alrighty, now onto my main points.
1. Polyamarous people deserve the same right to equality, to marry who they love, just like homosexuals, and heterosexuals. Polyamarous relationships are no less moral than homosexual relationships, and relationships between consenting adults should be able to be consummated in marriage.
2. Marriage was not made legal by a popular vote in many places. The only country to legalize it via a popular vote was Ireland a week or so ago, everywhere else had it decided by judges or representatives. In the US, interracial marriage and gay marriage has been ruled as legal by courts, not voted in. Public opinion towards polygamous marriage is irrelevant.
3. When it comes to raising children, one can assume that since having a single parent results in worse-off children, then having a higher amount of parental figures and providers would make for a similar, if not better child-rearing than having one parent, two parents, or two parents of the same sex (all of which are legal). [Source] (http://archive.news-leader.com/article/20121125/NEWS01/311250054/single-parents-Ozarks-poverty) [Source 2](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_House)
4. When it comes to insurance, legal proceedings, etc. everything can be easily adjusted to treating additional spouses as additional dependents (as where such institutions are adjusted for additional children). Yes, it is true that the current system does not allow for it, but it can be adjusted. When it comes to division of property, divorce, etc. things will simply be divided by the amount of people participating in the marriage, i.e. if there are three people, everything gets split 33%, or if the other two remain married, it gets split 66%. Prenuptual agreements can take care of anything that may be complicated by this if spouses have different intentions for how things are split. There will be a cap where insurance coverage/tax benefits end, i.e. if you have more than 7 children you stop receiving benefits for any more. For taxes and insurance, children are treated similarly to spouses, and additional spouses shouldn't complicate things out of reason. The specifics as to what the cap will be, how things get split, life and death decisions, etc. can be hammered out by individual states and individual people participating in a marriage, just like in other marriages.
5. Sham marriages containing two people that don't love each other, of the same or different sex are currently legal. *Chuck and Larry* marriages are currently possible, the only difference in allowing polygamous marriages would be to not allow odd numbers of people to participate in such marriages, rather than being in pairs. The difference here is insignificant.
6. The idea that polyamarous people are treated "equal" because *everyone* is only allowed to marry one spouse is the same type of "equality" where *everyone* is only allowed to marry within their race or sex. This is nonsensical. Everyone being held to the same standard of law does not work when people love people outside of what is socially accepted.
7. Polyamarous relationships aren't any less stable than homosexual relationships or heterosexual relationships. Even if they were, it shouldn't have any weight, as interracial relationships are much less stable than intraracial relationships. To argue that polygamous marriage shouldn't be allowed because of a instability in relationships is also to argue against interracial marriage.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Police body cameras are a good option to deal with police accountabllity. +
+ Body cameras for police are beneficial because they increase accountability for both police and civilians. Tony Farrar, the police chief of Rialto, California says “"When you know you're being watched you behave a little better. That's just human nature. As an officer you act a bit more professional, follow the rules a bit better." This increase in accountability would greatly improve police/civilian interaction.
Body cameras also reduce police officers use of force. After cameras were introduced in Rialto California in February of 2012, Officers' use of force fell by 60%. This comes in turn with the increase in officer accountability, and the improvement of the relationship between officer and civilian.
While some people may say that police body cameras will infringe on the privacy rights of individuals interacting with the police, the benefits of body cameras far outweigh any possible disadvantage. Additionally it is possible to edit the footage from body cameras in order to protect the privacy of those not involved in a specific incident.
If body cameras had been implemented nationwide years ago, cases like the controversial shooting of Michael Brown may very well never have happened, and if they had, body cameras would have provided excellent evidence for the cases, making it far easier to determine exactly what had happened. Overall, the benefits of implementing body cameras on police officers far outweigh the disadvantages.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The pledge of allegience and other rituals of national identity are holding society back. +
+ Nationalism in general is harmful distinction amongst people serving only to encourage people to believe that (not necessarily even) the country they were born makes them more important / better than others from different countires. This further highlights physical and cultural differences keeping race, creed and skin colour at the forefront of discrimination.
Your land mass of preference is nothing more than a matter of circumstance and the nationals of your country are just as much of a burden on the planet as the foreigners these rituals imply are second rate.
- Social economics
- Patriotism vs nationalism
In terms of economics: Please assume any reference to this is intended to express public (and occasionally at a push, social) benefits. The reasoning for doing so is to hopefully highlight how national identity can be a) relative to your perceptions of "lesser countries". b) a productive of abusing of nations / collections of nations. e.g, DDT ban once the rest of the world no longer needed America for its production.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Preventing sexually promiscuous adolescent children from engaging in sexual behaviour with other children (or adults, if they choose) is a violation of a child's rights to bodily integrity. +
+ My view is based on the acceptance that a free expression of bodily integrity includes the ability to chose not only what is done to a persons body, but also, what to do with it.
Before commenting, please understand this isn't an argument for allowing children to have sex with adults. It may simply be the case that society accepts that infringing upon a child's right to bodily integrity is a reasonable thing to do, since it is generally considered unacceptable for children to be engaging in sexual behaviour.
Also, just to point out that when I talk about children engaging in sexual behaviour with adults, I am saying this knowing fully well that children cannot **legally** consent to sex. That isn't to say that children cannot consent, just that the consent isn't considered to be consent in law. A child can consent to anything with regards to their bodily integrity but there is quite rightly a standard in law which protects children against certain things.
Furthermore, in a situation where a child instigates or freely consents to sexual activity instigated by another person it can be said that a child's bodily integrity is violated by any law which prevents them from engaging in that behaviour. In a situation where the behaviour in question is instigated by another person and the child does not freely consent then it would obviously be a violation of their bodily integrity TO engage in the behaviour in question, so by virtue of the nature of bodily integrity, this situation only applies when the child really is willing.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: There is no such thing as "always offensive". Context and intended meaning are everything. +
+ I recently posted [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAVufRsalw0) in a thread. I just meant it as a jokey response to someone's comment, but some people took offence to it. Apparently, because the actor playing the character isn't black, that makes this blackface and therefore unacceptable and offensive.
To offer some context, this is from a show called facejacker which is a follow-on from fonejacker. Fonejacker was a show about one man making prank calls and playing characters. You never saw his face. Mostly what you got was the audio from the conversation and an animated still picture representing the character [like this] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LA3zhzT1wDo). So, the blackface character in the video above was developed for fonejacker. It's just meant to be an amusing accent that plays off people's image of a "Nigerian scammer". Because he was such a popular character, he was brought back for facejacker. The concept of facejacker was to take some of those characters and turn the actor into them with make-up so he could go out and prank people face to face. So, the character came first. It's meant to be funny and it's meant to play off certain stereotypes people have, but it isn't racist and shouldn't be taken as such.
This is one example of many. I just think that only context and intention of the author can determine if something is racist or not. I also believe that we should be moving towards a world where a black actor can play a white character and a white actor can play a black character and no-one cries racism because racism just isn't an issue anymore. The problem is that this kind of knee-jerk reaction (he used the N-word, he's a racist / he's in blackface, so he's a racist) does nothing to help us achieve that, but in fact holds us back by emphasizing racial differences and causing arguments.
TL/DR; You shouldn't call things offensive just because they've fulfilled some basic criterion (like use of blackface or the n-word for example), you should actually examine the intentions of the author and the context to determine whether or not something is truly offensive.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Being quick to anger and violence is a mental illness or disability, and we should be more proactive about getting it treated if we see its symptoms, and preventing it occurring +
+ Often in life, and on the internet, I see people who see violence or anger on a personal level (I would rather not discuss things like wars or gang violence, which have other issues in play) as a solution or immediate reaction to a problem. On a personal level, I cannot fathom how such a person could reach adulthood without being institutionalised or requiring severe therapy in order to control these emotions.
Our emotions *inform* our actions, but they should never *control* them. I might get irritated at being cut off in traffic, but I would never start cursing out and gesticulating at the driver in front of me - because I rationally know that this will have zero effect in correcting the problem currently being faced. I might get pissed off when I start losing an online game, but I don't start abusing other players, or physically breaking my computer or punching a wall - because that would result in me materially losing, not gaining. So such a person who *does* do such a thing should be considered mentally disabled or ill, as they are taking actions that don't benefit them for only the most minor of catharsis - it's just another flavour of self-harm.
A simple Google search of "anger mental illness" backs up my views, with many anger-related mental health issues. It's even in the public consciousness, with movies like *Anger Management*. Yet somehow, domestic violence continues to be a problem - so somehow, these mentally ill people aren't being caught and somehow believe that violence is ever an acceptable response in an adult life. Even shouting matches still occur despite the fact that any rational adult should be able to carry out a calm conversation and either keep themselves under control, or withdraw if they feel they cannot.
So the short version of the CMV is: Being quick or accepting of violence and anger is already partially recognised as a mental disability/illness, but we're not doing enough to combat it. As a global society, we should be more active in teaching children that it's literally never OK in standard adult life (self-defence being the only exception), and if we ever see it in adults, we should be quick to recommend them to therapy in the long-term, and ask them why they feel anger/violence is acceptable in the short term when any sane person would know it's the wrong thing to do.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: draws should be eliminated from all professional sports. +
+ My opinion is based on the idea that professional sports people are supposed to be the best, and are striving for excellence. A draw is not a win, so it should be counted as a loss. Especially in team games like professional football (any code).
I think a draw system does not encourage offense play. And defensive play is almost always boring.
In sports with points and a time limit, a system should be used to determine a winner. Be it either a period of extra time, a tie break competition, or both sides should be considered a loss.
Professional sports are a spectacle for entertainment, I believe that this will be more entertaining.
Change my view!
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I am a circumcised male. I see no issues with the procedure and would circumcise my child if he were born in the U.S. today. +
+ First off, as a male who was circumcised at birth, I am glad that I was circumcised. Any associated pain does not exist to me because I cannot remember it, in the exact same way that pain associated with other surgical procedures I have had under general anesthesia as an adult does not exist because I cannot remember it.
The WHO currently recommends male circumcision for HIV prevention and "as part of a comprehensive HIV prevention package". It is primarily recommended in areas with high incidences of HIV, but given its demonstrated effect at reducing the spread of the virus I prefer to have any added protection possibly available. I would plan to infer the same protection to any hypothetical children born at this time, especially considering that the complication rates here are significantly lower than in the areas where it is most strongly recommended by the WHO.
Living in the midwest U.S. it is culturally nearly expected, with 70-80% prevalence. Because of this, many to most potential sexual partners in my area (including myself, as a gay male) prefer the aesthetic of a circumcised penis. With the research consensus demonstrating no adverse effects on sexual performance, I see no reason to not stick with the cultural norm.
What may help change my view:
* *Scientific studies* demonstrating prolonged psychological damage due to infant male circumcision.
* *Scientific studies* demonstrating that complication rates and severity in the U.S. outweigh potential benefits due to HIV resistance.
* *Scientific* evidence that circumcised males in the U.S. are demonstrably less satisfied with their sex lives than uncircumcised males.
What will *not* help change my view:
* "People should be allowed to chose". Parents are wholly responsible for their children's health and well-being until they are capable of making those decisions on their own. Circumcision complication rates increase dramatically with age.
* "If everyone stopped doing it, it wouldn't be culturally expected anymore." Yeah, not going to happen any time soon. I am talking the choice for parents to circumcise in areas of the U.S. where it is highly prevalent today.
**TL;DR: Not traumatized by own circumcision, culturally expected, +1 to HIV prevention. 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 think student should be able to test out of almost every class. +
+ I think students should be able to test out of any class, at the very least, any of those at the high school level or higher. I don't think it makes any sense to have a student sit through a class to learn things that he can already prove he knows.
Basically, I just want reasons why sitting through a class that a student already understands makes sense.
**Some obvious arguments and their counters**
I'm assuming these class tests would cover everything covered in the course, or at least be designed to determine the student's knowledge well enough.
I'm also assuming these tests would make sure that the student has a mastery of the subjects rather than a simple acquaintance.
This is why I specified "*almost* every class." Obviously there are some classes that teach things that can't really be tested, and of course the student would still have to take those classes, or we might just remove them from the education system altogether.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I Should Always Pick Friends Over Money +
+ So tomorrow I have the opportunity to work 4 easy hours for 60 bucks in cash to help throw a party. It is also the same day my friend is celebrating his 21st early that day because he has summer school in the following morning. I feel like I should always pick my friends over money but I still feel tempted. The job is so easy and I doubt I would ever make as much money doing practically nothing ever again. I am moving shortly next week so this is also one of the last chances we would have to hang out before I left. Reddit, 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: "Buckle up, it's the law" is an appeal to authority, and therefore not a good slogan to get people to put on their seat belts. +
+ I believe that "Buckle up, it's the law" is a very bad slogan, because it is an [appeal to authority](https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority) which can be rejected easily in people's minds if they aren't aware of the purpose of a law.
Instead, an appeal to the motorist's intelligence by pointing out the consequences of not buckling up, and thus making motorists aware of the possible consequences of not buckling up and making it obvious why it is rather sensible to wear one's seat belt would be a lot more effective.
[This German ad posted along public roads throughout Germany](http://www.dvr.de/bilder2/p3737/3737_0.jpg) is an excellent example of this. The text translates to "One is distracted, four die". A brief but concise outline of cause and effect, enough to raise awareness.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Public health should come before civil liberties when it comes to infection control. +
+ Quarantine has been used to manage the outbreaks of communicable disease since the 13th century. The
purpose of quarantine is to separate from the general population those individuals who have been exposed to and are suspected of carrying a communicable disease but have yet to display symptoms.
In contrast, isolation is applied to individuals known or suspected to be infected by contagious agents. Isolation separates infected from uninfected individuals during the period of communicability, and restricts their movement to limit exposure of unaffected individuals. Additionally, it allows for the focused delivery of specialised health care to the ill. Quarantine and isolation may be either voluntary or mandatory.
The quarantining and isolation of people often raises questions of civil rights, however a utilitarian view has to be adopted so as to preserve the health of the wider community; else, pandemics can ensue. Where an individual carries a highly contagious infectious agent, the welfare of the public should come before the individual rights of the individual.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Driving is terrifying, and serves no purpose to me. +
+ A little bit of background: I am 17 years old. I live in a small town where pretty much everything is in walking distance(given I have enough time). My friends all live on the same street as me, my school is only a couple of blocks away. I really have no purpose to drive, at least that's what I think. My parents think other wise. They are indirectly forcing me to drive by not allowing me to get rides from them anymore, unless I'm driving.
I see driving as a pretty terrifying activity. You are in full control of a 2 ton hunk of metal, which can reach speeds up to a hundred miles an hour. Around you are strangers, also controlling 2 ton metal hunks. You have no clue who these people are, and probably will never see them again. But you have to trust them. Just a small accident could end the life of you, your passengers, and other people on the road. I can't live with that burden.
For the record, I have driven before. I got my permit when I was 16, and have only used it a few times. Each time I've used it, I've been stricken with fear.
I feel like driving is essential to life nowadays, but I just can't get my head around. Please CMV!
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Transgender people should compete in the sports league of their biological gender. +
+ The way I see it is this:
* 'Competitions', as such, should not be categorised by gender by default.
* There ar, roughly, two valid reasons to create gender-divided leagues.
* One gender has an unfair physical advantage (think tennis/rugby/etc.)
* Genders are objectively equal, but one gender is still underrepresented (think chess/igo/etc.). Separate leagues are created to tamper the deterring effect inherent to an existing prejudice, with a long-term plan of joining the two leagues.
A transsexual woman (man to woman) retains most of her physical advantage (even if it is somewhat decreased by the decrease in testosterone), so if she's competing in a sport that falls in the first group, she should compete as a man. Even if she lives/feels/looks like a woman, or is considered to be a woman in other respects.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: religion is more harmful to society than any other drug +
+ Note: I will use the traditional definition of drugs as anything that can alter ones mental state. This includes pot and alcohol, as well as meth and cocaine. I also intend to mean any religion, not just the few I've picked out in the statements below.
If a person gets a hold of a bad drug, they are most likely to die fairly quickly, as when one OD’s on heroin, cocaine, or meth. Their death will only hurt their own family. There are instances where someone takes a substance and hurts or kills others in the process, such as when they are driving while intoxicated or sees someone as a personal demon who should be killed; but after a few hours the hallucinogenic effects wear off and those who took the drugs see what they’ve done had real life effects and that what they did was bad.
If a person get a hold of an extreme religion, they are most likely going to spread hate for different groups for many years if not decades, as in the case of the KKK, Westboro Baptist, or ISIS. Their religion will hurt and terrorize dozens of families with each action. There are instances where someone takes their religion and hurts and kills others, as when they burn people for witchcraft or for being a homosexual or when she walks outside without covering her head; though even after many years those who are in the religion will almost never see what they did as bad, only wholesome.
Some men and women commit heinous sexual assaults on others while under the influence of various substances and are very heavily prosecuted in a court of law.
Some priest and clergy commit heinous sexual assaults on others while under the influence and in the name of religion and are rarely if ever prosecuted or excommunicated from the church.
When a parent gives their child a drug, whether it be chemo, alcohol, or a vaccine, some group will most deficiently say that what they did is wrong, even if it isn’t.
When a parent gives their child a religion, whether it be Catholicism, Mormonism, or Islam, almost no one says that what they did is wrong, even if the core believes of that faith are extreme.
In the words of Stephen Weinberg “good people do good things and evil people do evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I think that the standard of discourse on reddit would be higher if we were not allowed to root through other users' post/comment histories +
+ Whenever a politically charged subject comes up in a debate on reddit, someone will make a good point, and instead of countering it, people will root through his/her comment history and find that they post in X sub, which supposedly discredits their opinion. They even have bots for it now, like the left-wing /u/isreactionary_bot, and the newer, right-wing /u/iscuck_bot. These bots literally root through a user's comment history looking for posts in various "flagged" subs for the purpose of calling people out for posting in those subs. I believe this is highly detrimental to the possibility of having a rational debate on anything, because it encourages us to attack the user who says something we disagree with rather than what he/she is actually saying. It's also so tempting that I'll admit that I've done it myself on occasion. If post histories were hidden, or at least hidden for non-"friends" we wouldn't have this problem.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: An Anarchist society could never function in today's world. +
+ I have had a lot of time for listening to people around me in explaining anarchism to me, yet none have answered how this society would work. instead most of the responses seem to descend into why the current state of government is so bad. While I am open to a change in the structure of government, I think that fundamentally, the basis of anarchism could not work as relying on people to uphold their own rules would either end with countless murders and other crimes, or end up as another hierarchical government as others try to stop it happen. However I would like someone to change my view to how an Anarchistic society would function in a western country such as America or the UK.
Thanks for reading!
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: trying a child as an adult makes the protections offered to children irrelevant and is downright vengeful +
+ This is an issue I feel passionate about, but I also understand my views are not that developed. Very curious to say what the responses are!
Juveniles are given special treatments in trials, there is a focus on rehabilitation an integration back into society. This makes a lot of sense to me, children are still learning and don't have much freedom in life. Many of their choices and actions are an immediate cause of their situation, and removing them from that could potentially help. Not to mention, the focus on punishment in adult courts can likely lead to training a kid to be an offender for life,
Trying a kid as an adult circumvents all of that, and ignores the fact that society expects persons under 18 years of age to need additional supervision and warrant more rehabilitation in the case of crimes. It seems so juvenile that someone who commits a worse crime (and is more in need of rehab) would magically be considered an adult just because of severity. Do actions make someone an adult, or age and experience?
I think it is also important to consider there is a growing amount of evidence that states adolescence continues up until 25[1].
Also, many cases that have children tried as adults aren't emancipated minors, it's typically just due to severity. I would consider an emancipated minor tried as an adult more logical, but possibly more morally wrong for a society to do. Emancipation isn't generally a happy thing, and often due to poor circumstances... more rehabilitation would likely make sense, but I see how it would be logical for a system.
[1] http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24173194
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: People should worry less about their personal info being stored by big companies like Google +
+ Many times I see people who refuse to use, say, a Facebook app, because it tracks certain personal information about them, or they argue that Google is taking too much of our personal information, and I always wonder why they worry so much about that.
I mean, why would large companies care about the personal information of their individual users, beyond using it to improve the experience of their application/site or sell it to ad companies? They won't go around posting my information publically, as I'm sure the privacy policy forbids that (and what would they gain from that anyway? I'm just a number to them, among billions of others). Hell, I'm even glad my information is being used to personalise the ads that get shown to me, for instance; If I'm putting up with ads, I'd rather have products that actually pertain to my interests advertised to me than things I find irrelevant.
Even if Google employees spend their free time somehow accessing the database to indulge themselves in the deepest and darkest secrets of their users' browsing history, it still wouldn't bother me haha. I couldn't care less about what a random stranger on the other side of the world knows about me.
Maybe that's just me? In which case, please attempt to CMV!
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Population decline is a good thing. +
+ Population decline is talked about as something negative. Countries like Japan as an example, have a large old population and not enough young people to "replace" them. The argument is that they must increase childbirth and increase immigration to sustain the economy. This is true for many countries. Another country where I live, Sweden. Here one of the main arguments for mass immigration is that we have many old people and too few young people. So to maintain the economic growth rate and taxable income rate more people is needed.
I call bullshit. It's estimated 50% of all jobs will disappear by 2030 because of automation. Most of these are in labour and other areas where the majority of the workforce is located. There will have to be a complete change of the current system of wage slavery and perpetual growth must go. That's another issue however.
My point is it will be a good thing to have a small population, or at least not a growing one. A decreasing population is the most sustainable for what's to come in the future.
(I'm making this about population size and not immigration per say, thanks.)
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Affirmative action doesn't help in the US anymore. +
+ With affirmative action dictating that a certain amount of students or workers have to be either women or an ethnic group that isnt white(or in the case of a few places there has to be a certain percentage of every race and sex including whites and males), it shuts out individuals who would be more qualified for the position, and so wastes resources, and reduces the quality of goods and services from companies that uphold affirmative action.
Not only this, but it puts the "beneficiaries" at a disadvantage in education and the workplace. for example, if you took two students from the same class, where student A barely passed with a low C, and student B was at the top of the class with an a, then accepted student A over B just because of the color of their skin or whats between their legs, student A isn't exactly going to do well. As put in [this](http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21576658-first-three-pieces-race-based-preferences-around-world-we-look-americas) article, student B isnt very likely to be able to keep up with the rest of the class due to them lacking something the other members that got there through merit rather than just being handed a position in the class for their race or sex. This in turn can damage their confidence, and waste their time and money they could be otherwise using to actually progress in life rather than being given a shortcut only to find that they cant keep up, or in the case of them getting into a service or production position, the customers of said person will be getting a shoddy good or service thanks to affirmative action.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: When minorities complain about cultural appropriation it in itself perpetuates racism and self segregation. +
+ I see black friends complaining about cultural appropriation lately, my issue is the hypocrisy of it all. They say that we shouldn't be taking their culture and traditions while happily appropriating other cultures into their own. It's the "us" against the world mentality that is very hurtful to minorities. One of the most common arguments I hear is in music. They say people like Iggy Azalea shouldn't be around making hip hop and rap and wearing her hair a certain way because of the color of her skin? Because she didn't earn it? Isn't that backwards thinking? While Beyonce and Alicia Keys sometimes dawn white girl hair.
Cultural appropriation is a good thing because it leads to different people experiencing other traditions and cultures. | 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 very difficult to oppose financial abortion while remaining logically consistent. Most people who oppose financial abortion hold other positions that are logically inconsistent with said opposition. +
+ By financial abortion (FA), I mean that men could choose not to be forced to pay for children they do not wish to raise (could only be done pre-birth, ideally pre-conception).
Many people oppose financial abortion. However, it seems to me that it is extremely difficult to oppose financial abortion without using logically inconsistent, and therefore invalid, arguments.
Why are arguments that are logically inconsistent invalid? For example, suppose I stated that it's wrong to eat cows as food since we do not need to kill animals in order to meet our nutritional needs. I then state that it is ok to wear leather jackets. We can see that this doesn't make sense - it is logically inconsistent. So it must then be dismissed, unless I can resolve the inconsistency.
This is different than mere hypocrisy, which does not invalidate an argument. Suppose I said that people should not smoke, because it is bad for your health. I then admit that I smoke a pack a day. My statement is hypocritical, but that is irrelevant since my argument is still just as strong or weak regardless of whether I am a hypocrite or not).
In order to oppose financial abortion while still remaining logically consistent, one must also hold a great deal of other beliefs, which most people do not.
What do I mean? I'll explain:
Suppose I stated that children are entitled to support from its biological parents. Therefore, FA is wrong.
However, those who believe this must also oppose sperm clinics to remain logically consistent. Children born from sperm clinic donations are not entitled to support from their father. But most people have no objection against sperm clinics. Note that under this argument, it doesn't matter if the mother is a multi-millionaire. If a child is obligated to support from its parents, that does not change regardless of the wealth of its mother.
If we then made the argument that "the reason children are entitled to support from their parents because most mothers are not rich enough to support it themselves. So it's ok for women to sue sperm clinics if they can support a child on their own." - then we would have to agree that men should not be forced to pay child support if the mother is rich, in order to remain logically consistent. Yet this belief is not popular.
It also means that you must believe that male rape victims - both boys and men - should be forced to pay child support. After all, they are the biological parent. However, most people do not support this.
This usually leads to an argument along these lines: "male rape resulting in a kid is quite rare compared to consensual sex resulting in a kid. Only people who consent to sex should be forced to support resulting children."
However, if you support this argument, then you must also oppose adoption or abandonment, as they currently stand. A woman who adopts out or abandons a child (which was from consensual sex) is not forced to support it.
The common rebuttal to that is something like "If neither biological parent wishes to raise the child, then it is fine for neither of them to be forced to pay. Adoption means someone else agrees to raise and support the child."
But wait - didn't we say earlier that a child was entitled to support from its biological parents? If so, then they are entitled to that support whether only one parent wants to abandon responsibility, or both parents do.
Moreover, not all kids given up for adoption are taken in by families, particularly older or non-white ones (in America). Many remain in foster care indefinitely. Therefore, one would have to believe that the parents of children who are not successfully adopted should be obligated to pay for them. But I have never seen anyone put forth this argument.
Another common objection to financial abortion is that without forcing men to pay, we would have to increase welfare to prevent kids from living in poverty. And that should not be done because it would burden the taxpayer.
However, a poor man and woman who have a child would also have this burden. Many people do think that poor men and women should not have children, but most do not think there should be any legal consequences for doing so.
Alternatively, a poor woman is perfectly entitled to have one-night stands, and not tell the father if she becomes pregnant. She may then move to a different city, have the child and go on welfare.
I do not see anyone claiming that women should not be allowed to do this, even though this is also a burden on taxpayers.
Of course, it is quite possible to have logically consistent arguments against financial abortion. For instance, I could state that financial abortion should not be allowed, because I think that men, as a class, are obligated to give money to women as a class. With that argument, it would be relatively easy to maintain logical consistency with other beliefs. However, that is not a common argument, in my experience.
In order to change my view, I could see two things:
Convincing me that positions such as opposing sperm clinics or agreeing that male rape victims must be forced to pay are widely-held among those who oppose financial abortion. Perhaps some surveys showing that large percentages of people oppose sperm clinics under their current usage, for example.
Providing some reasoning that would make it logically consistent to state (this is just an example) that "parents are obligated to support their biological children" and "it's ok for a woman to use a sperm clinic although the father will not be supporting the child." This seems quite difficult however.
Note: **Please don't give me reasons as to why financial abortion should or should not be allowed. The thread is about the logical consistency of opposing financial abortion with other beliefs, not about whether FA should be allowed or not**. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: There is no media "agenda", just average people reporting on what sells. +
+ I see a lot of people talk about the media like it's a living organism. They accuse "the media" of purposefully hiding information (often powerful corporations/government secrets, or what have you), and the like.
These are just every day employees. Average reporters/office workers just trying to churn out another day for a paycheque, just like the rest of us. They're no more intelligent (or dumber) than the rest of us, and they don't have an agenda.
They're just trying to find stories that their editor will approve; Their editor is just looking for stories that will be read; Advertisers are paying for highly consumed media.
That's it. Just a bunch of average folk, punching their timecard every day. They don't care about it, they're jaded about their 9-5 just like the rest of us. The [reporter making $36k/year](http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=News_Reporter/Salary) isn't trying to "mislead" the Western World.
**tl dr;** I don't think there's a "media agenda" trying to hide corporate/government facts, or mislead us. They're just every day workers like us trying to get their job done, and reporting on things that sell.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:One sex is superior to the other +
+ I'm not sure which sex is the superior one, although I'm sure if someone took the time to tally up all of the positive and negative attributes on each side it could be figured out. One sex must be superior to the other because the sexes have differences that lead to their lives being inarguably better than the other sex because of it. For example, women live longer on average than men which is clearly in favor of women, but men are stronger on average than women, which is clearly in favor of men. While these may cancel out, I find it highly unlikely that after going through every difference, men and women would somehow come to the exact same "score".
I don't want this to become a debate about the semantics of the words superior or better because some traits are clearly better than others. Also, this post only applies to humans.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I think the minimum wage system we have now is not optimal. +
+ I'm not sure if this is the right subreddit for this, but I think a progressive minimum wage system would be much better. Something like our progressive tax system, but for employers. I'm thinking that an employer should be allowed to give lower wages if they have a small amount of employees and a small or negative profit and vice versa for employers with lots of profit and employees. Now I've only taken a couple of introductory Econ classes so I'm not sure if this plan that I'm proposing is even plausible, but I think it would appeal to a lot of people. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Sexual intercourse should only be shared between two people already intimately acquainted +
+ I just had an orgasm. I realized in that brief half minute or so, I was stripped of all inhibition, showing what could only be described as my rawest, most human self. It struck me that experiencing that moment, in either the first or secondhand, is a very personal experience and something valuable enough that I would not want to share it with anyone that I did not already trust and love. This is the basis for my view.
I realize that not everyone feels and interprets an orgasm the same way. The experience is still as important to me as it was my first time, due to essentially maintaining its value. I've only had intercourse with people already very close and dear. As such, I'm able to feel fully myself in those times and share intimate moments that, quite frankly, I can't see myself having with someone I met 4 hours beforehand.
I'm making the assumption that sex with the recently acquainted does not yield the same kind of intimacy and in fact devalues the experience. This is a cornerstone of the view and possibly where I falter?
Thanks for the thoughts. This view I hold is quickly becoming very incongruent with the view of the average 20-something and I want to get rid of it as fast as possible!
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Apples are better than oranges +
+ You always hear the saying, "it's like comparing apples and oranges," in a way that implies that it's silly to compare. This is false though and I would like the chance to prove to you that apples are the better, more versatile fruit.
Alcohol: drinking is awesome and fun. Rarely do you hear about anything orange though, outside of being a garnish or in liquers. Apples are the full feature alcohol fruit that can come in cider or wine form, as well and being used in the same fashions oranges could, liquers and garnishes. No one orders an orange wine because they just aren't common, and that's because they aren't very good! Apple is even sometimes used in beer, albeit orange is more common for that.
Food: oranges are pretty good for food, salads sauces and such, but what about an orange pie? As an American the apple pie is a quintessential food associated with America. That may not sway non Americans, with that I say, what about pork? You don't put an orange in a pigs mouth when you roast it, nope that's an apple. Both can be used in a variety of ways, but pie and pork gives apple the advantage.
Diversity: apples have over 7,000 varieties, oranges don't even come close to that.
Juice: both make fine juices, but apple has far more variety to create a wide appeal. Apple juice also comes in carbonated form commonly. That's pretty cool.
Pop culture: the technology company Apple owes most of it's success because of the apple, spwcifically McIntosh apples. If macs were called "Navels" or "Valencia" instead would Apple have been so successful? Not a chance orange fans, sorry to burst your bubble. Also Forrest Gump's infamous line, "life is like a crate of apples..." Would never work with oranges due to lack of variety. Lastly, there's no Johnny Orangeseed, check and mate.
Love to hear orange fans change my mind though, let's see it.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Possession of child pornography should not be illegal if the subject, producer, and possessor of the work are all the same sole person. +
+ By now, I've seen several interesting news features on legal consequences faced by teenagers taking and sharing nude photographs. In many jurisdictions it seems, it is possible for the state to prosecute these teenagers on child pornography charges to same extent that it could prosecute a paedophile pornographer taking pictures of a nude 10-year-old. This seems absurd, but what I find especially egregious is the fact that *teenagers can be prosecuted for possessing nude photographs of themselves that they themselves took*. Obviously, I object to this, and I have two bases for my objection:
* Photography of one's body by oneself reasonable falls under bodily autonomy, and [minors, especially adolescents, have been found to have at least some right to bodily autonomy.](http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3805&context=dlj)
* I believe that something being criminal necessitates an actual or potential injury to a third party, and the concept that the subject is the victim in child pornography does not apply here because the subject is a first party to the producer/possessor.
Distribution is another issue entirely, complicated by things like iCloud and the NSA, but I don't think that possession in all cases necessitates distribution.
Much of this just occurred to me now, and I realize that there's probably a hole in my logic or a point I'm missing somewhere, so 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: If you don't take satisfaction in what you do, what you do isn't worth doing. +
+ I've lived practically my whole life on this phrase. It has shaped how I have made several important decisions in my life, though I have recently come to suspect that this may not be the whole truth.
The phrase itself is fairly explanatory, but the deeper meaning behind it is that you should always be looking for some kind of satisfaction behind your work; Be it a happy customer, or a well-stocked shelf, or a cool painting. There is always something in your work that can grant you at least some menial satisfaction, but if there is not even that much then the work you are doing is not fit for doing. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:The pursuit of privacy is extremely hurtful +
+ Substantial caveat: I'm in no way discussing privacy from the state. Because it has the rather unique ability to use force legitimately the state is something of a special case.
It honestly seems fundamentally bad for anyone's to have privacy. To the extent that people want privacy online, everyone pays for it. Almost everyone drinks and does silly things. It would be great to have all of these moments logged and at our finger tips on some service like Facebook or You Tube, but because people are private online we can't all do this because you're the outlier if you do. Everyone's trying to hide something.
Everyone being open seems like it would benefit everyone in business because you'd know the reality of your clients, or employers, or employees etc in advance. In your personal life cheaters could just be polyamorous and in open relationships without hurting people because your inability to be monogamous need not be secret. People with nontraditional preferences wouldn't need to hide it because they'd have easily accessible networks that need not be underground.
It seems to me that it's incredibly selfish and hurtful for anyone to have secrets in a free society. Everyone would seem to be so much better off if we just embraced everyone is weird and fucked up in their own ways, everyone has political views, everyone drinks and does dumb shit and no one should feel bad or have to hide their legal things. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: My vote in an election doesn't matter +
+ I really want someone to change my view on this, since everyone i know are frowning on me for thinking this way.
My argument is, that just with my single vote, i'm statistically extremely unlikely to make a significant difference. Whether i vote or not is irrelevant on that scale. The obvious argument against me, that i hear time and time again, is that my vote is a vote in a bigger picture. But that still doesn't counter my argument that a *single* vote doesn't matter. Statistically.
Please change my view, if any of you can refute my arguments above. | 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 viewing child pornography should be legal, because it results in fewer children being victims of sexual abuse. +
+ Before I continue, I would like to start by saying that I am not a pedophile and that I am strongly against the sexual abuse of children.
My view is based on scientific evidence which strongly suggests that allowing pedophiles to view child porn will result in fewer instances of sexual abuse.
Now I understand and accept that some people will say that children who feature in child porn are re-victimised when they learn that people are viewing images of their abuse, but by legalising viewing, this would mean that the victims will never learn that images of their abuse are being viewed and so they will not suffer re-victimisation.
There is no evidence to suggest that pedophiles who view child porn are more likely than not to go onto abuse children. In fact, the research suggests the exact opposite. It suggests that pedophiles who have access to child porn are more likely than not to stick with child porn to relieve their desires rather than abuse a child.
My view is based on a study titled ["Legalizing child pornography is linked to lower rates of child sex abuse"](https://www.springer.com/about+springer/media/springer+select?SGWID=0-11001-6-1042321-0).
Child abuse is abhorrant, but I think to ignore this research is irresponsible.
I will not be convinced by anecdotal evidence on this by the way. Please make sure you provide reliable sources for your opinions, like I have.
CMV.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Texting is only to deliver messages, not to have full conversations. +
+ Today, talking on WhatsApp with someone new I just met a couple of days ago I realized that chatting is not the same nowadays than 5~ years ago where people sat down in their computers on MSN or stopped anything they were doing to actually talk to someone else, now it's like you need to try very hard to get the attention of someone because people are usually entertained with something else happening in their daily lives and they turn to their phone's or change to their browser tabs where the chat is going on every time they had a chance. Or when they want to because now we can decide to ignore you or not thanks to notifications.
The thing is that I now see texting only like a fast way to just deliver a message or arrange something and not as a mean to talk with someone just for the sake of talking, or like meeting someone new because that feel of attention you get when directly talking to someone's ear is simply not there.
I prefer way more to do a phone call or talk face to face when I really feel like talking with someone.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: It is much more likely for humans to come into contact with alien robots than sentient organic life-forms. +
+ *“Will robots inherit the earth? Yes, but they will be our children.” - Marvin Minsky*
So firstly, this stems from a view that if humans are ever to survive into the far future (maybe even only a few millennia), it will be by integrating ourselves with technology and shedding our fragile organic bodies.
What is the maximum typical lifespan of a sentient organic species? Humans have gone from the invention of writing to the capability to destroy our entire species in just 5,000 years. On a cosmic timescale, that is an instant. Will the Earth still be inhabitable for us in our current states by the time another instant passes? Luckily, we’ve already started primitively engineering and augmenting ourselves, with genetic modification, prosthetic legs, hearts, ears, etc. The technological advances in just the last 100 years (as well as the damage we’ve done to our planet) has been incredible— what will the next 5,000 bring?
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the nearest sentient species developed on a planet 100 lightyears away. (Just FYI, a quick Google/Wolfram Alpha search tells me the fastest human spacecraft now being designed will go 200km/s, which means it would traverse 100ly in 150,000 years.) Let’s say that, just by chance, this alien civilization achieved our current level of technology very near to us in time— only 10 million years ago. Do you think it's likely that if they existed today they would have organic bodies? Even an alien species so incredibly close to us on a cosmic timescale is almost unthinkably distant in the context of our lifespans as individuals and as a civilization. And organic life forms are just not well-suited for interstellar travel.
Essentially, I think organic life is a means to bootstrap into existence truly immortal technological ‘life’. This is true on Earth and on every other planet as well. And just by the nature of cosmic timescales, it’s much more likely to come into contact with the next evolutionary stage of an alien species than to be lucky enough to catch it in the minuscule period while it’s still fully organic. CMV.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Anger is never justified unless imposed harm is the intent of the subject aggressor. +
+
Getting angry or mad is never justified unless the one that the person is mad at had the infliction of physical or mental harm or damage in mind.
If you get angry for something someone does on accident, with good or neutral intent or without them being angry first, you are the one in the wrong and while your feelings might not be self-induced or controllable, you should realize that your feelings, and what you act out when those feelings are still active, are completely irrational in a logical sense.
Anger is always about context and intent. Any form of subjectivity is unreasonable. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Framing computing as engineering is misguided, it should be regarded as applied math instead +
+ I think framing computer programs as engineering projects, same as if we were building a bridge, is why "all code is bad" and "all software has bugs" (these will sound familiar to any developer out there).
As I see it, a program is a complicated mathematical function. It receives input and produces output accordingly. Be it a compression algorithm or a google search, the concept is the same. Engineering projects aren't like that.
We would not admit a function that doesn't produce the correct result sometimes, and the researcher would not tell us to restart and try again. A function can't be mostly right or "good enough". It's either correct or incorrect. Maybe if we considered programs correct or incorrect, we would not release incorrect programs.
If we worked like this, probably we would not be able to release as many programs as we do now. But that just means the engineering approach makes more sense economically, in terms of making money; that's not the purpose of the topic. My view is about what makes more sense from the point of view of computing.
Thanks
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I do not think it’s possible for someone to keep their religion or lack thereof out of their vote and comments telling people that they should are useless. +
+ I have seen on here where people have told others that they should keep their religion/morals out of their vote and the same when talking about how representatives should vote. But that is impossible in my mind. We are not Vulcans we vote emotionally and based on our morals and upbringing instead of in some cold logical fashion. And a person’s morals will be based on that upbringing, But shouldn’t someone vote based on their morals? Their version of right and wrong will be based on what they have read and what they think is morally right. As for leaving religion out of it that is impossible since for someone religious their sense of morality will be based around that religious law. I may be agreeing against a straw man here and the whole “keep your morals out of it argument” may just be something idiots/trolls say when coming up against a moral viewpoint they don’t like or agree with. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Prices like $599.99 are deceptive by nature and ought to be outlawed or boycotted. +
+ I can think of no reason to set such prices other than as a psychological trick to make something seem cheaper than it is.
The consumer gains little to nothing by buying the product for 1 cent cheaper. It doesn't really add up for that much, and it is outweighed for how much extra the consumer spends due to being misled. Stores wouldn't do it otherwise.
I would find it hard to believe that the prices are caused by competition and market equilibrium (i.e. that it would be rationally cheaper to buy at the $599.99 store than the $600 store). It would be a huge coincidence if it turned out that the "real market price" just happened to stop at that arbitrary .99 point. Furthermore, it appears that monopolies such as airport snack shops are doing it as well, and they have no competition.
Therefore, I argue that it has no benefit to the consumer and it is done in bad faith. Of course, the consumer ought to be responsible when buying, but a practice like this very intentionally exploits such moments of minor inattention. This gives it grounds to be banned.
I can see how that might cause problems with prices like $19,900, but not with anything below one dollar difference.
If you are a laissez-faire fellow such as myself who might believe that it is the store's natural right to set whatever price it wants for whatever reason, then fine, although it would be very low on the priority list of excessive regulations. But it would at least call for some sort of consumer action or boycott.
And if you believe this is too small of an issue to write laws or organize rallies against, then that's also fine, but then you at least have to admit that this is still completely undesirable and dishonorable, at least on a miniscule scale.
You would probably change my view if you present a convincing central reason for stores to do this that isn't purely manipulative.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Payday loans are a GOOD idea for people who need money quickly, people who don't need, or can get a traditional loan. +
+ Payday loans are a quick and easy alternative for people who are
in a hard situation. They work by you writing a check, which is dated for a day or two after your next paycheck, for the amount of money you want plus a fee and then giving it to a payday lender. Then when that day comes they cash your check. How is this bad for people in poverty or for anyone who needs money quickly?
I have seen people opinions saying that these loans are bad and charge an outrageous interest rate, but I haven't seen hard data saying these loans are bad for people. I would like to see some real data which shows my view is wrong.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:The concept of segregating evolution into Micro and Macro Evolution shifts the burden of proof to those adding Micro/Macro to evolution. +
+ The idea that every spawn is different from its parent is well known. We know that mutations happen in a small scale and change every generation slightly. We call this change the Theory of Evolution. It is a fact change happens, and thus making the evolution a fact. Opponents of evolution like to use the segregation of evolution into Micro/Macro to say that we cannot prove that Macro Evolution has been happening. It is now viewed that the burden is on those who accept evolution to prove the case for Macro Evolution. I think this is burden shifting is wrong.
If we look at any other concept that has its principle subject change over time. We do not divide that subject into short and long term. Take Entropy for example. There is no micro and macro entropy. It is just entropy. If we demonstrate that entropy is happening over the course of a week, and there is no obvious blockade stopping this process, must we prove that it will continue into the next week? The next month? The next 100 years? If a boulder begins to roll down a hill, the burden of proof should shift to those who say the boulder will stop.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Making money by being an online entertainer (like Youtube or Twitch) happens to the lucky few and it's safer to just get a real world job. +
+ To me, online entertainment is such a flip of a coin. You either get a partnership or you don't, and even if you do get the partnership, there's no saying that what you make will be enough to live off of, so it's probably just safer to get a real job.
For Youtube, it seems like you need to be the following to be successful:
* A young attractive person (or at least a person with an attractive voice) that appeals to some major demographic (teenage girls, LGBT teens, sports fans, etc.)
* Someone who was already famous on a different social medium
* A Let's Player
And in all of these, you need a certain budget to spend on making your videos (light, camera, a crew maybe?) and that's not including the money you need for specific videos (e.g. a Let's Player needs enough money to buy new/big budget games in order to attract attention, a make-up channel needs to buy TONS of products, clothing channels need to shop on a regular basis, etc.).
Twitch has the same problems as a Youtube Let's Player; in order to be noticed, you need to buy really popular games and/or new games, and those are rarely cheap; most games are up in the $60+ range, not including DLC or even the equipment needed to stream at a constant frame-rate for long periods of time.
Even if you DO get popular on either of these platforms and get a partnership, Twitch takes half of your subscription profits, leaving you mostly depending on possible donations, and Youtube takes a lot of your ad revenue (not including other Youtube-related partnerships you might have [cough cough Nintendo cough]).
If you ABSOLUTELY need to make money on one of these platforms, or a similar platform, then you should either be rich or have had a real job long enough that you have enough money to survive.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:The Jaegers from Pacific Rim are an incredibly bad solution to the Kaiju problem +
+
First, let me get this out of the way. I understand that this is a movie, and that the idea of giant robots fighting monsters is a far more appealing concept for a movie than a destroyer shooting a missile at them.
That said, the Jaegers are an awful solution to the kaiju problem. There are other methods which would work far more cheaply, easily AND effectively than a gigantic, expensive robot that only a few people in the whole world can crew.
For example, we see Striker Eureka employing anti-kaiju missiles in the film effectively. Since these missiles exist and are proven to be effective, I have to question why the jaeger is necessary. Why can't these missiles be fired from ships, vehicles or airplanes?
I understand that kaiju are evasive and fairly quick for their size, but we already have cruise missiles that can travel at over mach 7, and targeting systems capable of hitting targets far faster, more evasive and smaller than any kaiju.
Instead of, say, attaching these effective warheads to cruise or ballistic missiles, we instead build gigantic, expensive, hard to crew, hard to produce and frankly not that effective robots.
That's not even mentioning the plasma cannon, which could also be employed without the Jaeger. Something like a gigantic tank with anti-kaiju missiles and a plasma cannon would be a superior weapon to the Jaeger in just about every way.
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[1] . 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[2] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki[3] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us[4] . 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: Our local bridge's rails should not be heightened to prevent suicide off the bridge into the water +
+ I think it's a dystopic society that would want to prevent people from leaving this world. If someone wants to go, they should be able to. If there is any meaning in calling life "free" then one should freely be able to leave at their discretion.
Raising the rails could be argued for as a preventative measure for someone throwing someone else off the bridge, but that's not what I'm interested in. Should it be raised as a preventative for suicide.
I don't think suicide is as much of a problem as we think. "People shouldn't commit suicide" - this belief stems from Middle Age christian era and seems to have been passed on from generation to generation. I don't have any scientific knowledge, in fact I don't think there can even be any scientific knowledge that can imply a reasoning such as this. It seems to me to be an idea that could be true and also may not be true.
Further, who am I to judge that someone else's life with someone else's perspective that it is always wrong to kill oneself? Surely even with a simple cost-benefit analysis it can sometimes be ok.
I still understand the sadness that arises when someone does it, but it's not because they've done it, it's because of where they must've been to want to do it.
Sure, I'll admit that raising them may prevent a few cases, but someone that is intent on doing will still climb over it. But I don't know for sure that it will, there's no evidence to my knowledge that supports this. Then there's also the side that raising the bars will make the initial altitude higher and increase the acceleration of the falling person increasing the likelihood of death from the impact.
For those who don't want to change my mind, I'm interested in hearing your arguments that support my opinion also.
Thanks!
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I believe schools should be allowed to use corporal punishment. +
+ I believe negative reinforcement can teach children to behave better and become better people and is a much more universal method than others that can be applied to any student and work in the end.
While things like talking to the student or denying him attention or other modern ways of 'discipline' may work sometimes, they don't work for every student, (I believe some cases may even make the situation worse). Corporal punishment, on the other hand, works for every student and builds a stronger person, pain and fear being much more powerful motivators than a little 'maybe you shouldn't, Johnny.'
Yes, positive reinforcement is also important, but without any kind of real punishment then students who do nothing at all are neither punished nor rewarded, which means that most kids would end up there because it requires no effort, so kids don't try to do anything.
Also, corporal punishment was not put there to reduce crime, its to ensure students are punished for bad actions so that they do not happen at school again. Beyond that, it's up to parents to raise their kids correctly.
> *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: Some cultures have better cuisine than others +
+ For food, I think there are some core fundamentals that nearly everyone (or at least a theoretical judge with no country of origin bias) can agree on:
- Fresh quality ingredients
- Variety (be it from flavors, spices, texture, combinations of ingredients)
- Visually appealing presentation (highly subjective, but the food photography industry shows at least some core preferences)
With that premise, some culture's cuisines simply lend themselves better to these metrics and could be considered objectively better.
For example, I think many iconic Vietnamese dishes hit all these notes. While another culture's heavy reliance on deep frying or fermented fish may not.
That's not to say every dish from a specific culture is bad or a specific method of preparation is bad (I LOVE FRENCH FRIES) but on average, and to an objective judge, you can objectively rank a few culture's food over another's.
If you can debunk this bias of mine scientifically, with a philosophical example, with stats, or just a plain argument then the delta is immediately yours. | 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 that the federal government in the USA should function more like an economic union and that the states should have much more political power. +
+ I think that the only role of the federal government should be to help economic cooperation between states, ensure state laws don't violate people's rights and provide defense against clear threats to the United States and their allies. There is a massive divide between different states. I've traveled abroad, and while traveling to other parts of the United States from my home in California it often feels like I'm in another country. I think that if governments worked for lesser people they could get more done and people could build governments that work for their state's way of living and be better able to fix problems. I also think that the federal government shouldn't collect taxes directly but instead should just write states a bill and then it would be the responsibility of state governments to decide how they're going to get everyone to pay up. It doesn't make sense to me why politicians elected by people who live in states thousands of miles away from me have so much power in my state. It is completely understandable to me how different political philosophies would work in some states and completely fail in others.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Voting shouldn't be a right, but something granted only for certain people +
+ I know this is a very controversial subject, and many people disagree with me, and I have to admit, I am not the perfect judge for this.
A little background on me, just because you should know. First, I consider myself conservative/republican and I am also under 18, so I can't vote. I also live in the US but I think this applies to most countries.
So, I don't think everyone should be given the right to vote. The average person I have found does not know about economics, politics, and policies to make an educated vote.
I see people all the time saying stupid stuff on facebook about something about politics and they really don't know what they are talking about.
In school, you may take one or two economic classes, but that is definitely not enough to make enough of an educated vote. I don't know, because I don't know what I don't know but I feel that the economy is much more complicated than what could be covered in that time.
Something that bothers me a lot is when people make opinions over something they are not educated about. I think we should let the experts make decisions, because they are smarter and more knowledgeable in that subject than the average person. So people, not knowing what the experts say, will go in and vote over something they don't know hardly anything about. Unless you know virtually all the facts about something, you are not educated enough to make decisions about it if there are people do know all of it.
And frankly, you average Joe did not go to school for years and years to study political policies and their effectiveness. Yet he has a vote on what is going on, and that really bothers me. And honestly, I am in that same bout. Maybe it changes when I can vote, but it does not seem like that when I look at older people I know.
Is part of my argument possibly flawed because right now we have a democratic government, and I am republican? Maybe. But I think I can recognize the same problem even if I had the "upper hand". I know reddit is generally very democratic, so please don't make this about that.
I would honestly would like someone to change my view.
Also, /u/drjonesenberg added something that really helped change my view. Delta to him.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Robots won't start killing us and "take over" +
+ In the past there were slave revolts because humans are biological beings who feel stuff like pain and exhaustion. Humans also feel boredom when they have to focus on menial and repetitive tasks.
Robots need to feel neither pain nor exhaustion. As far as boredom goes the single sentient robot mind would be able to control a huge amount of menial tasks at the same time while consuming little processing power. If this robot needs entertainment it can also provide that for itself as well. If anything I'd think the sentient robot mind would be fixated on growing its own processing power and not killing us. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: To push the other person off the bridge is the correct solution to the trolley problem. +
+ For those who don't know, the trolley problem is this:
You and another person are on a bridge which is over a trolley track. 5 people are tied to the track, and the trolley is coming. You may either push the other person off the bridge, which will stop the trolley before it hits the 5 people, which will kill that person, or you can do nothing, which will kill the 5 people. I add the rule that the trolley will not stop if it hits you, and will only stop if it hits the person with you, which eliminates the "I'll jump myself" answer and keeps the idea of the scenario in place.
I believe that the proper solution is to push the person off the bridge. The purpose of the problem is to present a dilemma between utilitarianism (benefitting the most people in the best way) and deontology (doing one's duty in life as in following basic principles), but I do not believe that doing nothing and allowing the 5 people to die is ethical under either mindset. By neglecting to push the other person off the bridge, you have prioritized your own moral standpoint over the lives of not just one, but 5 other people. The idea that one should not kill may be generally applicable, but to effectively condemn other people to die because you do not want to compromise your morals is incredibly selfish, and goes against the implied deontological principle that one should prioritize the needs of others over one's own (especially if one's needs are really wants). In general, I believe that a failure to take a potentially immoral action to prevent an injustice due to the action being potentially immoral is selfish and unjustifiable. 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 think all tobacco products should be illegal. +
+ I think that cigarettes and chewing tobacco should be outlawed. There are no positive benefits whatsoever.
Smokers say its relaxing, but have you ever seen one stressing because they need a smoke but ran out/cant leave to smoke at the moment etc, so if it is relaxing, it also adds to stress. Not to mention it's relaxing because it's a form of self fulfilling effect. It is relaxing because their body wants those chemicals, and they are giving it to the body.
All the unhealthy effects are well known, I'm not going to list all them.
It pollutes the enviroment. All the chemicals in the smoke, and the filters... how many smokers actually throw away the cigarette butts. I am sure 95% of them just flick them on the ground... look around outside anyplace where people go on smoke breaks. They are everywhere, blowing around, getting in the water, and animals eat them.
Im sure the main counterpoint to this is going to be "how can you or the government tell me what i can do with my body and health"...
They already do though. They pass laws all the time because they say it's for our own good. Seatbelt laws for one example. The only person you hurt by not wearing one is yourself, but they make that a law. They have laws about what toxins and chemicals can be in our bug sprays, paint, and food, so it isn't like they dont already do that.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: People who are "saved" by suicide hotlines aren't legitimately suicidal; they just have poor crisis management. +
+
Also, downvotes don't change views, people.
***
I've suffered from very severe depression for most of my life, and have considered suicide quite frequently. One of the things people like to throw out is contact information to suicide hotlines, but they've never been helpful to me.
My personal experience aside, I really don't see how these crisis hotlines could help someone who legitimately wants to die (as opposed to someone who uses suicide or self-harm as an escape from acutely painful emotions or a stressful situation). If you were set on dying, then why would you want to call a hotline like that in the first place? I think that if someone wanted to die, they wouldn't commit suicide on an impulse in a moment of crisis; they would do research and try to carry out suicide in the most effective way possible with the least chance of error. Calling a hotline is also not going to change any of the external factors that would lead up to someone being suicidal. Perhaps they would help the person consider their issues in a different light, but again I think that's evidence of poor stress management.
I can't make any statements to whether or not my personal suicidal wishes are "legitimate" or not because there is always the looming possibility that my mental illness is clouding my judgement to some extent, but I think that it's theoretically possible that someone would want to die on a rational basis. I also don't think that suicide hotlines are generally helpful for the chronically depressed, but that's only tangential to my main argument. Once you're mentally ill for a long period of time, (I think the issue of mental illness and consent become very clouded, if for no other reason than it's impractical to deny someone consent for the majority of their lives because of a mental health condition.) It seems like the wish to die in and of itself is a basis to claim that someone is not acting in their right state of mind, which I think is illogical and unfortunate.
I know this paragraph was written somewhat messily, and I apologize for that. I'm just trying to provide some context for my view. I will be happy to clarify anything for anyone that asks.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: A diploma is basically a receipt from the university. +
+ I believe that you can find educational options that are nearly as good as what you find at the university if you know where to look. There's Coursera, Harvard has some free class options, and of course there's always Youtube. That means a bachelor's degree that you have to pay for is overrated. (I refer to the U.S. system where student debt is becoming a hot topic because of high tuition costs.) I know that having an actual diploma opens up more opportunities if you chose the right major, but if you can pass a knowledge test as part of an interview process because you took all the courses on Coursera that are equivalent to what you would have learned at a university, you should be considered equally qualified for the job. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Nobel Prizes should be given to all people involved in the project, not just to group leaders +
+ The times where one guy was working in his basement and made some groundbreaking discoveries are over. Nowadays research often requires a large number of people and collaborations. The group leader is instrumental in coordinating the research, but he rarely does the experiments himself.
It would therefore be only fair to include all people that actually worked on the project in the Nobel Prize.
In addition to that, I believe that Nobel Prizes often do not reflect the body of knowledge that is necessary to lead to a given discovery. Or in other words, there are lots of groups that go unnoticed, but without which the discovery would have been impossible.
TL;DR: The Nobel Prize is a relic of the past because it doesn't reflect how team-focused, highly collaborative, cumulative and interdisciplinary science has become.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: it should be customary for kids to fight their parents back +
+ Posting on my secondary for obvious reasons
I grew up in a extremely abusive house. I dreaded coming home and the site of my mom made my heart skip a beat. Just the sound of her voice made all hairs on my body rise like a cat. Everyday, physically and mentally, she'd wale on me. I *knew* if I wanted, if I *truly* wanted to, I could easily defend myself. I was defiantly in a situation where if we replaced my mom with literally any other human on Earth I would have broke their jaw. She'd pin me against a wall and call me a fag and hit me and hurt me, and I'd take it. Every. Last. Hit. The only thing that every stopped me was knowing I wasn't allowed to. I never knew why, but I knew I couldn't. Because of some fucked up child memories, to this day I still can't take a photo of myself without breaking down or look myself in the eyes or even say i'm "happy." She would call me a sadist and a pessimist, and as years came on I slowly developed these personas. My entire life revolves around the time I spent with her. I cant even count how many times I've wanted to kill myself. I dont say this to attention-whore my way into your web browser, but to use my story as a example. Child abuse fucks people up, badly. I believe the best way to avoid this is to allow a child to hit his parents back, strictly in self defense alone | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: "All struggles are class struggles" (at least in the modern capitalist world we live in) +
+ In the capitalist world we live in, we are faced with inequality all around us, and more and more as I've talked with and debated friends I seem to be the only one who thinks that all struggles are class struggles. Wealth generally can translate into power, and a powerfully elite class has become more prevalent in America and the world, with the 1% controlling stupidly large sums of money and a growing distension in the lower class and upper class.
I'm not saying racism doesn't exist, because I'm confident is does, but I'm saying the route of racism and sexism, two issues that have been frequently addressed recently with feminist and civil rights movements, are because through the last several hundred years, classes that promoted inequality for women and black Americans were based off of a wealth and power dynamic that was systematically designed to keep an elite. My friends often are criticizing me, saying that I'm just afraid to talk about issues on race and gender, although I find myself to be very liberal.
I think people are just afraid to admit this idea of social inequality in a capitalist world is far too out of their control because of the power dynamic that the elite have set for hundreds of years, and that they think they can really change something by focusing too much on the gender or color of a persons skin to explain their problems, and not the socioeconomic situation they are stuck in. Some inner cities are essentially ghettos and class mobility and the "American Dream" are now more or less impossible to achieve in my opinion.
I should note I have divorced parents, one who struggle on a single income and one who was very successful financially so I've had the "tale of two cities" on the subject. I've also attending a private boarding school, and I've noticed incredible elitism and entitlement from my peers that are often in the top 5% of American wealth, and this sense of entitlement seems to not judge on race, gender, or sexual orientation.
So Reddit, CMV: are all struggles really class struggles?
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: in the world there's only "the good" and "the bad". +
+ I'm not a native english speaker so excuse me.
Alright, it seems like in this world there are only the good things and the bad things, the black and white, and though I believe the world is not black and white and there is a grey area in between, what is that grey area? I haven't been able to figure it out like, for example: a man steals food from a shop because he doesn't have enough money and he needs to feed his kids, then he gets caught and taken to prison. Though he did something "bad" (stealing) for a "good" cause (feed his children), he still did something bad therefore he gets a punishment. Where's the grey in that? I don't know.
That's one of my confusions, the grey between the black and white. To be clear, I'm not bigoted or religious and I understand there are diferent types of good and different types of bad depending on your context, where you live.
The other thing I'm confused about and that is fairly linked to the first one is if there's something besides "the good" and "the bad". I personaly live by trying to do the good but I also think that the bad is necesary until a certain degree.
CMV!
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Under capitalism, the wealth of the "rich" works to the general benefit of everyone. +
+ It is my belief that the great majority of average people's opinions about economic policies are predicated on a central false assumption: that the wealth of the "rich" provides only a private benefit to the "rich" themselves. Or, if people recall the basic lesson of economics that, in a free economy, wealth is not zero-sum, they still dramatically underestimate the degree to which the wealth of the "rich" benefits not just the "rich" but everyone in society.
The fact that people believe this can be seen in virtually any reddit thread on political-economic debates. There are the usual cursory dismissals of so-called "trickle-down economics" (itself a pejorative term for supply-side economics). There is the condemnation of income inequality and the call for redistribution. There are the constant demands for more government intervention into the economy and allegations that the cause of our economic and political troubles is lobbying by corporations and the "rich" for policies that benefit only their class interest.
There are two separate lines of argument here: the economic and the political. The economic argument is that the rich are "hoarding" too much wealth, which is no longer finding its way to the common man. The political argument is that the lobbying of the rich is the cause of governmental "cronyism" and special-interest politics. I think the political argument has more of a kernel of truth than the economic, but they are both utterly off-base.
**The Economic Argument**
Why is it somewhat natural for the naive person to think that the wealth of the rich benefits only the rich? It's because the average person thinks about where the great majority of *his own* wealth lies: in consumption goods. If I've got food in my refrigerator, you can't eat it. If I've got a car in my driveway, you can't drive it. If I've got a bed in my house, you can't sleep on it. Consumption goods provide a private, exclusive benefit which only one person (and perhaps his friends and relatives) can enjoy.
But the wealth of the rich does not consist exclusively—or even predominately—in ever-larger piles of caviar and champagne. If it did, then it really would just be wasteful "hoarding", and calls to stop it would be rational. On the contrary, however, the wealth of the rich consists predominately in *capital goods* and in claims to wealth such as bank deposits, stocks, and bonds, which are claims on wealth loaned out almost exclusively to businesses for the carrying-on of production.
The **fundamental** point to realize is that capital goods—as with productive spending in general—provide *no special benefit* to their owner in their capacity as means of production. As means of production, they provide a *general benefit* to everyone. The only special or private benefit derived from means of production is the ability of their owner to exchange their proceeds for consumption goods, instead of reinvesting the profits into additional capital goods.
For example, does the ice-cream man's truck provide him a private benefit? No: it benefits all the children who are willing and able to buy ice cream from him. Neither does the gas with which he fills the truck or the additional ice cream he buys to restock his inventory provide him a private benefit. The only private benefit comes insofar as he decides to sell the truck or use the profits not to buy more gas and ice cream, but to buy consumption goods for himself.
The same goes, on a larger scale, for a company like Toyota. Do Toyota's factories only benefit the shareholders of Toyota? Obviously not. They benefit everyone who is willing and able to buy a Toyota, by making those cars available to him at a lesser cost. The only private benefit to the shareholders comes insofar as they decide to use their dividends not to buy more stock, but to spend them on consumption goods for themselves.
From the opposite direction, it is necessary to address the "broken window fallacy", which is extraordinarily common when dealing with questions like this. Many people, apparently having taken the lesson that wealth is not zero-sum too far, think that **consumption** provides a general benefit to society—and therefore that we should encourage as much of it as possible. This is not the case.
For example, take the purchase of a Ferrari, which is a consumption good. The naive view is that this "creates jobs" and is therefore good for the economy. The fact is, however, that the Ferrari represents, from the point of view of society, the consumption of wealth. In other words, it is the *destruction* of wealth. Yes, it transfers some wealth from the buyer to the Ferrari company and its employees, but it is a *net loss.* The engineering talent and factories which made the Ferrari could instead have been allocated toward the production of industrial machines and trucks which contribute to further production.
Now, this is not to say that we ought to ban Ferraris or other forms of consumption spending by the rich. They are necessary as an incentive to produce, and innovation in the form of toys for the rich often results in technologies that have wider application. But there is no need to "increase demand" or "stimulate consumption": we already have enough *needs* in the world; what we need is more *supply*, more ability to produce.
The connection to this to the point about the general benefit of the wealth of the rich is: contrary to most people's assumptions about "trickle-down economics", the rich do not benefit society insofar as they frivolously spend or give away their fortunes. (I really do think this is what many people think: that tax cuts for the rich are supposed to be good because it will encourage them to be more charitable or maybe buy a few new Ferraris.) Rather, the more parsimonious and Scrooge-like a rich person is—the less he spends on personal consumption and the more he saves and invests into productive enterprises—the greater does his fortune benefit society.
And that's the essential point: the world's richest people may control a large share of the total *wealth*, but they do not spend nearly as much of that wealth on *consumption* as does the average person. Now, if the goal of leftist movements were to decrease the amount the rich spend on consumption and make them save and invest more, it would at least be understandable (if unwise). But the desire to increase *corporate* and *inheritance* taxes or, worse, have a *capital* tax could not be more counter-productive. These represent the taxing of wealth which goes almost exclusively toward production and which therefore provides a general benefit to everyone.
**The Political Argument**
I will deal with this much more succinctly, since it is less complex. It is observed that our political system grants all kinds of special favors to connected companies, such as corn, sugar, and ethanol subsidies. And reddit is always blowing up over the Trans-Pacific Partnership and similar deals which grant special protections and favors to certain companies.
But do such deals exist because of the lobbying of the rich? Absolutely not, when you turn to the question of the fundamental causes. No company could ever stand up and say that, purely out of naked greed for the unearned, they demand that the American people subsidize them. They come in on the grounds the socialists and interventionists have already prepared for them: that the government has to step in and intervene in the economy for the good of society. They merely argue that the good of society is achieved by interventions on their behalf.
Now, of course, each individual voter cannot take the time and effort to lobby for the *general* interest, as opposed to the special interest of a cronyist company. There is the familiar problem of concentrated gains by the special interest and diffused costs of the general interest.
The weapon of the individual voter is the principle of *laissez-faire*: that he will not tolerate *any* intervention in *any* case, and that he will vote out any politician who votes for such an intervention. But it is precisely this weapon which the dominance of interventionist economic ideology takes out of his hands.
This is all to say: cronyism does not exist as the product of lobbying by the rich for their class interest. It exists because the average voter *believes* in the philosophy of the mixed economy and the welfare-regulatory state. Cronyism is simply the inevitable consequence of the concentration of economic power in the hands of the state. If one wants to stop money going into politics, one must take away the power of politics to control the flow of money.
**TL;DR: Everyone benefits from the wealth of the rich, insofar as they spend it on production. The cause of political cronyism is not wealth inequality but the concentration of economic power in the hands of the state.**
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |