Datasets:

JingyangYi
/

CMV_op_test

Dataset card Viewer Files Files and versions Community

Split (1)

test · 1.53k rows

input stringlengths 89 9.33k	output stringclasses 2 values	instruction stringclasses 1 value
CMV: Prescriptivism + + I've been studying Linguistics as an undergraduate for about 8 months or so now, so this one is important to me academically. In discussions of language, there are typically two camps into which people fall: prescriptivism, and descriptivism. Prescriptivists, think your typical grammarian, David Crystal, Lynne Truss, etc., correcting people's grammar, getting fussy about punctuation, insisting upon proper pronunciation. At the heart of prescriptivism is the idea that there is a way that language should be spoken. Descriptivism, on the other hand, argues that there is no such thing as "correct" language, that what prescriptivists call "mistakes" are just non-standard varieties, and that we shouldn't ever make judgements about people's language. Linguistics is whole-heartedly and almost exceptionlessly (AFAIK) descriptivist, and as a student, I recognise its importance. The view that there is any single "correct" variety of language is obviously misleading from the beginning: which variety? Who says X dialect is better than Y dialect? And judgements against language, I-believe-it-was-Peter Trudgill argued, are actually judgements against people's social class, as supposedly "incorrect" language features are often described by the upper classes as being used by the lower classes. And I do mostly agree with it. But. While I understand all this, I find it difficult to truly shake off the claws of prescriptivism. In particular, the idea that there isn't any "correct" language. For example: "He _went_ to the shops" "He _gone_ to the shops" I can accept that in some English dialects, the past participle of "go" is "gone" instead of "went". That's not a mistake. But then take a sentence like: "Shops went the he to" This isn't syntactically valid: it doesn't parse as a sentence. You might just be understood, but more likely you would confuse everybody with this sentence, so it fails as communication. If this sentence both isn't a valid sentence, and can't be understood, what other word to describe it than "incorrect"? It can't be a valid form of language if almost nobody understands it, surely. So what I'm really seeking, is to understand how sentences like the above can fit into the framework of descriptivism, and for someone to convince me that we can't describe sentences like the above as "wrong". Please VCM.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Mainstream acceptance of the Book of Mormon Musical shows that joking about a religion (of any kind) should be allowed in the USA + + To start off yes I am Mormon and no I am not offended by The Book of Mormon Musical. In fact I know a ton of very devout Mormons who have seen the play and they all said that they thought it was very funny. In fact the LDS (Mormon) church even bought ads in the Playbills of the musical to direct the audience to the official LDS website. Prominent political figures such as Hilary Clinton have also seen the play and didn't have any issues about it. Yet at the same time there are certain religions in the United States that are big no-no's to make fun of. This seems slightly counter intuitive. I only have the view from a Mormon perspective but there have been other pieces of media that openly mock and slap at Mormons including [this](http://images.politico.com/global/2012/07/bbw_mormonempire_cover29.jpg) from the cover of Bloomberg Businessweek. For a little bit of background on this cover and what it is depicting. That is Joseph Smith who is the founder of the Mormon church along with another member of the church receiving a blessing from an angel. Obviously this angel did not say those things that are on the cover and disputing what the cover brings up is a topic for a different subreddit, so please don't address those things, but know that this cover is offensive to most Mormons. This scene in Mormon theology is as sacred as Moses receiving the ten commandments or Buddha reaching Nirvana. So I guess I'm just trying to understand why its acceptable to harshly mock some religions (not just Mormons) but not others. TL;DR Why is it politically correct to never criticize one religion but its okay to criticize another?	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Adam Sandler has not made a good movie since 2005. + + Adam Sandler used to be one of the hottest comedy stars in the 90s and early 2000s. Adam's early work was easy for the average viewer to watch, was funny, and was creative. Since 2005 Adam Sandler's career had taken a turn for the worse. While Adam Sandler's movies have always been low-brow funny, they have become flat out stupid in the last few years. A lot of Adam Sandler's new movies are crude and not relatable. The last 10 years of Adam Sandler's career have been unfortunate because it seems that he is not willing to take comedic risks and is settling more than anything.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Watching the TV Show Game of Thrones is comparable to watching paint dry (Spoilers) + + Watching paint dry is a very simple thing. Going in you know what is going to happen, and you are just watching it unfold. There may be times of error, dripping of paint, or cracking, but in the end the wall is painted. Game of Thrones is similar in that there is only one conclusion to the story, and while you may watch some of the paint drip, in the end you will see it dry and nothing else mattered. In the first or second book/season in this series we learn that there is undead coming from the north to end the world. The only way to defeat them is unite the seven kingdoms and defeat them with dragons. This means that only one person can do this: Daenerys. Not a single other person has dragons. That mean there is only two possible conclusions to the Game of Thrones; Everyone dies, or Daenerys unites the kingdom and wins the war. I doubt anyone would bother with the story if the first happens. This means there is only one conclusion to the story. Nothing else matters. Every other character is unimportant, and will die now, submit to the queen or die in the war. Every villain in the series will die and everything they do is meaningless, as the only evil is the undead. All the story lines will end before the final war with their conclusions being meaningless in the conclusion of the story. Who cares who is in power if we all know there is only one person who wins in the end? Therefore every minor story line has only one conclusion, they die or submit the queen, none of their goals of power can ever be fulfilled. There is only one person who can win or the world is destroyed. Just like the wall being painted, the story will end with a simple conclusion, all those cracks and drips are forgotten as the wall is done and they never meant anything. The wall is the white we painted it in the beginning and now it is dry, nothing else effected it in any way. All watching the show is watching a long drawn out conclusion. Hell in the books, you can tell they made George add some other Targaryen, the once dead kid, because there was no mystery what so ever and no real reason to continue reading the books. People who watch the TV show are easy going, they did not need to add that mystery because people are content watching the paint dry. Just like the paint, there is only one color, one ending, and one person who matters. Everyone else is just paint waiting to dry, never changing the known conclusion, just passing the time. Watching the show is watching these characters slowly dry the white you know they will with no mystery as there is only one possible conclusion. CMV	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Due to the way sex is portrayed in the media, and several other factors, the majority of American males will never have a truly gratifying sexual encounter. + + Yes I'm an American male, and I don't know how things differ for women or those outside the United States, so I'll leave those two large groups out of the discussion. For any given American male, I believe the chances are less (possibly way less) than 50% that he will at some point in his life have a sexual encounter that truly fulfills his fantasies. I think this is due to a combination of factors, that when taken together hurt his chances greatly: 1) Most mainstream media (movies, TV, magazines, websites, porn, etc.) focuses on very attractive women (and men). Most people (maybe 80-90%) don't get anywhere near those standards. Yet the media offers what becomes, in many cases, the yardstick by which we judge attractiveness. This means the pool of attractive potential partners becomes smaller both for the guy and for those he has an interest in. 2) Many if not most men watch porn, and a lot (though certainly not all) of it glorifies unrealistic or demeaning things done to (generally) attractive people who are paid to do it and to act like they enjoy it whether they really do or not. A ludicrous amount of free porn is available to most people, usually from a young age, and much easier to access than an actual partner. 3) Lots of food, sedentary lifestyles, increasing obesity. This ties in with #1, in that we're taught that obesity is unattractive, yet people are getting fatter because of... lots of things, but we'll just say food is a business that's very heavily marketed to us, and usually not to keep people in good physical form. I think this is a recipe for fat, porn-addicted dudes who dream of boning the hottest of the hot in ways that most self-respecting people would refuse. I'm sure some guys are lucky enough to have a truly gratifying experience with another person, but I think the majority will have to settle for something less than what they dream of. I think that's hard to argue against but also really depressing, 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: "Not All X", such as "Not all men" has a small, but important place in gender equality discussion. + + Hi! I'm trying to learn feminism -- which is a huge topic, and like all huge topics, has it's good and bad. I was recently introduced to the scathing disdain for the "not all men" sentiment. I'd like to start out by establishing a few things, because it's important to know that I don't support using this sentiment broadly. 1. Where a victim is grieving, confiding, venting, or however else they are dealing with a problem, it is an inappropriate time to use "not all men". The focus belongs on the victim and their healing at that time, not nitpicking their wording. 2. "Not all men", in the way I'm using it here, is actually "not all X", where X is any group in a discussion that has a broad, negative statement said toward their group. We see it most frequently thanks to the (most often deserving) scorn targeted at the "not all men" sentiment, but I do mean Not all X, where X is any group. ###The value of accurate language As a young boy, when I said "women are bad at math", my father corrected me. He said "some women are bad at math". When my brother said "you never let me go to town," he corrected him by saying "I usually don't, but here are the times I did". My father took issue with "global" language, as he called it, no matter what form it came in, because he saw it as harmful. Have you ever felt a burden to prove you're some blanket statements that was often leveled against your kind? "Women are bad at math", or "women cry so easily", or "blacks are stupid", or "feminist hate men". For me personally, when I saw "men are so shallow" growing up I felt a sense of hostility from the statement. It felt like a judgement against me, and I felt like I had to carry the burden to show people that even though men are shallow, I'm a man and I'm not. The point is, if we use careful speech, like "I hate it when men are shallow / some men are so shallow", OR "It really bothers me a woman cries over the smallest thing" and "some women cry so easily", we avoid creating broad, negative labels. These labels can create a great sense of shame in the targeted group, and this shame fosters a sense of otherness. Instead of the shamed person feeling included or a part of something, they feel excluded. This, and the shame can also sabotage a person's self value and chance at success. By biggest concern is the sense of otherness it can create, driving away potential allies, and by god we need a lot of allies to address the institutionalized racism and sexism in most western nations. Therefore 1. I believe it is in the best interest of those seeking to address an oppressive culture to use accurate language in order to be inclusive to as many as possible, to maximize their efforts 2. Just as it is the responsibility of the privileged to not use broad, negative language to describe the oppressed, it's also (far down on the priority list) the responsibility of the oppressed to not use broad, negative language to describe the privilege. Because, really, it's a human's responsibility to a human to not use broad, negative language against a human. To a reasonable length, of course, and I d not believe adding "some" before men, women, asians, etc, is much of a stretch. ###Picking an appropriate time Again, the time to say "not all X" is not when a victim is trying to overcome their harm. But in casual conversation, as a small aside, it is good for all people to correct others when they use this harmful, broad language. ####Conclusion / TL;DR: No matter the group, broad language assigning negative traits to another group is harmful, and it is our responsibility as humans to take reasonable efforts to avoid propagating this harm, starting first with ourselves, second in mild conversation, and never while a victim is trying to overcome harm. We should never become comfortable using broad, negative language.	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 Reddit should get rid of the downvote system. + + I've been on Reddit for a little over a year now. Ar first I really enjoyed the discussion and community. But the longer I stayed I started to notice more and more problems. My biggest gripe with Reddit is the downvote system. I think the upvote concept is good, but not the reverse. As I've noticed, the community tends to silence people they dislike, or have a differing opinion with. This to me goes against the whole concept of Reddit. Content should not be silenced simply because you have a differing opinion. This is why so much of the same content cycles back to the top every now and then. To truly spark discussion and promote diversity, the tool should be removed completely. Though the true problem lies with the users, since they maintain this environment. But just like laws to protect citizens from having their rights taken, equal opportunity to have your voice heard should be a priority. But that's just me. Am I missing something?	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: There is nothing wrong with allowing knives in a high-school + + 1. They are no worse than any other every-day scchool utilities. A mildly grinded metal ruler would be the exact same, a normal pen can be just as deadly, and you can be damn sure a pencil/compass will go right through pen 2. They are just utilities. I worked while in HS. A lot of my friends worked. Almost everyone I knew with a job habitually carried a knife as a utility for simple things such as opening boxes. Hell, I once had the police called on my (by my school) because I wore the same pants as I had the previous day and still had my knife on me. Never brandished it or anything, but I was suspended, almost expelled. 3. *With the exception of schools with metal detectors* anyone who wants to bring a knife can't be preemptively stopped. Just like the issue with gun control, people who want weapons can get them. If they are brandished with malicious intent by a "bad person" (rule breaker) the rule-followers won't be able to defend themselves. ---	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: I'm 21, 5'8 and losing my hair. I will always be alone and no longer want to live. + + I'm 21, an engineering student, passionate musician with 10 years of experience. I'm 5'8, and rapidly losing my hair. I believe I will end up alone. I've only been in one long term relationship, where I settled for someone who wasn't very emotionally stable, this obviously was unhealthy and I had to leave her after 3 dramatic years. Out of anger, frustration, and a hunger for change I have spent the last few years doing everything I can to maximize on every aspect of my life that I have control over. I dress well, have a good sense of humor and a very outgoing persona (I genuinely love talking to people), I also have one of the best competitive physiques I have seen from years of sports, intense weightlifting, proper training, eating and excercise. I've pushed myself so hard to develop habits that encourage me to be an honest, empathetic, and selfless human being. I've read virtually every pickup and seduction book out there (while avoiding the disgustingly mysoginist side of that community), and have approached and talked to endless girls without fear (confidently and without anxiety) yet I am flaked on 100% of the time, every single time. My increasing hair loss feels like a ticking time bomb for finding someone who will care for me enough to look past it before it goes or the Propecia I take kills my sex drive, as my short stature already turns girls away as it is. And it hurts so much that I have placed so much effort into changing the things that I can, when the things that I can't change inhibit me the most. Yet no matter how hard I fucking try and want to I am unable to force myself to be attracted to girls who aren't fit and intelligent (basically from my experience, girls that are out of my league), probably due being in the physical shape that I'm in and valuing pursuit of knowledge and intellectual conversarion myself. I don't want to get laid, or bang 100 girls. I just want to fall in love man, and have someone who lets me love them, and doesn't care that I'm short and losing my hair because I'd go to the ends of the Earth to fight for and protect them. Because my biggest fucking fear in life, is settling in a marriage with a girl I'm not attracted to and abandoning my wife and kids as my father did to me. And the worst fucking part about it, is I'm being broken into pieces by this STUPID INSIGNIFICANT shit when 200,000 Haitians were buried under buildings in an earthquake and I am otherwise perfectly healthy while others are in hospital beds fighting for the opportunity for life that I currently hold and take for granted. How fucked up is that? And knowing that makes me feel like such a small piece of shit man that I can't come to terms with my emotions and get the fuck over it. I just wasn't built for the mental and emotional battle I've dealt with for years, the loneliness and having no one to talk to, and am searching for a way out.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Circumcision is genital mutilation + + verb (used with object), mutilated, mutilating. 1. to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts: Vandals mutilated the painting. 2. to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part. Circumcision is really no different from the most commonly practiced form of female genital mutilation. FGM doesn't always involve the complete removing of the clitoris. It's not comparable to chopping off the head. There are four types of FGM. There is one type where the whole clitoris is removed, but others involve the removal of the clitoral hood, and others are comparable to the removal of foreskin. Circumcision supposedly lowers the risk of the contraction of HIV. The lifetime risk of HIV for men is 2%, and with the use of condoms, it can be 0%. If you get circumcised and still wear condoms... well.... what's the point? Now consider the risk of breast cancer for women, which is 12.4 percent for women born in the united states. Removal of the breast buds at birth could prevent this entirely, but nobody would actually want to do that.Just to clarify, circumcision for whatever medical reason as a child or later in life isn't nearly as bad. You can consent to it, and it's for a real health concern, unlike most cases with infant circumcision. An adult could choose to get circumcised if he wanted to. But does forcing genital mutilation on a baby for cultural or religious purposes make sense anymore? By definition, circumcision is mutilation, and in the vast majority of cases doesn't have any real health benefit. It's also not done for health, but cultural purposes in many cases. http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/fgm/overview/en/ http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/types/breast/risk-fact-sheet	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Pro-vaxxers and anti-vaxxers are both fear-mongerers. + + Most of Reddit seems to be very pro-vaccine, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. But here's where I stand on the issue. I believe that most people should get vaccinated, and we should definitely persuade people to do so because they do cause more good than harm, but I am against mandatory vaccinations because 1) I believe it's an issue of personal choice and 2) I was harmed by a vaccine when I was very young, and I know a few people who were as well, and I think doctors need to stop pretending that all vaccines are entirely harmless. A lot of the anti-vaxxers still perpetuate the myth that vaccines cause autism, which has been disproven several times. I have Aspberger's Syndrome and even I don't believe this anymore. Anti-vaxxers seem to have what is called confirmation bias, where they cling to their belief so much that any opposing arguments just do not register to them, and they will only bother looking at viewpoints that support their belief, because it makes them feel good. However, while pro-vaxxers tend to be a little better at acknowledging other points of view, a lot of them still have this mentality that anyone who questions the pharmaceutical industry at all must be an ignorant dumbass who doesn't know anything. This is simply not true. Since when is it wrong to question the intent of large businesses like the pharmaceutical companies? Now I don't subscribe to the anti-vax belief that these companies are trying to poison us or anything, but is it too far-fetched to say that since they are for-profit companies, making money does come first and foremost and effectiveness second? I'm not denying that they are expert scientists who are working to make them as effective as possible, but effectiveness sure isn't a requirement for them to make money. [And since they can't get sued for any vaccine injuries](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-vaccine-ruling-parents-cant-sue-drug-makers-for-kids-health-problems/), they have very little incentive to make sure their vaccines aren't causing any damage. The government is protecting them instead of protecting us. Now regardless of how you feel about what I said above, you must admit that many of the pro-vaxxers can be extremely judgmental towards the vaccine skeptics, making heartless and cruel statements like "Any parent who doesn't vaccinate their children should have their kids taken away from them." Really? Let's break this down. You're saying that just because there's a small chance that an unvaccinated child will get some sort of disease, an even smaller chance that he will spread it to others before the disease is noticed, and an even smaller chance that the disease would be life-threatening, you think that's bad enough for a parent to be taken away from their children!? You think that's worse than people who smoke around their kids? Do you think parents who are bad drivers and could get their kids killed in an accident are any better? I'm sorry but unless a parent is beating or abusing their child, you have no fucking right to say whether that parent deserves to be with his/her kids. I have no problem with people telling others "Vaccines are beneficial to society and I believe more people need to get vaccinated so we can get rid of disease." But when you call people like me "a walking disease" and claim that I'm putting everyone at my school at risk every day just because I'm not vaccinated, I'm sorry but that's bullshit. Sure, there's a slightly higher risk of me getting sick but you can't act like it's inevitably going to happen just because I'm not vaccinated. Vaccinations aren't the only way of getting rid of disease. [Look at this measles mortality graph from 1900.](http://healthimpactnews.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2013/11/G14.7-US-Measles-RM-1900-1987.png) The vaccine definitely helped, but measles was on its way down before the vaccine as well. Another side note, I've heard that the United States currently has a more aggressive vaccine schedule than everywhere else in the world. I don't remember where I heard this. If someone wants to dispute this, be my guest. My main two points are, 1) Anti-vaxxers do spread mistruths and lies about vaccines (which we can all agree on), but 2) pro-vaxxers over-exaggerate the necessity for vaccines, and unnecessarily shame those who don't get vaccinated as if it's the end of the world. I am neither pro-vaccine nor anti-vaccine. [Please watch this video with Bill Maher, as it sums up my beliefs perfectly](http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bill-maher-im-not-an-anti-vaxxer-but/). (I don't care what you think about Bill Maher, watch it anyway just so you can understand where I'm coming from). As Marianne Williamson states in the video, "There's a difference between having skepticism about science and having skepticism about the pharmaceutical industry." I know this is a sensitive topic. Please don't comment by attacking me for my beliefs. Do not compare me to a climate change denier. I just want to have a civil discussion about this, and since I'll admit I still don't know much about the issue, I'm very open to learning more about science and vaccines. Educate me, Reddit! :)	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: The writers of Charlie Hebdo are heroes, and those who do not recognize this are ignorant fools + + At the beginning of this year, multiple staff members at Charlie Hebdo were slaughtered in their offices. The reason for their murders were due to cartoons they published - satirizing the prophet Muhammed. Whilst the majority of people I've seen have been firmly in Charlie Hebdo's camp, there seems to be a noticeable backlash against Charlie Hebdo and some of the things they've done - to the extent that people have protested against PEN's (a freedom of speech organisation) decision to award them honours. I want to address some of these claims. A Guardian article recently had this to say about CH: First issue - this is a complete dehumanization of the staff who lost their lives that day. Suddenly, a murder becomes a narrative; that way, we don't have to see it as a crime. Furthermore, I imagine that Mustapha Ourad, copy editor of Charlie Hebdo, would be surprised to hear that he is white (if he were alive to hear it). There are these claims that the writers at CH are racists (a claim that is demonstrably wrong, as I shall go on to explain), who oppress 'marginalized' peoples with cartoons. I suppose the people who make these claims either simply ignore, or do not see, the fact that the people who killed the cartoonists are very, very, very obviously racists themselves - demonstrated by their targeting of a Jewish community following the attack on CH - making them authentic, evidently racist killers. No one mentions that part of the 'narrative', do they? The claim that CH is racist is an absurd one. I'll demonstrate why. Take this image from the [New Yorker](http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/files/2015/04/original.jpg). Say you knew nothing of The New Yorker or wider US culture. What do you think this image conveys? That the New Yorker thinks Obama is a terrorist - that would be the only logical conclusion you could deduce. The real purpose of that image is to parody the extreme right wingers of US politics and their claims about Obama - tea party claims that he is a terrorist, muslim, and unable to stand for presidency. To understand this, you require an understanding of current US political culture. Now, take this [widely circulated cover of CH's apparent racism](https://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/2925558/CHARLIE-HEBDO.0.jpg). It shows Boko Haram sex slaves shouting 'Don't touch our welfare'. Now, imagine you have no understanding of Frances wider political culture of CH. What do you think this image conveys? That CH is a racist, right wing magazine. Now, if you did happen to possess an understanding of Charlie Hebdo and France's wider political culture; you'd immediately understand that the image is doing something extremely similar to the one on the New Yorker. It's parodying the extreme paranoia of the right wing, anti immigration parties that began to arise in France by displaying enslaved, pregnant, Boko Haram sex slaves invading France and taking their money. Anyone with any understanding of French culture and CH know for a fact that CH is a left wing magazine that has routinely expressed their desire for immigrants to remain in their country, and that the rights of immigrants be respected. Ignorant people with no prior knowledge of parisian culture, of the history of CH, make these absurd, disgusting, disrespectful claims about CH. Firstly, if attacking 'marginalized peoples' is such a major issue - then their would be zero criticism, parody, or satire from the left aimed at the working class peoples who voted for the Tea Party, Ukip, of the French NF. Is that the case? If Tea Partiers, or the French NF, had gunned down CH - would their be claims that CH's vicious attacks on their ideology lay hold to the blame of the attacks? Would that argument be defended? The people who argue this way must therefore agree that there is an Islamic blasphemy law that is enforced at gunpoint - regardless of whether a population wants it - and that you are to blame if you are slaughtered for saying something other people don't like. Charlie Hebdo was a beacon of light, a welcome friend, and an invaluable ally to moderate and liberal Muslims across the globe. Islam has no special place. It should receive the same level of parody, criticism, satire, and insults that every other religion and ideology has - if not more so given it's followers reluctance to accept this. It's followers have no right to demand people not to write this way. Muslims have zero right to murder those who don't believe the same things as they do, or insult the things they believe. Muslims who support those who commit these murders are equally as disgusting and retched as those who commit them. You also shouldn't kill people. This is not an argument I take seriously - Islam needs criticism, parody, and satire, and muslims need to see it, in order to understand that in Western Countries, this is an important aspect of our culture. Islam is not above reproach, it is not above satire. The reason for the killings given doesn't even make sense anyway - Islam restricts muslims from drawing Muhammed. Non-muslims can draw whatever they want. I understand there are people who do not agree with CH. I'm imploring you to explain to me why I'm incorrect in my support 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: Telling a person you love them just for sex is rape/sexual abuse. + + Is this rape? My ex-girlfriend got with a dude and he told her he loved her after a month and claims she thought she was in love with him, but really she was in love with me and trying to get over me. A month later she had sex with him twice because he told her he loved her. After they had sex twice, he left her and completely stopped talking to her. She came crying to me saying she felt as if she was raped/sexually abused. I still care about her and I feel as if maybe that is a form of rape, but maybe not. It's not as if she was physically taken over, but mentally taken over. She was used for sex, but she consented to it, so I don't understand. 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: Do I have a logical inconsistency in my views on vaccination and abortion? + + Ok, I just realized I may hold a logically unsound view in either my pro-choice beliefs or my pro-vaccination beliefs. Abortion is supported by my belief of autonomy, i.e. "my body, my decision", but that goes against my belief that vaccines should be required (for things like entering school, etc.). Both abortions and anti-vaccination have the potential to harm others than yourself as abortions could end the lives of viable children and anti-vaccination could harm other children through diseases. Do I have to admit to being a hypocrite, or are my views not contradicting?	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Political party leaders resigning after a 'failure' in a national election is ultimate proof that they were only interested in power the whole time. + + A political party leader has a duty to serve their country via their government or via their opposition (if they have not won election to government). Losing an election does not prevent a good leader from leading, it merely humbles them, but losing an election will cause a bad leader to give up. In the UK 3 major political party leaders gave up on Friday when they should be using their leadership skills and good vision to lead the opposition to keep the government accountable. If they had won the election I presume that they would not have retired. which makes it very evident that the leaders of the losing parties did not have leadership skills and/or a good vision but merely wanted to win for the sake of power. *** I have to go now, but I will read all the comments and get back to this tomorrow. Thank you.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Inheritance tax is ridiculous. + + I am not a "tax is theft" libertarian or even any kind of libertarian. If anything I learn more towards socialist, but I cannot get behind the idea of inheritance tax. Society and sound government requires taxes and I think it's absolutely fair to have taxes on income, sales, purchases, whatever. But for government to come in when a dying person passes on their belongings or money to someone they care about and snatch away a piece of it is a step too far. I am currently living in Spain and was chatting to some Spanish people today. They mentioned that if you inherit a house you are required to pay a portion of the value as tax. However since Spain is in recession it is extremely difficult to sell the house, and some people are forced to forfeit the property in order to be aligned with the law. This is not the basis of my belief, but it is what motivated me to post this to CMV. I want someone to give me a good reason to CMV since I think taxes are overall a positive thing. This is just one instance I think is outrageous. TL; DR I understand the need for and support taxation but I cannot support government interference in a dying person's gift to another person. CMV!	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: There will never be another military draft (forced conscription) in America. + + Not really an opinion so much as a prediction, but its still a view i hold. My prediction is based on a number of factors and you can address any or all of them or bring up new issues I haven't thought of. 1) Unpopular: The draft for the war in Vietnam was extremely unpopular with massive protests and draft dodging. After the draft was eliminated the protests died down even as the war continued. It seems that America will support a lot of military activity (Iraq War 1 & 2, Afghanistan, etc) as long as they are not personally forced to serve. 2) No close border crisis: Other modern developed countries have forced selective service (South Korea, Israel) but usually these countries face bordering existential crises to their very existence. America does not have this, has not ever had this, and presumably will not ever have this and so there is no need to have millions of men and women be conscripted every year for a tour of duty. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription 3) Nuclear Weapons: America may face small attacks here and there but no nation state large enough to possibly overthrow the United States government seems likely to attack for fear of nuclear weapons retaliation. While 9/11 was a tragedy, there was no hope of terrorists taking over the country or overthrowing the government. The only world forces strong enough to do this would be large nations with large militaries of their own and if they did have a mainland ground force invasion of US soil it would almost guarantee a nuclear response. 4) Women, and the out of shape: This is a minor reason but none the less I'll bring it up for discussion. In a modern draft there would be seemingly no way for women to avoid serving. Currently women face demanding physical aptitude tests to qualify for the most demanding positions or in some cases are barred from service for fear they will not be able to handle the physical requirements of the job (front line combat, Navy Seals, etc). In the 21st century when men and women have equal rights and are largely treated equally there would be pushback if those less capable of serving were thought to be more likely to get an easier or safer assignment. This would create a race to the bottom for applicants seeking to avoid dangerous duty. Furthermore the vast majority of Americans are overweight, out of shape, and would require extensive training to become combat ready. If diabetes, heart conditions, obesity, or any number of conditions would disqualify a person from service I imagine people would quickly engage in unhealthy habits (or bribe doctors) in order to avoid service. 5) Conscientious objectors: In previous generations there was a much stronger sense of duty, warrior culture, and sense of imminent danger which cultivated a value in service. In the modern world, where people increasingly distrust their government, have more access to information, and are more likely to have diverse religious and philosophical views I do not see the public getting behind any major military involvement that would require a draft. I would imagine there would be a rush to qualify yourself as a conscientious objector to the war in order to avoid combat even if that individual didn't feel that way immediately prior to the draft. 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: Reddit would be better without karma. + + I know that /r/changemyview requires I add a few points here, but I don't really have anything besides this perception that every single thing reddit users complain about stems from karma. Reposting, karma whoring, overused memes, etc. People do it because they want attention, and karma allows them that attention. It feels like everything is about getting people to like what you say rather than allowing people to speak their minds freely. It becomes a social status war about pleasing the masses. My views on this matter are similar to my views on allowing racist free speech. Most censorship, even user controlled censorship, is bad. Better to allow those views to come to light and then have a civil debate on it to change that person's view. Honestly, I just want a website that can be a forum for discussion without making me feel like an asshole for having unpopular opinions. So reddit may be a great place for the people who agree with the generally more popular opinions, but karma allows people to drown out the unpopular ones before they even have a chance to be defended. They shut down discussion and it de-incentivizes people who may have a different perspective. It should be okay to disagree, but it doesn't feel like it is unless you're in a sub specifically devoted to that. That's why the subs that prevent you from seeing karma are so great. You can have a reasoned discussion without feeling like you'll be punished for having a different opinion. Your comments get pushed to the bottom if you disagree with anything that doesn't fit with popular opinions. It's disgusting and it makes me want to abandon the site as a whole. I feel safer talking to real people who express genuine intelligence and do not take debate personally rather than those who attack you for having a different perspective. It applies to everything controversial and I think the subs that block karma are the ones who understand exactly what I'm talking about. The downvote button is not supposed to be a disagree button, but it is anyway. And that's a problem. I guess I did have some reasoning lol hopefully it'll be enough to appease the mods... But anyway, that's my view. I'm open to changing it, but keep in mind we may just have to agree to disagree. Which is okay with me, people are allowed to have different opinions. That's my entire point lol I welcome you to try and CMV! :)	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: The MIT should not have removed Walter Lewin's lectures as a result of the sexual harassment scandal + + A few months ago, Walter Lewin, a very famous physicist and MIT professor was accused of sexually harassing a female student in an online course. The MIT carried out an investigation and determined that he was guilty, cutting ties with him and revoking his title as an emeritus professor ( http://tech.mit.edu/V134/N60/walterlewin.html ). Now, I think we can safely assume that the accusations were real and I'll even concede that revoking his title is an appropriate measure. Nevertheless, I'd argue that the removal of his lectures is a nonsencial, knee-jerk reaction from the MIT to prevent any blemish on its reputation, perhaps from fear of criticism from certain groups. Maybe they thought that the harsher the measure, the better reaction they would obtain from the society. Removing Walter Lewin's lectures is a non-sensical approach and can't be really justified. Are the lectures themselves sexual harassment? Of course not! Does this provide justice for the victim(s)? Not at all. This measure only makes it harder for students to access very good lectures that'll allow almost anyone to comprehend basic concepts of Physics. In fact, the lectures can be readily accessed through torrents or other webpages, so it's not like the MIT is "erasing" Walter Mit from the society just to provide some relief to victims or to protect their reputation. Should we start destroying Wagner's recors just because he was an anti-semitic? Or should we stop referencing Watson's articles just because he made racist statements? I don't think so.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: I'm anti abortion, and I feel like an asshole for being so. + + WARNING: WALL OF TEXT!!! I also jump from topic to topic without much transition, I apologize in advance for that. Most of the people that I look up to in life and seem to agree with all seem to support abortion. The people I see on the internet are supported for calling out someone who is against abortion, for instance reddit, to support abortion seems to be the widely regarded popular opinion. This probably isn't the best way to put it, but I seem to agree with every other popular political opinion on reddit (I should have thoughts of my own, and shouldn't form my opinions based upon some random website.) I like making fun of racist old assholes, I like making fun if homophobic old assholes, I like making fun of sexist old assholes, and I like making fun of religious old bigots, etc. etc. etc. But abortion seems to be the thing I disagree with, and I kind of feel like an asshole, like I must be missing some key point. I feel terrible that I have the opinion I do, because everyone seems to hate those who have it, and that's why I've come here, I must be missing some sort of point, and I hope that you can point it out for me. At first I just thought I didn't understand the issue well enough, but after I came to understand both sides of the debate, I can't help but wonder why everyone just accepts that a fetus isn't alive, and are kind of ignoring the moral implications of what if it's not? It's not that I think the fetus is necessarily alive, it's more along the lines that I don't think that you can prove that it's not alive (I genuinely don't think we will ever be able to definitively prove it). However I am going to counter my own argument here in saying that you can't prove that rocks aren't sentient either in the philosophical sense, but there is at least reason to believe that a fetus is more alive than a rock. When you have sex, you know it's a possibility to get pregnant, it's kind of like its part of the terms and conditions of sex, yeah it sucks but that's the reality. Now I realize that it's not always consensual sex, and having to carry the child of someone who assaulted you is an absolutely horrendous thing, I would not wish that on my worst enemy, and I don't say that lightly, I really truly wouldn't. I can only imagine feeling as though I would just want to tear the child out no matter what. Never the less, life is life, a fetus is innocent, and the best I can recommend is some extreme therapy taken to whatever (healthy) extent necessary to help a person cope with such a thing. The "it's going to happen anyway" mindset I believe is just lazy, there are so many things on this planet that are going to happen anyway, are we just going to let them happen? Of those who are fine with people having a different opinion, it seems as though the popular opinion among them is that those who are anti abortion should shut up and keep it to themselves, don't bother anyone with it, but to be honest I even disagree with that, I don't get mad at those who picket abortion clinics, I don't see it as a bad thing to do, they literally see abortion as murder, even if you do support abortion, try to get in that mindset, seeing something as murder and being told to shut up and ignore it. (This is also why I don't get mad at animal rights activists, I've seriously considered going vegan, and I kind of think following my own philosophy, it's selfish and hypocritical of me that I'm not.) I feel as though people are arguing two completely different things, a persons right to do what they want with their body, and a fetus's right to live. We're having two different discussions and getting pissed at each other for not coming to the same conclusion. I try to avoid spreading my opinions on the topic, because I feel as though it's not my place, I am a gay male, I will literally never have to worry about pregnancy. And maybe that's why I don't understand, maybe if it even remotely affected me my opinion would be different. I'm not certain. But please help me change my view, I feel like a total ignorant asshole. TL;DR: I feel like an asshole for being against abortion	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: You should have to pass the citizenship test to vote in the US + + Take three people, Persons A, B, and C. They live in the US. Person A was born here and is a citizen. They happen to be a huge idiot and don't even know what the president DOES. They have the right to vote with literally no requirements other than surviving for 18 years and registering. They can vote. Person B is basically Albert freaking Einstein. They have the highest known IQ in the world. They know every position of all the candidates and can vote with the utmost qualification. Before they do this, they must pass a citizenship test. They do, and they can vote. Person C is just as dumb as Person A. They're not sure why people speak French in Montreal despite having lived in Canada their entire life. They moved to the US and are unable to pass a citizenship test after living in the US for the requisite time. They cannot vote. Only Person B is qualified to vote, yet Persons A and B can both do so. Why not have Person A take the same test as Persons B and C before they can vote?	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Bernie Sanders would make a bad president, despite the fact that I agree with him often + + Although I agree with many of his political stances, and hist critiques of the current system, I'm not entirely sure that he'd make a good president. The way I see it, the job of the president of the United States is to represent the populous of the United States, and many of his more extreme views might appeal widely to a crowd on reddit, but are hardly representative of the entire political sphere of USA. Even if he were to somehow win a majority vote, he would be as unpopular in the south as Lincoln was. Furthermore, in order to get anything accomplished as a president, he needs to work fairly closely with Congress, and his current stance of "attack anyone who receives donations from rich people" would prevent him from being able to play nicely. Finally, I think that as a president, his laser focus on the social problems of America would prevent him from focusing on the other issues that the president must contend with. The way he presents himself currently, it seems as though he sees it as his mission to attack the current system, which is not the position that the president should occupy. Finally, as a 74 year old man, who will be 75 at the time of the election, I think the same critiques that applied to John McCain also apply to him - there's a fairly good chance that if he were elected, he would die, or become quite ill while still in office. For these reasons, I think he'd be better situated trying to solve these social/political problems in a different capacity.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Suicide is the only logical option for me / someone in my situation. + + I'll describe as much as I can without giving away my identity. I have undergone in-depth analysis of my life over the last few years, and I have concluded that suicide is logical, at least for my situation. To start with, I am a trans female. I underwent SRS (sex reassignment surgery) seven years ago, but I do not feel that medical science is advanced enough to cure my dysphoria to an acceptable extent - my physical appearance is just far too different from my inner self image. For this reason, I have been unable to enjoy any aspect of my life. I have had numerous relationships, some short term, a couple of long term, but they have all felt "forced" - not at all natural and how I'd expect a relationship to be. As I never felt like myself, I could never really participate in the relationships in the way I'd like to - and more or less all of them ended for these reasons. To elaborate, I felt no real emotions - I told myself I was feeling them, because that's what I expected, but none of it was ever "real". The rest of my life has followed similar patterns. It's as if I am looking at someone else's life through a window, never actually experiencing the feelings and emotions that I'd expect to feel. I am unable to experience most emotions - the only thing I feel is disappointment and frustration about my situation. Other than that, I just feel numb. Never excited, or happy. I have tried various avenues to make my life worthwhile. I have taken up hobbies, sought medical treatment for the dysphoria as well as counselling, various anti-depressants and SSRIs, etc. (despite the fact that I do not suffer from depression) all to no avail. I know what my life is missing and I know that it will not be possible to fix it, at least not within my lifetime. I am currently in a state of existing rather than living. I see no point in going through the motions of life, having a job, buying a house etc. I quit my fairly well paid job and took up some part time work for a small business. It's enough to pay the rent and bills, but not much more. It keeps me alive, and I have far more free time. I have no desire to continue to live like this. In everything I do, I come across obstacles that make me more and more frustrated. I faced problems in full time employment for various reasons - I never wanted to be there, I never felt 'rewarded' despite my high pay and I had disdain for authority. Some days I just wouldn't bother to go in, because I felt like I had better things to do. In my current situation, I have constant worry about my financial situation - having just enough money to survive, I face huge problems when the unexpected happens - such as the recent head gasket failure in my car, and faced with having to move yet again in the next month or two. In addition, I find new things to reinforce my desire to leave this life on an almost daily basis. It seems like every news article I read gives me further disdain for the human race, for the world around me. The simple fact is, I have absolutely no desire to be here. Therefore, the logical alternative is to put an end to my life.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Black and white are colors + + Artists, pedants, and pedantic artists like to say that black and white are not colors, because of some property about not reflecting any light, or something along those lines. I am not saying anything against this definition. If the experts want to define things this way, I'm certainly in no position to say otherwise. However, "Black is a color" should still be a valid statement. My shirt is 'black.' I'm not a color-physicist, but I'm almost certain that it does not completely absorb the full spectrum of colors. If I wanted to be totally correct, I would have to say: "My shirt is a color that very nearly approximates black." (Disproving this would be a very easy way to CMV!) There are enough black-colored items in the world for this to be ridiculous. Thus, it's only logical that when we are casually talking to other humans, and mention the word 'black,' it can be assumed that we're referring to this close-enough faux-black, which does reflect (I'd assume) some light, and thus is totally a color. The argument for white follows similarly.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: Telling children they are "special" is unnecessary and potentially harmful and should be replaced with teaching them skills like empathy and the value of hard work + + Kids already naturally feel "special" and essentially narcissistic, so it's redundant to tell them they are special. That would plant a seed that could lead to entitlement or arrogance. "I've always been told I'm special, so it's ok if I just spend all day on my phone instead of being social." Wouldn't it be much more valuable to inundate them with the value of empathy and hard work? Also special implies that the child is greater than the average, and that just isn't true for everybody, à la the point from The Incredibles, if everyone is special, then nobody is.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: In its current form, Snoo is not a very good logo for Reddit. + + For a social media site such as Reddit, a well-designed logo can be a great way to increase visibility and build recognition over the internet. Although Snoo has become associated with Reddit as the site grows, I believe there are several shortcomings with it when compared to logos of other social media sites/programs: * Snoo isn't evocative of Reddit's name or function. [Viewing Snoo out of context](http://marketingland.com/wp-content/ml-loads/2013/01/Reddit-Logo.jpeg), as an uninitiated viewer, does nothing to relate the concept of the site in any way. In contrast, the logo of [Twitter](https://g.twimg.com/Twitter_logo_blue.png), for example, effectively and subtly hints at the site's function. As a stylized songbird, it's easy to connect the words 'twitter' and 'tweets' to the sounds a bird makes. In addition, the short, simple messages of birds can also easily relate to the function of twitter. With Snoo, no such obvious connection exists. This could be forgiven if Snoo made some sort of connection to the name of Reddit, like how Facebook and Google+ contain letters, but again, no such connection exists. * Snoo is too complicated to be widely recognizable. [Simple, dynamic designs](http://www.1stwebdesigner.com/10-logo-design-tips/) are characteristic of good logos. The problem with Snoo is that it's too intricate to be as effective as the simple logos of Facebook, Pinterest, and even Digg. This problem becomes especially obvious when viewing icons on pages for quick sharing of links. [Take a look at this image](http://graphicdesignsinspiration.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Free-Social-Media-Icon-Sets-For-Designers-08.jpg). You have clean, simple logos like Google+, Skype, and Tumblr, before you get to Snoo's head. Once again, if you are unfamiliar with the logo as Reddit's, it's very difficult to guess what site it might be. * Snoo doesn't make use of any interesting or creative colors or designs. Facebook has its characteristic blue. Snapchat has its distinctive white-on-yellow. YouTube has its red. Reddit has a character in black outline with a white body, apart from two small red eyes. I believe that a distinctive color palette would draw more positive attention than its current form, which seems to fall under the radar to non-Redditors. It also makes a heavy use of negative space, which means it can be drastically and unintentionally altered from placing it on different backgrounds. * Finally, Snoo's upright orientation makes it difficult to place on social media buttons without altering it. [Take a look at another example of icon buttons](http://cdn.designsrazzi.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/free-flat-social-media-icons.jpg). Although some logos have their full titles truncated to fit into boxes, Snoo has to have its entire lower body removed in order to fit in the same space. While it does make for a more detailed logo on the site itself, its upright orientation harms its versatility when being displayed from elsewhere. The lack of consistency across platforms is another shortcoming of Snoo, in my opinion. Overall, I think an update of Snoo to help it fit in with logos of other social media websites, as well as a general aesthetic cleanup, would be great for Reddit in the long-term. To truly make Reddit into a more visible and popular website, a good, clean logo is important.	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: It makes more sense to prioritize suffering over death than the other way around. + + You can't experience nonexistence. You can experience suffering. When people don't exist, they don't have the capacity to want to exist. When people suffer, they want to stop suffering. Shouldn't this mean that we should be more upset over suffering than we are over death? Say, for example, that a person was so depressed for so long that she decided to kill herself. It's typically only after someone commits suicide that people get really upset, even though the deceased no longer has feelings to empathize with. The concerns expressed by survivors are typically along the lines of death being tragic or death being a waste. When someone is stuck in their own personal hell, however, people's reactions aren't nearly as dramatic. They usually try to comfort the depressed person and often get so frustrated from the futility of it that they give up on them. Often, the advice given is to not die. Isn't this like looking for the forest through the trees? Isn't there a greater tragedy than death right in front of them? Another example is of what is considered dangerous. Many situations are considered non-dangerous simply because they probably won't result in death. For example, it's often argued that gender dysphoria isn't a serious condition because it doesn't directly result in death. This is argued despite the fact that the condition renders many people unable to even want to live. I've brought up suicidal ideation twice, now. People often kill themselves because they feel that their suffering negates the point of them living. Society tells us that these people made irrational decisions, but did they really? Is death really more important than suffering?	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: People shouldn't make fun of Madonna for being old. + + She can't control the fact that she gets older. To me, she's an artist continuing her career and doing what she loves. People make fun of her because they're used to seeing 20-year-old singers and young artists, but being a musician should be just like other careers; nobody would make fun of a 56-year-old lawyer, but when Madonna continues singing into her old age she gets made fun of for being a "dinosaur" and gets criticism for "Trying to stay relevant" by collaborating with Nicki Minaj. Of course she's trying to stay relevant. All artists try to stay relevant. It's how they make their living. I just don't see anything wrong with Madonna continuing to perform into her 50s.	resistant	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?
CMV: America's economy is destined to fail + + I'm young, so of course my biggest concern at the moment is the rising national debt, specifically student loans. College is inordinately expensive because loans are so easy to obtain. If I hadn't been able to get a 100k loan, I wouldn't be 100k in debt right now. I would've gone to a state school, and eventually appreciated that fact once I became more emotionally mature. Parents have a hard time letting their kid get a tattoo, but they let you get a HUGE loan on what is right now a big gamble? Please. Now, why is that relevant? Well, the economy IS doing well right now, but who exactly is in charge? A bunch of people who the future economy won't affect in the slightest. Since a large majority of millenials are bogged by debt, we can't afford to properly flourish the economy like we want to. The rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting to be more poor. Someone's going to get fucked. Technology is rapidly advancing, and many of the low-income jobs new grads have been forced to take are about to become obsolete. As there is no general income implemented yet, a LOT of people are about to be broke. The only really essential jobs will be things automation can't accomplish, e.g. unpredictable jobs. Almost any job in existence will likely eventually be run by a machine, I can't think of one that can't, there are factories in Japan that do maintenance on themselves. As an American, I don't know much about other nations, as school taught me exactly jack shit about them, but I have to wonder if they're in a similar boat. The model on which our economy is built rapidly becomes more out of date every minute. Eventually we WILL have to make changes, and I doubt those in power at the time will have the competence or open mindedness to do so. Of course, none of this mindset was helped by [this book](http://www.epi.org/publication/failure-by-design/). Please, PLEASE someone change my view. I really don't want to live in this country if I'm destined to end up homeless after defaulting on my loans. Any ideas?	malleable	You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion?