input
stringlengths 89
9.33k
| output
stringclasses 2
values | instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|
CMV: Hot dogs are not sandwiches +
+ [NY tax law classifies hot dogs as sandwiches](http://www.tax.ny.gov/pubs_and_bulls/tg_bulletins/st/sandwiches.htm), but I'm not convinced.
While it is certainly meat with bread on either side (like a hoagie, which is definitely a sandwich), the connected bun and tubular shape of the hot dog make it impossible to lay on the plate in a sandwich fashion:
bread
filling
bread
Instead, the hot dog lays vertically, and then condiments are piled on the top of the tube, in what would be the "side" of a sandwich. This is a fundamental change in the mechanic of the food, and it alone would warrant the hot dog's exclusion from the "sandwich" family.
The differences aren't limited to the physical configuration, though. There is also strong social argument that the hot dog is not a sandwich. If you were invited over to a friend's for sandwiches, you would probably be surprised to find that they only had a selection of hotdogs and sausages, along with buns and condiments. A word can be said to mean what people think it means, and most people do not think "sandwich" means "hot dog".
If you are more of a prescriptive linguist (and so many on reddit are), Oxford Dictionary defines a sandwich as
Hot dogs do not fit this description, because the bun is only one piece of bread. The bun is more of a carrying sheath for the hot dog tube, rather than the hot dog being a filling for the bun.
I simply cannot buy that a hot dog is correctly classified as a sandwich. 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: Public Service should be Mandatory for all Citizens +
+ Tired of that construction down the road? If annual public service was mandatory, maybe that'd be already done!
Why is the local government spending so much money paying people to pick up trash in a park when citizens could do it for free, and the extra money could be spent in more worthwhile efforts, like the social services to help abused children?
My view is that every year, every citizen (unless you have a legitimate disability) should be required to perform *x* amount of hours of service to society. CMV.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Turning right on red from the "outside lane" or "left right turn lane" should be legal in most cases. +
+ As can be seen in [this image](http://mediaassets.naplesnews.com/photo/2014/05/20/0716_NCLO_Know1_4963231_ver1.0_640_480.JPG), in most places in the U.S. (and maybe elsewhere that right-on-red is allowed?), it is legal to turn right on red from the inmost lane, but if there is more than one right-only turn lane, all others are prohibited from turning right on red.
I do not see why this is. If it is legal to turn right on red after checking for incoming traffic from your left in one lane, why would it not be in another? I don't think there is a significant likelihood of cars from more than one turn lane crashing into each other.
I also don't think it likely that a vehicle turning right on red from the leftmost right turn lane would be more likely to collide with oncoming traffic. Surely he would check both lanes of traffic before turning, just as the inside lane would check the rightmost incoming traffic lane as well as whether there is anyone that might be changing lanes into his lane before the intersection.
However, I imagine that someone somewhere had a reason for making this a law, so I am quite willing to change my view if given reasoning as to why turning right on red from anything but the inside lane is predominantly illegal.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The rise of automation in the workplace is seen as something that's going to put a lot of people out of a job who have no other options. I don't think that the advancing technology is as big of a threat as generally considered, and I think (at least US) education is the actual problem. +
+ I was thinking about the future and how there will be fewer and fewer jobs available in the coming years as a result of expanding technology. And I started thinking about if things were ever like that for older generations. And I realized, they probably were.
Think about the industrial revolution. You're a copyist. Every day, you go to work and your job is to read a document and rewrite it. Maybe you have a different document every day, maybe you need to just push out a certain quantity before you move on to the next project. But then suddenly the printing press is invented and you're *terrified*.
I feel like this is just another industrial revolution. Despite the quickly developing technology *and* expanding populations, there doesn't seem to be an overwhelming poverty creeping up on us.
I believe that *education* is the problem. That copyist was probably a specialist of some kind. Not everyone really knew how to read at all, so there was an education barrier to that career that allowed some people to do it and others were out of luck. And most fields are somewhat like that.
Nowadays it's hard to find someone in the US who never learned how to read. It's almost hard to wrap your mind around it. Most people even graduate high school, which while isn't required was once a barrier people had to get through. Now it seems as though you can hardly get above a minimum wage job without a college degree.
I think that the purpose of education, any education at all, is to give someone the tools they need to succeed. Which is pretty hard to argue against. I say that education in the US is failing pretty miserably and that's the reason we've got something to fear.
Education, in politics, is a word you use when you want people to give you votes and money. Saying you're *for education* is like saying you're *against murder*. It's a crowdpleaser. But if you actually look at what's being done for education, it's a total hatchet job.
That's what we should be scared about. That the education barrier is being raised to a point where the average person can't find a steady and reasonably paying job. Once, all you needed to do was know how to read. Now you basically need a master's degree in your field, which you only have if you've been funded (parents, money, etc.) or you've been so sure about what you wanted to do with your life that you've worked your ass off for that field since you were 15.
Sure, there will always be work that the average US citizen is overqualified for. You know, the kind with a bachelors degree, debt, and no real career options. But companies are allowed to ship that work to other countries which have work environments full of parasites and suicides. So unless that changes, the average citizen should be entitled to a reasonable life. Which means billions invested into k-12 education and college tuition regulation or elimination. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I believe that abortion is morally wrong. +
+ To open, I'd like to say that I am nonreligious and pro-choice.
I believe that abortion is wrong from an objective standpoint. I believe that, no matter what, a fetus is a living being, and that it is wrong to kill it. I understand that some people do not have the means to care for a child, but adoption is, in most developed countries, an option. I believe that life is an innate, inalienable human right, and that stealing it from another is wrong.
I feel as though pregnancies conceived through rape are still deserving of life and should not pay for the sins of the father, however, I find it much more easy to emphasize and sympathize with women who choose to terminate said pregnancies.
I'd be more than happy to have my view change, but I've never encountered an argument that could do so. Mostly, it seems to boil down to pedantics revolving around whether or not a fetus is a living being or just part of the mother, which I don't find to be a point of debate- even if it isn't "alive" right now, it *will* be, so one way or another you are killing it. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: As a progressive, it is NOT in my best interest to vote for Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary. +
+ Though my personal political views match those of Bernie Sanders much more than Hillary Clinton, I believe nominating Bernie could ultimately be very damaging for the progressive cause. My main concern with nominating Sanders is that he will alienate all voters except for the left and the end result will be a 48-state Reagan v. Mondale style steamrolling. A GOP presidency, possible supermajority in both houses and 1-3 supreme court nominations could be enough to nullify the limited progress we've had under Obama.
A Clinton presidency would probably look very similar to Obama's, and come with a lot of disappointments. I do think it's possible that we might see progress towards things like a single-payer healthcare system that progressives have wanted all along.
I like Bernie a lot, and would like to vote for him 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: I don't feel obligated to ask permission to take cosplayer pictures at a convention. +
+ I've been to a prominent anime convention (~8000 annual attendees), 6 or 7 years now and have never felt the need to ask anyone's permission before taking pictures.
I'll ask permission to take a picture if:
* The cosplayer is dressed up as something I really like and no one else is taking their picture- I want them to do their pose or whatever if they don't mind because it's from something I like
* They're dressed in something suggestive, showing a lot of skin, or look uncomfortable being dressed that way in a public setting- I don't usually take these people's pictures anyways because 9 times out of 10 me feeling creepy isn't worth the value I'd get having the picture
* They might otherwise enjoy being asked to get their picture taken- little girl, something obscure, whatever
I typically won't ask to take a picture if:
* They've already got a big crowd of people around them taking pictures
* They've got a cool costume I want to remember, but I don't care enough to have them do their pose or whatever.
* I want to capture some aspect of the convention and anime culture itself- to me a convention is like going to a fair or a festival, it's an event I want pictures of
I think the main reason people are so strongly opposed to people taking unwarranted pictures is creepy people, and that's a valid concern. However I think with the general discretion that I follow, asking every single person for their picture is a bit unnecessary. At the same time, I know a lot of people feel very strongly about photographic consent and I may very well be overlooking something important so change my view!
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I don't think incest or adult-child contact is wrong +
+ Hi.
I'm a 32 year old woman and mother of 3. I've had sex with my father and some other family members.
I don't feel dirtied or damaged or like my life outcomes have been limited, degraded, whatever.
When I've told people - which I very, very rarely do - I'm almost always informed that I'm, in effect, damaged goods, a victim who ought to have grievances and do something drastic and legal against my father because he ruined me. I resent this. I'm fine and I'm glad he helped me feather my wings.
So why are incest and pederasty wrong? I can see how both - especially that last - are almost always wrong in our culture and in the typical environments and instances. Sure. No doubt. Rape is abhorrent. Molestation is abhorrent. Adults using children as sex toys is truly terrible.
But loving sex with one's family and early introductions? I just don't understand why I'm supposed to consider it to be so wrong and feel so ashamed.
---
Goodnight everyone - need to go now. I still have a few good posts to answer ~~tomorrow~~ as soon as I can, so apologies if I've not yet replied.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The truth of an idea should matter more than its politics +
+ What matters most about an idea is whether it is true, not its political ramifications such as subversiveness, sexism, racism, anti-semitism, etc. Those aspects are about whose power and legitimacy the idea undermines, and they have no bearing on truth, which should be the only thing that determines the believability of an idea.
Here is an example of a true racist idea: ice age adaptations make caucasians less athletic than black people. It's mainly noticeable at the extremes: the best black athletes are better than the best white athletes. I should believe this idea because evidence supports it, and not be afraid of the power dynamics it may disrupt. That is *intellectual integrity*. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The solution to unfair nipple appearances is to ban the male nipple, not "free" the female nipple +
+ I have several opinions on this matter.
First, even if it becomes more common for people to post pictures of women topless, private sites like Facebook or Instagram are fully entitled to block/remove those posts. They are private websites, so they can choose what is decent and indecent to be posted.
Secondly, although I am conservative in nature, I think it is best for Western Culture to adopt a "no nipples" censorship.
I think that nipples are sexualized features in all genders, and if there is a huge concern with there being inequality in male vs. female nipple showing, then it should be taboo for anyone to show their nipples, and topless pictures (of all genders) should be removed.
I would love to have my mind opened to why people want the female nipple freed, instead of having the male nipple banned. I sincerely do not understand their view. So, 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 lid of the toilet serves no purpose. +
+ In my life never have I ever found the *top toilet lid* to be useful.
[I'm speaking about the one that serves to close the toilet.](https://d1ge0kk1l5kms0.cloudfront.net/images/G/01/th/aplus/kohler/kohler-glenbury-K-4733-seatprofile-lg.jpg)
I've never touched any because **I don't acknowledge any use for it**:
1. It **doesn't stop odors** because it's not even remotely hermetical
1. It **doesn't hush sounds** if used before flushing, explained in point 1. (Doesn't hush sound if used after flushing either)
1. After you leave the toilets there is **no mess that should be hidden**
1. It's **usually dirty**, more so when you're not in your own place.
1. I've, very occasionally, used it to put things on the toilets, but again that is very very rare and according to point 4, **not really the cleanest way to put things**.
I **don't consider the top lid to be a shelf.**
I'd be glad to hear some of your opinions on this. Thanks.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: women only want sex from folks that will provide for them in the long run +
+ before you guys bombard me with downvotes i would simply like to point out that i am not saying this is true. i am just expressing my conditional views that i am forced to live with. these are obviously the views i wish you guys could help me conquer.
to get started i'm pretty sure that by now you guys are probably thinking "this fool has spend too much time at /r/theredpill". but i'm not gonna lie, i was a member there once. in fact i had this mentality years before being part of that subreddit. it wasnt till last year when they decided to banned me over some stupid post that i finally woke up and ended up realizing how stupid and ignorant i been by using such sexist tactics to fulfill the grudges i held towards women for my past unsuccessful moments with them. i simply moved on and said "fuck it! i dont want to be miserable like these guys."
anyways growing up i was always conditioned to believe that we men are always happy and conformed with life just as long as we got a vagina to stick our penises in whenever it is available to us while women in the other hand dont just want a penis in them. they only want a penis that...
-will provide for them and take care of them in the long run
-is as hot as Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt or Christian Bale
-that is rich and wealthy
-that's gonna give them the will and ability to make all their other girlfriends jealous
-and the list goes on
anyways those these things are common logic in today's society unfortunately i know that this cant always be the case. i feel like i got these things engraved in my conscious now and no matter how much i try to see it from a positive perspective i always get a rush of negative thoughts from my past experiences and old believes that force me to end up back in the old pessimistic mindset that i been stuck with all of my life.
so can anyone please help me conquer this mindset once and for all?
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Poor Americans shouldn't be buying houses and be renting instead. +
+ I believe that poor americans shouldn't be taking out large mortgages that they don't have the ability to pay for. Instead they should rent out apartments.Homeownership is toted as beneficial to individuals but that has not been the case in the wake of the housing bubble. From where I stand, I feel home owners buy bigger houses than they would normally buy if they had to save up for the money instead of taking out loans. This is partly because when people buy homes, they feel that it is something permanent hence, they should get a good one. Also, tax deductions and low interest rates distort market signals, influencing people to buy larger houses than they would've otherwise.
You might say that housing is an investment and one of the few ways for the poor to invest their savings. I would disagree. Most people want to buy their houses for life and are unlikely to sell their houses (more than once or twice in a lifetime at max). You would have better luck at the stock market. Which unlike the housing market is easier to liquidate and buy/sell.
Also, renting in my opinion is cheaper. Why? Because people are more likely to rent smaller apartments than what they would've gone for if they were buying the place. That again, is the psychological effect of seeing housing a long term investment and also the emotional aspect of thinking a home is special and since I'm buying it once, I should get a good one. Moreover, the existence of a bubble proves that the price of homes had exceeded its value (which is rent) and continues to do so due to all the speculation going around in the housing market.
Lets not forget, that renting also allows you the option to change homes readily when a cheaper one is available. If you owned a house you probably wouldn't be selling it for a mere hundred dollars a month, even though over time that might be a large sum but selling a house is a rough ordeal and finding buyers who are willing to pay the asking price is hard. Overall, it isn't easy changing homes you own as it is when you are renting.
One more point for renting, it allows you to be mobile and move to places where jobs are least abundant to where it is most. You can change neighborhoods easily when the one you are living in is going to dumps. Owning a home would make it difficult as the value of your homes drop and you are unable to move without incurring a huge loss.
| 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 ridiculous to be offended by a rape scene in a show (Game of Thrones) that features a violent murder almost every episode +
+ I'll try not to spoil anything here for people who haven't watched Game of Thrones, but this post is specifically about events in that show. So if you don't watch it, or intend to, perhaps this is a good time to skedaddle.
[Tonight's episode featured a rape scene.](/sp) I Googled 'game of thrones rape' to find that within an hour of the episode airing, several prominent publications had already posted articles with titles like 'Did Game of Thrones go too far?' 'Was that rape scene necessary?' etc. etc. I don't even want to check Twitter because I have a feeling it's full of the same.
A rape scene! Outrage! When will rape culture stop!? GoT went too far!
Yet the show also depicts HUNDREDS, literally HUNDREDS of murders. Murders of babies. Murders of parents in front of the children. Casual murder. There was a murder of an unborn child in one episode.
Yet the only reaction people have to those is that "they miss that character" or "OMG I DID NOT SEE THAT COMING."
**HERE'S WHAT I'M NOT SAYING:** I'm not saying that rape is acceptable, or that we should just sit back and enjoy it when it's depicted on film. That scene was hard as hell to watch. I'm also not saying that we should be outraged that Game of Thrones (or any show for that matter) is ultra violent and depicts so much murder.
But I think it's absurd to get worked up about a show depicting something terrible (rape) while totally ignoring that it constantly depicts something that is, in my opinion, worse (murder).
Change my view.
Example of what I'm talking about (scroll down for Twitter reactions as well):
[here](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/game-of-thrones/11612290/rape-game-of-thrones.html)
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The amount the American government spends on warfare is not as bad as it's critics say. +
+ I see this all the time on reddit, and I kind of grow annoyed with it, mostly because I am going through the ROTC program now and will be commissioning into the US Navy in 1 year's time - "We are overspending on military, money could be better spent somewhere else." The reason I decided to join the military was mostly due to growing up and listening to the news about "car-bomb" goes off here, or "6 killed in gunfight" over there, but when I looked out my window, all I saw was my neighborhood friends playing in the street. This country seemed special to me. It seemed like one of the safest places to live, and before *really* living in it, I wanted to give back some of the years of my life in order to keep it safe for the next kid to grow up in. I am not democratic or republican, I just believe that our safety is #1, and I would rather be over-kill than under when it comes to it.
I think one of the reasons the US is so well protected, so much so that we will never have another war on our homeland, so much so that we could deter almost all biological, chemical, ballistic, nuclear what-have-you threats against us, so much so that if there were to be an all-out free for all war across the entire globe, we would be the last ones standing, is because of our over powering military. We are unparalleled in any nation in technology, even the stuff the gov't allows us to see is spectacular, and we are the ones selling new tech to our allies, not the other way around. I believe it is this "untouchableness" that keeps us safe, no country on the planet would feel good going into a fight with us, and it's due to the national defense budget.
As a democratic nation, we have elected the people we found best suited for the job to run our country, so why would we not empower them to make bills supporting the military? It is these peoples *jobs* to figure out what we need to remain the top global superpower, we elected these people, and yet we have citizens who would prefer more spending in infrastructure so they can get to work faster.
I am on track to become a naval pilot with hopes to obtain a masters degree and move on to work for NASA after my 5 year commitment, so I will be the first to understand that there are programs out there that could do crazy amazing things with even 5% of the military budget, but I still remain that I would put space exploration on the back burner to national safety.
Yes, perhaps we are going a little overkill on military spending, but it is in fact that overkill that keeps us untouchable in the global theater, and I would prefer to keep it that way than attempt to start divvying the military budget to everybody and their mother that seems to *need* that money until not much is left.
Additional pro-military-budget notes not related to US defense:
We are often called out for policing the world, but when there is bloodshed and conflict somewhere on the globe that needs to be cooled off, who do they call first? Not to mention with our vast naval fleet, we are nearly always the first to respond and provide medicine and relief efforts to earthquakes, tsunamis, you name it. Our military works to our allies' advantage as well, if a 9/11 incident were to occur in Britain you can be sure their Osama Bin Laden would be hunted down if not killed by our soldiers.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I think that for someone like me with real & consistent access to vegan options, every time I eat animal products, I'm doing something selfish & morally wrong. +
+ I've been a vegetarian with no problem for 18 years now. 7 months ago, after reading [this AMA](http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2h8df0/i_am_an_80yearold_holocaust_survivor_who/) with Dr. Alex Hershaft, a Holocaust survivor and animal rights activist, I decided it was past time that I went vegan. I no longer believe there is available to me (presently, vat-grown stuff is looking pretty neat) such a thing as 'humane' eggs or dairy-- among other examples, egg-laying hen breeders kill roosters when they are still chicks and dairy cows are forcibly impregnated and their babies taken away from them. I understand that there's no way to completely avoid harming another creature, especially in our current industrial agriculture system, but I think it's my responsibility to reduce the harm I do as much as I can. I live in the U.S., have a good income, real & consistent access to vegan alternatives, and have never experienced health problems from not eating animal products.
Yet, I'm still struggling. Even after I added a 'freegan' clause that I can eat animal products I am not paying for that would otherwise be thrown away (just as I can buy used leather shoes-- I'm not contributing to demand for the product), I often give in to temptation when, say, ice cream is on the table. I know veganism is not about being perfect, but still, I know better. And there's a lot of social pressure-- everyone seems to hate vegans, thinks we're self-righteous pains in the ass, up to and including my live-in boyfriend.
I truly believe that contributing to the demand for exploitative animal products is wrong, deeply wrong and utterly fucked. And at the same time, I desperately (forgive the adverbs) want to give up veganism altogether and eat a plate of cheese fries from my favorite dive bar every other day. 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: Fast food restaurant meals' default state should include no toppings +
+ Hello, CMV! I'll clarify myself with a situation that just happened to me. I went to a fast food restaurant, ordered my meal, and took it home to eat. When I opened up my food, I realized the meal included a large amount of chopped onions. Now, I absolutely loathe the taste of onions so my choices were to slowly pick out each onion, then add some other topping to mask the taste or not eat the food I just bought. This led me to realize that the default for food at fast food places should have no toppings at all and, if you want toppings, you would just ask to have the workers add them on.
From a customer's perspective, I think this would cause a lot of people less issues when ordering food. There are plenty of people, for example, who don't like the default lettuce, tomatoes, onions, mustard, mayo etc. that are put on hamburgers. However, not every hamburger meal includes those toppings. So, customers have to either know or ask what comes on the meal in order to ensure no topping they don't like is included. With the new system, they would just order what meal they wanted and ask the workers to add what reasonable toppings they want which I think is much easier and way less likely to lead to mistakes and unhappy customers.
Now, this would only include toppings that aren't stated outright in the meal name. For example, if you order a BBQ bacon burger, of course the hamburger is going to include BBQ sauce and bacon. Or if you order a grilled onion hot dog, of course the hot dog is going to have grilled onions. My proposal is just for meals without specific toppings in the name like a McDouble or a Whopper.
From a restaurant's perspective I think it would save a fair amount of money because you're not preparing to add on 3-5 toppings on a meal that could just end up in the trash. Instead, you're just liable for the basics and any extras would be added on. I don't see a reason for the price of meals to change at all. Whether customers have toppings on their meals or not in the current system, the price usually stays the same.
So there it is, change my view!
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: People have a moral obligation to watch ISIS execution videos to expose them to the true horrors of life under extremist rule. +
+ Recently I have begun to fell that when news of these executions comes through on the news many people read about it, talk about how awful it is, then move on to the next news story and give the subject little other thought. I think that watching these videos would have a much greater impact on people and make them more likely to do something to help. Personally, if I watch videos like this I feel sick and it disturbs me for about half a week. I cannot forget about them easily. Just reading about these events does not have this effect and I can forget about the issues relatively quickly.
Secondly I am sure some people cannot visually imagine how horrific these events are. Being exposed to footage of it will be a shock and a wake up call to how bad life can be for some people. This in turn will make them more likely to take action.
I will make it plain that I do not think people should be viewing these sorts of videos for entertainment of any kind.
Finally it seems I am not alone, [this article](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/sean-penn-watches-isis-beheading-videos-out-of-moral-obligation-the-problem-is-we-are-not-seeing-enough-of-real-violence-10127603.html) may help you understand my argument better than I can express it.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Anyone who believes that inflicting physical pain or death on an adult as punishment for a perceived wrongdoing believes in revenge, not justice. +
+ Whilst browsing Reddit, I come across comments with surprising popularity that endorse the idea that people who have committed a crime are fully deserving of a physical punishment, often carried out by someone acting on the interests of the victim, regardless of what the law has to say on the matter. Posts talking about fathers beating up boys who cheat on their daughter, or killing a man who drove drunk and killed their son in the process, often receive support following the idea that ‘they totally deserved it, they were awful people’.
I feel that this is a barbaric way of looking at things. Many people seem to be of the opinion that ‘an eye for an eye’ is the best form of justice, that it settles all disputes. This person killed someone, so we should kill them. That person cheated, they should get beaten up. Fair is fair right?
But that’s just revenge, defined as ‘the action of hurting or harming someone in return for an injury or wrong suffered at their hands’. Does a person who cheated, whilst it is an undeniably awful breach of trust, deserve to receive physical punishment for their actions? The aggrieved might think so, but I find it incredible that even people who are not directly involved are not reasonable enough to admit that this shouldn’t happen.
In more serious cases, such as murder, I still do not believe that the perpetrator’s death can bring about anything other than brief respite for the aggrieved. I understand that people feel that killing a murderer improves society by their absence, but I believe that whilst idealistic, the method of attempted rehabilitation is preferable (and actually is cheaper, if that should be a factor at all) than killing the person. I don’t think a person forfeits their human rights by breaching those of another, as doing so would make those in charge of their fate act as the accused has acted.
The punishment for a crime should not be decided by the victim or those with the victim’s interests at heart, and such actions should not be celebrated. Instead, a group of unbiased individuals who can make their decision based on justice should decide, not revenge.
**TL;DR** Explain to me why the punishment someone receives for their actions should be based on revenge for the victim and not an unbiased judgement based on justice.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I believe that you, die-hard atheists, would be doing a good thing if you instilled faith into your children. +
+ Dear reader, let me re-introduce you to an argument known as ["Pascal's Wager"](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager), which you probably know about if you decided to look here.
From Wikipedia:
I am addressing the counter-arguments of "Nature as not a proof of the existence of God" and "Argument from inauthentic belief", which you should read about if you would like to talk to me about those.
Since I'm not great at reported speech, I will quote the thoughts of my imaginary atheist:
I only see as conflicting the "Argument from inconsistent revelations",
e but even so, instilling ANY faith could still be better than NO faith, more because a number of deities value believers more than non-believers.
As such, Change My View, from the standpoint that there is multiple religions, and, for the sake of argument, from the standpoint that there is only one religion in the world (imagine a planet of only Christians and atheists, or Jews and atheists, etc.)
tl;dr - I should teach my kid to believe in God and be a good human being, and not just the latter.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:There are only three genders +
+ Okay, so this is something I see very often and sparks arguments fast. I've heard a lot about this "sex and gender are not the same", but that is not agreed on by all. Actually, if I have understood correctly (from Wikipedia, but ofc it might be wrong) the view is mostly held by those who study womens' studies/gender studies, and not even all of those. Sex and gender are used interchangeably in common speech in English, and do not have separate words in my native tongue.
I do not mean to say that there are no such thing as trans people. But trans people are not their own gender. A woman who identifies as a man is a man and not a FtM-gibberishgender. At least I haven't met any transgender people who want to identify as something else than male, female or intersex. If someone is physically female and identifies as toothpaste, I do not know if that is a gender.
The three genders then would be male, meaning either strictly those with a penis, or anyone who identifies as a male, female, meaning either everyone with a vagina or anyone who identifies as a female, and intersex, either strictly meaning anyone who is not cis male or cis female, or anyone who does not associate themselves with the two other genders.
I am myself in favour of the less strict versions.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Abortion is killing +
+ The idea is pretty simple but I want to clarify that I don't want to talk about when is abortion justifiable. I'm just simply answering the question: Is abortion killing?
Let's take two women: Annie and Belle. Both of them get pregnant and none of them wants their kid. Annie goes and aborts the kid. Belle on the other hand first gives birth to the baby, then she kills it. Right after it's born she takes out a knife and kills the baby. The result is the same in both cases. Neither of the two children actually lived because their mother ended their life. That means to me that Annie did just the same thing as Belle did: she killed her baby.
CMV
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I think that students/workers who want to use adderall/vyvanse as an enhancer but don't have add/ADHD should be allowed to do so. +
+ So, I'm a senior in highschool right now. I fell really deep into senioritis (the condition where one has gotten into college but remains in highschool until graduation, and becomes exceedingly lazy) and managed to convince my parents that my bad grades (aka so bad I was close to NOT graduating) were a result of undiagnosed attention deficit. I've since been prescribed vyvanse. Now, the difference on this stuff is incredible. I am motivated, I am hardworking, and I am happy when I'm on it. I am a fully productive member of society when I'm on this stimulant. Furthermore, I've visited the adderall/vyavnse subreddits/forums and the consensus is mostly the same. Its a goddamned "magic pill".
Mainly, the users I read that dislike it are the ones who were put on the stuff at an exceedingly early age. Which I agree is a (for the most part) terrible thing. Especially if they never really had an attention deficit disorder.
The thing is, I don't see why we prevent people who don't have add from taking this (other than the potential for abuse). A lazy, unproductive person wants to turn himself around and become productive? I don't see why they shouldn't have the opportunity to take this. Someone needs to do some spring cleaning but can't get themselves to do it? Why *prevent* them from using this?
Overall, I just see these stimulants as a tool. And furthermore, from a societal perspective, its use by people seems to be almost entirely beneficial.
Now, there is the potential for abuse. I want to disregard this part for discussion, however. 2 reasons: 1) I only want to talk about the people without ADHD but who want to self-improve. 2) those who want to abuse can already do so in that its not extremely difficult to get it illegally.
One other point is that it provides an unfair advantage to students. Well, I see it as a choice. If you use it it is entirely up to the individual. The people who feel disadvantaged have an equal opportunity to get it (disregarding prices). There are already people without ADHD using the drugs, the only difference is that they pretend to have it.
A final point that I think some people have is the "zombification" of students. I say that's bullshit though. Personally, I've never been happier with both my academics "and* my social life. Never before have I had so much time to enjoy my free time because I'm no longer aimlessly procrastinating or taking forever to do simple assignments.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Most all of America's problems could be solved by reallocating a good proportion of our military budget. +
+ I'm not saying cutting it completely. I'm just saying that if at least half of our military budget was repurposed (I'm not going to discuss WHAT it should go into, that's a whole other issue), a lot of america's problems could be solved-- [just about 275 Billion dollars](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures) could do a lot of good for the people. For instance, pouring that money into higher public education and health care would be a tremendous boost to people's quality of life!
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I find it problematic that a Clinton and Bush is runing for president again +
+ So first of I am danish. That means that I follow american politics, much in the same way I follow german politics. Somethings are importent for me and my situation, but most thing are not that importent to me. It is kind of like watching a football match where you don't cheer for any of the teams.
With that said I find it kind of scary that there is a Clinton and a Bush in this election. The kings in Denmark used to be elected, some thousand years ago, but then it became normal to elect kings from the same familly. Then latter it was always the oldest son and then we endeed up with the system where the king was always the oldest son from the old king. The same is more or less true in many other countries. People seem to rather want to vote on people from families they know than random people.
To me it kind of seems like America is getting set in their political dynasties and that if this development continues, we might end up with a system where everyone in theory can try to be elected president, but in practise it will always be people from the same political dynasties that gets elected. That is not a nice view to have. Please change it.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Anybody that complains about capitalism on the internet is a hypocrite. +
+ I've seen plenty of people on the internet and even some in real life that honestly believe that capitalism and corporations are evil. I don't have a problem with people holding this belief if they actually believed it. Every single one of these people buy phones, computers, internet, food, and clothes which are all produced and provided by corporations. They purchase these products and services with the money they got from working a job. It is irresponsible, hypocritical, and disillusion for these people to condemn the very institutions that they patronize and support.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: There should be a law that any Guacamole that is sold must contain at least 75% (for example) Avocado +
+ From wikipedia:
Guacamole [...] is an avocado-based dip or salad that began with the Aztecs in Mexico. In addition to its use in modern Mexican cuisine it has also become part of American cuisine as a dip, condiment and salad ingredient. It is traditionally made by mashing ripe avocados and sea salt with a molcajete (mortar and pestle). Some recipes call for tomato, onion, garlic, lemon or lime juice, chili or cayenne pepper, yogurt, cilantro or basil, jalapeño and/or additional seasonings.
Yet, when I buy guacamole in stores, the first ingredient almost invaraible reads "cream cheese". I've seen avocado percentages as low as 8%. That is false advertising. Guacamole is made from avocado. Not cream cheese.
You may say that they do show the ingredients list, so it should not care. But most people don't read the list. They just assume that if it says Guacamole on the packet, that's what is inside.
And that's entirely reasonable. Say for example you bought some vodka, but when you drink it, it just tastes like water. And then you find out that the "vodka" actually only has 1% Alcohol and is almost entirely water. Even if it said all that on the bottle, it would still be grossly misleading to call that "vodka".
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Black slavery is alive and well in the United States. +
+ Hi, allright so as I see it.
Black Americans make up ~10% of our population but ~40% of our incarcerated.
Large majorities of our incarcerated population have been sentenced on minor drug and possession charges made possible by the war on drugs.
The US prison system is structured as a profitable venture, those profits coming overwhelmingly from the tax-pool (insofar as I understand this).
The only conclusion I can reach from this is that an institution of normalized slavery exists and functions on a wide scale in the united states.
Following emancipation, there was a long period where black slavery in America truly did function, with large work camps and prison gulags sourcing labour from the black community after slapping them with minor charges, loitering, etc. As far as I can tell, this never stopped and has only grown in scope.
Racial minorities in america (overwhelmingly black and hispanic) are obviously mostly incarcerated. Whether or not our justice system is structurally racist is not the issue here. It is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USA_2009._Percent_of_adult_males_incarcerated_by_race_and_ethnicity.png
I sort of came here from elsewhere on reddit after running into this documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAJLSpUXawE
(from where I cited the work camp/gulag comment)
Anyway, this realization has made me quite uncomfortable, that my tax dollars support.. you know, racial slavery, because even after a brief review of the numbers involved here... yea I don't know what else to call it. Is that not what is going on here? Is there something I don't fully understand about how prisons operate? | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: MRAs are right to claim that there are men's issues. However, the way they're trying to address them is ineffective and quite possibly makes things worse. +
+ The fact that men are disadvantaged in child custody cases is appalling. So is that fact that men who call the police to report domestic violence against them are more likely to be arrested than the ACTUAL PERPETRATOR. That's disgusting, and obviously I could list many other real problems.
But the MRM is not the best solution to these problems, and often gives men's issues such bad press that it's toxic to defend them. In other words, it's not the MRM's fault that these problems exist, but it's actively damaging to the cause, quite possibly more than it has helped.
Distancing itself from feminism breaks the gender equality world into "men's activists" and "women's activists." This causes us to ignore that gender inequality is bad for everyone. No one wins when a man is arrested for being assaulted by a woman. This is not a victory for women's rights. Everyone loses, because a criminal walks free while an innocent person sits in jail. Sure, there are extremists who will claim to hate all men and think this is fine, but there are also crazy atheists who claim to hate all religious people. This isn't "no true Scotsman," this is pointing out that it's unreasonable to define a group by its crazies, because if we did, no group would be reasonable.
Pitting MRAs against feminists undermines the notion of actual gender equality and makes it a "men vs. women" debate, which we all lose.
It would seem, to me, that a better strategy to promote men's issues would be to do it within the feminist movement. The feminist movement has existed for a long time and (relative to the MRM) is reasonably positively regarded. People get behind feminist issues. MRAs often complain that no feminists care about men's issues, but a) this doesn't seem to be entirely true unless we're yelling about strawmen and extremists and b) this would be even less true if people stopped leaving feminism/gender egalitarianism for the MRM. It looks like people are ditching feminism for the MRM and then complaining that feminists don't care about men's issues, which is only true because anyone who did left. Why can't we all just work together? I get that there are people who identify with all of the above, but it seems like EVERYONE who considers themselves ANY of the above should care about all of the above. I really can't think of an intellectually honest reason to care only about men's issues or women's issues. They're both real. So why are we treating them as opposing forces? It's not like we have to ban abortions because we start listening to male victims of violence. This isn't a zero sum game, why is it being treated as one? Everyone seems to think it is, and it just doesn't make sense to me.
Some things I anticipate people saying:
"What about gender egalitarians?"
I think rebranding feminism as gender egalitarianism would probably be the best solution, but that's going to take a hell of a lot of time. One thing that would help is if feminists started acting like gender egalitarians and actually cared about all gender issues, and MRAs joining up with them would only speed up the process. As for people who consider themselves "feminists and gender egalitarians," I see no issue. "Feminist, MRA, and gender egalitarian" is fine too, although I've never encountered one who phrased it like that. Those who consider themselves anti-feminists but gender egalitarians... Eh. I really don't know, but I feel like shitting on feminism in general is not helpful to the gender equality discussion. (this is as opposed to legitimate critiquing, which is fair game. I'm not saying anything anyone labelled "feminist" does is above reproach, nor anything the movement does. I'm saying condemning all of modern feminism and trying to start from scratch is really unhelpful, especially when a huge part of the world is still incredibly patriarchal; see countries where getting raped is still a crime--if you're female).
"Feminists aren't open to men's issues. I hear what you're saying, but that's not possible."
Become a feminist open to men's issues. You're listening to one right now. Make that two and we're one step closer.
"It's right for men's and women's issues to have different advocates because they are different. You might as well be saying that feminism should just merge with the LGBTQ rights movement."
I don't think that's true. Men's and women's issues differ, but they are rooted in the same fundamental ideas. The reason men are arrested when they are the victim of domestic violence by women is that we live in a society that sees women differently from men. It's benevolently sexist to say that a woman simply couldn't hurt a man except in self-defense. It's also hostile sexist against men to say that men are simply violent people. Men's and women's issues are intrinsically linked, because stereotypes and perceptions of gender roles are the root of both. Essentially, I think men's and women's issues are symptoms of the same problem, so they can be addressed together.
"Is your problem with anti-feminists, or MRAs? You seem to move between the two."
Both, to some degree. I don't think it's fair to treat those two entirely separately, given the links. MRAs who are anti-feminist are the ones I disagree with most. People who identify as MRAs but also feminists I'm largely okay with, but the MRM in general is not terribly kind to feminists and borders on actively anti-feminist, which is the problem I'm talking about here.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: A major loophole within modern American Feminism is that many American Feminists don't explore different possibilities and points of views that differ with theirs (NSFW imagery) +
+ I'm an anti-feminist. I support equal rights activism, but I don't support feminism, and here is my main reason (one of them).
I feel that many modern American feminists don't understand the process of argument, and they tend to ignore the opposing opinion.
Here is an example: I see so many feminists take a magazine cover like [this](http://ftape.com/media/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Rihanna_GQ_Magazine_04.jpg) and one like [this](http://www.celebitchy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/JGL-GQ.jpg) and say that the former is sexually objectifying women, while the second is praising men for being successful.
I would post the link to the pro-feminist list that said this, but the link isn't working (TheAmazingAtheist made a video on the list, but the link he gave didn't work for me)
The reason I feel this argument holds little merit is for a few reasons:
1) GQ is a men's magazine (the magazine in the images), so of course it will use sexually attractive women and succesful looking men to attract men to the magazine, that's called advertising.
2) A magazine called "Men's health magazine" has covers that show sexually attractive men. Is that wrong? No, the point of the magazine is to attract men who want to be healthy, and having a man who is sexy on the cover will attract those men to be like "I wanna be sexy too!"
3) This argument infers the opinion that human sexuality is "bad" and can not be shown off.
The above three statements can be reworded and applied to many feminist ideas.
I am not saying that all Feminist arguments are illogical, but many of them are, because many American feminists aren't looking at the right issues.
TL;DR: Many American-feminist's ideas have very little backing.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The way Reddit functions insures that you cannot fight against the popular opinion. +
+ First time CMVer, but hear me out. Reddit's comment system creates hivemind tendencies. It does this in two steps:
a) Creates a system were downvotes are accepted
And b) Forces redditors to deal with consequences if they are downvoted.
This creates a system, where, if you disagree with someone, you can downvote them. This also means that going against the hivemind will net you downvotes, resulting in people who spout popular opinions being the only ones who can do anything.
Ex: /r/movies does a thread about LOTR. You say you didn't enjoy it. You get downvotes and aren't allowed to speak in /r/movies until you wait ten minutes. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Captial Punishment is required by any civilized society. +
+ I believe that capital punishment is a requirement for any society to function and the arguments for its opposition are null.
If I had the power to change laws regarding capital punishment, I would expand the system and loosen the noose on what is regarded as cruel and unusual (ie hanging). When preformed correctly, hanging is effective and swift and a prisoner's pain (if any) is negligible.
I would also change how quickly a sentence is carried out. No longer does a prisoner sit on death row for the majority of his life. Strap him down and hit him with the benzos as soon as legally possible. This would reduce strain on government funds, overcrowded prisons, and the tax payer's dollar.
Miscarriages of justice in regards to capital punishment are often overblown and with with the advent of DNA evidence and other technologies are more than likely in decline.
People who argue that it is a greater to punishment rot in a cell underestimate a prisoner's comfort. Three meals a day, a bed to sleep on and clothes on your back is more than many people have outside the first world and many prisoners have athletic facilities and TV. Following the logic of what is a greater punishment is foolish because it's not about the greatness of the punishment, it's about justice being served. If you think rotting in a cell is more punishment than death, the same logic would follow: torture is a greater punishment than rotting in a cell which I am opposed to.
Death and pain aren't mutually exclusive, but sometimes they coincide; and if that means the perpetrator of a heinous crime feels something human so be it. Not all of life is comfortable and the general public are grossly sensitized to death because it is feared, misunderstood, and unknown.
I look forward to discussion! Thanks for reading.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Being Transgender to the point of wanting surgery or hormonal treatment is a mental illness, and saying otherwise is harmful to both transgender people and to the stigma surrounding mental illness. +
+ Being transgender and wanting surgery/hormonal treatment is being so uncomfortable with yourself as a person that you need invasive surgery, or completely body-altering hormonal treatment to feel comfortable. I think that the only reason we don't define it as that is political correctness, combined with the stigma around mental illness. Transgender people don't want to be lumped in with other people with mental illnesses because there is a such a stigma against it. And if society starts treating transgender people as having no mental issue, and accepting invasive surgery as the standard treatment then that will slow research towards less drastic treatments.
Ideally, in the future, if someone were to come into a doctor's office and say "I feel so bad in my current body that I want hormonal treatment and invasive surgery" the doctor would be able to prescribe something that would just make the transgender person no longer feel terrible in their current body.
| 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 morally wrong with the death penalty +
+ In the wake of the Tsarnaev verdict, I’ve been hearing a lot of voices decry the death penalty on a moral basis, with a lot of things like, “killing people is wrong, killing people for killing other people is wrong,” or, “killing a killer only brings us down to their level” being said. I’d like to go against the reddit grain a little bit and explain why I believe 1) not all killing is equally wrong, and 2) why a person who kills another might deserve death. I will try to explain my position without appealing to religion or nebulous ideas of objective morality.
In general, humans fear death. Because we are intelligent, empathetic creatures, we can recognize that the same fear of death we have is shared by all other members of our species. We can therefore recognize that the killing of a human being by another is a more terrible act than, say, a bear killing a human being, since most animals cannot be said to be fully aware of all that they’re taking from their victim when they kill them. The law recognizes intent to kill as a necessary precondition for a killing to qualify as murder. We also don’t recognize the moral culpability of the criminally insane: a person has to be aware of the hurt they are causing--and still do it anyway--to turn an act of killing into a crime. The law (and common sense) recognizes that there are degrees of right and wrong—if it didn’t, there would be no legal distinctions between types of killing (e.g. 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, manslaughter, negligent homicide, etc.) nor would there be provisions for self defense, provocation, heat of passion, or special dispensation for soldiers in wartime. Determining the heinousness of an act of killing is not straightforward, and it is to ignore the complexities of real life to make such a blanket claim as “all killing is equally wrong.”
Anyway. Because humans fear death, we create laws that forbid killing and empower the state to enforce them; we do this, ostensibly, to protect ourselves. This is not a novel concept—it’s probably most famously articulated by Rousseau in *The Social Contract*. The “social contract” is necessarily reciprocal in nature, however: all of us give up a little bit of freedom (the right to kill whomever we please) in exchange for the protection that such a law provides—we agree not to kill other people, and other people agree not to kill us. When someone breaks the contract by killing an innocent person, they break both parts of the contract, and they are no longer protected under it. A person simply can’t expect to benefit from the protection that such a law provides them their entire lives and then knowingly deprive someone else of theirs; this alone makes the act of killing a killer fundamentally different than killing an innocent person. People forget that the purpose of the death penalty is not revenge, it's punishment. Furthermore, once someone marks themselves as a threat to the community by committing an unjustified killing, the community, as exercised through the agents of the state and the justice system, is justified—and I would argue, obligated—to permanently eliminate that threat for the good of the whole community.
I’d like to end with a gigantic caveat—I am strongly anti-death penalty, but not because I believe it to be morally wrong, nor financially unsound. Rather, I believe that the system that we use to determine guilt, like all systems made by man, is imperfect. Thus, because of the possibility, however small, of executing an innocent person, I believe that the death penalty should be abolished in all cases, assuming the alternative is life imprisonment without parole.
CMV
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: parents should not read their child's private journals/diaries. +
+
I do not believe parents have a right to read their children's diaries. If parents want to find out about their child's life, they can attempt to talk to them. Reading through their private diary will only create distance between the parent and child and lead to more communication issues. Trying to take a shortcut and bypassing verbal communication with your child is only indicative of a larger problem in the family dynamic and will never end well.
I was discussing this topic in /r/adviceanimals (of all places) with a very well reasoned gentleman/lady but we could not come to an agreement on whether this behavior was acceptable. While I do understand the idea that frustration and worry for your child could lead someone to consider this action, I was simply unable to change my view, and was hoping for some further rational ideas here.
_
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Game of Thrones is shot in a very bland, utilitarian sort of way +
+ Shot composition is, in my opinion, one of the most important aspects of good cinematography, and yet despite the incredibly high production values, wonderful costumes, lavish sets, and generally decent acting, Game of Thrones never seems to make the most of the things it chooses to point a camera at.
There's something very unambitious and utilitarian about the way the shots are composed. In every episode, we're treated with one or two shots which feel like a bit of thought has gone into where the camera will be positioned and how the shot will be framed. In the most recent episode, for example, there were a few nice shots where two characters are on a beach, reflected by the wet sand. And the action scenes are generally pretty good. But the dialogue scenes are just bland. Most of the dialogue scenes between two characters follow a very uninteresting formula:
* One character is doing something quietly by themselves (reading, eating, thinking, sweeping, etc.)
* The other character approaches. We'll get a lot of static shots with both characters in the frame
* The conversation plays out, and generally neither actor will really do much during the conversation. If they were doing something before (like making a fire) they'll keep doing it, but otherwise they'll either just sit there or stand there. Only in the most extreme of cases (usually during life-or-death bits) will they let emotion actually allow them to use gestures, or do things while speaking. They're reminiscent of Skyrim characters in that way. This wouldn't be such a problem if the camera wasn't so static and uninteresting also. We'll get lots of 'shot reverse-shot', lots of static shots with both characters in, and generally every shot will be there merely to be pointed at whoever is speaking and little more. There seems no attempt to use the beautiful language of cinema to convey emotion. That scene between Jon Snow and Brian Blessed in the most recent episode, for example, was not half as tense as it could have been in the hands of more competent cinematographers.
I mean, put it this way. Watch this bit (1:20:39)[https://youtu.be/ABcXyZn9xjg?t=4839] of RedLetterMedia's excellent review of Star Wars: Episode 3. I feel you could almost lift RLM's criticism and apply it directly to Game of Thrones. Other than, as I've mentioned, the occasional decent shot (normally one per episode) and very occasionally a shot which is actually memorable (normally one per season) - can you really say Game of Thrones understands the power of shot composition any more than Episode 3 does?
One more point based on what I anticipate I will get in reply to this: I don't think it's unfair to hold TV shows to the same high standard of cinematography that films achieve. We've seen what TV shows can achieve with great filming: Breaking Bad (particularly the episodes directed by Rian Johnson such as 'Fly', 'Ozymandias' and '51') frames shots to help us understand its characters through the power of symbolism. Garth Marenghi's Darkplace exploits the limitations of the film medium for comedic effect. Even hit-and-miss shows like Sherlock manage to shoot scenes in creative, interesting ways. Game of Thrones, however, seems almost entirely utilitarian in its approach. As long as we can see what's going on in each shot, that's good enough for them.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: People who are Pro-Life or Anti-Abortion (specifically those who oppose abortion at any stage) have an obligation to adopt at least one child. +
+ **Note:** *I do not want to argue on whether a fetus should be considered a human or at what stage a fetus is considered alive and has the right to life.*
How many children are brought into this world to parents who are in no way capable of handling the responsibility of raising them to successful adults? How many of these parents decided against abortion solely because of the stigma attached to it and the shame thrown at them by pro-lifers?
There are half a million children in need of loving homes in foster care or available for adoption. Yet I never see any pro-lifers protesting for a better foster care system or standing up and adopting the children that are brought into this world unwanted. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:It does not matter how painful or gruesome a form of execution is. If you have been sentenced to death you do not deserve to die painlessly. +
+ This argument does not have to do with innocent people being improperly sentenced to death, this is set in a hypothetical case where guilt was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
I believe that if you have been sentenced to death that means your crime was so heinous that you are deemed irreparable, a permanent threat to society. Why should we show any concern with someone we are about to kill? The murderer (for example) did not show concern with the well being of their victim, so why should we do the same? Would it not benefit society if we could save money and use bullets or a rope every time?
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: slam poetry should be categorized as oratory, not poetry +
+ Slam poetry is an interesting art form, but it's really very different from regular poetry. Consider its qualities:
Regular poetry:
* Precise verbal composition is emphasized
* Rhythm and meter are often important
* The creator is solely a composer, not a performer (except incidentally)
Slam poetry:
* Performance, delivery, and engagement with the audience are emphasized
* There are, as far as I know, no metrical forms; flow is important instead
* The creator is equally a composer and a performer
These really seem to describe a form of oratory much better than they describe a form of poetry. Is there a good reason not to call it that? I'm not making a value judgment, I just think the terminology is muddled.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:The outrage, emotional investment, and hate the general population has in relation to the Tsarnaev case is blown way out of proportion, particularly in Boston +
+ Some Context: Frist off I grew up around the Boston area, graduated from a college in Boston, currently work and live in Boston, was on the marathon route (about 2 miles away) when the bombing occurred, I always have and always will consider Boston home.
Secondly, I am not asking people to explain why they feel he they believe he should receive the death penalty or not. Or even why his crimes are worthy of the death penalty. His actions are reprehensible, and I fully believe he is guilty and should receive punishment in accordance with law befitting his crimes.
Anyways,
The bombing and subsequent manhunt resulted in 4 deaths and a dozens of injuries. Clearly a terrible tragedy, please do not misconstrue me, I think that what happened was awful.
However, I think the response, especially around Boston has been extremely disproportionate.
News articles, to blogs, to overheard conversations, to David Ortiz, for the past 2 years all you hear is a sensationalized response that includes hate speech, violent calls for vengeance, overly emotional opining, and nonsense about "Boston strong" that arises from mob mentality I have seen countless comments on articles saying incredibly vengeful and disturbing things wished on Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, "I want to see him hang in the streets" is a very mild example. Additionally I have seen a lot of anti-Muslim rhetoric and straight out bigotry because of these events.
BostonStrong has become synonymous with the city and its prominent organizations. A charity for the victims (some of which include very profitable retail business in Copley Square) of the bombing has gathered millions in donations. I have seen people even tangentially related to Boston claiming it was an emotional and devastating event for them, again not victims, but someone who might have lived in Boston a few years back. What does Boston Strong even mean? I personally believe it means nothing. Boston reacted the way any city would to two rogue terrorists. It started as a way to raise money for the one fund but has devolved into nothing more than a marketing gimmick for area businesses and something for bros to use as a hashtag.
However when you look at the outrage, vitriol, and media coverage surrounding other violent crimes, for example serial rape, multiple homicides, pedophilia, even drunk driving homicides. The level of interest and reaction is not even close.
I understand it was a very public event with terrorist intentions, but people in Boston act like it's the next 9/11. It simply is not. No where near the damage and no connection to an international terrorist organization.
In many ways I think the actions of drunk drivers who kill a car full of innocents are as much or more reprehensible than those of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. A drunk driver kills someone due to their own selfishness and stupidity. Dzhokhar and his brother believed they were getting justice for innocent people killed in Afghanistan and Iraq. He knew very well that he would likely be caught, and yet he believed strongly enough that what he was doing was right that he went through with it then penned a letter in blood stating his motive as he lay dying in a boat.
I'm not defending his actions I think they are terrible but I think the outrage and rah-rah mob mentality and blind patriotism (city-ism?) I've seen for the past two years is grossly misplaced. The Boston Strong mentality is flawed, the Tsarnaevs didn't attack Boston they attacked the US, Boston just happened to be where they lived, and while it was great to see a city come together after a tragedy I believe the Boston Strong thing was taken too far. Around college campuses it became a rallying cry to legitimize bigotry about immigrants from the middle east and an excuse to party, meanwhile atrocities committed by born and bred Americans go largely unnoticed.
While no one I know personally was injured by the events, I am still from Boston but I failed to be personally hurt or particularly jarred by these events. Meanwhile, I witnessed students who had been in the city for a handful of months post impassioned social media posts calling for executions and making claims to how strong and resilient "their city was", no one was gonna mess with "their" town that they had been inhabiting for a whopping 1.5 college semesters.
I think his crimes were terrible, but no more terrible than other similar crimes, and certainly not warranting the reaction that has occurred since Marathon Monday 2013. I just can't get behind the lynch mob, or the notion that somehow Boston reacted better than any other city would.
TLDR- The hate, vitriol, and mob mentality surrounding the Dzhokhar Tsarnaev case is blown way out of proportion, considering atrocities that occur every day. this is particularly bad in Boston and even worse in Boston student communities.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: If a killer asteroid were headed to Earth, Humans would be able to stop it. +
+ I say "killer asteroid" in the title for brevity, but I mean any celestial object (asteroid, comet, planetoid, etc) large enough to wipe out life on Earth.
I have three basic reasons:
1. We know there are no planet-destroyers in the Asteroid Belt, which means anything that'd take out Earth would need to come from the Kuiper Belt or the Oort Cloud. Both of these are very far away, and would give us lots of warning, even if the object were presently on its impact trajectory orbit. More likely, we'd detect it multiple orbits in advance, and have decades or centuries before predicted impact. But I think we'll at least have multiple years.
2. Nuclear weapons would be pretty effective at deflecting an object. They are very energy dense, and [we can use a standoff detonation](http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/neo/report2007.html) to cause ablation on one side of the comet/asteroid and nudge it. We only need a very slight nudge to push it off of an Earthbound trajectory when it is far away.
3. If an impact were imminent, humanity would throw all feasible resources into stopping it. A lot of the things which make present space travel difficult would be overcome fast. We would allow launches which have a high chance of spreading radioactive debris onto Earth for instance, or which have a high chance of loss of human life. We might even send astronauts on a suicide mission. Of course, money would be no object for this, and massive logistical resources would be poured into anything with a chance of saving us.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I don't see ANY reason why a system should exist where people automatically consent to organ donations and are forced to opt out. +
+ If you want to sacrifice your organs and give them to others that's great and very noble of you and you have my props for doing what you believe is right, but this is a different discussion:
a) One of the most common arguments I see used is saying "most people don't care either way" and honestly, using statistics to say "omg People don't care" is silly. It's ridiculously to spin statistics anyway and what makes anyone think people polled are informed enough to know their heads from their posteriors. I mean 80% of Americans approved of the Iraq war when it started. Not to mention some people are pretty ignorant and probably never considered their own perspective or thought about it (look at how LSD and marijuana are banned when neither one are even remotely close to as harmful as alcohol or cigs). People also aren't number they're individuals with different view points, so using statistics to evaluate people on an individual basis is a huge joke.
b) Look at how badly the government screwed up obamacare's rollout. Being forced to try and withdraw yourself from the system could easily been insanely complicated regardless of what people may claim it's easy. If it may work somewhere else, doesn't mean it'll work in America. I personally wouldn't be surprised if it was as hard to do as cancelling AOL. Mindless bureaucracy screws people over, and so does the American government most of the time.
C) A lot of people will most likely end up not knowing the rules and end up just having their organs donated without even saying yes or no because they're in the system and don't know about it. How is that any different than rape? You don't consent and are just in the system, and you have to know to opt out. Look at how many people don't know the basic rules of the US government. At the very minimum people should have to sign a form at age 18 to consent either way similar to something like the selective service, so they actually know what the hell is going to happen to their own body.
D) What about pluripotent stem cells or bionic organs or even nanotechnology to repair issues in organs? Why resort to mandatory consent without exhausting every other option first? Resorting to forced consent before at least trying other options fully is bad mojo, imagine if that is applied to any other legislation because "it worked for organ donations". I get the religious right have a kneejerk reaction to "omg stem cells", but honestly that's way better than having "organ rape".
E) I don't want my organs in someone else's body and will exercise everything in my power to make sure that doesn't happen. Also adult life is all about artificial hardships and being totally unnecessarily complicated due to bs social constructions and limitations in the way people see themselves and others. Why would I want to make the average persons life easier by sacrificing a part of me considering medicine's primitive understanding of the complexities of the human body there may be a lot of issues or factors a person's organs predispose us to that we don't even know? Epigenetics is poorly understood, look at the bioinformatics information overload (basically there's huge databases computing massive amounts of that we don't understood). It probably won't even take 10 years for medicine's understanding to be turned upside down. Even if I did donate organs why would I want them in an unknown person's body considering I know nothing about the other person, and the world is so fundamentally messed up that no amount of donating organs will solve the systematic oppression, inherently divisive nature of society, ignorance, mindless complications, exploitation of others, and constant pissing contests of who's inferior and who's superior that perfectly sum up a good portion of the world's interactions, especially in America? People are going to still be miserable, depressed, and suffering and no amount of automatically consented organs will ever change that until we address the fundamental inequalities within society. Why extend lives if the world is going to be just as messed up? A life lived to 100 in misery and suffering is no life lived at all.
F) Doctors who support this should should really consider distancing themselves from this perspective by realizing the history of medicine. It's not that different from how medicine had huge gains from literal grave robbing 100+ years ago. Taking organs from people who automatically consented is ridiculous. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: What's the benefit / point of "seniority" rule vs merit? (specifically around pay) +
+ This is of course often pointed out in unionized environment, I never get the point of "seniority" rules, more specifically around pay and opportunities
Why should one be paid more simply because they have been around longer? Why can't we simply pay (and give raises / bonus, etc) simply based on merit?
Often the argument I've seen is that "people who are more senior (been there longer) know better through experience" - well, if this is true, then they should have no problem with merit-based rule since they know better, they will be equally (or even better) rewarded based on their merit.
Seniority seems like taking away any incentive of actually improving oneself and doing better. One simply need *to be there* (and probably do the minimum and don't do anything stupid to get fired) ... If everybody collectively do this - then society will never progress because nobody will have the incentive to do better.
If you have a young, smart, sharp, enthusiastic, passionate, etc worker who actually *producing better results* than their older compatriot (often times because older worker likes to keep "status quo" and refuse to take advantage of the latest / greatest tool to make things better) - why wouldn't we want to reward these younger workers? Why do we hold back their progress simply because they haven't been around long enough?
Take for example: teachers union where young teachers often having a lot of trouble getting jobs whereas there are a lot of old-soon-to-retire teachers who really don't give a sh*t anymore about their work ... there are a lot of younger teachers who are very enthusiastic about teaching and they are more "in touch" with what the kids doing these days, which likely to better equipped them to keep up and in turn, make them better teachers. Yet, the way unionized environment work - these younger teachers are being hold back because of seniority.
I am not talking about ageism and getting rid of older workers here - I am simply talking about rewarding people based on merit *regardless* of their "seniority rank".
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: In a capitalist society, it is completely reasonable for men to make more money than women. +
+ This is naturally an incredibly controversial topic and I highly doubt that many people will agree with me, but I feel compelled to discuss this.
This needs to be prefaced by saying that all of this is based on averages, not individuals. I'm sure many women are more capable than many men, what I'm saying is that the general trend across the board is that on average a male worker is more productive.
Men work almost triple the amount of overtime hours than women.
Men work more standard hours than women.
Women take more sick days off work than men.
Women are more likely than men to take several years of maternity leave off of work.
A small percentage of women undergo severe PMS and consequently work at a diminished capacity for several days of each month.
To use anecdotal evidence, yesterday i came in to work, to find that all 8 garbages were completely filled. This was strange, since the closing crew is supposed to take out the garbages every night. I asked my coworker why no one had done the garbages last night, and I was effectively told that only girls were working the closing shift, and none of them wanted to touch the garbages because they thought it was gross. So I had to take out 8 garbages first thing in the morning, because I was a man. Additionally, the parking lot was overflowing with trash that had spilled out of the over-packed garbage cans, but none of the girls had done the usual nightly responsibility of sweeping, since they thought it was a man's job as well. I'm not talking about one or two co-workers here, there were 7 women on shift, and every single one of them followed this gender stereotyped idea of what closing responsibilities they should have. Its one thing if men and women divide tasks based on relative strengths and weaknesses, but if someone neglects to do a task because there's no one of the opposite sex to assign it to, that is ridiculous. When only men are closing, someone still ends up washing the dishes and shining the countertops.
Due to the biological, sociological, and psychological factors that women face, they are on average less suited to performing excessive labour, and in an economic system where more work = more money, it is no surprise that men make more than women.
What I find most surprising is that when I bring up this issue, I am met with incredible opposition, as if I am trying to oppress women or promote sexism. The truth is, an entire branch of feminism exists for the very reasons I have stated; socialist feminism believes that men have a higher capacity to work and are therefore at an advantage in a capitalist society. They believe the only way wage equality can happen is through instating socialist policies that ensure employers are forced to pay men and women equally.
I am not saying that women *deserve* to be paid less because they have children for example, humanity needs new people to be born , and as such women should not be penalized for taking time off work to raise children. However, we do not live in a moral democracy. We live in a capitalist democracy, where employers are free to pay their employees whatever they think is proportional to the revenue or work that each specific employee will bring to the company. On average, certainly not always, but on average, men can generate slightly more work and revenue than women.
Thus, the only way women can achieve equal pay is through socialist change in legislation. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Coffee is overrated, the effects received are negligible and often a placebo, and people who say they like the taste are lying to themselves. +
+ I understand the philosophy behind acquiring tastes (learned to love San Pellegrino), but I cannot for the life of me truly find myself appreciating coffee like many of my friends do.
Every child growing up seems to desire coffee, but only because it's age restricted, similar to alcohol/tobacco. Now I don't have a PhD in psychology or anything, but there is evidence beyond proof that people want what they can't have. It's just human nature, and I feel like it's what's behind the longterm desire for coffee in that something I was once barred from is now freely enjoyed and encouraged. It doesn't help that many people jack their cups with sugars and creams which at a certain point require speculation as to which substance is actually fueling your perceived energy boost.
I consider myself to be very openminded, especially when it comes to substances put into the body for recreational purposes (I'll leave it at that) but I can't seem to see eye-to-eye to my friends that have been religiously trying to convert me all these years.
The extent of my coffee experience would be instant coffee growing up at home (parents weren't 'connoisseurs' by any iteration of the term but were both pretty addicted to), pretentious (shots fired) coffee shops that my fiends would literally drag me to, and the occasional tinder date Starbucks run in which I would just end up getting the vanilla bean frappe 90% of the time, which is delicious by the way.
It seems to me like the most elite coffee drinkers in my socials circles tend to hate Starbucks. Maybe because they think it's cool to do so and are attempting to show everyone how much they know about how coffee should taste like.
Could that be the reason? Have I just had bad coffee? Has my past experienced not done justice to an entire culture that is coffee? I mean people spend hundreds of dollars a year on it, and for what?
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: In order for a society to exist, you need to help the poor otherwise they will take from the rich. +
+ In order for a society to exist, you need to help the poor otherwise they will take from the rich. History repeats itself and when the poor are hungry they revolt. Poor people need to be treated in society otherwise they will do things that the rich aren't willing to do. If the poor die then Rich people will split into the richer people and the rich people (the current rich people are now poor) so it goes full circle.
TL:DR You need to care for the poor otherwise they will steal and revolt and not let a society grow. Thanks I'm open to all answers. My teacher talked about something like this at school today. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Simply being old doesn't mine you deserve to be treated better than anyone else +
+ For reference, I live in the US, so the situation may be different elsewhere. But I believe that the simple act of not dying isn't really an accomplishment in a country as advanced as ours. Throughout most of recorded history, being old was considered an accomplishment because there was little to no access to quality health care, they usually had to survive many hardships that couldn't easily be fixed in their day (war, floods, famine, etc.) and they usually had to fight tooth and nail to be alive. However, in the US simply not dying isn't difficult, its easy to get access to healthcare and medicine (insurance issues aside, an ambulance to the ER is widely available), they have been no recent wars on US soil, natural disasters can easily be dealt with thanks to our level of technology, thus increasing our average life expectancy. The ideal of respecting one's elders just because they are old, and having to go out of your way to respect them or letting them inconvenience your live without saying anything back in a archaic way of thinking. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Except for the anti-government, anti-feminist ideas, I don't see anything wrong with the tenants of MGTOW +
+ I don't sympathize with the idea of avoiding the paying of taxes (unless they really go off-the-grid) nor with the idea of doing without family courts and all other institutions they think "favour women".
But I think the idea of some men just forgoing the pursuit of romantic, sexual or social relationships with women isn't bad. Nor I think the idea of just focusing the energy and time one would employ in social activities into improving oneself in another way is bad neither.
I think there's a group of men who simply aren't going to do well with women in general, so it's a waste of their time to try to "improve" in that area. It's also harmful that unwanted men just go out there and try to sympathize with people who look down on them, looking for pity. I also think that no one will disagree with the fact that it's not as though as a few less men in the social spheres is going to change anything. In fact, it may even benefit women and other men, since they don't have to deal with people they don't like or who they look down on.
It's beneficial for those men who are considered losers, who are looked down on, to focus on improving their lives elsehow. It allows them to improve their self-esteem, their happiness, without having to deal with people who despise them or having to crawl down to their knees asking for pity. All that with the additional benefit that it doesn't bother the people who despise them at all: it even manages to eliminate them from their social circles. So, it's a win-win situation for all people involved.
I think it's a more than valid and beneficial option for men who are bound to be looked down on by the majority of women in terms of romantic and sexual relationships for things out of their control (ugly men, short men, small penis men).
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: My actress girlfriend shouldn't kiss anybody else on screen +
+
I feel that it's a special thing that should only occur between partners. I know and fully understand it's "just a job" but it still physically happens, that's the problem. I believe that kissing another human being really sends some emotional signals in the brain that can trigger attraction / connection and I know of several cases where a relationship on screen has led to a relationship off screen. I'm in a band and if we did a video where there was a situation where the director asked me to kiss another girl, I'd refuse. If I was an actor I'd refuse to kiss another girl. I know I should trust my girlfriend, but she has lied to me (only little ones I guess) on a few occasions recently. But I don't know who can be trusted, especially when I know that scientifically, kissing another human being makes changes in the brain and builds these connections. I still count it as cheating. But I don't want to stop her from doing anything. If we get married and spend the rest of our lives together then I'd want her to be my "last first kiss" and I'd epxect the same the other way round.
I told her that there's loads of jobs available that don't require kissing (she seems to think she's never going to be offered those kinds of scenes anyway due to her being short). There's quite a few actors / actresses that refuse to do kissing scenes because they have a partner (e.g. Kirk Cameron). But I also said that I don't want to stop her from doing anything - if she wants / feels like she needs to do those scenes, then she should but we'd have to end the relationship. If she needs to do that then I'd prefer her to be happy, but I wouldn't want it to sacrifice my personal beliefs.
| 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 think low-power radio waves from WiFi, cellphones, etc. can harm you, then you should have been dead from visible light a LONG time ago, since it's far more energetic. +
+ Wifi is simply radio in the 2.4 to 5ghz range. All electromagnetic radiation comes from photons. The energy of a photon depends on its frequency. Radio frequency photons are far, far less energetic than visible light (sunlight, light bulbs, etc.) so at the power wifi operates, (milliwatts) it is literally impossible for it to cause any harm. If someone were capable of being harmed by radio at milliwatt power levels, then simple exposure to sunlight would kill them a lot sooner than very weak radio waves. So you can rest easy!
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I should eat Lunchables every day +
+ As an adult man who counts calories daily, I'm always trying to find food that is cheap and either easy to prepare or possible to prepare all at once at the start of the week. I've tried several alternatives including salads and slow cooked meat, but they tended to be expensive and not necessarily keep or reheat as well as I'd like.
For that reason, I present lunchables, specifically the cheese pizza kind, as the best choice for me for dinner. They are cheap, costing between $1 and $2 each depending on sales and how far I'm willing to drive to buy them. They keep in the refrigerator all week with no issue. They have only 270 calories, allowing me to supplement the meal in a number of ways without going over my daily limit. They have 16g protein, which is not as good as meat dishes but is still quite a bit. You prepare them as you eat them, which slows down the process, allowing you to feel more full. But they also require no heating and the additional prep time is minimal compared to many other meals.
What it would take to change my view:
1. An example of a better meal with similar or greater protein content and less than 400 calories that isn't too expensive
2. A specific reason why eating them every day would be unhealthy. Not just general concerns about processed food, but a specific ingredient or other factor.
3. Something else I haven't thought of
What won't change my view:
1. Subjective arguments about taste or repetitiveness. I enjoy the taste and actually prefer to eat the same thing every weekday.
2. Anything involving chicken. I already have chicken for lunch every day, and that actually would be too repetitive.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:I feel uncomfortable with my hypothetical girlfriend wearing revealing clothing outdoors +
+ I've been born and raised in Turkey and last 2 years of my high school in Dubai. Although not strictly regulated on islamic laws, the culture of these places are far from north american culture. You're expected to not reveal too much when dressing. I completely understand that everyone has the right to dress how they want to but I just don't feel like if you are giving yourself to your SO then you shouldn't let others see your body.
To me it is just a very special thing between two people to let the other person see and explore each other that no one else has. Too much cleavage or wearing no bras with thin shirts that let you clearly see the nipple and then she hugs other people makes me feel very uncomfortable. I would love to change my view, as I stand by the right that anyone can wear whatever they want, but this idea is just so integrated in my head after all my life living in it that I can't seem to shut it off | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: "Reverse racism" is as real as any other kind of racism. +
+ Hey guys! Not too long ago, there was quite the controversy surrounding [this](http://edition.cnn.com/2015/05/13/living/feat-boston-university-saida-grundy-race-tweets/), and it spilled over into a Facebook debate amongst my fellow BU peers. It is here where I was made aware of the fact that, apparently, the dictionary definition of racism is pretty much obsolete, and —more shockingly— that women cannot be sexist against men, much like black people cannot be racist against white people.
I feel that, like [Ludwig Wittgenstein](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/), the meaning of words lies on a shared commonality —be it community slang, or dictionary definitions— not on an individual's decision; e.g. I cannot expect that exclaiming "look at that magnificent fan!" should be interpreted by people as 'fan' meaning 'double rainbow', because that is not the agreed upon definition of 'fan.' [I use this example because it just seems to me that someone (presumably from tumblr or some radfem blog) decided to change the definition of racism— how convenient.]
So, change my view/educate me, because to me, racism is racism— regardless of the aggressor's race/skin color.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Politicians that are involved in sexual scandals (such as sexting) whether it be someone single or married, should not reflect their political and leadership abilities, their policies and work ethic should. +
+
Ok, I am not advocating for everyone to go pull Lewinskies or anything, but what I'm saying is that they shouldn't be impeached or forced to resign, or face criticism on their ability to lead or shape policy. If they are a good policy maker fine. If they are making the world a better place and fighting for things that other politicians are afraid to then fine. As long as they don't be hypocrites on their policies, so what. Really the Clinton and Lewinsky scandal should have been handled between Bill and his wife, not the media and Congress. A city councilman just stepped down in my city for sexting someone 14 years his junior, however she was 34 and he's 48 neither one married, he's divorced a few years ago... how the hell does that call for a career to be ended? And now the speaker of the Missouri house of reps just resigned because he was sexting the capitol intern. If it was abuse or assault then ok, investigate, charge and punish them appropriately, but if its a matter of consensual legal sexual exchange, who are we to tell them no? I really wanna know why we shame politicians and ruin their careers because of things like sexting?
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The bigger argument against legalizing illegal immigrants is not because we don't want them in the country, but because we would be losing a lower class, lower paid work force. +
+ To elaborate, there are some Hispanic people I know that don't have papers yet have jobs (think McDonald's) where they pay taxes, pay into social security, and will never see a dime of it. If we were to make everyone in this country legal, we would have millions of people that would expect better treatment or at the very least a living wage. Whenever I see conservative issues bringing up illegal immigrants, it is more focused on overcrowding and the fact that we'll have millions of people flooding to this country, but with more people willing to work and consume, comes a bigger economy. Please point out the flaws with my logic. I'm sure there are plenty. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Mandating vaccinations in kids is a terrible idea +
+ Hello! I understand the majority of reddit feels quite strongly about vaccinations and I believe my view is the opposite of many of yours. I hope you go into this with an open mind and I will return the favor.
The mandating of vaccinations would involve the government deciding what goes into a child's body. But I ask why shouldn't parents decide if they want to prevent something from entering their child's body? (Note: There is an argument to be made that parents shouldn't decide and the child should. However there are several important vaccinations that would occur prior to the child having the capacity to make such a decision. Polio Vaccine and Hepatitis B Vaccine come to mind. So either way someone is making that decision for the child. I believe that person should the parents or guardian - not the state.)
Why? Because parents are more so connected with their children than the government and therefore should be trusted to have their children's best interests in mind. Yes, sometimes parents are idiotic and make a health decision that is horrible and sometimes even fatal. However, the government has also been shown to not have the best health interests in its citizens at times. (See: Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment)
But at the end of the day, a parent not vaccinating their kids indirectly effects others. That has to count for something, right? Forcing vaccinations upon those who don't want it is for the greater good, right? Perhaps those thoughts are best summed up by Former Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., who once said, "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." I'm sure he would have supported a mandate, which will likely reduce the suffering of many people, wholeheartedly for this reason. But also for this reason he supported the horrific Buck v. Bell decision (a decision that unfortunately still has support, particularly on reddit.)
See. That's the problem with doing things for the "greater good", it often doesn't accomplish much and reduces the rights of others.
A final point I'd like to make would be to highlight the parallel between vaccinations and smoking. Yes there are efforts to curb the activity in public places (In my own city of Pittsburgh, they recently banned smoking in bars.) However, smoking still effects more people than just the user. Second hand smoke is a real thing and damages a person's health when they had to choice but to breathe it in. Perhaps you could say that it is avoidable and being in contact with unvaccinated people is unavoidable. But secondhand smoke is practically unavoidable. It can stay in an area for hours - long after the overbearing smell is gone. You wouldn't even know. But yet there is no real support for a general ban on smoking as there is with a mandate for vaccinations.
Just to cover my bases, I 'd like to say I'm not anti-vaccine. I fully support vaccinations, am fully vaccinated, and if I were to be blessed enough to have my own children, I would have them vaccinated. I view this as a freedom issue (right to body) and not a vaccines are bad issue. I thank you all for reading and look for to any possible responses.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: One of the best ways to help against Inequality would be to give men paid maternity leave aswell +
+ Whether employers admit it or not, one of the biggest hurdles for women wanting to get in jobs is the possibility that they may at one point get pregnant and have to leave work for an extended period of time, meaning the manager has to find a way to make up for the work the woman may have done, and have to pay them while they are away. This leads many people to have at least a small bias is the idea that hiring a man will be more permanent and a higher chance of more potential profit in the long run.
However, if the man who conceived the baby also got maternity leave, this would mean the risk is equal no matter what gender you hire. During maternity leave, the man would take care of the child with the woman, allowing for both of them to take care of the child, and allow the child to get more recognition of the father.
This may also help stopping the idea that a women is necessarily the one who has to take care of the child, another stereotype that is often regarded as bad.
This could also theoretically help with rare events such as when male homosexual couples get a women (who would not raise the child) to birth the child for them given that they can’t.
This would ofcourse not solve all the problems with inequality in the genders, but I think this might be a good way to help (although since I’m posting it here, obviously I’m not /sure/ it’s a good idea)
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: There are such things as wrong opinions. +
+ I'm not sure how to entirely explain this, but I'll try. There are things in society like racism that are just wrong. There's a kid at my school who defends his extremely conservative views (e.g. anti-gay marriage, anti-black...really old-school-80-year-old-man-from-Alabama type thing) by saying that it's "just his opinion." I think any level-headed person on the planet wild agree that racism is fundamentally wrong and that it is not valid to defend it by claiming it's your opinion.
Some argue that the First Amendment allows you to say whatever you'd like. While that is true, if you go up to a minority person and make a racist comment and they punch you in the teeth, I don't think anyone is going to give a shit about your First Amendment rights. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Teaching personal finance in schools and encouraging saving would end badly +
+ Hello everybody!
I was in a reddit thread earlier where someone was preaching the importantce of teaching personal finance in schools, encouraging people to start pension contributions as soon as they start earning, ect. ect.
I'm an economics undergrad so I have a little (it is only a little) understanding of savings, but I believe that a drastic increase in savings would be a catastrophe for a few reasons:
1) Intrest rates. The current interest is LOW, if not negative in real terms. This means that there arn't sufficient (safe) borrowers to allocate the funds to. Increasing the savings more risks entering a liquidity trap.
2) Stagnation of demand. If you encourage people to save then they arn't spending (obviously). This is probably the worst thing that could happen right now (or in the next few years).
3) Asset price bubbles. With lots of savings being depositied banks will be forced to 'do' something with that money. Some of the things they will do is buy assets, or lend to buyers of assets: such as Bonds, stocks, property. ect. Rapid increases in the purchase of these has historically lead to their prices becoming speculative. It also prices out of the market the very people who you are teaching should save: Young people.
So thats why I think encouraging, on mass, a new generation of young people to start savings to that degree would end badly.
I want to understand why others think it shoudl be encouraged so I'm posting here. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Medical research should be allowed on humans without proper animal trials +
+ Note: this is purely a theoretical discussion. I don't actually feel that way, but someone has convinced me in a discussion that the fastest way to achieve medical advancements is to directly test it on humans.
Might be a sensitive issue, but it is undeniable that without the work of Nazi doctors (and their victims), a large number of people would have died post-war and perhaps even today without the knowledge of limits of hypothermia/hyperthermia, amongst other important discoveries.
In brief: is medical research ethics hindering the progress of our species in acquiring new information? | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Women should not have taxpayer-funded paid maternity leave. +
+ Little disclaimer: this deals with US laws and procedures so I apologize if anyone outside the US isn't able to contribute, except to tell me how great it is having this in their own country.
Last Sunday John Oliver's show dealt with this subject and chastised the US for being only one of two developed countries in the world without maternity leave that is paid for by the taxpayers. Here is a link to watch it if you haven't seen it yet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIhKAQX5izw
Here is the gist of my viewpoint:
In the US, when a person is terminated from a job, he/she is entitled to unemployment benefits for up to 99 weeks or until they are employed again. Workers and companies pay into this and, while many people end up taking more than they give, it is the system we have and it seems to work for the majority of people here. When a person leaves a job VOLUNTARILY, however, they are not entitled to unemployment benefits. If you quit a job to go to another job this is fine. If you are quitting to go 'find' yourself in Australia for a year, you better have a financial plan because you can't live off other peoples' money for your vacation. This system also seems to work well for most people.
In the US, abortion is Constitutionally protected under a person's right to privacy. The details of the laws vary from state to state but there is no place in the US where a person cannot legally and safely obtain an abortion during the first six months of pregnancy.
My stance is that if having a child is a choice, it should be one the parents must prepare for financially before making - just like if they wanted to voluntarily take time off work for other reasons.
We have safety nets for people who are caught in situations they can't control. This is not one of them. Being a parent requires the ability to plan and budget anyway, and it includes many expenses that people will absolutely incur that will not be covered by the hard work of others. It should start with planning to be off work for whatever time having the baby takes.
I completely support peoples' positions being protected while they are off and, quite honestly, think that length of time should be extended from 12 weeks to 24 weeks. But I REALLY don't like the idea of taxpayer dollars being used to support ANYONE who voluntarily leaves work - no matter the reason.
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: California schools are wrong for banning American flag shirts on Cinco De Mayo. +
+ This issue may have been discussed on this sub but reddit's search is terrible, so I couldn't find anything like it.
[Watch this video for some background on the issue](http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Students-Wearing-American-Flag-Shirts-Sent-Home-92945969.html)
I think it's ridiculous that kids cannot wear American Flag shirts on Cinco De Mayo. Schools say it's disrespectful because it's a Mexican heritage day.
I'm Black and I went to a diverse school, so I know how kids have a tendency to start race wars (especially in gym glass). So I kind of understand the atmosphere. And I think there is some concern that kids who wear American flag shirts on May 5 are sub-textually saying "go back to Mexico" or something to that effect against immigrant students.
But I think the schools is wrong because.
1. First Amendment - this argument is self explanatory.
2. Mexican kids can wear Mexican shirts, but American kids can't wear American shirts? Hypocrisy.
3. Mexican students should not be offended by American flag shirts. And even if they are, see #1.
4. I am not a republican in any way, and I am very liberal when it comes to immigration.
5. If Mexican students feel like they are being sub textually attacked or offended or bullied, they should ignore it. AS long as bullying isn't physical, bullied kids should ideally just ignore it. I understand this is ideal and doesn't always work out in reality.
6. If Kids were wearing shirts that said "Go back to mexico!" or something outrageous like that, that would be a different story, but all their doing is wearing the flag from the country they are currently located in.
The only remotely acceptable remedy is banning all shirts that have a certain country's flag on them. Yep that includes Mexican shirts too.
Am I being insensitive to issues that effect the Hispanic community in America? If I am please tell me because I fucking hate when people downplay and deny issues that effect the Black community.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I think both religion and science suffer from dogmatic worldviews. +
+ Background: In a nutshell, I had a Christian upbringing. Went through a few years basically as an Atheist until I had an existential crisis and turned to Buddhism.
This is gonna be a tough one as it is a very sweeping statement, so I will do my best to elaborate what I mean.
**Religion**: This has been talked about endlessly, but I feel like many of the issues at least with the Abrahamic religions (the Crusades, terrorism, gay rights, etc.) comes down to a belief in an objective right vs wrong. Even though I've met plenty of Christians who actively question their faith and interpretation of the Bible, the Abrahamic faiths still come down to external rules that are at odds with human nature, particularly sexuality. Just look at how intrusive Sharia Law can be.
**Science**: While my teenage Atheist-leaning side of me would like to think that there is a huge gap between religion and science, science did arise out of Christianity after all, and its dogmatic leanings still show today. [Here's a banned TED talk by Rupert Sheldrake](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg) on a so-called "science delusion" (a play on the "God Delusion"). While I do not agree with him entirely, I think he poses a very important point. The materialist worldview it has come to is very limiting compared to the original intent of the scientific method.
My view is that while we can be taught, it is up to us to learn through our own experiences and choose whether or not to accept the said teachings, as opposed to blind faith. However, I feel this is a dangerous view to have as it is not only is a rebellious one, but also heavily degrades my respect for the Abrahamic religions and a good chunk of the scientific community. I'd really like to see the other side of this.
| 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 "sluts" are the ethical ones, and not so-called "prudes". +
+ Right off, let's make it clear that "slut" here applies to men, women, and all other possible configurations. The only thing you need to meet my definition of "slut" here is that you have a lot of sex with different partners.
Although it might help to draw a distinction between purely voluntary "sluts" and the psychologically damaged sort, I don't think it's necessary to make my overall point.
Here's my justification:
1. Sluts tend to have more sex, which is good not only in a physical sense, but also in a self esteem sense. Getting laid makes a person feel better about themselves, and sluts make more people feel better about themselves. Because of all this sex, they also feel better, themselves, (in a raw physical sense) which has some value on a utilitarian-style analysis.
2. "Sluts" tend not to perpetuate stringent and repressive standards of beauty, because they'll have sex with a wider range of individuals. We all know some starry-eyed individual who is saving themselves for *just* the right person, where that person has to meet incredibly particular criteria. But we could also include people who are simply very particular on physical grounds, such as people who absolutely will not date people who lack certain physical characteristics (not skinny enough, not tall enough, etc.).
We might also say that "sluts" make fewer people feel badly about their own attractiveness level, because the range of people they'll have sex with is wider.
Let's start with this basic stuff. I imagine we can get to further points through discussion.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: ISIS isn't about the US or the invasion, it isn't about Bush or Obama. ISIS was created because of internal forces within the middle eastern Islamic world. It isn't about us, and to think it is is just arrogent and self centered lazy thinking. +
+ CMV: ISIS isn't about the US, it isn't about Bush or Obama. ISIS was created because of internal forces within the gigantic Islamic world. It isn't about us, and to think it is is just arrogent and self centered lazy thinking.
I hear lots of people arguing that it is the actions of X or Y president that caused ISIS to exist, but I think the internal ideologies and economic, cultural an political forces within the middle east are much more significant than anything the US did, even the US invasion, or whatever the US did or didn't do afterward may have only slowed or hastened such an explosion in the middle east for a few years.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Morality Exists +
+ This is piggybacking off of my previous thread, and I will attempt to clarify a few things here. Morality is important to our survival as a species. If we didn't have morality, then why would we, as human beings, ever look out for one another? Why would we care if someone else was hurt? At the end of the day, wouldn't we be only concerned about ourselves?
Keep in mind that when I am talking about morality, I am talking about it as a person who hasn't studied philosophy. I am talking about it the way your average person would. I am using it to mean, "the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior." Those distinctions will be different from person to person, but those distinctions still exist. Also, I think the generally understood definition of being "moral" is to help others to the best of your ability, to protect others before yourself, to minimize harm done to others. Basically, to protect the flock.
However [another discussion on this sub](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/35y0qf/cmv_some_opinions_are_ethically_right_and_can/) has made me start doubting morality even exists. I am having a hard time wrapping my head around this one way or another, and at this point (as another commenter has put it) I've broken through the Matrix into the Real World. So loyal readers of Change My View: break my spirit. Tell me why morality doesn't exist.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The "Good ol boy" system of hiring people you know is in the best interest of the company +
+ Say your hiring for a position at the widget factory and you have a friend whose son has some experience making widgets and you know he's a hard worker.
Its in the companies best interest to go with the candidate they *know* will work hard VS gambling on someone no one at the company knows or has ever worked with.
This is, I believe why networking is just as important as education and experience.
I'm not talking about hiring a lop that can't do the job or isn't qualified, in my example both people seem to have the skills to get the job done. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: For the west to enjoy the lifestyle it does, subjugation of third world countries is necessary. +
+ The goods and services we consume are made possible by the abundance of cheap resources and labour that the west gets out of underdeveloped countries. The West has no reason to aid or allow the development of these poorer countries, since that would disrupt the ability to acquire cheap resources, thus diminishing the economic superiority of the west. All in all, people in the west's lives can only be "good" because people's lives in poor nations are "bad". With the current infrastructure on earth, it is only possible to make the west happy, not everyone. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Some opinions are ethically right and can only be argued against using semantics. +
+ Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but some opinions are better than others [edit: I am referring to them being morally/ethically "better"]. If you submitted a topic to this sub with the title "I find gay people sickening. CMV" there would be tons of replies and circle jerking about all the ways the OP was wrong. That's because, I'm assuming, enough people have decided it's morally wrong to discriminate against gay people that there will be actual dissention.
If you posted a thread with the title "Gay people deserve the same rights as straight people", you would get into a war of semantics and what it meant to have the "same rights" as another person, because not many people would be willing to argue against the base viewpoint of the post.
These are just examples to illustrate what I'm getting at, so please don't get distracted by them in your replies. They are just illustrations and may not be the best examples I could have chosen.
To reiterate, some opinions are better than others ethically and morally speaking, especially when you voice them to a fairly homogenous group that is likely to share similar values (reddit). To argue against them, we have to resort to semantics and, in my opinion, that never feels like a proper argument against the original thesis of the question.
CMV.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: while keeping freedom of press and expression, money should be removed from corrupting enterprises like porn, gambling and prisons +
+ The idea is not to infringe on anyone's right to express themselves. If someone wants to have and film adult consenting adults having sex then they are free to do this. Instead remove money from the industry to ensure those who do not want to engaged in such behavior do not find themselves with no alternative. In other words, remove the incentive for the creation of such content.
This idea could be extended to other gray areas where we value freedom but we do not want to incentivize the behavior. Perhaps limit the profits casinos can make. Limit the profits prisons can make from prisoners.
Basically remove the incentives that encoruage taking advantage of people | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: There is no good reason for the average person to ever buy a new car +
+ I'd like to preface this by saying I'm not a car guy, so it's entirely possible I'm overlooking something major, but given how fast cars depreciate in value, buying a new one seems like a really dumb move to me. Whatever features you are looking for in a car, you can get better features for the same or a lower price in a used car. Like, say you have $25,000 to spend on a car. You could get a nice new Toyota, or you could get a fully loaded Lexus that's less than a year old and has features that are superior in every measurable way to the new Toyota. Seems like a no-brainer to me which one I'd buy. So basically, aside from people for whom money is truly no object and I suppose people with pathological fears of sitting where others have sat, I just can't imagine any good reason for the average Joe with a limited budget and no debilitating phobias to buy a new car.
| 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 only one possible future worth considering, one with the existence of AGI, and not enough people are planning around it +
+ I believe that when considering the near or far future, there are only one possibility that is worth considering, and would be so transformative that worrying about anything else pales in comparison. That is the creation of Artificial General Intelligence or Artificial Strong Intelligence, whatever you want to call it.
First, you have to contend with the issue of whether or not you believe human or greater than level intelligence can even be created. Which I think most people would agree that it is possible, or at least there is nothing fundamental about intelligence that requires it to exist only in humans, or a biological substrate as opposed to some other.
Now, if you do accept that AGI is possible, you must then consider when you think it may be created and whether you or your direct descendants will be affected, if it happens 10,000 years from now, no one alive today would (or really should) care in the slightest. The issue is that unless you are directly involved in the field itself, coming up with a realistic timetable is a difficult problem. Fortunately for us laypeople (myself included), a survey was conducted at a conference of AI experts a few years ago, and concluded that the median optimistic year (10% likelihood) for AGI was 2022, the median realistic year (50% likelihood) was 2040, and the median pessimistic year (100% likelihood) was 2075. Now you are free to disagree with their predictions, but you'd better have damn good cause to do so and be takes seriously by other people.
All of this taken together has forced me to the realization that there can be no useful forecasting of the near or long term future without considering the impact AGI could have on it. But further to this, no one can even make a solid guess as to what might happen if one is created! There is speculation, some good and some bad, but ultimately this event, the singularity, has an apt name for a reason, we have no prior history or examples from which to learn from! And then, to top it all off, an AGI would likely quickly surpass human intelligence if given the resources, not to mention it may think in such a way that humans could not even follow its logic or reasoning.
TL;DR: So all of this is to say, if you believe AGI is possible, and if you believe that it could come into existence in the nearish future, there is no way to make any easy generalizations about what the future might be like. We have no idea what's coming, and too many people are not factoring in the disruption an AGI could cause, whether for good or ill. Essentially, not enough people are taking this possibility seriously enough, and we're making plans about the future that are affecting people today without taking into account the most profound event in human history.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I support the idea, but I think Anita Sarkeesian is a hack +
+ I consider myself a feminist, but it bothers me when people support Anita Sarkeesian. I feel she has played a victim to generate income, and used that income to produce less than she suggested she would, as her videos seem cheap from a production basis and weak/underresearched/selective in content. It seems as if she used her attackers, even minor trolling, to generate money for her Kickstarter, and then used the money from Kickstarter and the fame it brought for personal means and to benefit her career. The content itself is very iffy, even for someone who wants to find flaws in the way women are depicted in games and feels that the industry is very troubling for women and female depictions. I feel that taking someone with even a somewhat iffy background and making them your forefront of a movement is a poor choice, and it bothers me when people use her as such. That said, I fear that a lot of the evidence of her misdoing may be purported and bolstered by people who have a vested interest in making her seem like a fraud because of her entire movement, not her alone, so I am here to hear your insight. CMV. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I believe psychics/tarot readers/ mystics and other similar professions are all frauds and potentially dangerous as well. +
+ Psychics/tarot readers and other similar "professionals" practice a combination of hot and cold readings, techniques that are well known and understood by anyone who has a passing interest in this kind of stuff. If you're unfamiliar I suggest you look at the wiki entry for both (I'll link in a few I'm on my phone). In fact books that explain performing tarot readings are basically explaining how to do cold readings, but in veiled language. Practitioners may claim (or in some case even believe) they aren't using these techniques but that's because they unconsciously developed these skills from practice.
Im sure there are practitioners out there who believe they are helping others and giving advice in good faith, but I just don't see how that is ethical. They haven't had to training to give personal advice like a therapist would have recieved, and there's an uneven power dynamic between a mystic and a patron dissimilar receiving advice from a friend or family member. These are also professions that can possibly attract people with addictive personalities and become money sinks.
Psychics/tarot readers and similar professionals are fraudulent and potentially dangerous. Cmv. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Natural Light is a misunderstood beer and is the best representation of the American cheap lager +
+ I generally drink craft beers now that I am past college and do not need to buy a 30 pack for $15. However, I am not above drinking a bud light, PBR, or miller if my options are limited. I found that the everyday bud light drinker scuffs at the idea of nice cold Natty light, which I find odd. Natty is 95 calories (vs bud lights 105) of low ABV tasteless beer, which is exactly what every other American "pilsner" sets out to do but Natty does it cheaper. Most blind taste people on youtube prove that people cant tell the difference between bud, miller, natty or coors. So why pay the higher price for a beer that is a bit heavier?
But it is impossible to separate the two.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:Private business should be able to do or not do business with whoever they want. +
+ I believe that a private business should be able to deny service to anyone for any reason. For example, if a white-owned business wanted to deny service to all minorities, then they should be able to. As a private citizen, I can choose who I give my business to. If I'm a racist, I can choose to only give my business to my race. If I personally want to give money to the homeless, I can choose to give it to one race/orientation/etc. or another. Why can't a private business make the same decision? The free market place should solve this problem because people would see a need to service those that are refused service and then start a competing business. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Believing that free trade is bad despite near universal consensus among economists that it's beneficial is no different than believing that climate change isn't real despite near universal consensus among client scientists that it is. +
+ Free trade yields positive results for every country involved, and this is an established economic fact. Consumers in richer countries get to purchase goods at lower prices (which raises their standard of living) while poorer countries get capital investments and higher incomes (which raises their standard of living). Personally, I like that I can wake up, sip my Costa Rican coffee as I sit on my Swedish furniture and watch my Japanese TV before checking my Korean phone and getting in my German car to go to work for an American company that gets 90% of its revenue from overseas. If those goods all had to be made in America, they would probably be of lower quality because global competition is unequivocally good for consumers.
Despite this, "free trade" is still a controversial political topic. Reddit's two most popular politicians, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, have both promised to help stop jobs from being shipped overseas and have both been very critical of NAFTA, claiming that it has hurt America and has cost it hundreds of thousands of jobs. However, actual [peer-reviewed analysis](http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/trade/effects-of-nafta-on-us-employment-and-policy-responses_5k9ffbqlvk0r-en?crawler=true) that studied NAFTA after it was implemented suggested it had a negligible impact on American jobs (and a paper by Matusz suggested it had a very small but positive impact).
If a person doesn't believe in evolution or climate change despite overwhelming empirical evidence and expert consensus to the contrary, then they are being anti-science. And I believe that if you think free trade is a net negative despite overwhelming empirical evidence and expert consensus to the contrary, then you're being anti-science.
So, CMV and explain why free trade is a bad thing.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Graduation for infant and primary schools are ridiculous, and cheapen the meaning of a graduation. +
+ There is an increasing trend in the UK of 'graduation' ceremonies for children leaving infant schools and primary schools (ages 7 and 10). A graduation was originally to signify the conferring of a certificate and to celebrate that milestone, and as such should be restricted to University courses, and at a push to cover people at the end of High School (so that the people who go straight into work celebrate an end of their formal education).
I appreciate that schools and the pupils want to celebrate the end of their time at that school, but placing children in garishly-coloured robes at the age of 7 only cheapens what a 'graduation' stands for. **There are other ways they can celebrate a new beginning without appropriating and trampling on existing ceremonies and traditions**
To give a comparison, consider how engineers in the US and Canada are given an iron ring in a ceremony to symbolise their obligation. The ring and the associated ceremony is a very personal symbol of their choices and achievements to the engineers. Now imagine how they would feel if every single infant school started copying their ceremony word for word, item for item, issuing iron rings to 7 year olds telling them it means the same.
My son is supposed to have a 'graduation' in a few months, and the vast majority of the parents are planning a boycott, organising their own event in its place. We can't even find out where this tradition started, or why.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: "Identity politics" is really just a euphemism for pandering to bigotry +
+ When I hear arguments based in or supporting identity politics, it just has more of a ring to it of group-superiorism or "two wrongs will make it right" type reasoning than of civil rights movement-style egalitarianism.
A real-life example of the phenomenon to which I'm referring is located [here](http://damemagazine.com/2015/04/14/i-am-voting-my-vagina-hillary-clinton-president). In this editorial, the author defends voting for Hillary Clinton specifically because of their shared gender.
Please, change my view, if you can, that identity politics of this sort is just a euphemism for a trendy, politically correct style of bigotry. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: If anyone should replace Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill, it should be MLK Jr, not Harriet Tubman +
+ From a legacy standpoint, AJ is probably the least deserving amongst the figures on American paper currency (Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Hamilton, Grant, Franklin). It's not like the guy didn't have good qualities or do good things while in office, but for a country that's trying to go in the direction of racial/ethnic inclusiveness, it's pretty baffling that the guy who's responsible for the trail of tears is on our currency.
That being said, I thought it was interesting to see in the news that people are trying to change who is on the $20 bill; however, Harriet Tubman seems like an odd choice considering the other possible candidates. Off the top of my head, I think Teddy Roosevelt and MLK are the most deserving, and if I had to choose between them it would be MLK.
Obviously, MLK's legacy speaks for itself, being the leader of the civil rights movement. Compared to Tubman I just feel like MLK's impact was far greater. His speeches and non-violent protests impacted the entire nation, millions of people, while Tubman saved ~70 people from slavery. That's not to discredit Tubman because what she did was brave and important, and her accomplishments weren't limited to the underground railroad, but I think it's fair to say that MLK had a greater impact than Tubman, and therefore is more deserving to be placed on the $20 bill. I might even go as far to say that it's not even close.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Andrew Jackson Should Not Be On The Twenty +
+ Regardless of the man's less ethical actions, Andrew Jackson was known as the "bank breaker" and would've despised anything like the Federal Reserve. The Fed basically put him on the twenty to mock him. While his atrocities toward Native Americans are nothing to be proud of, I don't think we should be taking potshots with our currency. It's not like Jackson was a universally bad president either - in fact, he frequently breaks the top ten among historians, to this day:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States
I'm totally fine with throwing Harriet Tubman on the twenty, by the way. Our currency could use some race and gender diversity. Why shouldn't we remove a president from currency, who would've hated to be there in the first place?
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Roundabouts are superior to traffic lights. +
+ Please leave the footnote below the following line, but remember to delete this sentence by replacing it with the body of your post. Thank you!
I hate how America has so many intersections with traffic lights while Europe seems to have done well with using mainly roundabouts. While I'll conceed that some of the big roundabouts like some of the ones in Paris would be a lot safer if they were intersections. I still firmly believe that roundabouts in general are better.
Roundabouts are more fuel efficient since you aren't waiting around for the lights to change.
Roundabouts are safer for pedestrians. I don't know how many times I've almost been hit when I'm crossing the street at a traffic light intersection and a car is still allowed to go because they are still allowed to cross the street I am walking. Roundabouts have cars coming from one way and then you usually have a place in the middle where they're coming from the other way making it easier for people to cross the street safely.
They are also more cost effective since you don't have to pay to keep the lights running. (At least with the smaller roundabouts. Some of the ones I've seen in the UK also incorporate lights in their roundabouts but this is for highly congested areas)
Alright I fell asleep and I'm just reading all the comments now.
Roundabouts are safer for pedestrians maybe not for the reasons I listed but /u/scottevil110 has given a resource proving that they saw a 75% drop in pedestrian accidents.
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/roundabouts/qanda
Also my argument is assuming that both ways are used correctly so everyone can stop pointing out that North Americans don't know how to use them.
I will agree that traffic lights do have merit and have their places like in places I hadn't considered like densely populated areas and I also did not account for how much land the roundabouts would take up when compared to an intersection. However I still think in the long run the electricity cost would eventually over take the extra cost of the land. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I hate seeing rich kids and rich Asian people at my college. +
+ I do not have lots of money. I got my AA degree largely because the state I live in pays for high school students to go to community college. I don't have lots of money and likely won't get lots of money (or any money) for quite a while. It greatly angers me, as a middle-class American, to see rich kids at my college. They all drive Jaguars and Mercedes and BMWs and have brand name clothes and the latest iPhone and it just pisses me off. I drive a car that cost $1400. I have to live frugally and with my parents in order to afford to go to college. Because of this, seeing rich students who have nice things upsets me a lot, because I don't have nice things (not many, anyway) and won't for a long time while they get to have everything now. Asian students also upset me for another reason. I have never considered myself to be racist, but when I go to my college, sometimes I can't tell if I'm in Seattle or Shanghai. There's lots of them and it seems as though all of them are rich. It's like they treat my state as a playground for rich foreigners and take advantage of my country without giving much back. They all drive expensive European luxury cars and it just irritates me every time I see them. I don't understand why seeing a Asian kid in a new Jag pisses me off, but it does.
I don't want to be this way. I don't want to be racist and be irritated by rich people, but I can't help it. I just feel gypped since they get to have nice things now and I'm going to have to wait several years.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Batman is morally culpable for the people that he Joker has killed. +
+ Batman's strict no-killing policy has lead to the deaths of hundreds of people. Normally I don't support vigilante justice, but at this point, Batman is obviously the only person who can stop the Joker. Additionally, it is obvious that Arkham cannot hold him. He has escaped countless times, and every time, Batman has to go recapture him (after he's killed or injured who-knows-how-many people).
Ostensibly, Batman's no-killing policy is a self imposed check on his inner demons that he is sure will consume him if he gives into them. I believe that, in reality, he uses this policy as a security blanket he can cling to so that he doesn't have to get his hands dirty and make a difficult decision. I think he wraps up his own cowardice in a cloak of self-righteousness (albeit a fireproof, bulletproof cloak).
Here are my main views
1) The only way to stop the Joker is to kill or permanently incapacitate him
2) Batman has a moral obligation to kill or incapacitate the Joker since the state can't or won't do it.
3) He bares responsibility for everyone the Joker harms.
**Important Points**
* The Joker is responsible for everyone he kills. The full burden of each person's murder is on his head. This CMV in no way negates his responsibility for his actions.
* Batman is **not** equally as responsible as the Joker for the people he kills. I'm not attempting to assign a specific amount of blame to Batman. All I am saying is that he bares some level of responsibility for his refusal to stop the Joker.
* Finally, Batman is not responsible for the people that the Joker killed early on in his career before it became apparent that he could not be contained.
* If you are against capitol punishment or killing in general, we obviously have an unbridgeable gap here, and cannot possibly come to an agreement
* The only criminal that I am applying this argument to is the Joker. I'm not advocating for Batman to kill anyone else. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: If porn is legal, prostitution should be legal +
+ Prostitution is dangerous because it is illegal. The black market makes it dangerous. You have to deal with girls who may have STD's, guys who will not pay, pimps, pregnancy, abuse, etc. However, the porn industry has been regulating sex between strangers so that it can be filmed and profit can be made by people who view it. These industries regulate STD screenings, condoms/protection to avoid pregnancy, money/payment, etc. in a safe and professional manner. They are regulated.
Now, many people do not want to be porn stars and they may not even be hired if they wanted to. Yet, the desire to have sex is still there and it is very important to many people. Their should be regulation of prostitution to eliminate all of the dangerous aspects of it. If porn is legal, prostitution should be legal. CMV!
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Humanity's resources are unlimited because we can mine space. We should expand, not conserve +
+ Using resources efficiently is nice but it's no substitute for pushing frontiers out to the other planets and eventually the stars.
The idea that we will “use up all the Earth’s resources” is short-sighted. The cost to space is falling as technology advances, and space is full of energy and materials. It will eventually be economical to go get it.
Also, old waste becomes new resources as technology changes. Dung became fertilizer. Dirt became bricks. Sand became glass. Guano became gunpowder. Asphalt became roads.
Instead of reaching a moment when we say "our resources are gone!" we will continue to find new uses for what's all around us. | 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 requiring able-bodied, mentally capable adults who receive welfare to work is a form of slave labor +
+ I consider myself very left wing but I've found that the Democratic and Socialist parties consider workfare a form of slave labor. I don't see how this is the case - we are all working for money and benefits, unfortunately there is no "free lunch" for any of us. If people who are capable of working are receiving free benefits, what is wrong with requiring them to work?
Maybe I am missing something with regard to single or stay at home parents, or perhaps workfare does not give people enough time to go find the job they want. I would like to add that I see a difference between letting private companies profit off cheap labor, and having the welfare recipients work on government projects. Is workfare always to the benefit of private companies?
Please, CMV!
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:Donating to an Ivy League university is not an act of altruism. It's a gigantic, immoral waste of money. +
+ I read [this article](http://www.vox.com/2015/5/12/8590639/stephen-schwarzman-yale-donation) today. The author berates Steven Schwarzman for making a $150m donation to Yale, where the students mostly come from very rich backgrounds. Literally any other charity would be a better choice. He could cost-effectively make millions of lives better instead of building a music hall (among other things) at Yale. I donate a token amount of money to the universities I went to (that have much much smaller endowments than Yale) but give larger sums to charities that do work in India and Africa. Any reason I should 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: Nuclear war in the near future is inevitable until virtually all such weapons are eliminated. +
+ By near future, I mean 0 to 100 years. Given the irrationality of humanity, and the long history of systemic failures leading to the unthinkable, the presence of nuclear weapons represents an existential risk that is all too plausible.
The total yield of all nuclear weapons is measured in the *gigatons*. Though work has been done in the area of disarmament, the pace is far too slow to be meaningful. Even the presence of 20 modern nuclear weapons is an intolerable threat.
But a nuclear war involving only 20 weapons is a pipe dream. There are thousands of 'active' nuclear weapons, ready to be deployed, and at the current pace of disarmament, any nuclear war within the next 100 years will involve *at least* hundreds of weapons, with a total explosive yield in the hundreds of megatons.
Even one is too many. If, for example, terrorists detonated a nuclear weapon of moderate yield in Manhattan, simulations have shown a total fatality amount of nearly a million. Economic damage due to both direct and indirect effects would likely be in the trillions. Geopolitics would be utterly and irreversibly destabilized for the foreseeable future. North Korea and Iran would suddenly appear to require immediate military intervention to forestall future attacks, and the American public would gladly endorse it.
This even would represent one of the greatest calamities in human history. Yet the threat of this pales when compared with a nuclear war involving multiple nations. In a full-scale nuclear war, immediate causalities would be in the hundreds of millions, potentially rising to billions depending on the extent of the war and the resulting collapse of infrastructure and climate stability. The very concept of a global economy would cease to exist. Humanity would be plunged into internecine conflict for decades, possibly centuries, as those still alive fought tooth and claw over the rubble of civilization. Suffice to say, short of an asteroid impact on the scale of Chicxulub, it is hard to imagine a worse fate for mankind.
Now, let me address the problem of mutually assured destruction. This subject really requires its own topic, but I'll try to be as concise as I can. All major nuclear arsenals are organized around this idea, and so they are kept ready at all times, waiting for the call. This is insanely dangerous, as it means any mistake or false positive will not simply cause some weapons to be launched in retaliation, but *all* weapons. Implicit in the idea of MAD is that any nuclear strike must be responded to with overwhelming force, and the response must happen **immediately**, long before the bombs start going off. A submarine-launched ballistic missile would take less than 15 minutes to reach a major city - that is the window our leaders have to judge if an attack is real or imaginary. Mistakes and false positives of this kind [have already happened](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov), and will surely happen in the future. We only need be unlucky once.
If that weren't bad enough, we have the growing danger of missile defense initiatives, which although perhaps well-intentioned, serve to destabilize the already questionable state of nuclear deterrence. What happens when, for one country, MAD is no longer mutual? If you believe your only true means of defense is being taken from you, what response do you have left?
But here is what is really scary, what should truly frighten you: it doesn't frighten you at all. This is the great paradox of nuclear war. It is simply too big to fathom. Just like attempting to imagine the scale of the universe, our minds fail us. Because we cannot imagine it, we dismiss it as a kind of fantasy. I am guilty of this too. Here I am, writing this post with all sincerity, and yet to contemplate it doesn't disturb me one bit. Of course it won't happen, right?
I feel that this is the true peril we are facing. While our leaders may understand the threat intellectually, they have no visceral reaction to it. Not the reaction required to affect the needed changes to remove the threat. As history teaches us, world leaders are perpetually blindsided by what seems so obvious in hindsight.
We saw this with WWI: who would have thought one assassination would lead to a war killing millions? We saw this with 9/11: who would have thought it was so trivial to use commercial jets as weapons? We saw this with credit default swaps: who would have thought how easily they would cause systemic collapse of the economy? Who would have thought...
This where we are right now. The weapons are here, they are ready. The trigger need only the lightest pressure. And you aren't worried, you aren't worried at all.
| 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 think that my sexuality is something to be proud of +
+ I am not really that into things like Pride, gay bars etc. I have come out because I was outed, to be honest I didn't really want to come out since I don't want to be known as "the gay guy", I want to be far more than my sexuality, it doesn't define who I am no matter what society would have me believe.
I put on a smile since my other 1/2 is but to be honest I just put up with being gay, I don't really enjoy pride and get bored after the first 5 minutes on it and well I am starting to question the point in it anymore, it just seem to be a PR toy of big companies trying to look progressive and non-evil
There's nothing I can do about my sexuality so I just put up with it like you would put up with something you have no choice over. I put up with my migraines like I put up with my food allergies etc.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Comparing women and men in equality discussions is like comparing apples and oranges. +
+ Gender equality discussions in my eyes have reached a point, where all that happens is opression olympics. Every side has this one up mentality where everyone tries to be as much of a victim as possible, to make their statements somewhat count more or have more importance, while the other side tries to play down those statements.
I'd like to mention, that this all goes for middle class western society (most of what is reddits demography).
Here comes my problem: It seems to me, that both genders are trying to compare apples and oranges when it comes down to who has it worse. Its impossible. Both sides are so different from each other, both sides suffer from different problems both sides have different advantages. How could that be compared? Who decideds what problem is really worse then the other one? It can't be done. No human being has the ethical superiority to define which problem is worse. And its far more complex than just comparing two problems together. Its a huge set of things that has to be considered for each gender, and it is impossible to make an overall statement because of the complexity and variance between those two sides.
One big attribution to this kind of thinking is lack of empathy on both sides. Its simply to explain why this lack of empathy exists. Very few people get the actual living experience of both sides of this story, because normally people do not live as the opposite gender they are born as. So almost all people lack experiences of living as the opposite gender they are born as, and therefore have a very narrow experience on gender related issues. The typical grass is greener on the other side occurs.
What most forget, is how really different the living experiences of an average women is compared to an average men. I won't deny many of thoses differences exist because of some stupid cultural gender norms, but many do not. Many can be attributed to other stuff like biological imperatives. I am not saying that those contribute equally as hard to every individual, that is not true. Its a spectrum for everyone. But overall, the experiences differ between the genders, and thats why its a comparission of apples and oranges.
How can someone compare thoses difference experiences as a whole and say one is better and the other is worse? It can't even be done on an individual level, how is it possible to compare such huge groups as men and women?
I don't like the way the equality discussion is going, but i would be open minded to someone who can explain, why comparing men and women lifes is even possible.
I will try to argue against every statement that goes like: "But look, gender x has it worse here and there and there, thats why they have it worse in general." I will simply counter it with a list of disadvantages of the other gender, and ask you to compare what is worse. You will notice that it simply can't be done. If someone provides me happiness statistics, then i have some arguments against that too, don't even bother.
Tl,dr: Mens life and womens life are not comparable. Why can someone say one side has it worse than the other when there is no comparable ground? | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Google Chrome is currently the most overrate browser and it continues to fall further behind +
+ I been using Google Chrome as far as i remember (probably since 2010) and it's been my default browser on all the computers/laptops I've used. Chrome was fast, reliable and most of all it had a great materials design.
Having said all that, recently Chromes has failed to live up to its name. Many browsers out there have the same if not better look and feel which also hold up in the speed department. To put it simply, other browsers has closed, if not overtaken the Chrome and everything it stood for.
Saying that you use Chrome means nothing anymore, and might as well use IE (or the incarnation Spartan)
Please change my view
Thank you for your replies
Also, I am aware that the word overrated is misspelled
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Blue should be the colour of the American Republican Party and red should be the colour of the American Democratic Party. +
+ Pretty self-explainitory, I think that the Republicans should have blue as their colour and the Democrats should have red as their colour. My reason being that internationally blue is the colour of centre-right/conservative parties(the Canadian Conservative party, the British Conservative party, the Australian Liberal Party, the Spanish People's Party, etc.) while red is the colour of centre-left/left wing parties(the Canadian Liberals, the British Labour Party, Spanish Socialist Workers' Party, etc.). It would just be less confusing for followers of elections to have one colour for left-wing parties and one colour for right-wing parties globally. I'll finish by saying that before the 2000 election, there was [no consensus](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17079-2004Nov1.html) on what colours to use for which party and many times blue was used for the Republicans and Red for the Democrats.
| 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 think I should spend every waking hour of my teenage life trying to get into a good college +
+ I'm a really bad student, like a really bad student. In certain classes I simply do not do the homework and in all classes I rarely ever study. I understand perfectly where this will get me, but I am simply not willing to throw all my time and energy into things I see as unnecessary.
Don't get me wrong I'm not some party high schooler, quite the opposite really. I am an all honors student with many AP classes that I have been scheduled to take next year after taking one AP class this year (sophomore year). I don't waste my time with things I see as trivial and slowly school has turned into something I see as trivial. Instead of doing my school work I spend timing learning how to program or watching a documentary on issues in this world. I write, I read, and I just try to learn everything I can but just not at school. I feel like I need the freedom to choose what I do and when I do it and I am just not allowed this with school.
Every morning I wake up at 6:45 sit through painstakingly boring classes with rare highlights as there is just one or two classes I can somewhat enjoy. If there's a test it's a 50/50 that I'll turn it in half blank and if it's a lecture or some other activity I'll tune in only once awhile to get the gist of the lesson. I sometimes look around to my peers and see people with 4.0+ gpa's who are completely focused on school. I see them during free periods doing all the work assigned and I see them get mad when they get 2 points taken off. When I see this I can appreciate the effort, but at the end of the day there are literally thousands of other people just like them. Every school in the country has a couple valedictorians who will all be competing to get into the "best" colleges and a majority of them will not make it.
I think I understand the importance of college and I feel like I would excel at some of the top university, but as of now I not chasing that 4.0+ gpa required to get there and I don't see myself doing that anytime soon. I love to learn, I really love to learn and I teach myself new things I find interesting and useful everyday. That passion continues grow but it's pushing me away from going to the best colleges which I have been told will allow me to achieve the things I want to do. So please tell me why I should need to get that 4.0+ gpa and go to the best of the best of colleges. I want to help the world, but I'm not sure I'm going about it in the right way.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: More bad than good would result from restaurant servers being paid a wage as opposed to working for tips. +
+ This is a relatively hot topic with all of the minimum wage reform in discussion. A lot of people think servers should be paid a "living wage" instead of working for tips. Here is why I think this is a horrible idea:
-Restaurant prices would increase. In most of the country, servers are paid $2.13 per hour. If it were raised to say $15, restaurants would likely try to make up the majority of this increase through increased prices.
-People would lose jobs. Restaurants would likely staff less servers. They would either do this by making servers work harder (for less money), or increased automation.
-Servers like being paid in tips. Good servers are making plenty of money. I personally know servers who average $25 per hour, working 40 hours per week. Yes, it all depends on the restaurant you work at but that goes with any profession. A marketer will make more money with a good firm than a crappy one. Same with lawyers; professors, mechanics, etc.
-our current tipping system results in servers giving better service because they are trying to earn better tips.
-The tip system works as a type of commission system for restaurants, as people generally too based off of their total bill. This encourages servers to "upsell" drinks, appetizers, desserts, etc. without this commission system servers are less likely to push these products as it won't directly affect their income. Restaurants will have to make up for lost sales somehow else. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The Next Generation depicts a dystopian future after TOS +
+ Okay so this requires a Trek-sized wall of text to even make par for a Trekkie ~~war~~ discussion. I'll break this into two parts to meet the sub's 500 character limit, part II being in the comments section:
**Part I**
Some people absolutely love TNG. For many, it’s their introduction to Star Trek. This makes no sense as even TNG’s writing staff have come forward complaining that Gene Roddenberry thoroughly tied their hands and forced the show to have zero conflict, zero drama, and to resemble his vision of a utopian future, by force mind you. Gene forced the staff, fans of TOS wishing to pay homage to the series, to create utopia against their will via his absolute authority as the creator (cutting out the influence of men like ~~Trotsky~~ D.C. Fontana or Gene Coon, and crowning himself grand chancellor or Star Trek). Let this be a foreshadowing to the sort of show that would unfold.
Even beyond it’s creation, if taken seriously as canon, TNG represents a dystopian future. Take the NCC-1701 Enterprise-D for example. The original Enterprise was just one of an historic line of ships, form the Earth seas to the stars. So why the Enterprise-D, with the same number and name? Why no other ship? Why no Constellation-D, or NCC-1700 Constitution-D? There is no other explanation: It was pure propaganda. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Anarchism/Voluntaryism is the Ethical Superior to Government +
+ I am an anarchist, to be specific, a Voluntaryist anarcho-capitalist.
Anarchism is the absence of government, the state. Voluntaryism is a political philosophy with two main points; all interactions should be voluntary by all parties, and everyone should abide by the non-aggression principle (people can not threaten, force, or coerce another person, for that is violent).
To get it strait, I believe anarchism is only associated with chaos for the reason that the polar opposite of anarchy, the state, has been in power for thousands of years and is the ones to educate people since then.
I believe that the state itself is a hypocrisy; no man can be trusted to rule himself, so lets have someone from this group rule everyone.
I believe that taxation is theft on the grounds that they do not ask for your consent when they take your money, and is immoral no matter what the money is used for.
I believe that arresting is kidnapping, especially when it comes to lawbreakers, who I define as those who commit victimless crimes, compared to criminals who commit crimes with victims. To be honest, my views here are somewhat fuzzy.
Though I am absolutely not against learning and education, I am against state-based education. I find it violent through coercion. I or my parents could be fined or jailed because I want to take complete charge in my own education or just don't want to be educated in a place that indoctrinates patriots from an age where we can't argue well against it?
I do not believe that technological advancement will halt in any major way.
I do not believe that electricity, sewage, internet and the like will go away at all without government. Well, it's possible in a place where the government controls everything, but not entirely, I believe.
I am against the police because they have the legal right to kill you for what a couple documents say. People should only have the right to kill another individual as a last option in defense of yourself or someone else. No one should have the right to kidnap or kill you for a victimless crime. (Again, somewhat of a fuzzy area, especially when it comes to rapists or murderers.)
I believe that laws are nothing but threats. “If you do this, then we have the right to go as far as to kill you.” That sounds completely immoral, using threats to keep someone from doing something.
I do not think people are any less safe in the long term if anarchy suddenly reigned on mankind. In fact, I believe that there will be a much stronger sense of community without a state, and a greater sense of protection.
I am sure I missed some points here, and I apologize if this seems too long. I tried to keep it short.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: "It hasn't molded or spoiled in years" and "bugs won't even bother with it" are actually advantages, not problems, of fast food. +
+ I'm getting [this picture](http://i.imgur.com/nsRflaq.jpg) a lot lately. I get the argument: real food would have molded and bugs would have eaten it by now. However, aren't those facts good things? Food that never goes bad and is in no danger of infestation sounds like an improvement over food that goes bad and attracts bugs. Especially in insanitary places with no fridges and lots of bugs.
I'm not arguing that fast food is healthy. My point is that the arguments in the picture help, rather than hurt, the case for the production of fast food.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: A political party that 63.1% of people didn't vote for shouldn't have a majority government (UK) +
+ Here are the results of how many seats each major party got, and the percentage of votes they had:
Conservative - 36.9% Votes - 331/650 seats
Labour - 30.4% Votes - 232/650 seats
UKIP - 12.6% Votes - 1/650 seats
Liberal Democrat - 7.9% Votes - 8/650 seats
SNP - 4.7% Votes - 56/650 seats
Green Party - 3.8% Votes - 1/650 seats
Even though I disagree with the policies of the UKIP party, I still feel that if they achieved 12.6% of the votes, there should be a fairer representation of them in terms of seats.
The green party and the SNP, for example, only differed in a small amount, percentage-wise, but had a huge decrease in seats (therefore influence).
To clarify: I don't know if making the system so that direct votes count as direct seats in government would work, however I do feel as the current system discourages people from voting. A lot of people voted 'tactically' rather than with what they wanted; I know I did.
It would be great to see some opposing views, any constructive criticism about my post would also be appreciated :)
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I believe that in vitro fertilization is unethical because of discarding the unwanted/redundant embryos +
+ Generally I think in vitro fertilization is a good idea since it helps people struggling with having children to finally have offspring but since the only sensible (as in: costs in the range of a regular family) way to go about it is to discard the unwanted and/or redundant embryous, it seems to be morally wrong since you're generally discarding human beings.
I know that an ebryo doesn't have the full nervous system of a human being but the debate over when something becomes a human being is still unresolved and, as such, in vitro fertilization seems morally questionable at best.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |