Datasets:

JingyangYi
/

CMV_op_test

Dataset card Viewer Files Files and versions Community

Split (1)

test · 1.53k rows

input stringlengths 89 9.33k	output stringclasses 2 values	instruction stringclasses 1 value
CMV:If Women have the right to be Pro-Choice then Men deserve the right to decline fatherhood. + + Hello CMV! First of all regarding my own ideas and politics, I would consider myself a Thatcherite and believe in individualism, freedom and responsibility for our own actions (more on this later). This has potentially shaped my ideas on the matter but I thought I'd throw it out there. Please don't judge me on my politics but on the content of the CMV. I believe that in a free society people have the right to decide whether they should keep a baby or not, women have the right to abort or raise a child. However I believe that men deserve the same right after sex with regards to the child (it takes two to tango). If a mother decides to keep the child then the father deserves the right to accept, or opt out of, fatherhood including all of the repercussions and payments that could be associated with such. I understand that the state assumes the right of the child > the right of the parent, however I believe strongly that the father has the right to continue to live his life without sinking payments into a child which was optionally chosen. If a man decides he does not want to keep the child then he has the right to refrain from supporting it throughout its life. Or on the opposite, if a mother is given the option to keep a child, willingly knowing the father does not want to, then she is accepting the responsibility of raising a child by herself, as she has no right to enforce payments on a consenting man who did not wish to have a child. Obviously this excludes rape and all other implications, this is only within consensual sex. TL;DR: Men deserve the right to decline fatherhood, and refuse payments for a child they did not wish to claim responsibility for, in a consensual Pro-Choice environment. TheScamr worded this nicely:	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Liberland already failed to be libertarian + + Background: Liberland is a new, self-declared micronation located on the banks of the Danube River, between Serbia and Croatia. Neither country claims the land for itself. In April 2015, a Czech libertarian activist claimed the land under a new country named Liberland, which aspires to be the first nation governed by Libertarian principles. The Problems: First, by claiming a new country and giving out the land, the movement may be infringing on property rights of those who already have claim. A journalist found an old house there during a visit, so someone owned the property at some point, and may have descendants who have legal claim to the land. Second, the president of the country already put quotas and restrictions in place to limit the size and make-up of the population. Only a few thousand people will be allowed to live there, and people with criminal records or certain political affiliations are barred from living there. This second point sounds incredibly hypocritical for a nation based on the ideas of freedom and liberty. I could be wrong, so if there are any libertarians out there who support Liberland and can change my view, please do.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: The theory of evolution and Christianity are incompatible + + A couple of quick notes: I am going to use the term "believe in evolution" simply for convenience. Evolutionary theory is generally not considered something that you believe in, but since some Christians deny evolutionary theory they effectively don't believe in it. Also, I am going to be using Christianity as my reference religion, but other Abrahamic religions that contain the genesis story are applicable as well. The theory of evolution that gives an explanation as to our origins I believe is not compatible with Christianity. You cannot believe in evolution as well as the Christian genesis story because they directly contradict each other. The Christian genesis story states that god created man in his current form, while evolutionary theory explains that life took millions of years to evolve and that our species is descended from a common ancestor with the other primates. If you are a Christian who believes in evolution as opposed to the genesis story and claim that the Christian genesis is just a metaphor, you open the door for the entire rest of the bible to be just a metaphor as well. Beyond that, if you claim that Christian genesis is just a metaphor because it isn't actually true in a literal sense, then you can further extend that the entire bible isn't true in a literal sense. If someone were to claim that only the genesis story is a metaphor but the rest is literally true, then that person has effectively filtered the bible themselves. For a person to pick and choose what is real and what is not in a sacred book is to not hold the book sacred. Finally, for a person to not hold the bible sacred is to not be a Christian. Evolutionary theory and Christianity are not compatible. CMV!	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Mechanical Engineering is not the place for me + + So, I've been studying Mechanical Engineering at the University of Alabama for a little over a year. I am a sophomore by hours, but this is my third semester. Things aren't going as well as I expected. I passed Calculus 1 by the skin of my teeth, and got a D- in Calculus 2, resulting in me being stuck here for a summer semester. As far as career goals, I want to go firearms industry, but I have some specifics. I don't want a desk job. Flying a cubicle is my nightmare. I want to have a product. I like hands on work, with a physical result. I hate theory. I have always been fascinated by machining(look at /r/machiningporn, every link is purple for me) and I've grown to love watching the 3d printers at UA. In that light, I fear that ME won't put me where I want to be. Looking for co-ops and internships for this summer(before I bombed calc), everything was for a desk job. I would've either been an R&D researcher, or working with Solidworks in a cubicle. I don't want to get shoehorned into an air conditioned job and be unable to get my hands dirty. One class I have this summer, Intro to Private Security, seems very interesting. The professor is engaging, and his topics intrigue me. The textbook reading is equally fascinating. I'm really getting into this. I feel like I'd be better served by transferring to a community college and getting a Certificate in Machine Tool Technologies and becoming a machinist, or going for a job in the security industry. Both would be fairly interesting to me, I think. Machinist would get me an inroad to major firearms maker as a CNC operator, or assembler(which would be awesome), and Private Security would involve some interesting work with firearms. So. 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: If college education was free, the value of a degree would decrease. + + One main argument I've seen against the Bernie Sanders "free college tuition" idea is that if everyone has a college degree, the value of a degree goes down. Is this true? In countries like Germany and Denmark, only the best of students make it into higher education, whereas in American, our standards to get into a university or a community college are laughable. Would we need to raise the bar on admission requirements if college was free? The main argument here is that making college education free in our system would end up hurting the overachieving students.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: The Jesus Myth Hypothesis is Plausible + + Crossposted from a comment on /r/skeptic I've read David Fitzgerald, some of Richard Carrier, and the criticisms of both and it seems to me that there is a lot of vitriol on both sides. The mythicists take umbrage at being dismissed as amateurs and dabblers and vociferously defend their hypotheses, the historicists take umbrage at the strenuous attacks, and it all gets very torrid very quickly, and becomes very difficult to actually analyze the actual strength of the arguments. So, as a skeptic, I'm sufficiently intrigued by the Mythicist arguments to profess agnosticism as to the Historical Jesus, for the following reasons: * There are no extrabiblical attestations of any significant event from the life of Jesus. On the contrary, events such as the slaughter of the innocents, the census of all the Empire are clearly fictitious, and multiple miracles, the triumphal entry to Jerusalem, and multiple events surrounding the crucifixion are absent from all historical records when there's a reasonable chance that some account of them would have survived, had they occurred at all. * The synoptic problem indicates that we are working from at most one source that even approaches being primary, and even that most likely written much later, anonymously, and as hagiography rather than history. * Well into the third century, pagan sources mostly recount the existence of Christians and document the claims of Christians. This is at best hearsay. * attempts to reconstruct the "real" historical Jesus are invariably unprovable and contradictory with one another--there is no consensus. * While the vast bulk of NT scholarship presumes an historical Jesus, the "scholarly consensus" should be given less weight since for centuries, such research has been largely a devotional undertaking. Jesus mythicism is very nearly literally heretical, as well as figuratively. At least sufficiently that it deserves consideration even though a strong consensus exists that contradicts it. So, we accept the historical reality of many persons throughout ancient history based on much less proof than gospels and various other pagan mentions. So maybe there was an itinerant sage named Yeshua who ran around, gathered a minor following, and was executed for sedition. But the problems above mean A) we know nothing about him and B) almost everything written about him is unknowable or outright fictitious. I look at it as the difference between "Abraham Lincoln" and "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter." Notwithstanding that there is an historical person that was the basis, the hero version is a myth.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Saggy pants are unacceptable but tolerated because of white guilt + + There should be nothing acceptable about walking around showing others your underwear. It is not civilized behavior, and it is potentially in violation of indecency laws (what about a man showing nothing but boxers with little girls walking nearby?), but it is not and will not be addressed because of the fear of being called racist. My view: Saggy pants is not a cultural quirk, nor akin wearing your hat backward. it is offensive in a very real way, and should not be tolerated (in the sense that indecency laws were created for the same underlying reason) 1. it has been correctly noted that many ethnic groups sag their pants 2. Offensive really is subjective, and I've realized the solution is a society I really don't want to live in (shira law for example) 3. there really are examples of dress that could be more offensive from that perspective	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Transgender is a form of Body Dysmorphia + + Ok, so let me start off by saying that I have no problem with the LGBT community, I feel everyone should be able to make their own decisions regarding their bodies. This is more of a curiosity than a set in 'view', but is Transgender a form of Body Dysmorphia? If you look at the primary issues in a case of Body Dysmorphia it involves a person not satisfied or sometimes even disgusted by their current physical body. This often leads them to making surgical corrections to feel more comfortable with themselves. Isn't this the same as a person who is Transgendered? They feel uncomfortable being the physical sex they are because they feel that they are the opposite gender, so they seek out surgical alteration to feel more at ease with themselves. Is there a difference here that I'm missing? Please change my view.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: why I should care about people allergic to specific foods. + + So, I'm currently working at a food manufacturing company and the founder is allergic to almost everything. He is pushing for a hypo allergic facility. I understand logically why he wants this, but he hasn't put together the company brand, or mission. I find it hard to put myself behind his wants. So I understand that i should care cause people could get really uncomfortable, or die because of their allergies. All I see is an inconvenience in creating the next steps for the manufacturing space and the getting the company to be profitable. So, could you change my view on seeing being allergy free is worth the work needed for the company. Sidenote: if the founder was able to be passionate about this message it would help me to get behind it. All I see see restrictions on amazing ingredients that would expand the quality of the product; e.g. peanut butter, whey protein, etc.	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 not worried about the US government spying on citizens. + + Please note before reading: Please do not downvote my comments and replies on basis of disagreement. I've done several CMV's where I was the clear minority in terms of viewpoint, and got downvoted on nearly every post. Due to Reddit's karma system, this makes me wait a period of 7 minutes in between replies if my karma is low, and makes it more difficult for me to respond to everyone (the more karma you have, the less time you need to wait to post). If I act like a dick to you, act irrational, or say something logically fallacious, I implore you to downvote me, but I'd really like to be able to discuss with everybody and not be held back by my inability to reply (and consequently hear replies). Okay, onto my view. I'm not worried about the US government spying on citizens, for the following reasons. 1. I don't necessarily "have nothing to hide", but I don't expect that there is literally a person on a computer looking through what I post to Reddit, Twitter, and Facebook (or what porn I look at). I have some personal things I wouldn't want an actual person to know or look through, but I feel entirely comfortable with a machine using a CTRL-F function to search for terrorist activity, or other organized illegal activities since I don't commit any major crime. I know a lot of people are worried about the government seeing people torrenting things illegally or watching movies/shows illegally on the internet, but considering how widely this is done and how nonexistent people are prosecuted for it based on the governments ability to view all this, I'm not worried about it. I don't do drugs, but if I did and tried to buy drugs over FB or text, I doubt the government would even care. We have /r/trees for instance, thousands of people openly doing minor illegal things and the government doesn't care enough to try and arrest them. 2. I remember hearing during Rand Paul's filibuster that there has been terrorist activity stopped by government spying on people. I think government spying still has an effect as a deterrent (terrorists can't use media to communicate, and therefore it makes terrorist activity harder to commit. I also heard during the filibuster that the government was using spying to take down organized crime. I'm not worried about that, considering I'm not involved in organized crime and therefore am not worried about it. (I'd like to point out here, that it's not really a view regarding sympathy or empathy towards criminals and what rights they should have to privacy, but simply my feeling of worry about being spied on). I don't view the NSA spying on druglords to be much different than wire taps or undercover officers. 3. In addition to the above, I have the view that Islamic extremism is, as of ISIS' international attacks (or extremist Muslims inspired by ISIS at least), a legitimate threat to the United States. There have been US citizens that have gone to fight for ISIS and local Islamic extremist attacks, and believe the US should be able to spy on their communications. They have claimed to have thousands of people in the US, and while that may be an exaggeration, I don't believe it to be unbelievable considering they have had 150 individuals that have travelled to Syria to fight for ISIS (Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/25/american-foreign-fighters-isis_n_6753854.html). I would expect if many people are willing to take the trouble to travel to another country to fight others, it's not unexpected that they more would stay in the US to try and perform terrorist activity here considering it would be easier. 4. I'm not worried about the government knowing my political views. I broadcast them publicly on Facebook, and considering our country's devotion to free speech as well as multiple political parties, I don't view any dissent to be any threat to my well-being.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: I believe the sixth mass extinction has begun and we won't be able to stop it. + + Climate change or global warming as it previously was known as is a hot potatoe and not a very clean cut science to predict. There are thousands of climate scientists working on it, trying to predict where we are heading and how fast we are getting there. To make things even harder, [people with special interests are joining the battle](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers#Climate_change) throwing in false baits and helping naysayers gain traction. All this, while we hear more and more about [reports on ocean acidification is beginning to take effect](http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2014/20140430_oceanacidification.html), and as usual, [faster than we had predicted.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification#Rate) I am currently actively volunteering for green party politics (not in the US), trying to make a difference. What I notice is that the big bad wolf amongst "us" is the burning of fossil fuels. It's like everybody is on a rampage against oil and it's being preached that if we get rid of the burning of fossil fuels we'll live happier ever after. But I think what tipped me over the edge was realizing that this is just a media stunt. Of course fossil fuels is a part of the problem, but say we'd rid the world of oil by tomorrow, it would acutally only rid us of [13% of the problem](http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html#two). All those focusing on "saving the world" aren't even acknowledging the rest of the problem. God forbid I mention people should eat less meat, because when I do, you'll see the greenest of environmentalists turn red in rage because I'm asking them to change something with themselves instead of the big bad wolf. Anyway, I believe that we are doomed because: * The world is going under faster and faster * People don't care and keep consuming * Those who care don't seem to really want to change or are too disoriented to see the big picture * We won't actually START making a difference until it starts hurting, but when it's hurting we'll already be dead. Please change my view! :/ PS, I apologize beforehand for any grammatical errors or unstructured sentences. English isn't my primary language.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: With the drought in California, I should no longer be proud to eat local produce and support local farmers (in most cases) + + Everyone knows there's a terrible drought in California. I've noticed tons of people talking about how bad it is, how they are going to take shorter showers, etc. But then those tend to be the same people who "eat local" and love these restaurants that serve all locally grown produce / meat, etc. Those local farms are, in many cases, growing crops that require an incredible amount of water compared to the amount of food they produce. I understand that there is a complex issue here, and I'm not saying they should all stop growing rice overnight, but I certainly don't feel good about eating locally grown produce anymore, and I don't think it should be seen as such a great thing in light of the drought. Locally grown food may be superior because it is fresher, or because it doesn't use as much gas to ship here, etc. But I don't feel good about consuming produce that is contributing to the water shortage, when we could be getting it from places that aren't in a drought. IMHO, the whole "locally grown" craze should be replaced with "grown with responsible water usage" or something like that. Of course that isn't trivial to define, but that's a problem for another day. I'd love to support local farmers that were growing crops well suited to the terrain. * I live in Northern California (San Francisco) * I don't have a great definition for "local", but let's say within 50 miles. I may have mentioned international before, but the real "local food" thing seems to be around 50 miles, e.g. not mega-farms in the central valley * I'm considering all food products, produce, dairy, meat, etc. * My main hypothesis is that by avoiding "local" and instead going for "water efficient" (which may, in some cases, be local), we encourage local farmers to care more about water usage than they otherwise might, and that this is a good, helpful thing. So my actual view is that always supporting "local food" is actually making the water shortage worse because it is encouraging poor distribution and usage of water. Some things that could convince me: 1. The carbon footprint of bringing in produce from further away is worse, short and long term, than the extra water usage 2. Local water usage isn't actually a problem, or its only mega-farms in central valley that are a problem (also related to different watersheds, which someone below brought up), in which case other benefits (supporting the local economy, etc) make it positive 3. Some other unanticipated benefit of buying local that I hadn't thought of	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV:CMV: Ease of access to information has just turned unformed people in misinformed people and has made it easier for nutjobs and armchair experts to gain an audience. + + How many of you know people who think that vaccines are unsafe? or that 9/11 was accomplished using holograms to make missiles look like airplanes, or that fluoride is used for mind control, or that regular sucrose table sugar is a biological neurotoxin? (sadly there's a good chance you probably believe these things too). Ease of access to information as well as promoting a "do and believe whatever makes you happy because you are the only authority on the truth" culture has created a generation of armchair experts and pseudo-intellectuals. People simply have not been given the proper training in reason and skepticism and have not been taught to show the proper respect to experts and scientists. It kind of makes me wish people were a little more ignorant when it comes to things they know nothing about and have no say it. Why should Viola Sunshine with a doctorate degree in fuckall from Granola University get to say that genetic engineering is dangerous while a real scientist who has studied genetics for over 15 years loses her funding for curing cystic fibrosis simply because she cannot dumb down what she does to make into a cool 5 minute youtube video or positive platitude? Mass media has ultimately failed because instead of creating a population that is smart enough to distinguish facts from bullshit it has simply made it easier for bullshit artists to find suckers.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV Religious people have no right to disagree with climate change in the same way that atheists should not argue religion with people who hold those beliefs. + + OK, so this is kind of stemming from my country (Australia's) issue with our current prime minister: Tony Abbot. Mr Abbot is a devout christian however he refuses to acknowledge climate change as an issue and will not input any prevention of damage to the environment for fear of loosing some of the millions of dollars he racks in each month (in case you could not tell, i really hate the guy.) this got me thinking however: Christians, or other religions, expect Atheists and people of different beliefs to be respectful of their personal beliefs and presumably act in this way to other people of different religions (if they are decent people that is.) In this way, should the belief of climate change be considered a "religious belief" and therefore be treated with the same respect as any other religion? this is important as Mr. Abbott spends lots of money supporting religious groups (especially christian) and i believe has just introduced tax dodges for many churches, if his belief is aloud this kind of support why should mine not be afforded the same courtesy? please give any feedback or discussion you feel contributes to this discussion.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: There are no good reasons to not wear a helmet while riding a bicycle + + As the title says, I can't find any valid reasons to not wearing a helmet while riding a bicycle. Here are a few of the many to wear one: They reduce the extent of any injuries caused by a bike accident Bike helmets are proven to make any injuries obtained greatly decreased. The effectiveness of helmets are found to be 85-88% in preventing serious injury. About 70-80% of accidents involve some damage to the head. It is estimated that if children ages 5-15 were forced to wear a helmet, 39,000 to 45,000 head injuries would be avoided, along with 18,000-55,000 face and scalp injuries. I could go on and on with these, but I don't have that much time. If you want more proof, just google "bike helmet facts". I've also listed my sources below. Sources: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/docs/b_helmetlaws.pdf https://sites.google.com/site/bicyclehelmetmythsandfacts/ (NSFW, for some reason there is a picture of a man and woman riding naked. Still good stuff on this page, though) Helmets do not interfere with riding the bike. Helmets, if they are the correct size, do not get in the way while riding the bike. The only thing they can do is possibly disturb the airflow, but special aerodynamic helmets are made for this, if that is that big of a deal to a person. Common Counterarguments: It messes up my hair!/It is uncomfortable!/It makes me look like a dork! I always hear this, but, you know what, none of these are that big of a deal! I would much rather endure a little discomfort than get a possibly permanent injury to my head. But I haven't fallen off my bike in, like, years! This one. I hate when people say this. Just because you haven't gotten in a crash in a while does not mean that you are exempt from ever crashing again. This is especially true when travelling on a main road when other cars are a factor. They're so expensive!! No, just no. An average bike helmet will cost about 10 bucks or less. If you can afford a bike, then you can afford a helmet Alright, that's it for now. Please CMV!	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: There is no reason to believe that extra-terrestrial life is likely + + I hear all the time about how sure people are that there is life elsewhere in the universe. I don't see the logic for such confidence. - We have one plot point for where life has begun. - We have never been able to create life in a lab even under extremely ideal conditions. - The more we've learned about life in our world the more we've learned how unlikely life is (Sagan thought life needed very few (2, I believe) things to see life develop on a planet. That number is now well over 100. What good reasons do we have for believing life is possible if not common in the universe?	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Being gay is not a choice. + + Although some scientific arguments have been made that some women possess some elasticity with their sexuality, several scientific articles specifically state that makes are born and fully develop their sexuality by puberty. Furthermore, they have located a specific gene, xq28, that they believe is specifically linked to an inborn sexuality. Also, although one can change their behavior, doing so against ones true self can lead to long-term mental anguish, torture, depression, and possibly suicide.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV:while free trade between "wealthy" countries (i.e. germany, united states, uk, france, netherlands) is beneficial to all parties involved, free trade with countries of significantly less wealth hurts the working class of the "wealthy" countries. + + I am not a strong believer in isolationism by any means; I strongly believe that there are some products that simply cannot be made better than the place of origin (such as focus bikes made in germany, hondas made in japan; etc) however the practice of transferring a factory to a place of cheaper labor (i.e. mexico, china, taiwan, vietnam etc) unfairly disadvantages factory workers in these "wealthy" countries. and ultimately leads to inequality in the "wealthy" countries. I am a native michigander so I have lived through one of the consequences of nafta (see: detroit)	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: The nation becoming more politically correct is not a bad thing. + + On top of that, if hear you complain about "PC culture" I think it's not unreasonable to assume they are prejudiced in some way. While I don't think keeping up with gender pronouns is important, I don't think it is too much to ask for people to not say "nigger" or "faggot". I hear a lot of people complaining, particularly on reddit, about how "everything is so PC now, you can't say anything". No one cares what you say, unless you use an obviously offensive term or slur. I know a common argument against this view is that PC teaches people to be offended instead of to toughen up, but I think the idea that we shouldn't discourage slurs as a way to toughen people up is ridiculous. It isn't too much to ask to be civil.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: (USA) The Democratic Party would gain more than it would lose if it took a pro-gun rights stance + + I believe the Democratic Party is needlessly and counter-productively alienating potential voters by taking on gun control as a component of their political platform. 1. Gun control (in the USA) is largely ineffective given Constitutional restrictions 2. All attempts at nationwide (and some state) gun control has yielded in significant sociopolitical blowback, where political capital was wasted by the Democrats and ultimately led to more people becoming gun owners and taking a stronger stance on the topic. 3. Being supportive of gun control measures does not logically follow given the Democratic Party's recent stance on Gay Marriage, War on Drugs, Voting Rights, Social Inequality, etc. It's almost hypocritical. CMV.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Our biggest fears about self aware robots are that they'll act exactly like us. + + Over the past couple of thousand years human beings as a species have done a pretty crappy job of living up to the 3 laws we expect robots to abide by: * A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. * A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. * A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws. The conventional trope about A.I is that as soon as robots become self aware they decide the most reasonable thing to do is wipe out all humans. We've seen this in movies like Terminator, Days of Future Past, I Robot, and the recent Age of Ultron. But it isn't just limited to science fiction. Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking have both said that we should be very cautious about creating AI. That it could be "the last invention human kind ever develops." I think pragmatically it is always reasonable to proceed with caution. After all introducing foreign life to a new eco-system is something that rarely ever goes well for the existing creatures there, and as Toffler said in "The 3rd Wave" "the invention of a new technology always precipitates the need for a new war." With A.I it is reasonable that we practice caution and be concerned about what we're doing because we're developing both a new technology and introducing a new species to an existing ecosystem. So my view is not that we shouldn't be cautious. My view is: When you boil down what people are actually scared of when it comes to robots or AI, we're not scared of something new and unknown happening. Far from it. We're actually terrified of the same old same old. IE The robots will treat all humans everywhere the same way we (as a species) routinely treated some humans in some places. They won't want to co-exist but rather dominate. They won't borrow from us or adapt to us but destroy and replace us. We're scared of them acting like that because if we were them, that's exactly what we'd do. Maybe our fears are based on projection, we're just scared they'll do what we would do. Or maybe we know the next phase of evolution would be an arc that leans toward peace and we're scared that in order to learn that they'll have to wipe us out.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV:The fact that the English has lacked a language regulator over the last few centuries has been a detriment to its beauty and ease of learning + + I recently discovered /r/Anglish. Anglish is an attempt to construct a version of English using only Anglo-Saxon and other Germanic roots. The result is a language that not only sounds beautiful, but is much more intuitive to learn new vocabulary. Take, for example, this [list of lores](http://anglish.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_Lores). Rather than using Greek-derived names for the sciences, which are completely meaningless to the average learner of English until they learn the name of that particular science, Anglish uses simple compounds from common, everyday words that language learners would already be familiar with. Many languages do this as well. The result of incorporating all these foreign words is that English no consistency of grammar, spelling, pronunciation, or anything. This makes it more confusing and burdensome to learn. I should specify that I'm speaking of a regulator with the goal of keeping English clear, consistent, and true to its roots. Obviously, a language regulator that pushed for the inclusion of these foreign words would be no help. It may be too late now, given the use of English as an international language, but I think it is a shame and a detriment to international communication that English wasn't standardized this way a long time ago.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Whenever younger folks utter the phrase "respect is earned, not given" I can't help but understand it as a childish and short sighted attempt to undermine their elders. + + While I understand the general principle that you're not necessarily owed respect because of your age, I find the idea of continuously "earning" the respect of less experienced and established people completely ludicrous. It should be the other way around, if only for practical reasons (the respect of older people tend to be far more valuable). Now, I'm in no way denying that younger folks have valid and interesting contribution to make. I think a fresh perspective coupled with energy and enthusiasm can be an exceptional driving force. Nor am I denying that older folks can be complete assholes because their certainly can. However, I could never bring myself to expect older, more experience and better established people to prove themselves to me. Neither can I see a reason to prove myself to younger people today. I expect respect the same way my father or professors did. Not veneration, mind you, but simple deference you'd ought to show to someone that lived twice the time you did. As such, they are not your peers. Simply put, I find this phrase ("respect is earned, not given") is most often used pompously by younger people to undermine established individuals or to deny respect to their elders in spite of a good reason. To my eye, this attitude is the product of four big misconceptions: 1) Older people demand respect because of their age and age by itself isn't worthy of respect. I do agree that age by itself isn't a quality worthy of respect, but I don't think older folks demand respect in virtue of their age alone either. Experience, I believe, is what you ought to respect in even the humblest of persons. It's not a stretch to assume they've seen a lot more go by and might have a different perspective on life. 2) Showing respect and deference to others cost me something. Respect is free. This stems from a lack of humility. It completely free to respect someone. The only thing holding people back is their ego. Of course you feel invincible at sixteen, but most people passed their teenage years tend to cringe a bit thinking back on their younger self. I know I did. 3) I know these people are whether or not they're deserving of my respect. Assuming anything worthy of respect about someone is readily available is a common mistake. Relating to the second point, what's the price of respecting someone by default ? Worst case scenario, you change your mind later on. Best case scenario, you've done the right thing. 4) You need to prove yourself. False. Plenty of people "proved themselves" already and they shouldn't need to do it again. For instance, people get to positions of power and prestige for a reason. Getting a PhD isn't a walk in the park. Chances are they've been judged by better people than you already. I do understand their reluctance to jump through hoops again to "earn respect". As such, I think one would be better served by the idea that "respect can be lost" rather than "respect should be earned". CMV.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Saying that we are in a computer simulation is a meaningless, nonsensical statement + + From time to time I come across a theory claiming that our universe is a computer simulation. [Here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis)'s a Wikipedia article about it. I think it's a completely meaningless proposition. It's similar to claiming that there is a parallel universe, completely separated from ours, where Earth is populated by lizard-like creatures. Or that the universe is full of invisible dwarfs that can't interact in any way with the rest of the universe. They are nothing more than ideas in our heads – if we added them to our model of the world it wouldn't change its predictive power. Our model of the world (physics) is basically a tool to summarize past and predict future observations of the world. Adding a statement that the universe is a simulation wouldn't improve that tool in any way, just make it more complicated. If the simulation theory claimed something tangible about the universe, for example that the universe is discrete, it wouldn't be meaningless. But why not simply claim "the universe is discrete"? Adding some bullshit about outer universe and computer simulations is completely unnecesary. It's like explaining the gravitation force with invisible dwarfs pushing elementary particles. Hope it makes sense, I'll edit or comment if it doesn't :)	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Police should be held to the same standards for self defense as any other citizen. + + Let me be clear, I am not against the use of self defense by police officers, or anyone, just the idea that the laws do not apply equally. This is in direct response to the recent clearing of Michael Brelo of the Cleveland Police Department. In 2012 Brelo was part of a chase that ended with over 130 rounds shot into two unarmed suspects. Brelo fired continued to reload his weapon, climb on the care, and fire another 15 rounds in the car, after other officers had already stopped firing. The judge ruling over the case cleared him of charges using a baseball analogy and saying it was impossible to prove his bullets were the fatal shots. Although this is true, the use of force was excessive and he was still, nonetheless, a party to this grotesque undertaking of "justice". This case highlights that police can operate according to a separate set of laws. If I was with a person who fired one shot into a person and killed them, despite clear evidence I did not shoot the fatal shot, I would likely still be charged with murder, at the very least accessory (or an equivalent charge) to the murder. Even in a case of clear self defense, one is almost certain to face criminal charges, especially when they continue to use force after the threat has been eliminated and they are in no clear danger. For example, If me and three friends fired 140 rounds into a home invader you can be certain we would all be in jail. Though it would be close to impossible to prove who's shots were fatal, we were all participants, and we would still face severe legal consequences. If we as a society accept the idea that people are justified in using lethal force in self defense, it should not be also accepted that certain people, because of their job, are able to follow a different set of guidelines. So Reddit, in order to help me deal with my anger at the moment, I hope you can convince me that in a nation where "no man is above the law" which prides itself on the idea of "liberty and justice for all" that some people, because of their job, should be allowed to be "more equal than others." (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/23/michael-brelo-not-guilty_n_7427710.html) (http://www.businessinsider.com/judge-john-p-odonnell-explains-why-michael-brelo-was-found-not-guilty-2015-5)	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 FIFA should keep the 2022 World Cup in Qatar + + I don't see that much wrong with it. It is promoting tourism to the middle east and raises awareness for the developing country of Qatar, much like South Africa did. As well, it gives the Qatar National Team a chance to compete in the World Cup. I feel economically it is beneficial for both Fifa and Qatar. 2022 is a long way from now, and Qatar has promised that it would be able to fix the problem with heat using a stadium wide cooling system. I'm also excited to see all the modern technology that will be implemented into this World Cup. Also, I feel it would be a waste of money and time if the World Cup was moved somewhere else. Construction has already started and countries have already moved on to preparing bids for another World Cup. A sudden change of location could be disastrous for certain countries. Finally, in the end, we go to and watch the World Cup because football is football. There should be more time spent focusing on the emergence of stars in the World Cup, how teams can adapt to weather, how today's young stars will play in their prime. With all this said, 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: If people don't believe in God, it's His fault. + + If God does exist, it seems like He is rather hidden. While some claim to have received revelation, are able to communicate, and know His will, many feel left out of any type of relationship with Him that would make God "real" to them. Moreover, when one observes nature and the larger universe, it is hard to see any immediately discernible divine fingerprints that would necessarily point to God. If God exists, it's as if God purposefully hid Himself from His creation, yet, in religions like Christianity and Islam, the non-believer is met with eternal torment for not believing. Because God made it so hard to believe, it's His fault if people don't acknowledge Him, not our's.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Plus ones shouldn't always be invited to gatherings. + + Okay, so I'm starting to plan my 21st. And I wanted it to be small, no more than thirty people. Inviting plus ones adds about 10 extra people that I either a) I don't know b) I don't like or c) I'm not friends with. Except I'm getting a lot of crap because my friends in relationships (I'm single) want to bring their partners who all fall into one of the three above categories. Why should I host people that I don't want to, and who, chances are, don't want to be there anyway? But right now my views are more important than my problems. Is it a major etiquette fuckup if you don't invite plus ones? Should I just suck it up? 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: absolute majority in elections should not mean getting voted by way less than 50% of the total population + + I can't get why does this even make sense. For me it's easy. Usually elections arround the world go from 50% to 75-80% of participation. Let's say 75% for example. Out of that, a party gets 33% of the votes. Or even a 50% it doesn't really matter. And they get absolute majority (this OBVIOUSLY changes with countrys and stuff but many share a similar way of counting votes, as far as I know, which it's completly possible is not enough to understand this. But usually in Europe it's my understanding it works similar to this). So 50% of 75% of participation (where I live it's usually WAY lower, for both %, but whatever), you get 0.375, 37.5% unless I'm mistaken. And with that alone, you can govern for 4,5, 6 years. Very few countrys have referendum to vote for stuff that happens between that 4 years so I do not get why this is a valid way of treating more than half of the population of a given place, that get completly ignored. Whether you voted or you did not, if you aren't part of that majority, you are ignored. Not even if you sum every other vote against that, you could get anything done (this one is more tricky and I guess it depends more on the region, but still, it should be easy to overun less than 50% of the total votes, let alone, less than 50% of the total population. So cmv or tell me how it works in other places or why this makes sense or why does it seem so complex to improve this system.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: I don't believe that the American Court System is corrupt. Or that politicians are corrupt. + + Mostly due to, what I feel is, a lack of evidence (that I am aware of). I don't live in America, but this applies to the UK too -- and I felt it would be easier to just say America. Basically, I think that the court system works. Of course it is not perfect, but nothing is. We have a system that can work out whether or not a person is guilty with relative accuracy. I would argue that a court of law will always put evidence first over bias i.e: no one is going to be convicted of a crime if there is not sufficient proof. And as for politicians: I don't believe that anyone (or the vast minority) goes into politics with the idea of becoming rich and because of money. Surely, the reason pretty much all of them chose that path is because they really want to make a difference in the world. Maybe I have a naive faith in humanity. I'd love someone to convince me otherwise.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Charities are a stop-gap solution that exists solely to prolong the social issues created and perpetuated by government and corporate interests. + + Society is held together by tape. This tape is the estimated [1.5 million charities](http://foundationcenter.org/getstarted/faqs/html/howmany.html) in the U.S. which offer a range of services to people who have "fallen in the cracks" of social policies: the people who the system has failed. Physically sick, mentally ill, drug addicted people all rely on charitable institutions, either directly for care, or through research programs funded by donations. These organisations are funded by private donations, and * Relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged, * Advancement of religion, * Advancement of education or science, * Construction or maintenance of public buildings, monuments, or works, * Lessening the burdens of government, * Lessening of neighborhood tensions, * Elimination of prejudice and discrimination, * Defense of human and civil rights secured by law, and * Combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency. All of which should fall in the domain of the government's responsibilities. The government is effectively outsourcing their social duties to a range of private organisations so that they can mop up the social outfall from government policies such as: * War * Poor healthcare * Poor consumer protection * Poor social policies (schooling, social programs etc.) * Poor prison system All of which are outsourced to private organizations. I believe that if NGO's in the U.S. ceased exist, society would fall apart. The role of an NGO is effectively to create a barrier between increasingly destructive government/corporate behaviour and utter societal collapse. * [633,782 in the U.S. are homless](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_United_States) * [9.3M are unemployed](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_in_the_United_States) * The US national debt is estimated to be [over $18 Trillion](http://www.usdebtclock.org/) - between 72.5% and 106.525% of the GDP - almost as high as during WW2.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Everyone should drive an AWD + + Pretty simple view, I see no reason why everyone shouldn't drive an all wheel drive vehicle day to day. Slight biases: I have a 1991 Subaru Legacy as my daily driver, have driven many different new vehicles in the past year, and I drive for 10 hours a day so I see a lot of things on the road. The increase in traction provided by an AWD is immesurably valuable. Driving in the rain constantly, hitting black ice, and on rare occasion driving in snow, under no normal driving circumstances has my car come close to losing control. My tires, even when bald, have refused to spin, except under an excessive ammount of throttle while on wet pavement. No RWD I've driven has come close to maintaining as much control in any circumstance as my AWD, running on technology 20+ years older. The only cons I see are lower gas milage and increased cost, but do not believe these are significant enough to negate the benefits.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Exams should have a 'tap out' option + + First, this may sound weird but let me explain how this would work. Ideally, all exam papers should have a 'tap out' option where students can ask for a 5 minute 'fresh air' break or something similar. The purpose of this 'tap out' option - and the suggested break time above may not be the best system, but it's just off the top of my head - would be to allow students suffering from a brain freeze, panic attack, stress moment etc. to take a breather. From personal experience many students experience these terrifying ARGHHHHH HELP moments during exams, and I feel that in many cases, a short break and an opportunity to stand up for awhile would really clear the mind. Possible objections include: - Ease of cheating. Yes, but an extra invigilator could follow the student out or simply have someone standing in the hallway. - It's not fair, disruptive, etc. Yes, but ideally the student would be able to raise his/her hand (just like if you had a crazy stomachache) and be escorted quietly out. Also, not too many students would take advantage of this system IMO. - Extra thinking time: I don't believe that the 5 min 'tap out' should be counted in the exam writing time as this would discourage anxious/stressing students from making use of this option. I also think that it would cause more stress to students who would already be freaking out about not finishing the paper. In my opinion, 5 minutes extra for an exam should not be causing so much difference in terms of performance; if students are working to the last minute, the time limit is 1) too tight or 2) they simply don't know the material. I would really welcome thoughts on why this is not a practice and suggestions as to why this current suggestion is not a good idea/is a good idea.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Parents of fat children should be prosecuted just the same as pet owners who over feed their pets. + + In the UK we view cruelty to pets as terrible and prosecute and even ban pet owners from keeping them because the pets are vulnerable and cannot regulate their meals and feed themselves. This is exactly the same for children. Parents dictate the child's diet and over feed and choose the wrong food types. If they consistently do this the child becomes obese and this has massive implications for the rest of their lives. Eating habits that have been learnt or not corrected , even right down to "fussy eaters" then gets passed on through generations and is the route cause for a massive percentage of the population. We skim past the obesity argument because we don't want to offend and then because we turn a blind eye nothing gets fixed. Punish and educate the parents just the same as a fat cat owner. Children are more important than pets. 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: A minimum wage increase will hurt the poor and the economy, not help it. + + Over the past year, the idea of raising the minimum wage in Canada (where I live) and in the USA has gained popularity. Many states and provinces are either mandating, or in the process of mandating a minimum wage of ~$15/hour. While on the surface, this seems like a good policy for strengthening the poor/middle class I believe this will ultimately HURT, not help the public, and especially the poor. Here are several common arguments made in favour of the raising minimum wage and my response: * "Average wages haven't increased despite an increase in production and profit in the economy" It's a common misunderstanding that wages are/should be directly tied to production. In reality wages are determined just like prices of anything else, through supply and demand. Most minimum wage jobs are unskilled and easily replaceable (through either humans or automation) making the supply of labour far larger than the demand, which equals a lower wage. The rise in technology that has resulted in higher production from labour has little affect on wages. * "Current minimum wages are so low that they do not pay a livable annual salary, keeping the working poor in a perpetual state of poverty" I would challenge the idea that most minimum wage jobs were ever meant to be sustainable for living. Most minimum wage jobs are unskilled labour (ex. factory work, assembly lines) or service industry jobs (cooks, janitorial staff, retail jobs etc..). At least to me, these seem like temporary work done by people in the process of finding higher paying employment (students, recent graduates, new immigrants etc...), and not intended as a career at all, so a livable wage is not required. * "A higher minimum wage would increase the income of many in the population, boosting spending, saving and the overall economy." As I said previously, the vast majority of minimum wage jobs are easily replaceable, outsourced or automated. If large companies are forced by government to pay high minimum wages, they will seek cheaper alternatives and replacements instead. For example, a McDonald's hamburger could very easily be made faster, cheaper, cleaner and better by a machine, [like this one, which makes a burger every 10 seconds ](http://www.businessinsider.com/momentum-machines-burger-robot-2014-8). If the minimum wage gets high enough that it costs McDonald's more to pay 10 people to flip burgers than one machine, they will simply replace the human labour altogether. This will result in an increase in unemployment. So while those who retain their minimum wage jobs will be better off, many will simply be replaced, leaving the unemployed workers in a WORSE position than before. Here are some things that would change my view: * Research evidence that demonstrates positive impact from countries/states that have already raised minimum wage * A justification that the minimum wage must be a "living wage" * Evidence that a wage increase would not result in the loss of unskilled jobs to outsourcing, automation etc... * Any other reasonable justification of minimum wage 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: Shakespeare had a greater impact on the world than Genghis Khan. + + I have a debate coming up, and this is the stance I took, but I want to try and see how my opponent can make an argument. Shakespeare made nearly 3,000 words, and most of them have allowed society to become a more expressive and open world, as most dealt with emotions and finding a better way of expressing them. Genghis Khan's impact started and ended with military success. His vast empire fragmented after his death and three of those four fragments had been toppled or reclaimed within a hundred years. Shakespeare introduced so many new concepts to the English language, and his play Julius Caesar inspired the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. I can see that both had an immense impact, but I want to see how Genghis Khan's impact spread farther than that of military.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: If your brain chemistry is not right... Pills, self-help books, meditation, ... won't make any difference at all when you are clinically depressed + + I've been taking many different types of anti-depressants over the last 10 years, I read dozens of self-help books about positive thinking, and recently started doing meditation,... I still feel miserable, I always have been. It's not curable. For me it's comparable to having diabetes, it's not curable, you just have to live with it. I rarely leave my apartment, I have no friends and no girlfriend. I just live, but never enjoy anything. The only substance that makes me somewhat happy for a short period of time is alcohol. I wonder if there are people out there who are in a similar situation than me or can give a solution that I haven't tried yet.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: I believe mentally challenged people are just a huge drain on society. + + Read: Mentally Retarded / Downs. See, we've got a few people in town that have these diagnosis and every single person in their family seemed to be completely drained of life from taking care of these people's every need. I'm talking changing diapers on a 35 year old man that likes to put his finger in his butt and "poopy-poke" people while laughing obnoxiously. If I ever learned my girlfriend or a family member was pregnant with a mental retard, I would fully push for an abortion immediately. I don't see any good at all from keeping them around and saying they all have a "Good Heart". That's all they seem to have, either a good heart or a completely fucking asshole. Hell, my dog has a good heart too, except he can actually fetch a ball and bring it back without sticking his finger in his ass. It's pretty ingrained, but... CMV?	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: The simplest, cheapest, most effective way to improve society would be encouraging and participating in more public interaction between strangers + + I am not here to make an exhaustive (and certainly biased) list of what I believe is wrong with society/culture (specifically in America, where I live), but to suggest that all the issues could be moderated (if not necessarily solved) by establishing new attitudes and behaviors in public spaces and around strangers. It seems that my generation (recently dubbed, by some, the Oregon Trail Generation, existing between Gen-X and Millennials) was the first to be raised with explicit "stranger danger" warnings and programs like DARE, latchkey centers, etc. Since then, the stigma against strangers has only increased and our default attitude turned closer to fear and suspicion. It would take a long time to dissect the various causes for this notable shift but at least some are clear: Modern media more constantly and sensationally depicts the negative potentials (often real, but sometimes illusory). The rapid growth of the internet and technology has given negative individuals access to our private lives and information (think 419 and phishing scams). A more connected and globalized society has shown us a greater number of negative outcomes (even when those numbers do not reflect a higher percentage or likelihood). I'm certainly not blaming technology for this, as the way we use it exists in a complex cycle of innate habits/desires, the capability of the technology, and a reinforcing feedback loop. Many of the issues are, however, exacerbated by technology because it gives us the ease to disseminate fear-based messages (which are naturally stronger than positive messages) and provides us with a secluded alternative to the public sphere. We can easily find people who agree with us, information that fulfills our search, and interactions that provide some positive stimulus without ever having to interact with strangers. That said, the insular world we have created puts incredible distance between individuals even as it purports to bring us closer together. While it is wonderful that a person can find a community that shares and validates their unique interests, we are relieved of the burden of having to consider and integrate difference. Further, these habits have not only stratified society economically but subdivided it in all directions. For all the openness of the modern world, we are actually strengthening in-groups by creating social networks and dating sites that cater to race, religion, profession, etc. (I've been looking for research to support this statement, but precious little has been done.) As I see it, nearly all of these issues would be alleviated by reinstating the public sphere as a place for interaction between strangers. I'm not saying you should talk to every person you see out and about and we definitely need to educate vulnerable groups/individuals on keeping safe (and have a police force capable of adequately and appropriately handling the situation). We could begin simply by discussing the arts when encountered in a public setting (ask a stranger what they thought of a movie instead of just your friends) and discussing news in public forums (why can't people in Boston Common have a conversation about the recent trial?). We should be more open to finding all kinds of relationships randomly, whether on the subway or in the grocery store. Obviously, there will be lots of discomfort and inconvenience. You shouldn't talk to everyone, all the time, and it will take each individual an amount of trial and error to gauge what is and isn't appropriate. Still, the general outcome seems to be only positive. For most of the us, the worst outcome is encountering more annoying people, but I actually think "wait til you hear about this guy I talked to at the gas station" is more interesting than "I went to the gas station and listened to this podcast that confirmed what I was already thinking." We would also be afforded new (that is, old) ways of dealing with issues that arise from online dating and MRA/SJW/etc. communities. Many people will chalk my attitude up to a rural midwest upbringing as a white male. No, I did not grow up in an area where gangs, drugs, etc. were likely encountered on any sort of regular basis; no, I was not at risk of racial or sexual harassment and related violence. I am, though, familiar with those experiences second-hand (my university had students from 35 states and 42 countries, so I was exposed to an extensive array of different cultures/attitudes/experiences) and actually believe my solution may alleviate them to some extent. A portion of perpetrators (admittedly the ones likely to do the least damage) may change their attitude and behavior because of their increased interactions with others. The worst offenders are likely to attempt/commit their actions regardless. Potential victims may actually gain allies and confidence from increased interaction (one specific ex: women who become comfortable approaching and speaking with men in public are more likely to find men who don't just want sex/dating and the women will demonstrate that they interesting, complex, equal people rather than just joining online groups intent on telling us they are interesting, complex, equal people). Am I really miscalculating the ratio of benefit/danger? Is there some insurmountable barrier to public interaction I'm not considering? Is this happening more often than I realize but just not in my area?	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: I don't believe a person can be truly compassionate before having experienced a prolonged state of egolessness. + + I have a general feeling about whether a person has experienced living without ego or not by observation of where they place the importance of their own wants against the needs of others. From this, it is my belief that a person cannot be actively compassionate in every day life when they have not experienced the falseness of self because the ego is the only self they are truly aware of. Compassion being defined as being able to possess a love for all beings that is as great as that for the self and the closest people in their lives. Truly compassionate being defined as actively compassionate in every day life for all those that they can have an effect on.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Growth of economy is not interesting. + + To me growth of economy is a meaningless statistic. Economy means exchange of goods and growth of economy is thus increase in exchange. What kind of person evaluates actions in their personal life based on this kind of statistic? For example, picking blueberries in the forest is extremely bad for growth of economy: low skill job and doing things yourself means you won't be buying blueberries from other people. Growth of economy means one should buy processed, marketed, branded food producs in the store and abandon working electronic devices whenever a new model comes to market. One could do that, yes, but I find it laughable how this is the priority goal for politicians - not health, literacy, justice, equality or some other virtue. When asked why economy should grow, they give contrived reasoning from dynamics of economy. They ignore that economy seems to work in cyclic process of growth and decline. Tragicomically many are ready to worsen living conditions of masses to accelerate economic growth. What is the point in all this? How can someone strongly support economic growth while having no interest in either means or results of it?	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: There is Nothing Particulary Unique About Chess. + + I've come to believe that the reason chess has stayed around for so long and been seen as a deep thinker's game has very little to do with any unique properties of chess and is almost entirely due to historical coincidence. This especially hits me when I'm playing some modern games like Dwarf Fortress or Civilization. In many ways, these games could be seen as an advancement on chess. There are varied units that all have various contraints related to moving across the field and various strengths and weaknesses relative to each other. I'd even go far as to say that we could completely throw out the game chess and convert all of its top players into Starcraft players and, not only would we not lose anything of real value in the richness of the game, but we would probably elevate the depth of strategy involved to some degree. Especially after the game(s) were refined over the next hundred years like chess has been due to its popularity and ability to attract top talent.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: I agree with the Nazi 'Action T4' program. + + Hello. For a long time now I've felt that there are many people in hospitals and psychiatric homes who will never be able to function independently and will never work, create art and music, etc.. I recently discovered that the premise behind Hitler's T4 program is that anyone with a seemingly incurable illness that severely hinders their abilities should be euthanized. It sounds kind of awful at first, but these people absorb so much of society's resources. Think of how much better off we would be economically without them. I have a brother who is low-functioning autistic and his whole life he's cost our family so much money just so that we don't have to constantly watch over him. I feel sort of bad about this but I don't want to lie to myself about my own beliefs. CMV.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Leasing a car is always and forever a bad choice. + + Would you go to Enterprise and rent a car for 24 months? That's very similar to what a lease is. 1. Suze Orman, very rich lady and personal finance guru, hates car leases in all situations. [If anyone ever brings up the topic of leasing a car, she just gives them a Suze Smackdown.](http://www.suzeorman.com/resource-center/suze-orman-money-tips-video-collection/lease-or-buy-a-car/) 2. People lease cars so they can afford to drive something they cannot buy. "You're spending money you don't have to impress people you don't know," Suze says. You should go to a used car lot and find something you can own for the same payment as what you would lease. It might not be that hard, the first owner took a 20-30% hit in value as soon as he took ownership. You might find the car 2 or 3 years old and you can buy with the same money. 3. When you look at the details, it just doesn't add up to a good deal. You have to come up with a large down payment, pay monthly, and at the end of it all, you own nothing. To re up your lease, they expect another large down payment for a car you already have. Their are milage restrictions. Once I knew a guy who lived in Detroit and wanted to go to Chicago for the weekend, but was afraid to drive his car because he calculated that his daily commute was going to put him very close to or slightly beyond the mileage limit by lease end. You're paying monthly for a car that you can't drive whenever you want because they're going to charge you $.25 per mile over the limit. If you go 3000 miles over (which could happen in one road trip) that's $750 you have to pay just to give the car back. Oh and you're also paying through the nose for any dent, ding, bump, stain or scratch in the car. Unless it's a company providing a company car for business purposes. Your employer isn't in the business of owning, servicing and managing vehicles for the long term so a lease makes sense for them. They dont have time to sell a car when they're done with it, or deal with ownership. All the drawbacks of leasing such as mileage fees, they probably just pass that on to employee driving it.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: BOTH homosexuality and heterosexuality are choices. (Hear me out and CMV) + + Hi CMV! A recent post on AskReddit about homosexuality and pedophilia being a choice or not led me to this thought that BOTH homosexuality and heterosexuality are choice made by our subconscious minds. I KNOW how this view will bring up other ethical/moral/rights issues, but read the following before lambasting me: What if the human mind starts as a blank sheet of paper at age zero, but everyone has different genes that give them different tendencies towards different sexualities? So as the human mind engages with the constructed world, as the baby/kid interacts with different types of people, play different toys, watches different cartoons, etc, the mind gets molded accordingly. NOW I know how this opinion will lead to the justification of actions such as churches "training" homosexuals back to being a "normal" person, but I think that this "molding of the mind" only happens to humans before we reach full-consciousness. (Yes, I realize this still doesn't absolve the justification) So, beyond a certain age, the human mind is then more or less "fixed” and it is then hard to change it. My opinion is based on little or no knowledge on topics such as human genetics, neuroplasticity, and human psychology. So please CMV!	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Reddit, and much of the west, has been suckered into an anti-China view by the media. + + While I believe this is primarily an American viewpoint due to the US media's tendency to demonize the "communist" country, it quite often extends to Australians (mining and immigration) to Europeans. The US especially seems to have the need to pit their country against someone else, and with Russia no longer the biggest threat, they've turned to China. People have blindly bought into it, using China as scapegoat for numerous problems: * Pollution * The economy * Human rights * Environment * Overpopulation * Food safety * College admission (too many Chinese students) * Instability in the South Pacific Now, I'm not saying there are not problems in these areas, because there are, but I think it's wrong to chastise one group, often to the point of outright racism, when so many of the problems exist in west, and often to a greater degree. For example, on the issue of pollution: Per capita the US produces 3x the CO2 of China while also throwing around significantly less garbage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/06/daily-chart-3 People see these pictures of the pollution and don't realize, or don't care, that the reason for it is two-fold. First being that companies from their country have off-shored not only jobs, but pollution, and it's their consumptive lifestyle that is partially to blame. Second, the sheer population destiny (humans are bad with big numbers). For instance, Guangdong, which has at times been called the factory of the world is a province less than half the size of California, yet has a population equal to that of 30% of the US. That's like taking every person from Texas to the west coast and putting them in California south of Fresno. Other issues such as over-fishing, which Japan is far more guilty of, and not to mention that a lot of the Chinese seafood is exported to the west. The US gets a staggering percentage of its food from SE Asia. On all the issues above there are so many valid counterpoints, or simply a blind eye being turned towards ones own culpability and hypocrisy.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Socialism is Undermined by Diversity + + I can only see socialistic systems (The harder variety that imposes 90% tax rates and such) work out in ethnically, culturally homogenous societies like the Nordic states, or certain Orthodox Jewish sects. My hypothesis is that extreme racial/cultural difference (Skin Color, Mutually Exclusive Religion, Colonial Grievances, etc.) between populations leads to self-segregation, behind-the-back othering/scapegoating, and lower interpersonal trust on average - the foundation for a socialistic society where all are to be treated equally. You might be willing to do business with the other group, but god forbid your family invite them over or get intimate with them. As long as visibly different groups with past antagonisms exist, people will judge members of the other group differently, at least with no other information available. I suspect the primary reason right-wing parties against the EU and Social Democracy are on the rise, is due to lower interpersonal trust brought on by 1.) The Continuing Employment Slump and 2.) Immigration, particularly from Africa and the Muslim world. As the economy continues to slug along in the midst of austerity, the natives are feeling a tad powerless, with the lower classes having to compete now with immigrant labor - leading to scapegoating and resentment. This is not a new phenomenon - the entire history of the industrial age is replete with labor-fueled resentment from the lower-class establishment toward foreigners trying to take their place. Still, despite this - I can't help but get pissed when liberals rag on the native working class as "Rednecks" or "Bogans" (Or for black people trying to get ahead, "Uncle Toms") that supposedly vote against their own best interest by voting to halt immigration. This might be the only form of protectionism I can genuinely sympathize with. Please change my view - I'm open to your ideas.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: When captured and convicted, SWAT "pranksters" should receive extremely harsh sentences + + Although I'm conflicted about all aspects of Justice, Inc., I would be happy to see [this kid](http://www.theverge.com/2015/5/23/8648851/swatting-doxing-legal-case-canada-online-harassment) rot in a cell for decades. Making examples of people like this is the only deterrent I can think of for /b/tards who think terrorizing people, risking lives, and draining public resources for no reason is harmless and hilarious. It's hard for me to feel much sympathy when their /b/tard lives are permanently ruined, since they're practically never held accountable. Am I being a dick about this? Are you sure?	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 morally opposed to having my OWN kids. + + Now this might sound weird. Now I don't mean I am morally opposed to someone else having their own kids, but for me that is something I could never do. I believe in this because instead of having my own biological children, I could save another from a life of foster homes, and terrible conditions. I just do not think that it is okay for me to do that when the opportunity to help someone else is possible. This is something that I hold very strongly, but I am open to changing it. Thanks.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Canada has the best national anthem. + + I'm a US American, and I like a rousing playing/singing of The Star-Spangled Banner as much as anyone; I'm not even really all that patriotic, but there's a weird and very cool communal experience when a stadium full of random people all stand at attention and mostly sing along off key. I don't like association football all that much, but one thing I do really like about football matches is seeing the different populations from around the world doing the same thing, so I've heard a lot of the world's national anthems, and I have to say that Oh, Canada takes the cake. Maybe I'm being biased because I am an English speaker. One thing I'd really like to see in this CMV is a compelling case for an anthem in a language I don't know. Media links are, of course, welcome. Just to get a bit out of the way, why did I pick Oh, Canada? First off, singability. (I don't think that's a word.) OC stays with just a few notes in a pretty narrow range. For this reason, the "off-key crowd" effect which is so noticeable with songs like TSSB, especially when you're in the crowd, doesn't really affect OC so much; Crowds sound pretty good singing it. Second, excellent lyrics. Thematically, there's not much for even the prickliest of political malcontents to object to. You could be an atheist and object to the appeal to God in there, but if I were an atheist I'd just think of the word in its explitive form when I sang it. There's no reason for religious hang-ups to ruin national anthem fun, especially if one is an atheist. I suppose that pacifists might object to the statement "we stand on guard," but if you're talking about your home, it seems that even an extreme pacifist would want to stand some kind of guard, if only just to know when to run away. Third, and finally, I think that it's the best national anthem because it's so much fun to sing drunk. (That's like 85% what national anthems are for, after all.) The way it builds to that boisterous climax ... Just genius. Before you disagree, just give Oh, Canada a sing once you've got a snootful. It's pretty good. Way better, I'll reluctantly admit, to TSSB. 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: There isn't a compelling reason to bid on an eBay Auction before the closing hours/minutes. + + So, I am not a particularly active user of eBay, but I don't see the reason to bid on a traditional ebay auction well before the closing time. For example, if there is something I want to buy on eBay, rather than place a bid, I usually make a note of the closing time of the auction, and check back much closer to then to see if I am still interested in bidding. As I see it, there is no advantage to me placing my bid early. An early bid gives any other buyers more time to evaluate my bid and possibly outbid me. My plan for auctions is usually to figure out the maximum amount I am willing to bid for an auction, and then submit that offer as close to the closing time of that auction as possible. I don't rebid. I might bid a few hours early if I know I will unavailable at the exact close of the auction, but I never bid several days in advance. Is there something I'm missing? I often see a large number of bidders on items throughout the week, and I'm not really sure of the point. NOTE: I understand there are other types of auctions (Buy it Now, Dutch Auction, etc) where this strategy might not apply. I'm talking specifically about traditional auctions. For reference, here is a link that explains how the standard eBay auction works. It is not the same as you might be familiar with in an auction house. http://www.ebay.com/gds/How-Bidding-Works-on-eBay-and-How-to-WIN-/10000000175182135/g.html	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: It doesn't make sense that saying "bless you" when someone sneezes is polite. + + This is something that's always bothered me, all the way back to when I was a kid. I never understood why it was considered polite to say "bless you" after someone had sneezed. From my understanding, because people believed sneezing was a demon being expelled from your body, they would say "bless you." Nowadays, that doesn't really make sense, and I doubt that anybody believes that is the reason people sneeze. Now I don't really care if people prefer to say "bless you" after they hear someone sneeze, but it's absolutely ridiculous that some people actually get upset, and will even go as far as calling someone out for not saying "bless you" after they'd sneezed. They simply had a tickle in their nose and their body was getting whatever particles it didn't want in the nose out. Some may say that it's similar to saying "excuse me" when they burp, fart, or yawn, but I disagree. Saying excuse me is a way of apologizing for being a disruption, while saying "bless you" is a silly way of saying "I acknowledge that you have sneezed." Saying "bless you" doesn't make sense, and while it doesn't hurt to say, I shouldn't be ridiculed for refusing to congratulate someone on their sneeze. It becomes more disruptive than the sneeze itself and it's just silly. Please, please CMV. I'm tired of getting shit for not wanting to say "bless you" but I'm also too stubborn of an asshole to conform.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Men are more prone to be pedophiles than women. + + I'm sure there are sexual child predators who are women, but statistics show that they are overwhelmingly men. It even seems in every online confession, it's a man, young man, teenage boy, etc... who seems to have come to a realization that he is sexually interested in prepubescent children AKA pedophilia. My personal belief is that it's because men have penises (biological urge for sexual release) and higher levels of testosterone. And that sort of sexual potency may make everything or everyone seem like a sexual outlet. That is my intuitive understanding of the phenomena. I am aware that a pedophile is not a predator if he/she does not act on those urges. My OP is speculating as to why more men than women seem to IDENTIFY as pedophiles? Why do more men, than women seem to be sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children?	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Being biologically related is no more than that, there's no emotional bond. + + It's more complicated than I could put in a title. I mean in specific situations. I saw a post describing a couple that had a baby together and their journey. The woman had met her now-husband after having slept with a different man. She found out she was pregnant from that encounter, the couple married and the husband treats the baby as if it were his biologically. There were so many butthurt comments asking if the couple had ever told the biological father about the baby, asking if he had a say in the matter, etc. The mother actually had told the bio dad that she had gotten pregnant, apparently he wasn't a great person. What I don't understand is why being biologically related entitles a person to a child's life. If the argument is "You did it, your responsibility", there shouldn't be a problem because there's already a father willing to take the responsibility. I'm not talking about sperm donors, because it goes with being a donor that your involvement includes sperm and nothing else. I mean, if the man had wanted children, there are a lot of ways he could have them- naturally, adopting, surrogates, etc. He didn't have sex with the woman with the intention of having a baby, so why should he be considered as anything but a genetic relative? If I sneezed on a stranger and found out a year later they had somehow had a baby from my sneeze cells, what right would I have to get angry and demand involvement and power over decisions in its life? The thing that's most confusing is that the people getting angry over biological rights are mostly people without religious or supernatural beliefs, so why are they under the impression that sharing DNA creates an emotional bond? I understand there are holes in my stance, and I have nothing against biological parents or any kind of surrogacy, step parent, foster situation. I just genuinely don't understand what reason people have for believing this way. Afterthought- Perhaps a clearer title would be "Being biologically related shouldn't grant any parental or family rights/involvement. As far as I know, I can't edit the title.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: It's not "creeping", "snooping", or "being a creeper" to browse social media content that presumably was put there for exactly that purpose. + + Thanks - I don't know if this is much of a phenomenon, but I see it often enough that I have to wonder whether this is the way society's thinking is turning now. Suppose Susie makes a facebook page, and posts on it pictures of herself and her friends and their activities, some personal trivia, etc. Now her acquaintance Frankie from school mentions in conversation one of the pictures, something she'd said at some point, etc. Susie reacts negatively to this, and calls Frankie a "creep" for "looking through" her profile. I'm 24, but as I've been online since sometime during Windows 95, it's been long enough that I'm allowed to have "good old days". And in the good old days, there was no such thing as "creeping someone's profile" online. Putting aside when a "profile" became a thing. We had web pages, with content we had written, that we wanted as many people as possible to see. We didn't spend all those hours perfecting Javascript mouse trailers and visitor counters and guestbooks for nothing, you know. On these web pages we might have listed all sorts of borderline personally identifying information, or in some cases, all of it. You can still find some super throwback web 1.0 vanity sites where people have straight-up posted their resumes, and more. So the same thing happens now, except on Facebook or so, and the difference I can see is that, back when I was a teenager (xanga 4 lyf yo) and we were all doing it, we somehow managed to remember what we had posted on the public internet, and we didn't lose our shit when someone happened to know something that we had told them ... albeit indirectly ... by putting it online ... I feel like I'm close to the core reason behind this new perspective, but I'm not sure. It's like these people either don't understand how the internet and social media work and are meant to be used in a literal way, or maybe their own metaphors are getting in the way of seeing the reality. Maybe they want their Facebook to be like their high-school bedroom that they've decorated with posters of Ricky Martin, and they have a little diary where they bitch about their poor tragic suburban lives, and nobody else is allowed in there and if you go in and look at their photos or remember too specifically their words, you're a terrible creep, except instead of a bedroom they have erected a large bulletin board in the town square, started posting text and images to it, and got mad when people came to look at them. CMV?	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Common usage of "xe" or other gender neutral pronoun would improve/make English language easier. + + There must have been thousands of times when i was talking about a hypothetical person when it came to picking pronouns and i chose the pronoun she or he, maybe i wrote he/she, and it just feels like using something like "xe" would be much more accurate and/or easier than using he/she. Tell me why using xe or something like it in our every day language wouldn't be good. I can see some people holding the view that this word has been dirtied by some people cough tumblr cough but i still believe that it wouldn't matter if a lot of people used it.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: HBO has filled a phenomenal storyline with petty bullshit and clearly botched Game of Thrones. + + I was first exposed to the universe by watching season 1 and 2 of the show. I really liked them and purchased the A Song of Ice and Fire books and loved them even more. Now, when I watch the new episodes or go back and watch those ones I initially liked it feels different. * The show now seems like a rookie film students first attempt at portraying the book. The acting, budget, and sets all seem fine. Things like staging, dialogue, character's appearances and the plot's movements seem very obvious and amateurish. At first I played it off with rationale like, they have budget issues, or it's just harder to portray these complex scenes on television, or that they needed to shorten the storyline to fit it in a ten season show. Now I am starting to feel like the show's creators are really just amateurs. They are using the "best" books in the last two decades so of course the show is popular. But if someone without their rapey suckage had control, could it be that much better? Please change my view so I can enjoy the show again. **I think to accomplish this someone has to either just absolutely school me on film knowledge or make me feel good about the fact that they didn't have a choice for toning basically everything down. Maybe I'm asking too much, if so I apologize. Translations of my words for clarity. Rapey suckage - using sexual violence in ways that seem to be more geared towards shocking the audience than furthering the plot. I'm actually thinking more of the rape scenes for Dany and Cersi. Staging - there is no subtly to the character's positioning in frames. As someone who is only a casual film observer I prefer a show like Breaking Bad where I have to watch it a second time to finally be able to see the importance of things like a character's positioning on camera. GOT seems amateurish when compared. Dialouge - too many corny phrasings and catch phrases (especially when they use modern idioms). I am currently trying to find a script online so I don't have to transcribe scenes to give you examples. They also do a poor job introducing characters and have to make up for it by having character's say their own names all the time Character's Appearance - Why can't people have the long hair and beards they are supposed to? Legolas had hair down to his waist and he was still a sex symbol. I know Tyrion can't really have his nose chopped off but their first casting or Daario left my head spinning. Plot's Movement - Given that they are cutting half of the books out there shouldn't be so many complaints out of non-book readers that the show is boring. Or is the general public just that impatient?	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Reddit's "hive mind" is creating a cycle that encourages unoriginal content rather than thoughtful comments + + I have this opinion for a while now. I feel that Reddit is slowly becoming a place not for thoughtful comments or discussion, but rather a website for obtaining worthless internet points with unoriginal content. Even without considering submissions, I have found the comment sections to be very frustrating. I know that Reddit (occasionally, and often jokingly) acknowledges the "hive mind." However, this seems more as a means of allowing the user to seem not a part of the hive mind and therefore unique, rather than actually criticizing it and attempting to fix the problem. For instance, on a recent post pertaining to the Columbia rape ordeal with the girl carrying her mattress around, the link directed to an article with pictures of posters around the university claiming the girl is lying. There was no evidence or even speculation in the article that said she was/wasn't lying. However, in the comment section for the post, almost every single comment was able how terrible the "liar" was and how she deserved it. I immediately thought her claim was proven false, as everyone was so adamant. A quick google check did not confirm anything, except that there is not enough evidence. I did not even bother to comment explaining this, as previous commenters who deviated away from the "witch-hunt" were downvoted to oblivion. I am not making a comment on the actual event. As there is no evidence, I feel that I cannot assert that she was or wasn't raped. I know that the concept of false-rape accusations against males comes up quite frequently on Reddit. I completely agree that these claims can seriously hurt and damage an individual's social reputation and mental health. I don't have a problem with that. It just seems that Reddit has become infatuated with this concept and is making claims without any evidence; which is a bit hypocritical given the situation. Anyone who dares to voice their opposing opinion is immediately drowned out. I realize that not all of Reddit is like this. And of course, I will admit that I have been caught in the moment and contributed to some degree. However, I feel that a large portion is caught up in the hive mind and is not even aware of the issue. Please change my view. Thank you.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: If you reply to a comment, then the comment you are replying to should automatically be given an upvote. You should not be able to downvote any comment you have replied to. + + People reply to comments, but often do not upvote the comment that they are replying to. Reddit should force an upvote by you, whenever you reply. Reddit should not let you change/remove your automatic upvote on a comment that you have replied to, unless you delete your comment first. Similarly, whenever you reply to a post, that post should also receive an automatic upvote. reddit instructs: If you are replying to a comment, then obviously it has contributed to conversation, as evidenced by you replying to it. There is no justification to allow users to downvote, or not vote on, comments that they have replied to. A forced automatic upvote should be default and mandatory.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Publicly humiliating children is an ineffective parenting tool. + + note: I mean any and all cases like this, I'm just using the case below as an example. I'm sure many of you have seen the viral Facebook video of a mother shaming her 13-year old daughter. As of last night (when I checked) the video had over 10 million views. Yes, the goal was to end her daughter's explicit sexual activity online whilst also sending a message to all her friends that her daughter has been lying about her age. That's an admirable goal. The daughter's actions are unquestionably wrong, I'm not arguing otherwise. But the method the mother chose to get to that goal is reckless and shortsighted. Did she not consider the consequences of having her daughter shamed in front of millions of people? Her daughter has to go to school, a place full of people who I'm sure have seen the video. And let's face it, high/middle schoolers are vicious. Some people kill themselves from bullying. Not only that, but the mother said her daughter's full name in front of 10 million people. I mean, what happens to the chances of a career for this 13-year old now? It'll follow her forever. She could say goodbye to any chance of becoming president. Not to mention that she's an easy target for doxxing. This is just a guess (because everyone's different), but I imagine that their relationship is ruined now. The daughter will probably be more secretive and distrustful of her mother. The relationship doesn't seem to be grounds for open communication, either. I think the mental and emotional health of this girl has been severely damaged and any career she could've pursued will be hindered by her mother's reckless parenting. CMV.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: American public school teachers have lost the power to control their classrooms due to crippling bureaucracy, terrible parenting, legal repercussions, and gutless/careless administrators, and that is a huge problem in our educational system. + + My girlfriend's roommate is a Kindergarten teacher in a very large US City who came home practically sobbing because of one of the kids in her class. The kid's mother insists he doesn't act up at home, but the teacher has called her multiple times about her son's behavior. She can't take away recess from kids. She can only send them to the office for 20 minutes at a time. She's not allowed to take pictures or videos of the kids (but she showed us pictures/videos of the kid that day breaking into drawers, throwing stuff, yelling, rolling up carpets, etc). Attempts to discuss the kid with admins are shrugged off. The teacher is very upset because the other kids have complained that they can't learn and some are beginning to follow suit of the shitty kid. I know this is one example, but her school isn't even among the worst, and it isn't as if teachers inability to control students, despite their wishes to, is surprising. We've all heard about terrible parents, helicopters, complaining about grades etc. I've had the fortune of going to private schools my entire life (though perhaps that is more due to growing up in one of the worst public school districts in the country). One of the effects of that is that they could discipline you as they saw fit. If you acted shitty, you missed recess, had to call your parents, had to write on the chalkboard, had to stay in the office, got yelled at, etc. Public schools, of course, are another matter and it seems like teachers, the very people entrusted with educating the future, are powerless to do their jobs properly. So tell me, is our educational system that fucked because of shitty parents, shitty kids, and shitty administrators, or is it really not that bad? CMV.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Free college will result in less receiving a college education, not more. + + Under Sander's plan, the Federal and State Governments would cover the cost of tuition at public universities. I worry that the economic-educational landscape of the country can't support this concept. Sanders makes reference to Northern European countries when discussing his plan, noting how college education there is free (or close). While this is true, it fails to mention that admissions in those schools is extremely competitive. Meaning only the best students attend college and only the best of the best attend graduate school. The result is those with a college education are somewhat rare. This is fine because their high school (and vocational) system make it possible to be economically successful without college. Here in the US a BS degree is rapidly becoming what a high school diploma was to previous generations, the basic level of education. Anyone with a halfway decent high school GPA can go to college in the US. If money (or a willingness to take on debt) is no longer a way to "Gate Keep", lower tier public Universities will be forced to drastically raise standards or close their doors (such as where I went, East Carolina University). This will make getting a BS degree must more difficult (especially for those coming from a failing public school district). The result will be less with a college education and therefore less qualified workers for high tech jobs. Unless we make a High School diploma valuable by itself again, free college is doomed to fail. Sidenote: If I'm wrong than the issue of spiraling costs needs to be addressed in such a way that public universities don't become the same as public schools (generally regarded as bad).	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Chopsticks are in no way superior to fork & knife. + + I love to eat Asiatic food but I could never really use the chopsticks thinking "Wow, that is much better than usual cutlery." * Using chopsticks is at best a cultural exercise of contortion. * Forks and knifes are superior in every way I can imagine & in every situation. Including : * rice that is sticky and particularly rice that isn't sticky. * versatility while eating different kinds of food * eating with manners * not having to fear the dreaded fall of food I hope some of you will be able to help me find arguments to coerce me into using those chopsticks :) ----------- Update Some facts I've accepted regarding the chopsticks: &nbsp; * Exercise fine motor skills * Give time to taste the food and appreciate it * Can be used while doing other things * Are easier to clean, produce and carry &nbsp; * Are superior if you want to: * Preserve the integrity of the food you eat (If you don't want to break a grapevine until it's in your mouth) * Eat crusty things (popcorns, cheetos, peanuts...) without dirtying your hands * Eat leafs or salad &nbsp; * You can have makeshift chopsticks easily while makeshift knifes and forks are still not a thing in 2015. * Historically better at not stabbing your enemy during dinner? * Let this be noted, the spoon and the spork were proposed and I'm all in their favors! As for the sporfe, knifoon and spooned knork I'm more dubious. &nbsp; All of this may be quite situational but in those situations I accept chopsticks as superior. &nbsp; &nbsp;	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 annoying when photographers place their logos like "Clearwater Photography" on pictures you pay them to take, because it devalues the picture for you the customer. + + My main complaints with this are that: 1. To be branding all your pictures make you seem amateur and unprofessional. 2. It makes the picture less personal for the customer at their expense when you have your logo so large on their picture. 3. With all the publicity, you won't be known anyway since for every square mile of land, there are at least 5 amateur photographers or people with high-tech digital cameras. 4. It looks ugly in general, and does not belong in the picture, I can clearly where you put it even when you try to hide it by camouflaging it to the background. 5. And usually quite noticeable, especially when near the centre, beside the main object or person of the picture.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Making fun of fat people is equally as bad as making fun of people with depression or self-harm scars. + + Don't get me wrong, I'm no prude. I tell as many offensive jokes as the next guy, I'm not arguing that we can't make fun of them (I'm fat too), I'm arguing that the way that movies and popular culture says that making fun of fat people is hilarious and ok. It's not "Ok" to make fun of anybody but we all still do it, but why is it now ok to make fun of fat people? Sure, if you meet one of those Healthy At Every Size morons you're not actually making fun of their weight, you're laughing at their willful ignorance, which is fine. But just some random overweight person who probably knows that they're unhealthy and fat and can't muster the will to do anything about it is likely to be in a bad place about it, like the depressed. And the very idea of making fun of someone who's depressed is sickening!	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Ads on Hulu are no different from ads we've gotten on cable TV for decades, and people who complain about it are just spoiled. + + This is something that I just have such a hard time understanding. For years we have been stuck with having cable or satellite subscriptions that are overly priced and force you to pay for large bundles of channels that you might not even want. Streaming services like Hulu and Netflix have offered a great way to circumvent that process at a much more affordable price and are completely changing the way we view content. And yet I still see so many people getting so wound up over watching ads on Hulu. My perception of their argument is this: "I pay for Hulu, so I shouldn't have to see ads." Maybe I'm over-simplifying it, but I just haven't seen any other viable argument that really says anything beyond that. Now, I should say I definitely understand hating ads. I live in the city, and I can't walk ten feet out my door without someone trying to sell me something. We are over-saturated by advertising and it's awful. Thankfully with more options to block advertising on the internet, it's forcing advertisers to create ads that are more entertaining and feel less obtrusive (although, sometimes it does also force the opposite). But even though I hate advertising as much as a lot of people do, I still recognize it as a vital part of what makes television work, and since I really like being able to know what happens on my favorite shows every week, I don't get my panties in a twist over it. I see a lot of people getting wound up who have little understanding of how a service like Hulu works. I'm certainly not an expert either, but I have an understanding of how the licensing process works and how expensive it can be. Netflix may be able to get by without ads, but Hulu offers something that Netflix doesn't: content from television that is current and has recently aired. Netflix usually won't provide new episodes of a show until an entire season is finished. And even then, it might be a few months until even that happens. The only current content they do have is their own original programming, which they can get away with because they own the licenses and don't have to pay any licensing fees or performance royalties to any outside production company. I've seen a lot of my favorite shows on Hulu have episodes be online just hours after it airs on live TV. Since I dropped cable years ago, this is one of my favorite things about it. I don't necessarily like that advertising is part of my subscription, but I also realize that Hulu has to license this content from production companies, who have had a history of being apprehensive when it comes to embracing changing technologies. They are likely charging much higher licensing fees and royalties which means that Hulu in turns has to find other sources of income beyond subscription fees in order to make it work. Not to mention that the networks themselves probably have their own fees since they probably have exclusivity deals with the production companies who make the programming. People are so quick to jump to the "X company is a bunch of greedy corporate whores" argument without understand the major complexities that go into making a service like Hulu work. I'm sure Hulu is well aware that their subscribers don't like watching ads. "I don't like watching ads" is even an option in their survey when you cancel your account. People went on the same tirade when Netflix raised its prices, and I remember thinking the same thing then. I think that people's displeasure with advertising will ultimately shift services in the direction of removing advertising, but I still think that's a long way off. Streaming services, despite being around for several years now, are still in their infancy in a lot of ways. It's going to take a while to allow everyone to adapt and a lot of companies will be resistant to it in the hopes they can retain their old business models. But I don't see any of this as the fault of Hulu for using advertising. So my real curiosity here is to find an argument against Hulu's advertising that I haven't seen. I see so many people upset about it, but I feel like my only understanding of their argument is that they're spoiled and don't want to see ads, which I recognize can be straw-manning on my part. I'd like to see if someone can shift my bias and provide me some insight I'm not aware of.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: The idea of "paying for music" and the "album" as we know it will be obsolete 75 years from now. + + 1. The progression of Internet-leaking and hackers dedicated to music leaks will become too much of a burden to the music industry ([Here's](http://www.complex.com/music/2015/05/young-thug-leaked-songs-investigation) an interesting article on how music leaking is becoming more and more widespread) and will mean songs will simply be released when they are finished. [Look at the effect of the leak of nearly 100 songs by rising superstar, Young Thug,](http://hiphopdx.com/index/news/id.33844/title.young-thugs-engineer-alex-tumay-responds-to-recent-leaks) and the fact that nearly every major label album is leaked before its released. This costs music labels quite a bit of money. 2. This is not mentioning the decline of physical and iTunes album purchases and the rise of more convenient ways to access music in a matter of seconds, and for absolutely no cost. Rising subscriptions to streaming and/or radio services like Spotify and Pandora, and increasing website traffic to sites like Soundcloud are making the idea of "paying for music" obsolete. I theorize that in 30 years, all music will be individually released into online streaming services much like Spotify, and physical and paid releases will be virtually non-existent. Albums will no longer exist.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: A Quality Windows Laptop is Better Than a Macbook Pro + + I'm a high school senior going to college next year, and I've used Windows PCs my entire life. I built myself a gaming desktop about 2 years ago which I love. I love PCs for the whole slew of different choices and compatibility with some programs and games. I'm a PC gamer, so windows is the obvious choice. However, everyone in college seems to have a Macbook. Here's the deal: My parents and my cousin in college want me to get a Macbook Pro 15 inch. It costs about $2550 with education discount. The specs: * 2.8GHz quad-core Intel Core i7 * Turbo Boost up to 3.7GHz * 16GB 1600MHz memory * 512GB PCIe-based flash storage1 * Intel Iris Pro Graphics * AMD Radeon R9 M370X with 2GB GDDR5 memory * Built-in battery (9 hours)2 There are no solid benchmarks for this GPU as of date, but Apple says it's about 80% faster than the 750M, placing it somewhere slightly above or around the 765M range (correct me if I'm wrong) In comparison, an ASUS Zenbook UX501 has a 4K resolution screen, a slightly inferior processor, 96Wh Battery- versus 99.5Wh for Macbook, pretty good build quality, and a much much much much much better GPU, a 960M. This costs 1,500 on Newegg. I want to like the Macbook, I really do, but I am completely baffled by the price vs specs. What makes the Macbook so expensive? I'll list some differences: The Zenbook UX 501 has: * better resolution screen (4k touch vs retina nontouch) * MUCH better GPU (R9 M370X vs GTX 960M) * numpad - personal preference, I like the full keyboard Macbook has: * Better battery life (6 hr vs 9 hr) * Better Trackpad (Force Touch vs whatever) * Build quality (but they are still both good) * OSX - I'm kind of neutral about this * ??? Is the Force touch trackpad, slightly better processor, and better battery life really worth a 1000$ premium??? And not even counting the far worse GPU... Reddit, CMV please. I want to want the Macbook Pro.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV:It is wrong to have children if you are knowingly passing down a deadly or devastating disease/condition. + + I'm talking about serious medical conditions like Huntington's, Neurofibromatosis, Tay-Sachs, and others. I think this especially true if you can be tested for the condition before reproducing. I'm thinking about the quality of life that the child or future adult would have. NF is one in particular I am personally acquainted with that concerns me, and has a 50% chance of being passed down from parent to child with each pregnancy . It is a human right to reproduce, but why would you bring a child who would know only immense pain and suffering knowingly into the world. I've had this talk with family, and the only argument I've heard was that "you can't worry about chance". That doesn't fly with me, so I want other opinions. Change my view?	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: It is impossible to be a true Christian and support the actions of the United States. + + First I think I should make all the clarifications I can. By "true Christian," I mean someone that does their absolute best to live by the teachings of Jesus Christ. A "true Christian" actively analyzes his or her own behavior and actively attempts to better themselves based on Jesus's teachings. And by "behavior," I specifically refer to relationships with others, social interactions, lifestyle, and actions over words. By "support the United States," I want to refer specifically to U.S. foreign policy and action, specifically the current/recent wars in the middle east. Also think about matters such as: -support of the state of Israel (not condeming it's terrible actions) -CIA/blackops/paramilitary operations around the world -backing of dictators and tyrants because they do the bidding of corporate interests -use of torture -use of drone strikes I was raised as a Christian (ECLA Lutheran) and although I am now an agnostic, the moral teachings of Jesus and Christianity have not left me. Here is my understanding of Christianity and the teachings of Jesus, and I will also say that every civil, intelligent conversation I have had about religion has ended with these same conclusions: -Everyone should try their very best to follow the golden rule, the second commandment, or whatever you want to call it: "Love thy neighbor as thyself," "treat others how you want to be treated," etc. It's a pretty universal moral code amongst humanity, but is specifically important to Christianity -People are not perfect. They commit sins. But if you try to live your life to the best of your ability following the golden rule, to care for and love others as yourself, and confess your sins to be forgiven by Jesus/God, then you will be saved. You can get into all the ins and outs of the "resurrection," but when it comes down to it, the sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus is to forgive the sins of those who attempt to live good lives and sincerely admit/confess their sins. If you don't actually mean it and feel remorse, it's meaningless. -God is love, submit yourself to the will of God, humble yourself before God, you are nothing compared to God, love God with all of your heart, etc. Here are some relevant Jesus quotes: "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another." "But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust." "For what shall it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his soul?" "If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same." "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven." "For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and everyone who humbles himself will be exalted." "Give to everyone who begs from you; and of him who takes away your goods do not ask them again. And as you wish that men would do to you, do so to them." "All the commandments: You shall not commit adultery, you shall not kill, you shall not steal, you shall not covet, and so on, are summed up in this single command: You must love your neighbor as yourself." "For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?" Now the main reason why I disaffiliated myself from Christianity can be best described by a quote of Gandhi: “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” That and I realized there is a high probability that Jesus did not actually exist, at least as we fantasize him as having supernatural powers. But the teachings and moral code of Jesus/Christianity is an entirely separate entity that exists outside of any supernatural belief. And it is this observation that makes me ask why/how the United States can call itself a Christian nation and do the things it does? Or you substitute "Christain nation" for "morally superior" or some other similar term. I think it's a fairly prominent belief here that "we are the good guys," so whatever we have to do to maintain our power and lifestyle, we are absolutely justified in doing. But how can you be a true Christian, and actively support that? That seems to directly contradict the teachings of Jesus in so many ways. Please prove me wrong. And please provide specific examples.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Music artists/bands should not release singles from their upcoming albums. + + Whenever I get really excited for a band's new album, I always listen to the singles to death and by the time the album comes out, I'm sick of those songs I can't experience the album as one complete piece of work. And I know this is true of lots of people, not just myself. As much as I would like to simply not listen to singles, it's just too tempting when I've been craving new music from a band for two years. I think artists should instead release a couple of teasers, that way people can get a taste for the sound of the new material, but without being completely exposed to a full song and potentially ruining the experience. I also hate the current trend of streaming new albums a week before release dates. It really kills the anticipation, and it sucks when I pre-order music and everyone who didn't gets to listen to it early. If you crack and just listen to the stream, then you won't be as excited to listen to your copy for the first time when you finally get it. Obviously I don't expect record labels to try to enforce either of these ideas - ever - but I wish it would become the new trend. For the sake of experiencing music properly.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: My public school's diversity education was actually racist. + + I went to high school in the 1980's. In a small town in the Northwest, U.S., that was very white, (OK, all white), where basically everyone was Christian. I would like to think that the school curriculum was chosen with good intentions. Except looking back on it now, I really don't believe that. I would like to believe that, except I don't. So for English in tenth grade, we had novels assigned designed to promote diversity and an awareness of injustice against other races. To teach us about the problems that black people historically faced in America, we read a book called "Black Like Me". The book, "Black Like Me" is about a white man who colored his skin to appear black and went down South in the late 1950's. The book chronicles his (fairly awful) experiences. Except thinking about it now, there must have been hundreds of thousands of black men in the South during this time period. If we wanted to know what it was like, why didn't we just ask one of them? Did we really need to send a white man down pretending to be black? Was that the only way to get a legitimate opinion? It doesn't feel right. Then we have the holocaust, and our assigned reading was "The Hiding Place" by Corrie Ten Boom. Which is about two Christian sisters sent to a prison camp for attempting to save Jewish people. Now don't get me wrong, what they did was incredible, but is it really the best way to teach students about the holocaust with a book written about the suffering of Christians? Something very crucial seems to be missing here. It's not like there was some shortage of books written by Jewish people. So I would like to change my view. I would like to think that everyone had the best of intentions. In retrospect, it just doesn't feel right and doesn't seem right. Who the heck would choose these books and why? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrie_ten_Boom	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: We need to develop alternative energy capabilities, but that shouldn't include an expansion of nuclear power. + + I have a couple of concerns about nuclear energy. Overall, I'm not terribly concerned about the risks involved with nuclear power plants - sure, Fukushima and all that, but realistically many more people are killed by other forms of energy generation (I believe!). That's not to say that this isn't a worry, on some level. It's just not my top worry. I am, however, concerned about nuclear waste. The goal of developing alternative energies, to my mind, is to reduce our environmental footprint and save our ecosystem as we know it. Sure, we might slow global warming using nuclear energy - but to my knowledge, we don't really have any good way of dealing with nuclear waste. Investing in nuclear energy is just a way of trading one environmental problem for another. Second, other forms of renewable energy are increasingly cost-effective and efficient. There's no reason to be generating nuclear power when we can do just as well with other forms of energy. Third, nuclear energy is an international conundrum. If we could move away from nuclear energy in the United States and invest globally in other forms of renewable resources, we would be able to prove, in some small way, that nuclear energy programs are unnecessary - and, therefore, give us more leverage to refuse to tolerate them in diplomatic talks.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Price gouging during natural disasters is a good thing, and should not be banned. + + This came up in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy for me, since I live in an area of NY (Long Island) that was fairly heavily effected. After the storm, generators and gasoline were in very high demand and very short supply. Due to [NY's price gouging law](http://www.ag.ny.gov/price-gouging), gas prices rose only very modestly after the storm, and many gas stations had incredibly long lines. Generators were basically unavailable at any price. If price gouging had been allowed, the high prices would have had two effects, both beneficial: * The price would have attracted needed items from outside the effected area to come in via unusual means. Normally, gasoline was delivered by pipeline. But due to the flooding, the main pipeline terminals were knocked offline. If gas had been, say, $6 a gallon in NY, every gasoline tank truck in the Northeastern US would have started heading there full of gas. On a 2500 gallon truck, you could make $5000 per trip by hauling in gas from Binghamton or Boston. And I think most tank trucks are even bigger than that. Likewise, every generator along the eastern seaboard would have been heading for the area. Because the price wasn't allowed to rise though, there wasn't the monetary incentive needed to get people to do crazy things to overcome the logistical challenges. * The higher prices would have caused people to conserve. People panicked when they thought supply of gas might be unavailable. They'd flock to any open station and have huge lines, even if they had enough gas in the car to last a few days. When the price rises substantially, it will make people conserve more, and leave what's left for people who really need it and are thus willing to pay the temporarily higher prices.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: A Jeb Bush nomination for the GOP is a guaranteed Democrat victory + + I'm having trouble conceptualizing how another Bush has even made it this far toward political office, let alone the presidency. How is the Bush family not blacklisted from politics after W. continually proved to be a national embarassment in the years after 9/11? And no, George "No New Taxes" Sr. was nothing to be proud of either, as a one-term loser whose incumbent advantage following the Reagan years could not save him. Jeb has nothing to brag about, because he's obviously not going to win the Latino vote. In effect you're voting for years 12-20 of Bush family debauchery in the White House. This seems like a wake up call, more than anything, that big money and special interests has way too much influence over presidential nominations. Warren, Sanders, Paul, LaRouche - seriously anybody but Bush vs. Clinton should represent the American voter right now. In any case, Hillary Clinton is guaranteed to win the most cynical election ever, if it comes to that.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: the Earth is alive + + The Earth is constantly changing and moving in predictable patterns and cycles. The water cycle and nutrient cycles (carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, sulfur, etc.) are Earth's metabolism. The Homo sapiens component of Earth is preparing to initiate reproduction by copying Earth's structure onto other planets like Mars; not only in terms of atmospheric composition, but Earth will also give Mars many of its species and possibly its ecosystems as well. The Earth maintains relatively constant conditions over time, like surface temperature, ocean salinity and pH, and atmospheric composition, and these relatively constant conditions are homeostasis. 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'm not excited for a Hillary Clinton presidency + + It's hard to get excited for Hillary. Even if you're voting party line against the Republicans, she's basically the most establishment candidate out there. No big changes or forward agendas, just another veto point for the GOP legislature. Sure, she's a woman, but the whole "Beat out the white male lock on the Oval Office" gimmick was already bested by Obama in '08. It's like she's mastered the art of boring, sterile management speak. She's almost like the anti-Obama in terms of Charisma. Sure, she's had experience in law, legislature, and diplomacy - like every career politician out there. It seems like she wants to govern as a technocrat, but I'm not really impressed with any of her accomplishments. She's like a prep school honors student that's in seven clubs and passionate about none of them - it's all just resume and application filler. I'd rather see the Democrats run Sanders or Warren, but we all know big money wins in the end. Get me excited for the next eight years - please CMV.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Taking away the WC from Qatar won't change a thing + + Does anyone see anything wrong with the campaign to take away the WC from Qatar? How is it supposed to resolve the issue of slave labour? Yes, maybe the pace of construction of different projects might slow down. Maybe a few projects would even be cancelled. But most probably everyone would forget about the slaves once the WC is shifted to a 1st world nation. As someone who's not from a 1st world country, it leads me to believe the conspiracy theories that this campaign is largely driven by the racist tendencies against the middle eastern nation rather than any concern for the labourers. What we need is a campaign against slave labour in Qatar. Instead, what we are getting is a campaign to take away the world cup. The World Cup should only be a small part of the issue rather than the focal point.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Same sex marriage should not only be legally recognised but as enforced to the same standards as heterosexual marriage. + + CMV: Same sex marriage should not only be legally recognised but as enforced to the same standards as heterosexual marriage. There is no proof that same sex couples are worse parents, NONE. Since "no fault" divorce was introduced, the majority of divorces sighted "dissatisfaction" as reason for divorce. Fair enough. People grow apart. It happens. So why not gay marriage? Not everyone likes the opposite sex in a sexual way. Why force them? Why exclude them from Marriage? Now that you no longer need a man in a lesbian couple or a woman in a gay couple in order to have children, since adoption and IV are just some of the options available to same sex couples, why not same sex marriage? What is wrong with allowing two loving people to get married? If your argument is religious, what is it that actually stops homosexual marriage that isn't simply because (insert deity here) said so? How does the institution of marriage "suffer" for allowing same sex marriage? I can't think of a reason not to have legal gay and lesbian marriage.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Not knowing Mandarin Chinese in 2050 will be the same as not knowing English in today's international job market, and I should learn it. + + I'm a journalism student who wants to work overseas covering stories all over the world. Right now, the richest countries are english-speaking, and so if you want to be a foreign correspondent (or almost any other job) the most marketable/profitable language for you to know is English. [By 2050 the Chinese economy will have well and truly surpassed the US economy](http://citywire.co.uk/money/goldman-sachs-china-to-overtake-us-economy-in-2026/a550329), and if I want to be working internationally and making good money I will need to know mandarin because China will be the dominant economy/culture, and so will anyone else who wants to make good money.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: God could reveal Himself to an individual through small, personal gestures, seemingly endless and impossibly unlikely coincidences. If it were possible to keep a perfect record of them all, the odds could be calculated and it could be supportive evidence for the existence of a relevant God. + + I don't mean it's literally possible to record the experiences and calculate the chance of them occurring randomly, but I mean that if God could and would reveal Himself to someone this way, it would be considered reasonable reason to believe in such a being. (I think this allows so many scientists to be religious.) Change my view that 1. God could reveal Himself that way, and/or 2. that such evidence could be trusted (assuming a reasonable, intelligent, otherwise perfectly healthy, open-minded individual). I'd also be interested to hear argument against whether a God would do this, although I suspect I've heard it all already, and it just comes down to what kind of God He'd be. I'd prefer to debate this somewhat objectively, because it is a dearly-held belief. I saved a girl drowning when I was 8, brought my sister back to life when I was 12, and I watched that same sister undergo literally dozens of surgeries to keep her both alive and healthy, despite doctors misdiagnosing and ignoring problems. The coincidences I encounter almost monthly seem too extraordinary for chance. I'll get hung up on a particular phrase, or re-experience a vivid memory, only to have it be key to my work or some great aspect of my life... Individually, they're nothing signifiant, but put all together... I am a scientist and a statistician, and I just can't see how odds like this couldn't count as some degree of evidence. (I may be tired or obtuse, but this is tricky to think about and put into words. Please bear with me and I muddle through.)	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: The Golden Rule doesn't make sense. + + Golden rule: Treat others the same way you want to be treated. The problem with this is different people like to be treated differently. It could be that you want to be treated in a way that other people dont want to be treated. Hence, such a philosophy would only end up in conflict. Maybe you prefer to be treated aggressively so you choose to treat people that way, but other people dont want to be treated that way so naturally unnecessary conflict and misunderstanding arises. In addition, it could be that other people would like to be treated that you yourself want to treat other people except you dont want to be treated similarly. It prevents such a possible camrederie and chemistry between people. The Golden rule is in conflict with the importance of focusing on understanding every individual first. It is a lazy man's shortcut moral principle. Everybody is different therefore its best to treat other people in relation to how much you understand them and how much you understand yourself.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: While PirateBay is a very handy site to use I ultimately see it as illegal/unethical. + + So, let me start off by saying that I have used thePirateBay a number of times to download programs, ebooks, software, ect. However, I view it as something that is "good while it lasts," meaning that I will use it until it ends but when it does end will see that it had too. It is sort of like when a store wrongly prices a product and I can by it cheaper. I will by the product, but when the store realizes and corrects the prices I come to the conclusion that the prices were wrong and the correct price is 100% fair. To mer there is no debate on whether the lower price was fair; it was not! In order for the store to make a profit and employ workers they need to have the correct prices. Also if they dont correct the price they may have to stop selling the item from the manufacturer and that may cost more jobs. Jobs that normal people like you and I have. It does not matter how much the manufacturer/store makes in a year, it is still their money that they can use for raises, expansion, health care, ect. Could you imagine if we lived in a world where your wealth made it ok for people to steal from? A world where I could come to your house and steal your car because you have too much money anyways, and dont need that much money. IMHO the whole freedom of speech argument is a total cop out. To me that is a totally non issues. It reminds me of when slave states in the US turned slavery into a "states rights" issues when it is clearly a racism and money issues. Also, if I was to make a website on how to steal senior citizens social security but label it as "educational only" I would 100% see the merits of it getting pulled down. Technically it is "free speech" but it is speech aimed solely at stealing someone's hard work. There is also the argument that because thepiartebay does not host any files and only directs, they are in the clear. However, there have been countless times that someone has been convicted of a crime for being an acquaintance, and some states even have bystander laws to punish people for not stopping a crime. If I was to drive my buddy to a bar house where he kills a man, than I will be indicted on aiding a murder. Sure I may have the right to drive where I want to but that argument will never hold up in court. Even though I only directed to murderer to the scene and will be held partially responsible Love to hear your thoughts!	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: "Junk food" should be allowed as school cafeteria meals. + + I recently had a conversation with my friend about food in schools. She strongly believes that schools should have healthy meals. But I think there must be some logic behind why schools serve what they serve. I actually enjoyed tater tots when I was in school. Many cafeteria meals in American schools are deemed "junk food" and therefore unhealthy for students. However "junk food" actually has a lot of positives, after all; why would schools provide these meals if there weren't some major advantages. Some of pro's of "junk food" - People should be allowed to choose what they want to eat - Even if kids to get fat from eating junk food, they could be exercising to work of that fat - Most "junk food" is cheaper and easier to prepare which saves schools money - Students like the taste of junk food - Students are allowed to bring lunch from home, it's not like they are forced to eat cafeteria meals.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Charles and David Koch are more harmful to the United States than other super wealthy policy influencers. + + [A recent /r/news thread](http://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/34pnjw/billionaire_george_soros_may_finally_get_that/) focused on billionaire George Soros and the millions of dollars of taxes that he has avoided, despite advocating for higher taxes for the wealthy. Many commenters took advantage of this story to identify Soros as a liberal equivalent of the Koch Brothers, a view I am not convinced of. I tried to distinguish Soros from the Koch brothers by pointing out that while both parties take advantage of current laws, the Kochs can be distinguished by their doggedness in perpetuating those very laws. [My comment wasn't well received](http://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/34pnjw/billionaire_george_soros_may_finally_get_that/cqx0ij6). Many of the responses that I and other Koch-detractors received accused us of being too selective about the billionaires that we criticized; that the Koch brothers were a distraction ("boogeymen") from a larger problem of rising oligarchy in the United States. Upon reflection, I realized that I don't know a lot about the Koch Brothers, apart from what I have heard on reddit and NPR, primarily, over the past few years. Here are some things I think I know: * The Kochs promote climate change denial, which is useful when one is in the petroleum business * They astroturfed the Tea Party, which is nominally about freedom from the government and personal liberty (oversimplification?), but conveniently supports a very corporation/billionaire/petroleum industry friendly agenda * They have a poor environmental track record and support policies that will allow them to continue to harm the environment * They seek to maintain the low tax rate they enjoy personally, despite massive wealth inequality * They support low corporate tax rates, through the Tea Party and lobbying I'm concerned that my opinion is based on years of accumulated sentiments and not much dedicated critical thought. If I'm wrong about the Koch brothers, and as open-minded as I like to think I am, it shouldn't be too tough for you to change my view. Do the Kochs deserve the attention they get as the worst of the wealthy, or are they scapegoats for a self-serving billionaire class?	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: If a woman gets drunk and has regrettable sex, It is in no way "rape" or the man's fault for "taking advantage" + + I will try to keep this short and to the point. Nearly every day I hear in a conversation, see on an advertisement, or read on the internet something along the lines of: Having sex with a drunk woman regardless of consent is rape. Although I do agree that it is very low for a man to have sex with a drunk woman just because she is drunk and somehow "easy" I do NOT agree that if a woman is drunk, has sex, and regrets it later on, that the sex should be considered rape. The only instance where sex or any sexual acts should be considered as rape is in a situation where the man/woman explicitly says a form of "no". whether that is verbal, body language, or otherwise. EDIT: I should note that if a man/woman is passed out, too drunk to speak, or something in a similar pool, I would strongly consider all of those circumstances in which the person cannot express a yes or no to be rape. I happen to have a close male friend who while he and a woman were drunk, had sex with said woman. This woman grew to dislike my friend and explained to the police that it was rape since she did not know what was happening. Luckily after things got more legal she backed down and dropped any potential charges. This is only one of so many hundreds of stories similar to this. In conclusion: * consent is just the same drunk as it is sober. * regretted sex (of any kind) is not rape * It is not a man's job to not have sex with drunk women, rather it is everyone's job to understand consent and to understand that drinking can lead to regrettable/bad decisions. I want to say again that I am not in favour of sober people having sex with drunk people. I do understand the opposite view thoroughly but I do not agree with it.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Consent is a necessary, not sufficient, condition for sexual relationships to be "okay" + + When the topic of what kinds of relationships are okay, I often see people express opinions along the lines of "as long as everyone (directly involved) consents, it's okay and you shouldn't judge." I think that consent is absolutely necessary, but it's foolish to say that it's the only thing that's necessary. I can think of two really clear instances where sex is bad and should be discouraged, even though all parties give consent: * Cheating If Adam and Beth decide to have sex with eachother, and they're both in committed monogamous marriages with other people, then they can consent as much as they want. They're still doing something wrong by breaking their commitments to their spouses and likely causing a great deal of harm to them in the process. And it would be completely fine to judge Adam and Beth for deciding to sleep with eachother. * Adult-child relationships. I know what people are going to say, "children can't consent." But what you mean is children cannot legally consent, because this act is illegal. This is just a legal technicality, but a 15 year-old could still consent (in the sense that they make a conscious, informed decision to have sex with someone and express that decision) to having sex with a 40 year-old man. However, despite that consent, it's still the kind of thing that we as a society should discourage, despite the fact that both parties involved may consent. CMV.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Primates are non-human persons, and we should no sooner perform invasive experiments on them than we would a human who cannot give their informed assent. + + Basically what it says in the title. I've spent enough time around primates--specifically bonobo apes--to believe that, while they might not have all the capabilities of a human, they are "nearly human," i.e. they have brains that are ballpark like ours, and I can't say for sure their lives lack the kind of meaning I find in my own--the meaning that makes life worth preserving. If we agree that it's unethical to experiment on incapacitated humans (mentally handicapped, comatose, etc.), then we shouldn't be allowed to experiment on primates. I'm not a vegetarian, nor am I an animal-rights activist. I'm agnostic about the degree to which many animals can think, feel, imagine, and suffer, but the capacity for primates to do all of the above is--to me, obviously--uncomfortably close to our own, and, as such, they deserve the same sort of autonomy we consider to be among the "inalienable rights of man". Here is a mild, but more informed, [take](http://animalresearch.thehastingscenter.org/report/the-case-for-phasing-out-experiments-on-primates/) on this issue. (You can also google "non-human personhood" for more.) It's not without repercussions for many areas of medicine such as HIV research, but I think that infecting an ape with HIV is not much different from infecting a person who cannot speak or think at an adult level. It's a case of protecting "the least of us," even as it makes important work like [this](http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/36hq9i/potential_new_vaccine_blocks_every_strain_of_hiv/) more difficult.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: All sandwiches taste better when they're cut in half - preferably diagonally. + + This is, of course, entirely subjective. But I will make my case regardless: * Cutting the sandwich into halves, be it triangles or rectangles, enables you to start your sandwich consumption in the dead center of the sandwich, where fillings are most concentrated. This coats the inside of your mouth with said fillings, which supplements each additional bite. * You made a ham and cheese sandwich because you wanted ham and cheese, not bread with a little ham and cheese. Therefore, *the entire existence* of this sandwich is dependent on the taste of those fillings*. By starting a whole sandwich from the dry, less-satisfying outside, you are immediately ruining the sandwich experience by taking that first bite of majority bread taste. If you wanted a bread sandwich, you could've just put toast between two pieces of toast. It is easier to hold a sandwich half. A sandwich half is more portable, and easy to maneuver, than trying to hold together a heavily-laden sandwich that sags in the middle and threatens to disembark from your hands. * The first bite of the triangle half corner is optimized for your mouth. By turning the sandwich into a more aerodynamic shape, even phallic if you must, the triangle corner allows for less effort involved to place the corner in your mouth. * A sandwich cut in half is more visually appealing because you can see all the layers of filling that [you so painstakingly constructed](http://rampantcuisine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/REUBEN-CUT-IN-HALF-SIDE-VIEW-SMALL.jpg). Conversely, a whole sandwich appears as two layers of bread, especially if you're only using a few ingredients. The sight of a delicious sandwich stimulates your mouth to produce more saliva, aiding in the breakdown of these ingredients, enabling you to better digest the sandwich in the long run. Thank you for your time. [Exhibit A: Half-cut](http://www.saucygirlskitchen.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/IMG_1077.jpg) [Exhibit B: Diagonal cut](http://nutritionforswimmers.com/resources/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/chicken_salad_sandwich.jpg) [Exhibit C: Vast deserts of bread spread across the landscape](https://kelleychisholm.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/spread-sandwich-with-butter.jpg)	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: .45 and .40 are vastly superior to the 9mm + + In the shooting community there is a debate between 9mm and 40 or 45, generally between 9 and 45, though I also own .40 S&W. I personally do not like the 9mm to the point that I refuse to purchase one unless it is in a subcompact. It is weak, anemic, doesn't penetrate well (less mass), imparts less energy and not satisfying to shoot. Why should anyone want to carry 9mm as a main defensive weapon (military too) when the .40 has so much more power, as a flat nose FMJ will impart more energy than a rounded 9mm, heavier weight yields better energy transfer, in hollow point form is larger than the 9 mm and for capacity; there is a difference of 1 round. The only valid argument I see is that the soft 9mm is easier to shoot so you are more accurate, but who is taking 25yrd shots? An optic like a micro red dot on your weapon would more than make up for any difference.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV:HAES (healthy at every size) is a horrible idea enabling people who are unhealthy to remain that way causing more of a burden on society. + + I recently learned about the healthy at every size movement, I thought it was a joke at first but I did a bit of digging and found out it's an actual thing. I know people can have all types of bodies and still be healthy ect and that BMI is in a technical way a poor indicator of health however someone who is clearly overweight/obese/morbidly obese being told by others that they are healthy is not only unethical it's unfair to that person. If someone who is obese and has a very poor grasp of medicine and health having someone lie to them and tell them they're not unhealthy and indeed of weight loss is enabling and tantamount to telling a drug addict that they are healthy while abusing their substance of choice, the substance in this case being food. The HAES movement is doing absolutely nothing but encourage an unhealthy lifestyle that will be a burden on society the medical system and their families.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Rand Paul would be a better choice for the presidency than Hillary Clinton. + + I would like to mention that I am a registered independent and will most likely vote for a third party candidate, but I am fairly left wing and agree with the Democratic Party far more often than with the Republican Party. Paul is a pretty progressive guy with a clean record (as far as I know) and his views on many issues differ greatly from the rest of the GOP. While Clinton is very experienced and progressive, she seems like the perfect archetype of the classic sketchy and dishonest politician who is willing to use her power to do whatever it takes to do what she wants. I am afraid I am choosing a better president based on the wrong qualities, or my preference based on too little information.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: A dozen Jurassic Park velociraptors could beat a dozen Alien xenomorphs + + Situation: an enclosed industrial compound of 30 acres. For fairness, say the raptors were genetically engineered to have somewhat acid-resistant skin. I think that because they'd fight as a group, and appear to be faster and stronger than the xenomorphs, they'd be able to win out. I think the aliens rely too much on picking off individuals, and building their numbers through breeding off their foes to handle a physically dominant force. The velociraptors have a powerful jump to reach their enemies, and long enough limbs to avoid the inner jaws of the aliens. Their superior intelligence would enable them to come up with a strategy to fight the aliens.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: B. Sanders-style Socialism will dig our country deeper into debt by spending money we don't have, and despite great social policy, his economic policy is a deal-breaker. + + I was raised by decently liberal Republican parents, and always felt that reducing unnecessary spending is the best way to counter our national debt (my favorite analogy is that our debt is like a room full of shit: if it's up to your neck, you don't raise the ceiling, you slow the rate of filling to actually deal with the problem). Socialism was always something my parents believed was for excessively liberal areas, like Canada and Cali; though they were very forward-thinking regarding social issues, such as homosexuality, recreational drug use, and foreign disputes. I love Sanders' social policy, but I can't see his economics winning many republicans or libertarians over. CMV?	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: It's sexist that society shames women for selling their body but does not shame men for doing the same + + Going back 100's of years, since humans formed societies, men and women offered their natural resources in exchanges for sustenance, but in different ways. I'm not going to argue what the this is the "natural" state of humans as I am not qualified, but GENERALLY, going back 1000's of years unskilled men and unskilled women used different means of acquiring resources need to survive. Men with nothing to their name can go into town, offer up their body for backbreaking unskilled labor (hauling, digging, etc) for money. Women with nothing to their name can go into town and sexually offer their body for money. And again, I'm not saying this is the natural arrangement, but this is GENERALLY what happened for 100's of years all the way up until about maybe 50-60 years ago where society generally started to find it unacceptable for women to sell their body, but did not place any stigma for men doing the same thing. In 2015, I can go into any random town with only a T shirt to my name and a shovel and provide my body to any farmer, rancher, warehouse, etc and everybody would praise me for being a hard worker. But in 2015, if I were a women and went into town with a short skirt and lipstick and offered my body to truckers at the gas station, society would shame me. That is sexist.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Open carry of guns in the United States is foolish and it causes more trouble than good. + + There have been a lot of videos recently of civilians walking around in public with rifles/assault style weapons in an attempt to cause an interaction with police where they video the police response as a means to demonstrate that they have the right to carry weapons openly in public. I believe that this causes more trouble and does not serve to advance a positive agenda due to the following points: * Makes people fear for their safety. The United States has a long history of incidents where someone commits or attempts to shoot and kill lots of people in a public place. There are multiple incidents of mass shootings a year, some more deadly than others. If you see someone walking down the road with a rifle strapped to their back it is disconcerting, and makes you wonder if you are about to be murdered in a shooting. * Diverts police from doing their primary jobs If police are tasked with the job of protecting and serving the public, there time is wasted by having to engage an armed person walking down the street with a gun. They have to investigate if the person is wanted, has a right to have the gun, and generally babysit the person so that the public feels safe. If the police come, and have an interaction with the person, judge them to be safe and leave, then it only takes a few minutes without a police officer there for another concerned citizen to call 911 to report an armed person. The police in effect become babysitters for a one person protest instead of conducting traffic patrols, responding to crimes, etc. * Makes gun owners look bad Owning something that has the ability to severely injure or kill another requires a certain level of responsibility. By making the general public feel unsafe, a person demonstrating open carry is demonstrating an understanding that their actions are making people uncomfortable yet doing it anyway because their views are more important that the comfort and feelings of safety held by the surrounding community. This violation of an unspoken social code seems selfish: as in "getting my view out there is more important than your feelings of security". This reflects poorly on gun owners who own guns but don't engage in open carry activities. * It's a vague way to protest There are no signs being carried by these gun owners about their rights and what they believe in. Their presence is a question mark. When you see an open carry protest, it's not immediately apparent what is going on and if someone was neutral or unaware of the issue of rights associated with gun ownership wouldn't be persuaded. The first questions that run through a person mind when they witness this form of protest is "Am I in danger?" not "I wonder what this person is protesting and why it's important". Change 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: Basic Income Is Infeasible And Will Destroy The Economy + + There is a popular opinion on Reddit that "basic income" is a good idea. "Basic income" is the idea that every citizen is given enough money to cover basic needs like food, rent, etc. If they wish to earn more, they have to work for it. Some arguments I'm already aware of: Likely true for poverty-driven crimes like theft, but likely has little impact on other more serious crimes in which money isn't the motivating factor(or big hauling crimes like ponzi schemes/ransomware) If you set it too low, crimes will happen anyways because criminals want more luxuries/can't cover basic costs. If you set it too high, nobody will work and it'll be too expensive to support. Also likely untrue. You have to consider that EVERYONE would be getting "basic income", and that is a lot more expensive than just keeping the criminals in jail. Also, not every criminal will obey laws just because they receive basic income. The reduced amount of criminals is unlikely to cover the costs of paying income to every single citizen. Now, for arguments against it: -If basic income existed, many 100% capable people would refuse to work, or work less If I could live reasonably comfortable, why work? I could slave away for 40 hours a week just to earn money that gets taxed to hell to support basic income, or I can just relax and live comfortably. Time is valuable, I don't mind giving up luxuries to save time doing what I love-browsing reddit and playing videogames. I don't mind if I wouldn't be able to afford fancy stuff like a nice car or a high end gaming PC, I'd still be much happier with more free time and cheap belongings than having to work my life away to enjoy a few nice things. If a large portion of my hard earned money went to people that refuse to work, i don't see any reason to. I'd rather just join them and leech off of the middle/upper class that works risky jobs or skilled positions that bring us high end products and services. Maybe I would work a few hours a week just to save for nice things, but it would depend on how much I'm getting for free. Wage spiral inflation, alongside unemployment, will result in high prices and reduced supply Less people working will result in reduced supply. Additionally, unemployed people would still have money, so the increased demand will result in a shortage of goods. The "1%"(really the 0.001% people refer to) don't necessarily spend all their money-they just hoard it. As a result, prices are not pushed up by their abundance of wealth because it sits in limbo being thrown into speculative markets and assets. Only time it screwed over the middle/lower class was when the real estate bubble turned housing into a speculative tool and inflated prices to hell before crashing it. Things that lower class individuals need(food, utilities, etc) aren't hoarded by rich individuals. A billionaire doesn't eat 1,000,000 pounds of potatoes a day, so it doesn't influence the pricing on that. Same with utilities like gas, electricity, water, etc. The ONLY hoarding problem I see with billionaires is the real estate market, where housing is used as an investment tool. Now, they might go crazy with stuff like a private jet/pilot, solid gold statue, expensive jewelry, and other luxuries, but those don't impact the pricing of everyday items as much as you would think. basically, the huge abundance of wealth the .1% isn't as significant because it's simply hoarded, unlike low-middle class individuals that will spend the majority of what they make.Having 50% of the country's wealth does not equate to consuming 50% of the country's production As a result, basic income would need to be continually raised to support rising prices, which would raise the prices more, resulting in a nonstop cycle of inflation. From this, we can conclude that basic income will: -Reduce productivity, as many people stop working or work less(Less output of goods/services) -Increase prices due to reduced supply -Result in a shortage of goods. Disclaimer: I'm not against welfare that helps those unable to work or that helps people that were laid off and looking for new employment. I just worry about basic income because it takes money from hard working individuals, and gives it to 100% capable individuals that refuse to work, resulting in people quitting their jobs and punishing people that contribute to society. The ONLY way I see basic income working is if autonomous technologies advance enough to where people don't need to work anymore, and robots do everything besides creative/artistic works.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Islam is incompatible with today's society. + + Islam is a religion that spawned from the Quran, a religious text considered to be the Word of God (Allah). This religion began in the Arabian peninsula in the early 600s. Islam is not only out of date, dangerous to today's society and subversive, but it has always been a violent religion. This would be fine if Islam could be reformed. But that's the trouble with Islam. It has not been widely reformed and I'm afraid it cannot be due to its structure. Sure, it has a similar structure The concept of Dar-al-harb/Garb/Kufr (War, War(ottoman),Infidel) and the Dar-al-Islam (Islam/Peace) is one that divides the world into two; nations that follow the law of Islam (Shariah) and those that don't. Before you say that this practice is outdated and out of style, please look at Salafis, the extremist groups in the middle east, and [this fine fellow and other people like him that do not classify as salafis](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV710c1dgpU). Even if the Quran is not taken literally, Shariah law still applies. I have lived in an Islamic country. You do not need to take the Hadith and Quran literally to be subject to literal Shariah law. Read here: You can literally go to jail for renouncing Islam. It's far more serious in countries like Saudi Arabia, and 4 in 10 muslims in the UK want to establish Shariah law. In fact, there are 85 shariah law courthouses in the UK which run by court-approval basis. I personally believe that the political stress plus the fact that both parties signed an agreement to be judged by shariah law makes every case a stamp-and-go case. Before you say that both if both parties consent to it, it's alright, please think about the cultural and familial pressure of Islam and their treatment of women. We must not forget Islam's borderline slavery of women. They are covered, silenced, veiled, separated, and treated as commodity. God willing, they at least inherit half the amount a man of the same level of descendence would. I do not say that muslims are bad people and must convert to be part of today's society. I do not say that at all. In fact, I say the opposite. If anything can stop the self-indulgent hedonism of today's society it is Muslims (And Sikhs). I just say that Islam conflicts with today's society, and it cannot be wholly compatible with today's world. I do not approve of Islam.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Amtrak should receive much higher levels of funding than they do now. + + Unfortunately, the only time Amtrak specifically and passenger rail generally become a part of public discussion seems to be when something goes wrong. Most of you are probably aware that something did go wrong last week, when Amtrak's Northeast Regional #188 derailed in Pennsylvania. This CMV is not about that incident, however. I have long held the view that the passenger rail should, and inevitably will, become a much larger part of our national transportation mix. I've yet to hear a thoughtful, legitimate argument against greater investment in passenger rail, specifically Amtrak. Most people who oppose Amtrak, particularly in Congress, seem to be doing so based on ideological or political reasons. For example, the last Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has called Amtrak a "Soviet style railroad". Most criticisms of Amtrak I've heard are similarly based in ideological beliefs. Now, I will try to briefly summarize some of the key reasons I've long thought Amtrak should be a top priority for investment and expanded funding. * Critics of Amtrak often point to the fact that it is a money losing operation, and is consequently subsidized by taxpayer money. This is perhaps the most common complaint from some (not all) Republicans. The way I see it, all modes of transportation are heavily subsidized, and Amtrak should not be singled out for losing money. All railroads, public and private, are responsible for all of their infrastructure. That means every inch of rail, every freight terminal and passenger station, every locomotive and car, their traffic management systems, and even their own police departments. By contrast, we (the taxpayer) fund the construction and maintenance of airports and highways. We pay for the FAA, which manages private airline traffic. We pay for the TSA, which provides security for the airlines. We pay for traffic officers in police departments. The bankrupt Highway Trust Fund, paid for by the federal gas tax, no longer covers all of its costs. Consequently, Congress has bailed it out with short term extensions for more than eight years now. According to Amtrak's CEO, Joe Boardman, these "bailouts" have added up to more than Amtrak's entire operating subsidy since its inception in 1975. So, with all this in mind, it seems ridiculous to single out passenger rail as the only transportation mode that needs to be profitable and should not be subsidized. We subsidize all modes, and all lose money, why should Amtrak be the one exception? * Even if Amtrak was as burdensome on taxpayers as some politicians and pundits suggest, there seems to be a strong public interest in expanding passenger rail. Unlike road and air competition, even if you personally do not use Amtrak, you benefit from higher Amtrak ridership. According to the Brookings Institute, Amtrak is now the fastest growing method of transportation. Its broken its ridership records nearly every year for the past 12 years, with the Northeast Corridor (NEC) in particular booming since the introduction of the Acela. Amtrak controls more than 75% of all air-rail traffic in the Northeast, which benefits air and road travelers as well. Less traffic on our already congested highways, less traffic in our airports, less pollution in our air, and downward pressure on the demand for oil are all secondary effects that benefit people who do not use Amtrak. * If lowering our dependence on foreign oil via decreased demand and if global warming is a concern for you as it is for me, then prioritizing rail over air and road transportation seems to be a necessity. Trains are masters of efficiency in a way that even the most fuel efficient jet and greenest hybrid are not. According to the Department of Transportation's Bureau of Transportation Statistics, in 2012 Amtrak's energy intensity per passenger mile sat at 1,561 British thermal units. By contrast, the average domestic airline service uses 2,477 BTUs per passenger mile. For some reason, 2006 is the last available data on passenger cars, and they used 2,898 BTUs and light trucks used 5,465 BTUs per passenger mile. Even private freight carriers are extremely efficient. According to FreightRailWorks.com, the average train can move one ton of freight 475 miles on one gallon of fuel. These facts suggest to me that the future lies in rail, not road, and that further Amtrak expansion could help lower our national energy consumption and transportation related pollution. So Change My View! Like I said, most arguments against Amtrak seem overly politicized. So I'm interested to hear any cogent argument opposing passenger rail investment generally or Amtrak specifically. I suppose the latter is likely easier to make than the former, because it could be possible to support passenger rail investment but oppose Amtrak as an entity. If this is your argument, I would be interested in hearing what alternatives to a federally subsidized passenger rail corporation are out there.	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 not worth the money it costs to conserve biodiversity + + I've been told this is a horrible viewpoint to hold, so I'm hoping someone can help me out. Generally, I have seen a large focus on trying to stop human-caused biodiversity decline ("Save the ____"). While I understand that this is a noble cause, I do not believe that there is reasoning behind it besides simple morality. People dump large amounts of money into urban planning being more environmentally friendly, but it seems as though, besides agriculture, we have little to gain from having a wide variety of species in urban and suburban areas. I've read a fair amount on the topic, but I still have yet to find something that really changes my view. So, please CMV.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?