input
stringlengths 89
9.33k
| output
stringclasses 2
values | instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|
CMV - in a truly libertarian economy, unions would rapidly become very powerful players, leading to a restablishment of a welfare state +
+
---
Disclaimer, I'm a Brit who's also lived and worked in several developing countries, so I've seen first hand the damage, exploitation and general cost to societies of un-regulated (or highly corrupt) health and safety at work laws. I also don't have the same knee-jerk association of unions and criminal gangs that seems to prevail in discussions I've watched americans have.
---
That said, let's move into the meat of the disscusion.
1) a libertarian economy is not interfered with by the goverment. You want to force people to sign slavery contracts? it's allowed. By the same token however, there are no laws preventing people from forming unions, or those unions taking action to promote the interest of their members. If [the industry can maintain blacklists](http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/27/on-the-blacklist-building-firms-secret-information-on-workers), so can the unions. If ]a company decides to close stores to punish union members](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/walmart-accused-of-closing-stores-in-retaliation-for-workers-demanding-better-pay-and-conditions-10193668.html?origin=internalSearch), they run the risk of a rival firm that will work with unions taking the bulk of the sales in that area.
An antagonistic culture between unions and corporations is not the only option of course, and companies with forms that favour longer term thinking (like walmart, ironically) but also Waitrose in the uk (employee owned) might thrive when others get bogged down in strikes and penalties.
2) unions get more and more effective the larger they get. At heart, they are simply rebalancing the power between a huge corporation and a single worker. The largest unions appeared in nationalised industries - the largest conglomerates of the day. There is a strong selection pressure for small unions themselves to form alliances, or even full unions with each other to increase their bargining power. An ineffective union will loose members to a more effective one and the market will deliver :)
3) the unions themselves suffer the problem of free-riders. People who do not join but benefit from the union driving up minimum working standards and safety. If providing things like out-of-work support costs the union (and thus the corporations they work with) then companies that manage to avoid using union workforce will face a slight advatnage. As such, for strong unions, it is wise to agitate for political change, so that all workplaces have to conform to those same standards, that union type out of work support have to be applied to the entire workforce to prevent more predatory models from gaining a competitive advantage.
This also has the advantage, especially at the minimum level of starvation, slavery and loss of limb I've seen, of being a moral thing to do.
4) Some people may have a very high risk tolerance (for whatever reason), and want to do without the safety nets and complain at the cost or inconvenience it puts on them as an employer, employee or as a tax payer. They will continue to complain, but when their individual demands conflict with organised forces, whether as a corporation, worker's union, or an insurance company, they will loose. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I have no moral obligation to pay for things that I can download for free, whether or not it is legal. +
+ I don't often pirate stuff, I have not pirated any games in the past eight years or so and only pirate movies that I have no convenient way to see (i.e. are not available anywhere for digital purchase or rental for a reasonable price). I rarely pirate music, and only pirate music when I cannot find a legal streaming source, so I can't try the artist or tracks before buying them.
However I only do these things because I feel compelled to by the quality of the product, not because of any moral obligation. I actually feel zero moral obligation to not jusst pirate anything. I choose not to because I feel like paying for them.
I believe that I do not have any moral obligation to pay for things I can digitally pirate because, in short, there is no difference between me paying $60 for a game to an online store or paying $0 to a seeder to torrent it. Both "sellers" have the game and are offering to give it to me for different prices. That is my transaction and that is my involvement with the product; if a studio's employees starve because many people didn't pay for the game, that's really not anyone else's issue because I'm not the one who commissioned this game, the game was made whether or not I inteded to purchase it, and the onus of figuring out how to pay their employees falls upon the people responsible for the creation of the game, not me. If more games won't be made like this due to piracy, that's irrelevant because I'm not morally obligated to enable the developer to continue making games. Ultimately, the result for the developer is the same; either I don't play the game at all and they get zero dollars, or I play the game without their permission and they get zero dollars. In either case, I have not removed anything from them or taken anything physical away from them. I have merely gained something, and the costs have been generously footed by the seeders.
The only exception is if I *did* have some hand in "commissioning" the project; for example, if I took part in a kickstarter. That means I'm essentially asking them to make the game for me and then it means that I'm responsible for them getting payment from me.
But Unless I asked them to make the game, I have no responsiility to pay for it.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:I think the USA should split into different countries and other countries should merge. +
+ Ok so I went looking for this question in the archive but couldn't find anything, so forgive me if it's already been stated.
I believe things would be better for Americans if America was to split into different countries. I just don't think having over 320 million people living under one federal government is particularly practical. I'm not one of the guys that say "Americans have lived under the guise of freedom and democracy for so long they've forgotten what it means." All I'm saying is, it doesn't seem very practical.
I mean really, if you though of all the people in the country that agree with you on at least ten key political issues, I think that would be enough people for a whole country.
If the US split, that would mean that the each individual citizen would have a lot more say so over their own country. In terms of just the logistics, it just seems better than having one huge department for so many people (e.g. IRA) and I find it bizarre how we talk about certain issues like gun control when different gun control laws would be better for their each individual region.
It would mean more democracy.
And it's not just the US. I think most world borders seem outdated to their current population...possible Brazil.. and China and India would split into a lot more different states. (Yes, I know how ridiculously unlikely this sound, but it's just my opinion.)
Furthermore, some countries seem to be so economically intertwined it seems like it would benefit them to fully merge together. Benelux, the Baltics, (I would say the Balkan but nobody likes Serbia apparently,) the Nordics, Central Asia, (not sure how the rest of the Caucasus feel about Azerbaijan)
You guys know what I mean.
My point is that yes, I know this is unrealistic and probably never gonna happen, but truth be told, I believe it would be better for the individual citizen and more democratic for each newly created country.
| 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 Reefer Madness is a thing. +
+ Allow me to clarify. I firmly believe that for many individuals, marijuana allows psychological issues one might have to surface earlier and to manifest themselves at a higher intensity than if that individual abstained from smoking in the first place. Personally, I spent my early life with a mentally unstable parent who smoked heavily in high school and to the best of my knowledge has been going to therapy and heavily medicated since early adulthood. I've watched my sibling get into pot, get depressed, attempt suicide, and have anxiety attacks. This all started once they began smoking. I have dead friends, "burn-out" friends and friends who smoke 420 blaziken MLG pro Monster blunts daily with minor anxiety and side-effects. My point is that while pot doesn't directly give people depression or anxiety etc. that don't already have a propensity for it, that it does help bring those (forgive my lack of better phrasing) "disorders" to the surface.
Ways to convince me: Reputable studies showing people who smoke are less likely to be depressed, anxious, suicidal. A fair-logical argument will likely win me over, since all my examples are generally first-hand.
Stuff that won't work- any argument saying "you're only one person, this is a rare extreme" "have you ever smoked it?" or "Everything you said is objective etc. etc." I'm not saying that those pursuits are incorrect, just that it's not going to convince me.
Thank you, and happy CMV'ing
General Links:
[Schizophrenia](http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/270262.php)
[Depression](http://learnaboutmarijuanawa.org/factsheets/mentalhealth.htm)
[Anxiety](http://www.leafscience.com/2014/03/07/study-explains-marijuana-makes-paranoid/)
[Spooky side-effects](http://www.drugfreeworld.org/drugfacts/marijuana/short-and-long-term-effects.htm)
[WebMD](http://www.webmd.com/vitamins-supplements/ingredientmono-947-marijuana.aspx?activeingredientid=947&activeingredientname=marijuana)
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Being pro-life is not "forcing my ideas on others" +
+ I have recently been told that my pro-life position is "forcing my ideas on others". I believe that it is not or that if it is then it is necessary. This " forcing ideals on others" is an argument I hear often and I just want to understand it better. I believe that a fetus is a human being. I confess, that is my view, not everyone's view. I believe an abortion is the murder of that child. This is still my view. Not everyone's. United States law entitles all humans to life. Passing legislation opposing abortion is simply following that idea in my way. I am not forcing anyone to agree with me. I am simply making sure the law is followed as I read it.
For a hypothetical:
It's 1870 and there is a white who believes that black people are subhuman (not so uncommon at the time). If I say no they are not subhuman. They are human beings and I will prosecute you if you kill them am I " forcing my ideals on them" or am I simply protecting what I believe to be human life. And even if I am "forcing my ideals" on the man isn't it necessary to do so?
The abortion debate is a matter of whether the fetus is indeed entitled to the rights of a living human. It has nothing to do with a group forcing it's ideas on another and such statements are only used to unjustly vilify the pro-life movement. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I believe the Internet should not be anonymous. I think our basic info should be made available when we comment. Or sites should offer an Anon Section, like a virtual smoking section. +
+ I believe we should all be held accountable for our actions, both verbal and non-verbal. I believe folks say hurtful and mean things online that they wouldn't say we're they face to face with their victim. In the rules of this very sub it requests us to be respectful of one another. Shouldn't that go without saying via the golden rule? Why is the Internet the exception?
For the record, what I mean by "basic info" is enough info that our mother could identify us (first name, last initial, city, state/province, country, age group, sex). I do NOT mean enough info that we be could be found by extremist bigots who disagree.
As an alternative, why shouldn't sites offer two comment sections: Open and Anonymous. This way if you want to be an asshole, you still can, but the would-be victim and rest of us can take comfort that you wouldn't have the brass to say it without mask. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I will never be at peace with my cat's death +
+ Ares was the best cat ever, he was friendly and intelligent and playful. He was everything to me, and he died of an illness on the 4th. He was only 2 and a half years old. He died when I left town, I was confident his anti biotics were healing him because he seemed to be doing so much better.
He lived a good life before he died, but in his final moments he felt agony (I wasn't there). My mother said he was running from door to door, trying to get outside before he just fell asleep in the kitchen and didn't wake up.
We may talk up JFK, Lincoln, MLK, and how meaningful their lives were all we want. In their final moments they didn't get to reflect on that, all they felt was unimaginable amounts of pain. Sure the person who overdoses might have had a good high going before they died, but that doesn't matter does it?
How we reflect on their lives isn't something they get to enjoy, honor and memory are useless to the dead. It doesn't help the men who stepped on mines that a man in uniform is marching around where they're buried in Virginia.
This isn't just about how the fact of the matter is that Ares died young in bad sickness, but I'm left with the cold reality of that and all of the world.
The universe is an unfeeling, nonsensical, and unfair place. Look at what the entire country of Cambodia, they underwent a horrendous genocide. Countless infants were smashed against trees. Their country is still poor and corrupt and Pol Pot never faced justice, the Khmer Rouge never faced justice. That's just one spec of the pain all of humanity has faced throughout the ages. How many infants died throughout history? How many toddlers and small children died, how fucking accepted was it throughout most of history that children under 10 had a 50% of dying.
The entire universe is tainted with mortality and randomness. We're a species that aspires for order, love, fairness, peace, and all of that it a universe and on a planet that has no function for it.
Nothing can make me at peace with that, the pain of Ares's sad death may subside, but I'll never become at peace with the realization his death gave me. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Donald Trump Isn't That Bad +
+ I've been hearing about how bad Trump is for the past few weeks, mostly from more liberal folks online. Now I agree he's very arrogant, especially in the most recent Republican debate that he participated in. I can't say I like his style, necessarily, but I recently watched this speech of his: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXjz3qLufv8
Suddenly I can see why people like this guy and why he's leading the Republicans. He's a fresh face, and he doesn't act like a politician. In that speech I linked to, a guy that stepped in for a minute said something along the lines of "Trump is already rich, he's already powerful, he doesn't need to run for President. He's doing this because he wants to make America a better place."
Anyway, you can skin this cat a bunch of ways, but it seems that a lot of the reasons people had for not liking Trump really fall to the wayside when you actually listen to the guy talk.
| resistant | 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 political correctness has been almost entirely beneficial and does not restrict freedom of expression. +
+ Or to clarify, the things that currently are generally labeled as "PC" are being unfairly targeted. I'm more precisely referring to elements of the modern social justice movement as well as other typically liberal movements surrounding it.
The main impetus for my current view is that nearly entirely, when someone blames "political correctness" for silencing their views, those views are in some way bigoted and, for that reason, don't deserve to be taken as serious alternatives.
A recent example where I noticed the idea that political correctness is a negative being employed is when Donald Trump countered Megyn Kelly's question over his crude remarks against many prominent women, by not only doubling down on them but also promising that he won't succumb to political correctness. I found this an obvious and cheap attempt to justify his own misogyny.
Of course, accusations against political correctness are used elsewhere in much more subtle situations. Examples include, the American right accusing liberals of trying to disassociate Islamic terrorism with Islam itself, or any one of many other attempts to be sensitive towards particular groups of people, who, in my view are often unfairly targeted due to associations they have no control over.
Other situations where I've heard disparaging remarks against the rise of political correctness are extreme situations where it's abused to the benefit of someone that wants to sue or wants wants to take things too literally or tries to read too deeply into certain statements. I believe that those situations are in fact rare and don't represent the actual views of most self proclaimed members of the current social justice moment. For example, I think I would agree that trying to replace Santa's "ho ho ho" with Santa's "ha ha ha" wouldn't make any sense since there is no intended connection with attempts at disparaging women in that.
I think that ultimately, today we have a society that's becoming increasingly more self-aware of its faults and has led to better work environments for women and minorities because of political correctness. It represents a step forward from when overt racism/sexism became unacceptable since we've today learned to acknowledge the effects of subconscious bias and more subtle forms of discrimination and how discrimination in the past has trickled down into elements of modern society.
Interesting questions that do arise, however, are to what extent should sensitivity in our language be promoted/enforced? Or how do you determine whether or not an offensive joke crosses a particular line? I think as long as we're not actively imposing criminal penalties to people for simply making sexist remarks, for instance, we should be fine as a free society.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: A Trump/Kasich ticket is the Republican party's best chance at the 2016 presidency +
+ Donald Trump refused to rule out a third party run in the first debate, and he obviously has the bankroll to make that happen without having to beg for money like the rest of the candidates.
This means that if the GOP don't nominate Trump, he will very likely spoil the election for them by drawing away GOP votes to an independent ticket. Even without that dynamic, it would have already been a very tough electoral race for the GOP.
So unless they nominate Trump, the GOP will definitely lose the 2016 presidential race.
If Trump does get the nomination, he could max out his electability by picking John Kasich, who is the least offensive Republican to moderates and liberals and who is also popular in Ohio, a key swing state.
That would show that Trump can make smart political decisions, which could further sway independents and moderates who are tired of establishment politics.
What's happening right now is that the GOP establishment does not like having a candidate who is not in their pocket, so they are trying to sink Trump's candidacy in favor of Jeb Bush (or maybe Rubio), who will also pick John Kasich as his running mate.
But Jeb's candidacy would be sunk not only by it being George W. Bush's brother running, but also by Trump's running and the electoral map favoring Democrats. A Rubio/Kasich ticket or Jeb/Rubio ticket would be sunk for similar reasons.
So Donald Trump is actually the most electable Republican presidential candidate, and a Trump/Kasich ticket is the most electable Republican ticket.
(Maybe a Trump/Floridian ticket would do as well, but it probably wouldn't be their best chance.)
CMV.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Liberalism is currently undergoing a schism, and is splitting into two factions +
+ From what I have observed, liberals tend to fall into one of two categories, both of which are vehemently opposed to the other.
The first faction is heavily focused on political correctness and the “social justice” movement. They are major proponents of multiculturalism. They tend to view human social behavior as being socially constructed, and the result of the environment, and are often hostile towards evolutionary psychology. They are more focused on equality of outcome than equality of opportunity. Mainstream feminists fall into this category. They are also more likely to support gun control than the second faction. They have more female members compared to the second faction, and are more likely to be religious.
Examples of liberals in this faction include: Hillary Clinton, Laci Green, Mike Rugnetta, Trace Dominguez, PZ Myers, and Jen McCreight.
The second faction is liberal socially and economically, i.e. on abortion, gay marriage, drug liberalization, health care, etc., but is vehemently against the political correctness that the first faction espouses. They are also more averse to multiculturalism than the first faction. They tend to seek biological explanations for human behavior, and are more accepting of evolutionary psychology. They are more focused on equality of opportunity than equality of outcome. Almost all of the members of this faction are atheists. This faction is much more heavily male dominated than the first faction. They are also more likely to support gun rights compared to members of the first faction. They also tend to be more likely to criticize mainstream democrats, such as Barack Obama. Examples of liberals in this faction include: Richard Dawkins, George Carlin, TJ Kirk, Phil Mason, and Carl Benjamin. | 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 not enough evidence of the safety/efficacy of vaccines, especially in the face of controversy and conspiracy +
+ Both my parents are heavily anti-vax and none of their 3 kids have been vaccinated. After leaving the nest I realized just how uncommon this was, however after years of being in the main stream, I'm still not convinced that vaccines are all they are cracked up to be.
Between whistle blowers (William Thomson, Scott Cooper, Andrew Wakefield etc) and corruption within the vaccine industry, it seems like something sinister is afoot. There are countless horror stories and it seems like everyone just shuts up about these things and keeps thumping that vaccines are the greatest.
Now I'm not antivaccine (although I haven't been immunized yet) I'm just not pro vaccine. I haven't seen enough to discredit this dark side of things and show undoubtedly that vaccinations are the way to go.
Please change my view. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:I believe that pot is bad and that people should be discouraged from using it. The best way to do that is full legalization. +
+ I believe that full legalization of recreational marijuana is the best way to discourage use of it. It would become so expensive that only the rich could obtain it. FDA regulations could make sure that what is in it is actually marijuana and only marijuana, instead of the PCP and other drug-laced stuff you can buy on the street. Also, placing special taxes on the stuff could help the government make a pretty penny off what is, by some estimates, the most lucrative cash crop in America. Legalization would also put street dealers out of business, opening the door for legitimate corporations.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: There is no possible advantage to playing a first-person shooter at less than the maximum resolution available to you. +
+ To get this out of the way early: **This is not going to be a PCMR circlejerk.** An unnecessary reminder: this subreddit is for reasoned persuasion, not mutual masturbation.
I'm talking strictly about advantages **in professional, competitive, skill-based, PvP shooters** given by playing at a lower resolution, taller aspect ratio (4:3 vs 16:9), or narrower FOV (excepting personal tolerance for distortion).
[This is the photo that prompted my question.](http://i.imgur.com/9Lo87yI.jpg) There is absolutely NO WAY that playing at 1024x768 (and unless that's a 1440p monitor, I think it's reasonable to suspect it's actually 800x600) gives him ANY advantage, and is instead a handicap, but it's not uncommon for professionals to play this way (I'm thinking in particular of the CS:GO / CS:S scene).
**Points of confusion:**
* With upscaling disabled, the pixels are the same size as they would be if he were playing at native resolution, so there's no 'zoom' offered.
* Lower resolution means, definitively, less rendering precision. If an enemy's head is visible over an edge at distance, it may not take up enough of the player's FOV to be rendered (possibly an unlikely example). Also, the player is less able to aim in small increments. These are non-issues issue at 1080p+ resolutions.
* UI elements (note especially the map and kill feed in the linked photo) are measured in pixels, and so obscure a HUGE percentage of available vision. This is greatly reduced by having more pixels on the screen.
* Horizontal FOV (at a given level of distortion) suffers because of the narrower 4:3 aspect ratio. Limited peripheral vision is an obvious disadvantage that's very simply fixed with a widescreen 16:9/16:10 aspect ratio.
**Warrants** (I believe that's the appropriate term) **/ Assumptions:**
^(^Read: ^"These ^arguments ^are ^either ^completely ^ineffective ^"against" ^me ^or ^irrelevant ^to ^a ^sponsored ^professional.")
* No hardware limitations (GPU inadequacy, etc).
* A competitor wants every advantage available to them, especially the legal/fair ones.
* A professional recognizes that 'their way' might not be the best way, and would readily change for the sake of improvement.
* Access to more information is always better.
* Greater precision is always better.
So, why would anyone play at 800x600 or 1024x768? "Because they're used to it" seems to be the most common answer, but I feel like that's nothing but lazy and backwards.
^(Please forgive any formatting mistakes; I'm on mobile. I'll correct them as soon as I get back to a desktop.) | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Even for conservatives in both Israel and the US, there is no good reason to oppose the Iran Deal except for political capital. +
+ If we (the US) don't sign the deal and then a war ensues (which assumes Iran is actually developing a nuclear weapon and conservatives in the both the US and Israel aren't bluffing), we will look bad. We will be the ones who sabotaged our own diplomatic efforts (that the US spearheaded, hurting our reputation and clout abroad) and who preemptively started a war that will take not only Iranian lives, but also likely Israeli and even American lives. We will be the aggressors who forsook a diplomatic solution for a likely disastrous war in a region that can hardly afford any more instability. We will lose our allies, and be seen as weaker than if we had not made a deal.
Now, if we do sign the deal and Iran continues to develop a nuclear weapon in violation of the agreement and the aforementioned war does come to pass, the onus of starting the war falls on Iran for they are the ones who broke the agreement they signed and built a nuclear weapon despite they continued insistence that they are not, have not, and will never do so. They will be the ones to draw the condemnation and ire of the world, knowing full well the military consequences of building a nuclear bomb (which, on a side note, they will never actually use). Strategically, even for the conservative, the Iran deal is a win-win, and any opposition to it is either for short term political gain or born out of strategic myopia. There will not be a better deal, nor will there be another chance for negotiation if we don't uphold our end of the agreement. In short, the only thing anyone has to lose in this deal is some political capital.
CMV that this deal is actually harmful to anyone | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: In term of economic system, this is the best we have had and the best we know how to have +
+ If all realistic forms of government, societal structure and economic systems have been tried over the course of history, it holds that we have the best form (capitalist system with big government) now simply due to evolution. If it wasn't the best form then it would have collapsed and been replaced with something else long ago.
What we have now is the fruits of thousands of years of experimentation with organising humans in the most effective way and to argue there is a better way right now doesn't make sense, otherwise it would be here right now instead.
There are several points here and I'm sure some I have missed from the central argument so feel to flesh out the situation a bit more in your argument.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Cultural appropriation by means of a personal tattoo is not immoral. +
+ I definitely realize a lot of harm can come from poor examples of cultural appropriation. Often my idea of bad appropriation was the Christianizing of many pagan holidays/traditions by the church to get the pagans of europe joining up with them.
But my particular case seems a lot different. Yes I am a dominant race type (being white) and I am seriously considering getting a tattoo based upon textiles and patterns used by the Incan Civilization during their peak. Specifically, it would be a sleeve only representing the vibrant colors and geometry that the Inca use. I'm getting it for a few reasons:
* Aesthetically it is very pleasing to me
* I hold a lot of respect for what their civilization accomplished, and would like to "advertise" them more through body art
* I may possibly incorporate their symbols for the sun, their main focus of focus worship. Although nonreligious myself, I respect that worshiping the material sun and nature around us is an important trait more of us should take note of.
This still seems to be textbook cultural appropriation, but is it immoral for me to do so? If I believed this could truly degenerate the Incan culture or offend many rational minds, then there is no way I'd go through with this plan (that just isn't the type of person I am). So, please, change my view if there is something I may be missing here.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: shouldn't anyone under 18 (or at least some set age) always be tried as a minor? +
+ if two people commit the same crime and are the same age why shouldn't they be tried the same? If all men ARE created equal how is it fair to try them differently?
I can see an argument to be made about being within 3 months of 18 or something on par, but it doesn't seem right. Just because someone is more/less mature shouldn't matter. if you can arbitrarily determine whether they are tried as a minor or adult doesn't that begin a trial by essentially saying "America has a fair and just judicial system, but don't worry we are treating you differently."
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: In the internet age, retailers and content producers should work together to make content readily accessible rather than fight to punish those who "pirate" it. +
+ I think it is the opinion of many people on the internet, and of reddit in particular that the companies trying to fight piracy should "Deal with it" -- that they need to realize that the internet is the future and trying to fight piracy is impossible (or prohibitively expensive) in a free web.
A little bit about myself, and my habits -- I am 20 years old, a liberal raised on the internet and currently in school studying film. I have torrented rarely for probably 5 years, but I would consider myself on the bottom end of piracy. I subscribe to Netflix, Amazon prime and Spotify, and usually buy my games on steam. Because of these services I never pirate music or games ever, and I usually do not pirate Television or Movies either.
As an aspiring filmmaker myself, it feels hypocritical to steal someone else's hard work, and so if at all possible I do not do that. I am more than willing to pay 3-5 dollars to rent a movie I want to watch. But this is not the internet we live in. While some movies are available on youtube, itunes and amazon instant for rental, many are either only available to buy or not available at all. On top of that, these services tend to have a charge to rent the "HD" version of the film, a practice I believe to be archaic and stupid in an age where everyone has HD monitors and/or TVs.
In my mind, if there were a service that made a huge selection of films available for a one-time viewing for $5 easily and at full quality -- with options for downloading if need be -- I personally would never pirate films or TV.
However, this may not represent the consumer base as a whole and may not be enough to save the companies afraid of the internet.
(WARNING: I AM GOING OFF WHAT I HAVE READ IN THIS SECTION -- I DO NOT HAVE SOURCES FOR MY CLAIMS YET)
While Spotify does seem mitigate piracy, it also does not give much money to artists as a rule. But, at the same time, most artists make their money from touring and not from album sales, as the record label would end up taking most of the money from itunes/CD sales anyways. So part of me thinks that in this open age that perhaps it is the companies that should fail, if they cannot accept the internet's existence, freeing the artists to receive more money for sales directly from services such as Spotify and iTunes. The same applies to movies, television (which Netflix has helped a lot, I think) and games (I don't know many people who pirate games, since they are readily available on Steam and GOG.com as a rule) as well.
TL;DR -- I think the companies fighting piracy should give up and try to mitigate it instead -- adapt rather than fight.
What do you think? Change my view!
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I am right in having less respect for beer drinkers. +
+ I have less respect for beer drinkers than for non-beer drinkers - that's my view. This comes from the fact that beer drinkers don't have any reason to drink beer other than to, essentially, weaken their consciousness to make socializing easier. What other reason could there be?
Facts about beer:
* Way more expensive than other drinks
* Unhealthy and very fatty
* Puts you at risk of stupidity (drunk driving, people taking advantage of you, losing your belongings, etc.)
* Tastes bad __*__
__*__ I believe that objectively beer is less tasty than other drinks like orange juice, bubble tea, or a soft drink. Do you really think someone that has been drinking those drinks their whole life would taste that strong bitterness of beer and say that they like it, let alone saying that they like it more than coke? Almost impossible. I think those people are very rare.
Beer is an *acquired taste*, and when I say acquired, I mean that it needs to be associated with the socializing that it begets for a long time before someone would like it - and they'd only be liking it because of that conditioning - not because of beer's actual taste.
So what is the problem with doing it for social reasons? People are essentially saying "I don't trust my own consciousness to socialize and instead of working on improving I will socialize the easy and guaranteed way that requires artificially altering my personality." Unless people have some kind of mental illness causing them to have very high social inhibitions, I do not believe beer is a good way to solve their problem of having difficulty to interact with others. I think it is just a way to avoid the problem - one that's definitely possible to solve. I'm saying this as someone that used to be extremely shy and underwent major changes in the past few years.
I will concede that beer can possibly help someone work on their social issues, as in, having a little bit of beer just to get into the social environment when they're not used to it yet, kind of like with floaty tubes when learning to swim. The ultimate goal will be to *not* rely on beer anymore, so I don't consider these people to be "beer drinkers".
Tell me, what makes beer as a social-enhancer any better than steroids as a muscle-enhancer? Is it just the degree to which it affects your body or is there anything else to it?
| 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 hunt have a sadistic trait +
+
This isn't about Cecil the lion but it did get me thinking.....people who hunt must be at least a bit sadistic. Hear me out - I'm not here to make a dig at hunters. I don't eat meat myself but I actually believe hunting game as a source of meat is much more ethical than eating mass produced factory farmed animals. Game animals have at least had a natural life without chemicals, genetic engineering and is the ultimate in animal welfare. You can't beat having the life nature dictates. So I'm in conflict with what is actually involved in hunting.
Lets take an example of a hunting a deer. A healthy meat with a plentiful population to chose from. So you go out into its habitat, learn its habits, track it and then finally you see it. Quietly in its happily eating some food. Minding its own business. Full of life and so majestic in its natural habitat. This stunning beast is a pleasure to see. I believe many hunters genuinely have a lot of respect for the animals they hunt. But then full of all that respect BOOM! They take its life. Just like that. All that effort to understand it, follow it and watch it they extinguished in a second. Cold hard logic can indeed justify why the animal is killed but deep down the pleasure hunters feel when they've killed an animal doesn't make sense to me. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Baseball is not an interesting, tactical or even skillful sport. +
+ I'm from Australia where we grow up with cricket rather than baseball. The fundamentals are the same: a pitcher throws a ball at a batter, who hits the ball between fielders and then runs to a goal to score points.
But cricket is superior to baseball in every way. The fielders don't wear gloves. They cover more ground. The batter is allowed and encouraged to hit the ball in a 360 radius from where he stands, compared to 90 degrees in baseball. The field is far more customisable, making allowances for left-handed batsmen and bowlers (pitchers), the bowler himself, the weather conditions, the shape and size of the ground itself, the state of the match. Baseball field positions are more or less static. With the exception of an occasional bunt in baseball, it is more or less all out attack, whereas cricket teams must make constant adjustments to their strategy. Often cricket teams won't even try to get a batter out.
The area at which a baseball pitcher must aim is extremely small, limiting the number of ways the batter can deal with a ball in the 'strike zone.' Conversely cricket bowlers can and do aim at a batman's body in order to intimidate them, or pitch the ball in other areas in order to entice them to play risky shots that are likely result in an out. That is to say, the rules of cricket allow for players to have a much wider spectrum of playing styles than baseball does.
Innings are longer in cricket which allows 'relationships' to develop between batters, and tactical battles to evolve between opposing batters and bowlers. In baseball a pitcher and batter will only face each other for a theoretical maximum of 54 pitches per game (the reality is far, far less than this), whereas it is common in cricket for one batsman to face one bowler for hundreds of deliveries (pitches) per game. Cricket batsmen can choose whether to run or not, which requires a whole extra layer of strategy from both teams.
There is more. Cricket is to baseball as chess is to checkers. What does baseball have over cricket?
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: 'Triggers' aren't a real thing. We should all be able to overcome our issues and not project them unto other people. +
+
Thank you all! :)
----
In 7th and 8th grade I was a snob. This was probably because I am the youngest of five siblings and was fairly better looking than my classmates (before the acne, bad eyesight and crooked teeth kicked in) among other things.
I realised this because of the way my classmates talked about me and treated me and I took the summer of 8th grade to transform into somebody else. I do not recall how exactly I did it but I did. Everybody was surprised, myself included, that the transformation was permanent and genuine.
Sadly, I was no longer a bitch but a pushover instead. I was bullied shortly after and had a horrible 8 or so years until I graduated from university. During those 8 or so years, my first love died in a car crash, my parents had a terrible accident leaving my mother unable to walk for a year, of course I picked up smoking, I started to serial-date guys and their treatment to me kept getting progressively worse all while I tried to do well at university because it was getting too expensive for my parents to pay for and getting a job wasn't enough for me to sustain myself.
Add to the above a religious struggle between myself, my society and my own mother who didn't talk to me for three months while I lived in the same house as her because of my religious and romantic choices (I was dating a black guy), and you get a fairly broken person.
I didn't trust anyone, I was naive, nervous, insecure, a people pleaser, somewhat promiscuous and a smoker. I did things I never thought I'd do and was put in situations I never wanted to be placed in.
I was even ashamed of my own psychologist whom I never went back to visit after a couple of sessions because of how fucked up I was.
My issues seem trivial but these are just the things that I haven't blocked out. My view does apply to individuals who have gone through everything but EXTREME trauma.
My POINT is: How can I, and so many people who have gone through worse, emerge as functional if not even better people than we were because of what we went through by using our own logic and reasoning, the help of others, counselling and other resources, while others simply act as if life is supposed to be somehow tailored for them and that whatever 'triggers' them by making them actually have to THINK about what they went through should somehow be erased from their lives?
Tl;dr: Shit happens in life and people should wade through the pile of crap and come out as functional human beings via their own logic rather than project their issues unto others and claim that whatever 'triggers' them to think about their problems must somehow be banished or banned.
| 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 I have to go any faster on a highway, and people trying to cut ahead of me going 90+ miles are reckless and putting me and everyone else driving in danger. +
+ This is a problem I always encounter when I drive on a highway. The speed limit in the most used highway where I live is 70. I usually go at around that speed (give or take 3-5 miles). Now, I have noticed that an alarming amount of people that are driving behind me get impatient and just speed on ahead of me (which is perfect, if there is no danger of crashing). I usually notice that these people are going at at *least* 90+ mph, and they don't slow down.
This just angers me so much, I feel like I'm constantly being put at risk by boneheads that are too impatient to drive on the speed limit.
I commented this to a lot of friends and most of them tell me that I'm wrong, because "nobody follows the speed limit", and I'm going too slow. They say it's perfectly fine to drive at 90+ miles on a highway which indicates to drive at 20 miles less. I don't know anymore. Am I wrong? Should I start speeding too?
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The katana is more impressive than comparable european swords +
+ There's been, for a while, a pro-Katana circlejerk among, mostly, anime fans. That's the origin of the "glorious nippon steel folded 10,000 times" meme, the D&D "Katanas are OP" meme, and others.
This has, inevitably, resulted in a counter-jerk. People noting, not inaccurately, that katanas were made from low-quality iron, were shorter and heavier than comparable swords from Europe.
My argument, then, is that katanas are impressive not because they are somehow significantly better than a European sword of comparable period, but rather, katanas are impressive precisely because of the limitations that resulted in their construction methods. It is much less impressive, to me at least, to make an effective cutting implement when you have easy access to high quality iron and steel, as well as a large area of trade from which forging techniques can be adopted. Despite all the limitations that went into their construction, a katana is still reasonably good at doing what it was designed to do: being a single-edged one-or-two-handed cutting sword, especially on a draw cut.
(I also think they're prettier than european swords but that's subjective and only an aside to this CMV)
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: All states should have strict voter ID laws +
+ It seems like if you don't require a photo ID, or at least *some* sort of ID at the ballot box, you can't ensure a fair election. In the past century the US hasn't seen a voter turnout greater than 65%. This means there are a lot of unclaimed votes to take advantage of.
Of course, if you require photo ID to vote, then you must take steps to make sure it is easy for all citizens to obtain acceptable ID. This may be difficult for citizens without birth certificates or social security cards, but I feel like there must be some way to more accurately keep track of citizens.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Moist towelettes or "wetnaps" are infinitely better than regular toilet paper. +
+ I've debated on politics, on social issues, and this may be my most firmly held belief yet.
Imagine you're in your backyard, or someone's backyard, and it's barefoot because it's summer and you like fun. Unfortunately a dog thought it'd be fun to poo right where you placed your foot. How are you gonna clean that up? With a paper towel and a casual stroll back in the house or your car or your poor sandal? Or with a method using a water hose, a wet paper towel, a sponge, etc?
Basically that, but for the butt.
The *only* caveat I can imagine is that they're not as flushable as they advertise, so more often than not you'll need a dedicated waste bin to put them in. Still worth it to feel so fresh and so clean.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Certain social welfare programs, not including Food Stamps and the like, are detrimental to the United States compared to programs that grant people with jobs, education, and training. +
+ This is purely from anecdotal, self researched and experiential knowledge, so feel free to correct me if there are any glaring issues in my position. I believe that some of the social welfare programs in the United States could be reformed to give jobs, education, and training to low-to-none income individuals and families as opposed to handing out checks. I believe that this would be beneficial because:
1. Living off a free welfare check sometimes decreases an individual's drive to work and better themselves; and by extension to increase their standard of living
2. Providing job training and/or an education to underprivileged individuals allows for the betterment of the individual - increasing ambition, social ability, financial stability, and other benefits
3. Providing job training and/or an education to underprivileged individuals allows for the betterment of the society - increasing the education of American society as a whole, decreasing unemployment and crime rates
4. I believe that there is enough money (read: safety net programs budget in the US; http://www.cbpp.org/research/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go) that will be freed up in order to allow this reform
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Zoos can be ethical +
+ It goes without say that mistreating zoo animals is no bueno, but I still think that zoos can be ethically justified:
* The animals - especially endangered ones - can be cared for, either to preserve the species or ultimately release into the wild. If we're using the usual justification of animal rights - they can feel pain/have a life - then letting them lead a safe and happy life in captivity seems to be more moral than the dangers of the wild.
* This is a less quantifiable good, but zoos let citizens see animals which they otherwise not, leading them to consider them - and the environment - when creating/voting on policies.
While I guess the best way to C my V would be to provide overwhelming evidence that zoos provide lower quality of life for the animals than life in the wild and that there are more effective means of conserving/promoting endanger species, I'm mostly interested in values/premises I haven't considered.
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: The best thing for the US would be an election with *either* Trump or Sanders as the GOP/Democrat representatives. +
+ First of, I don't think that either Trump or Sanders should or necessarily could become the POTUS.
But I feel that the two most likely and realistic candidates are Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton, who are essentially the same people in terms of policy and representation of the status quo in US politics.
If Trump went up against Hillary he'd get beaten soundly, and if Sanders went up against Bush, he'd get beaten soundly as well.
Whichever one (Bush/Clinton) wins is pretty much irrelevant to me, but what I think would be best would be if one of the parties was able to actually field an anti-establishment candidate.
Even if the election were lost, having one of those "fringe" candidates represent their party would *force* the political aristocracy to recognize the fact that we are still in a democracy, and with the incredible pervasive nature of information in the modern age it's much easier to connect and organize large groups of people.
And large groups of people can have a lot of political power, which means that the focus of politicians may just start moving back towards the people they represent instead of their business interests, which both parties are guilty of.
Why wouldn't it be best if one of the two parties got a serious black eye because the people they represent were able to motivate outside of the party line they're being fed?
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Racism has nothing to do with right wing extremism. +
+ Background: I'm a danish libertarian. On a normal left-right scale, I'd be on the right wing, and socialists would be left wing. I'm very ideological, and I don't see what liberalism has to do with racism/xenophobia.
Libertarians will defend personal freedom and responsibility, because that is what liberalism is all about. I don't see what denying refugees to enter your country has to do with liberalism, nor do I understand why people refer to racists as "right wing extremists".
In my opinion, liberalism (right wing) has nothing to do with immigration/asylum/integration politics. Therefore, it is uncalled for, to say that it is right wing extremists who are against accepting more refugees, as a true libertarian wouldn't mind more refugees, as long as they:
1. Provide for themselves (and/or contributes to society)
2. Doesn't interfere with your personal freedom (example: They don't steal).
Right wing extremism would only be about fully applying the principals of liberalism. For an example: Lowering taxes to 0%.
Right wing extremism has nothing to do with racism/xenophobia or immigration politics. CMV.
| 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 leave their hometown after High School do better in adulthood +
+ I don't have any statistical evidence, only anecdotal experience. However, in discussing with my friends and stalking high school acquaintances on Facebook, I see a very strong correlation between people who are successful in life (well paying jobs, more stable marriages, waiting to have children until the can support a family) and people who left their hometown after high school - whether for college, military, or for work. This is doubly true for people who not only left their hometown, but left their hometown not to the same state school that everyone else from my high school went to.
I'm willing to listen to other opinions or evidence, but it seems that by people leaving their childhood friends and family that they become more stable and responsible adults. A necessary consequence of this is that I always encourage teenagers to go to colleges away from home and not someplace where all of their friends are going. Forcing someone to meet new people, re-invent themselves, and discovering how to stand on their own as an adult is in general a healthy thing to do even if it requires taking on a manageable amount of student debt vs. living at home and going to the local college.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Single life is incredibly depressing. +
+ Hoping that this sub can help!
It seems that my life is in a weird period, and will stay this way until my view is fixed.
23 year old male. I've been working in a startup for the last 3 years and it's grown tremendously. I make ~45K a year and have my own place with a few roommates - leasing a car, keeping busy with music... It all seems to be solid from all measures.
But it isn't enough. I don't have a girlfriend (likely due to a desperate vibe that I emit) and really find that to be the only thing I'm concerned with. I was in a relationship for 5 years - that ended 7 months ago, and I'm not yet over it. Before that, I had a 2.5 year relationship. A lot of thinking has led to a lot of learning - for example, I didn't end either of those relationships. Once I'm content... I never leave. That must be coming from a deeper belief/view at play.
So many cliches make sense, but are frustrating and have been functionally unhelpful:
You want what you can't have
If you love something let it go
Time heals all wounds
Logically, they all make sense - but from a deeper level, it doesn't seem to hit (or maybe I'd be changing how I view things).
Even though it isn't a pressing issue at the moment, I haven't finished my degree - that will forever irk me (due to possible financial outcomes). Don't really have the drive to finish it.
I've dealt with depression and it all seems to come down to a belief I hold deep down - that romantic relationships are the most significant thing in life. My last relationship ending was mostly my fault - I've learned what not to do moving forward, but don't have an opportunity to correct it with my last partner.
I'm not looking for female friends - I'm looking for a lover, for a partner. Being able to sleep and wake up next to someone you care about is one of the coolest things I've ever experienced.
My view makes life very frustrating and unenjoyable without a relationship, which I don't currently have. I write to you here with a few things in mind:
1. I'm not happy with how life is when single
2. This is attributed to my worldview
3. I realize that the significance I place on relationships is likely unhealthy
4. I don't know how to change it
5. I've spoken to many people about this (family, friends, therapist, ex's parents)
6. Nothing said has been enough to hit me on a belief/view level.
7. After 7 months I've been unable to solve this on my own
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: I really do not see what the problem is with trump? +
+ I watched the republican debate, and by no means am I republican, I identify as a democrat on most things. I listened to Donald Trump, and he was honestly the most honest candidate there, in a world where the mass population of people are sheep, and just follow the status quo he stood out, even when he knew he would get booed he still said what was on his mind, and that's honestly admirable. When confronted about his remarks regarding woman, he owned up to it, that never happens 99.9% of politicians would avoid the question or play around it. His policies do seem farfetch'd I don't think Mexico will pay for this wall, I do think its possible, but I don't see it happening, it's honestly not a bad idea in my opinion. I am genuinely convinced all of his hatred comes from the fact he is not politically correct, and that reminds me of reddit in a sense, that people who act against the status quo are down-voted not because of their opinions but because they hold the 'wrong' opinions. I do not see what is wrong with this man, being politically incorrect does not mean shit when it comes to policy, and I do think a business man whose made billions can help fix the economy.
| 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 really happy that coontown was banned +
+ I realise that this is a meme one itself nowadays, but as a black man I have absolutely no sympathy for any redditor who was on coontown. These people hate me, and I hate them, plain and simple, and I am happy it made their lives even slightly worse.
However, the main response to it from neutral people has been that it sets a bad precedent. But again, I don't care if all hate subreddits are banned. People have said that it is the issue of how to define what a hate subreddit is, but I just think that this is a diversionary argument of semantics. The difference between, say Coontown, and Shitredditsays is light and day, and anyone who says different needs to walk a mile in other peoples shoes.
The final argument against seems to be that the banning of coontown was for reasons of brigading, and that this was wrong. If this is the case, then Shitredditsays should be banned too, and I certainly wouldn't miss it, but I really wouldn't argue that Coontown should be brought back.
For obvious reasons.
So reddit, what am I missing? 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: The United States will never have a multi-party system within my lifetime. +
+ As a young American who will be able to vote in his first election in 2016, I have an unorthodox set of political views, and somewhat fluid ones at that. I subscribe to [progressive](https://www.youtube.com/user/TheYoungTurks), [libertarian](https://www.youtube.com/user/ReasonTV), and [conservative](https://www.youtube.com/user/PragerUniversity) youtube channels to keep my mind open. Unfortunately, thanks to my views not being in line within the dichotomy, none of the current major presidential candidates, republican or democrat, are completely in line with my views. I want to vote for a third party, but it would just be a protest vote every time I do.
The two parties directly oppose each other ideologically, but will fight tooth and nail at the prospect of a newcomer. A major third party and threatening them? How dare they, the two-party system is the only way they keep at least 40% of the vote every single election no matter what. They don't want added complexity, which is why [in the last election, a candidate needed at least 15% of the vote in polls to participate in a debate, which universally shut out everyone except Obama and Romney.](http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=candidate-selection-process).
There will be a few third party candidates who will gain upsets and get elected, but it will never be enough to change the system thanks to our First Past the Post voting system, gerrymandered districts, and just the fact that the two main parties are far more resourced than all of the others. Even if their views change, we will never have more than two parties in the United States, at least for the next 100 years. 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: The idea that free speech doesn't apply to private entities is ridiculous +
+ Whenever an issue relating to free speech arises it is almost guaranteed one of the responses will be "free speech means the state can't control what you say. It doesn't mean freedom from consequences from everyone else". If it's on the internet it is equally likely that this [xkcd](https://xkcd.com/1357/) will be shown. This does seem at first to be a reasonable point of view. However, I believe it is flawed for several related reasons.
The first reason is that underestimates the power of the public. Just because the state is not infringing your right does not mean others cannot. With other rights this is accepted as part of the system. For instance, if a company refused to serve or allow access to black people that would be considered a violation of their rights despite it not being the government. In the same way, you couldn't claim a country has gender equality if women can't be get a job, despite there being no law against hiring women. Unless freedom of speech can be distinguished from those other rights, which I believe it cannot, there can be no distinction between private agents and the state in terms of freedom of speech.
Secondly, the right to free speech includes the right to unimpeded free speech, if that makes sense. It is not enough to be allowed to say what you want, you have to be allowed to communicate to who you want. It makes more tense in terms of letters. Freedom of speech is not fulfilled by allowing me to write letters, it is only fulfilled by allowing their delivery. Using the example from the comic, continually showing someone the door is the same as standing by the pillar box and shredding the letters as I post them.
The final reason is that extreme reactions to someone's use of free speech can restrict it by effectively punishing them for exercising their right. If I punched someone for suggesting marmite was a valid option for toast, would I not be restricting their right to free speech? Equally, if I was sacked for making a racist reddit post, am I not being punished for exercising my right to freedom of speech? I'm not entirely convinced on this point because it might restrict someone else's freedom of speech to criticise or their freedom of association to not have to put up with me, but I would still say there is some validity to this point.
Just to be clear, I don't think freedom of speech should never be restricted but I do think those restrictions should be acknowledged which the phrase "freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences" does not.
Some people seem to be confused about what I mean by a private entity. I simply mean someone who isn't the state or acting as an agent of the state. I never meant to imply that I would start talking shit in your living room. Freedom of speech doesn't make crimes less illegal do to be clear I'm not advocating that in the slightest.
A lot of the comments have struggled with what the view is, despite it being repeated multiple times. I'm not interested in acting as reading adviser. If your comment doesn't address the view, I'm not going to bother responding.
/u/Vordreller found this bastardised version of the [comic](http://sealedabstract.com/rants/re-xkcd-1357-free-speech/), and from John Stuart Mill onwards, I agree with the sentiments the creator expresses. If you want to see my argument in comic form, you couldn't get much closer than that.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: "My condolences". "My apologies". "My sympathies". When I hear these phrases, I get irritated because they sound so insincere! +
+ I saw a post on my fb feed that my friend's grandmother passed away, and a few of the comments said things like "I'm so sorry to hear. She and your family are in my prayers." These don't bother me. What bothers me are people who simply say what I listed in the title, and maybe a few words more:
* My condolences man.
* My sympathies for your family bro.
I don't understand why people can say these things and think it has any meaning whatsoever. They sound so ***insincere*** to me! Hell, even "shit, that fucking sucks man" sounds more sincere to me than those other hollow phrases.
When my grandma passed away a few years ago, I texted my best friend to tell him, and he responded with two texts: "Fuck" "Tell me how to help". He didn't say he was sorry to hear and he didn't say anything nice about my grandma like how kind she was or how he know that she and I were close, but I still felt more comfort from those words than I could ever imagine feeling from "my condolences man."
I don't know the people that posted those comments on my friends' fb, and so I don't know how genuine they are, but just the words alone bother me. They tell me that you felt like you should say something, but you weren't really feeling anything, so you picked those empty words.
CMV?
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Instead of firearms, police should use/carry tranquilizer guns. +
+ I have been noticing the news about police officers shooting children or innocent people mistakely, and causing death or serious injuries a lot. So I thought, why would a police officer even use firearms (I mean the guns that can kill, I'm not sure since it's not my native language) if he/she doesn't intend to kill? I have seen the tranquilizer guns making animals unable to even move, so wouldn't they be quite useful? Thanks to this, they could've shoot the suspect without worrying about killing him/her, and accidents where the innocent people are dying wouldn't happen. Plus, even if the suspect is really guilty, a police officer shouldn't kill him/ her, right? And if something happens like in the scenes we see in the movies, where the criminal takes a hostage and police officers can't shoot because they are afraid of hurting the hostage, wouldn't this make everything easier? They could've just shoot without worrying about anything, and make both the hostage and the criminal collapse?
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Immigrants should learn the primary language of the country they move to. +
+ A few points clarifying my view:
* By primary language, I mean either *official* language (i.e. English or French in Canada) or the language most spoken by the people in that country (i.e. English in America)
* I don't expect fluency. My mother has lived in Canada for almost twenty years now and she still has trouble sometimes. My view is that all immigrants should strive for at the very least an [intermediate](http://www.londonschool.com/level-scale/) mastery.
* My one exception would be if an immigrant does not have the financial capability to pay for lessons in the language of the country they've moved to. However, in Canada at least, free English lessons are offered to new immigrants, so I wouldn't see any reason to not learn the language here.
Not learning the primary language of the country they've moved to encourages segregation and often leads to racial or cultural tension. By refusing to learn the primary language to an acceptable extent, they're showing a blatant refusal to adapt even a little to their new country's culture. Even if you're living in an area where you could live your entire life speaking your mother tongue, it doesn't make sense to not at least do the bare minimum to adapt. What's the point of coming all the way to another country if you're not going to respect it? Multiculturalism is wonderful and should be valued, but refusing to learn the country's language and creating enclaves is *preventing* multiculturalism.
| 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 being proud of your race is ridiculous. +
+ Disclaimer: i'm an American middle class white girl, so no one cares what i have to say about race.
Now that that's been said, i just think the concept of being proud of your race doesn't make any sense. You were born with your skin a different color than someone else's, why does that make you special? Maybe it's just because I think the concept of race is stupid (biologically speaking, it doesn't exist), but i don't think your race should differentiate you from anyone else, for better or worse.
Right now, there's a kiosk at a store I frequent selling "black art." Some of it is African, some of it is art of significant black Americans, some of it is related to traditionally black fraternities and sororities. The only thing connecting these pieces of art is the color of the skin of the artist. Why does that matter?
I think the problem here is that i just don't understand. Can y'all help change my view and help me understand why people would be proud of the color of their skin? | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Statutory Rape/Standard Rape laws are sexist and should be completely redone to make the trial more equal. And statutory rape should be abolished all together. +
+ A topic that I have been aware of for a long time has been brought up to my attention again. [This](http://www.wnem.com/story/29722286/young-man-fooled-by-girl-on-hookup-app-wants-off-sex-offender-list#ixzz3i1vo9lzT) appeared on my news feed today and the main key that made me upset was this part of the article was this "The 14-year-old girl in the case has admitted she lied about her age on the hookup app and said the encounter was consensual, but that's not a valid defense under current laws." There is no reason why that shouldn't be a viable defense, I mean, that sentence alone should make any person automatically innocent and the only punishment that should be dealt, if any, should be against the person who lied about their age.
I bring up that rape laws should also be redone. One example was that a youtuber I watch (He wouldn't lie about said things because his whole channel is about social issues and such, and hasn't lied about anything yet. MrRepzion is that guy). He was in a bad relationship and decided to end it. Now the girl was very upset, so upset that she decided to create a fake rape claim, and the only reason Repzion was found guilty, was that his ex mistakenly decided to tell him over text that she claimed a false one, so he had evidence that it was false. Another one was an old friend of mine (17) was dating a 15 year old from my school. He broke up with her, and then filed a false statutory rape case against him, with parental help. Which he plead guilty.
~~I also bring up abolishing statutory rape laws because I see no use for them. If the sex is consensual, then there shouldn't be any punishment, because both parties wanted it, and with how they are set up, I guarantee that the guy will almost always be the one being punished, with the girl off scotch free. And if the sex wasn't consensual, then it should be considered just rape, rendering the statutory rape law useless.~~ Realized this would never be okay. Please refer to only the other parts of the post
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Police officers who kill citizens for any reason should be placed under arrest by another officer for murder. +
+ With the media covering police killings and the fact that United States Law enforcement kills a relatively large percent of its people every day I believe there should be more repercussions to an officer that kills a citizen.
The benefits to having a process like this includes:
1. No hypocrisy. All because someone has the title of a law enforcer doesn't mean that they shouldn't follow the same legal process as a citizen would. I mean, what if an officer showed up to the scene of a shooting (in which the shooter called 911 for help) and the shooter was there with the weapon and openly admitted to killing the victim in self-defense (which upon observation it was blatantly obvious it wad self-defense)? Surely the officer would draw his/ her weapon at the murderer and scream to get down. They would proceed to cuff them and bring them to the station for booking/ questioning. If an officer called in for back-up after killing someone (even if was obviously out of self defense) they would be approached with "hey are you okay?" and "Let's get the paperwork out of the way so you can have your paid leave." That to me is hypocritical. Take away the uniform and you have a person who just killed another person.
2. It would make officers think twice before drawing. If they knew they would be processed and charged with murder, I would argue that there would a significant decline in police shootings.
3. It gives the victim a fair chance at their side. Even if they are dead, treating an officer like a criminal discredits any story they come up with giving a better chance for the true series of events to surface. We have seen A LOT of cops make up shit that "justifies" the killing when later proved wrong by cameras. If people could just make up stories and be believed 100%, I could go outside right now, shoot someone in the head while no one is looking, plant a knife, claim they came at me with a knife, and get away with 2nd degree murder.
Even if an officer witnessed another officer kill a person when it was blatantly self-defense (eg the person had a gun pointed at the officer) they should still be cuffed and taken in. Just apply the same situation to 2 citizens, surely the one who lives would be charged with murder and only the results of an investigation would set them free.
I'm just frustrated with all the bull shit I hear about cops and would like to hear the logic of the other side because I feel I'm blinded from it. 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: There is nothing wrong with parents choosing to be on first name basis with their children. +
+ I don't see an issue with children being raised to use the first names of their parents in interaction, if that's what that particular family is comfortable with. I view it as a personal choice. While I don't think or feel any kind of way toward other parents wanting to be known to their children simply as mother/father, the idea has never resonated with me and I would personally prefer to be called my name.
Offspring can easily acknowkedge a parent's role in their lives without referring to them only by the title of their relation to them in every interaction. To me, little would change. I see it as a matter of parental preference, like the kind of car driven. I can retain my individual identity without it interfering with or undermining my authority. If anything, I think that's a valuable lesson for a growing person to understand.
I don't think simply being/not being called mother or father augments respect, bond or parental relationship dynamics if that is the family understanding. Of course, there is a difference when a family has an agreement to refer to the parents via parental title and the kid/s proceed to later call them by first name to ruffle feathers. That isn't the situation I'm referring to.
The usual arguments against individuals who prefer to be called by their name rather than a generic mom/dad seem to be along the line of 'They're your child, not your friend', which in my eyes is a leap. Defining somebody by their label doesn't give their position more credence. Respect, authority, boundaries and understandings are established in countless ways more significant than being called by a title the kid should implicitly know is yours. If there is something wrong with all parties in a household being on first name basis that I am missing, enlighten me.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Tipping is a powerful economic force that improves service when properly applied +
+ I see many CMVs suggesting that tipping is bad, but growing up in a city that lives on tips and embraces tipping, I have a different view. Is my view unique to my community? Is it wrong?
I grew up in Las Vegas where most service industry jobs both allow tipping and reward tippers with excellent service. Poor tippers quickly find that their behavior will result in poor service.
For example, casinos have cocktail servers who patrol the casino bringing drinks to players. When the server brings your first drink, you should tip them something (usually at least a dollar). If you tip average or above average, the server will return in a few moments to check on you and bring another drink if you need it. If you choose to not tip, you will likely wait much longer before you see your server again.
Baggage handlers, valets, hosts and hostesses, front desk and even security are offered tips and are often empowered to enhance your experience. A brief read through the vegas subreddits (there are several) will lead you to many methods to use tips to get superior service while in Las Vegas.
I've lived in other cities and visited many, many cities, both tourist trade and non tourist areas. Overall, the communities that accept and thrive on tips have better service, happier servers and more business because of it. When I have been in areas with a mandatory service charge, I find that service is not as good.
While in New York City, I often talked to my servers about the mandatory service charges and indicated that I found it odd being from Las Vegas where tipping is encouraged. Often servers would agree to remove the service charge and allow me to tip what I wanted. This mutual trust made me memorable and my service was better because of it. I say this as I watched servers snub other patrons who did not engage the server and went with the standard charges.
I read once that Penn Jillette (of Penn and Teller) lets servers know up front that he tips 25% *reguardless* of their service. He claims that he has never had bad service using this method.
As to claims of tipping encouraging racism, or female and blond servers getting higher tips, I would say that this is not unique to tipping. Pretty girls get lots of perks while they are young and pretty. No cover charges, free drinks, higher tips, etc. Unfortunately for them, these attributes quickly fade over time. Not having good service skills means their tips will fall off in their 30s or 40s. Again, this is not unique to tipping, this happens in nearly all non technical positions.
As to racism, many many servers are minorities and make great tips in Las Vegas. I would suggest that Las Vegas is a bit more progressive towards minorities than other cities, so again, I believe the problem is with regressive communities, not the practice of tipping.
Help me understand why this is not preferable to not tipping or banning tipping.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The homeless people in a certain two block area of Seattle have negative value as human beings +
+ **For clarity:**
- I don't think that all homeless people lack value, just the homeless in this particular area that I walk through every day on my way to work
- I believe that the majority of homeless people have jobs, but due to various factors are temporarily without a home
- I do not believe that the majority of homeless people just use drugs and/or alchohol all day
**For people that live in Seattle:**
My walking route is from the train station to the Seattle Art Museum building. The area I'm talking about is walking north on 2nd Avenue, between S Main Street and Yesler Way (on the other side of the street from the Union Gospel Mission)
**My View:**
The people that loiter along this particular area of Seattle do not provide any value at all to society, and take more than they give. I do not value them as human beings, and if someone there was in need of help I would walk on by without providing any assistance. Here are the things that I see at least once a week, or every day that have created my view:
- In the area where they loiter and sleep, there is always an immense amount of trash on the sidewalk. This is despite there being two dumpsters where they could take the trash to. *None of these people have a serious physical disability that prevents them from throwing away their trash, they just choose not to do it*. A city employee has to go through the area twice a day to clean up their trash. I did see one lady there with a broom cleaning up the area where she sleeps, but she was just moving the trash from the sidewalk to the street.
- The smell of urine is constant, especially in the afternoons when the sun is out. There are at least alley corners where they could urinate, if not bathrooms. They just choose to pee right where they sleep (and people walk) though instead. Again, they are capable of not doing this but choose to do it anyway.
- At least once a week I see the typical things that happen right before a fight. Tension build up, voices raised, body language, etc.. Rarely see this anywhere else in the city, just here. Again, they choose to do this.
- People asking me for money "for food". This is probably the thing that most upsets me. In other areas, I don't normally assume the person asking for money is going to just buy drugs with it. In THIS area though, there is a place called the Union Gospel Mission that serves 3 meals a day for free, with no strings attached. The food isn't gross or anything, and it provides plenty of daily calories. How do I know? Because I volunteer there every week. They are literally standing across the street from a place that provides free frood, asking for money to buy food.
These people don't even respect the area where they've chosen to live, let alone respect the other people that have to walk through there. The city (with my tax dollars) has to send police, trash pick up, and a person with a street cleaner through this area every day just to keep it somewhat decent. This leads me to the conclusion that these people are only takers, and provide no value at all to the society that they live in. Therefore, I do not value them as human beings.
Even in the (very rare) case of the person who is taking advantage of welfare there is value. They are spending money on things, and living in a home. That money goes into the economy, etc... Your average homeless person has value too, they probably have a job and contribute something to their society. I find none of that with this particular group of homeless living in this specific 2 block area.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I think that drug testing recipients of government benefits is a terrible idea. +
+ A common thing I see on many news stories, etc. is how expensive people on social assistance are to society and how we need to start taking more actions to reduce abuse on the system.
I feel this is based on misunderstandings and jealousy from the people making those suggestions and that implementing them would be more expensive, violate the government's legal and ethical obligations, and make society less enjoyable for all.
My reasoning:
* Welfare benefits are typically a lot lower than most people assume per recipient, and drug testing and administration a lot more expensive.
* Unless there is an extremely high frequency of drug users, the savings realized from removing people from the system is less than the cost of the test and the administration.
* Therefore, it will always cost taxpayers more to do this than to simply pay benefits to all that qualify.
* Drug users cut off from benefits may turn to crime to find their addictions, causing additional indirect costs in policing, healthcare, etc.
* There are also likely many legal costs do doing this as the ACLU has already challenged many states who have started drug testing.
* In states that have tried it the program has had a net cost.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I believe being inspired by other tattoos makes you unoriginal +
+ I've seen it a dozen times. Someone wants a tattoo and so they look at magazines or websites or celebs or tv shows (Miami Ink and the like) or other people from real life for inspiration.
Every time someone does something like that, I can't help but think less of their tattoo.
Many a times, I've seen a really nice tattoo and it's always a bittersweet feeling. On one hand it's a beautiful piece, on the other, I never want to have a similar one to that, as I'd feel I was just copying the other person.
Whenever I ask a friend why they picked a tattoo from a portfolio, their answer is never far from "because I think it's cool", so elaorating beyond that would be best I suppose.
Is this a normal feelling? It seems perfectly normal to look for inspiration on other things, but then again, it makes me feel as if the art isn't as original as it should be.
Thanks!
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Dark Side Of The Moon is a terrible album. +
+ Hi CMV!, First of all, (not that this makes my opinion more valid than anyone else's, just to give you my perspective) I am a musician, and have been playing for about 10 years now. I have tried to sit down and listen to this album twice now, and I just don't see the appeal, at all. I am constantly being told that I just "don't understand" or that "You have to be stoned to listen to it". It absolutely baffles me that it is the 3rd best selling album of all time. All I hear are a bunch of sound effects and what sounds to me like the engineer sat on the mixing desk and forgot about it. Please CMV or help me understand what I'm missing.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Sentient AI will emerge spontaneously significantly before humans can digitize themselves. +
+ Human sentience (or consciousness, or sapience, or whatever term you like) is an emergent behavior of neurons and their interactions, which can be replicated in non-organic systems, i.e., computers. Thus it is likely that given advanced enough technology, we could make a digital human, or even copy an organic human to the digital world.
Similarly, other neural networks can be constructed digitally, collectively known as AI. This is fairly well accepted in modern society, although there are debates over 'souls' and things like that.
I think that sentient AI will probably emerge first, long before we get close to digitizing humans, because of the way AI may emerge. Currently, one approach to developing advanced neural networks is to allow them grow 'naturally', which is to say that the network is given some parameters to optimize, and then iterations darwinistically decide what the optimal solution is. Pretty much like carbon-based evolution, but much faster.
However, I'm not an expert in the field, so I'm open to different opinions, or even alternatives not the above two options. CMV: AI will achieve sentience way before we can make computer humans.
| 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 I should try for any meaningful relationship, have children, or really try in life +
+ My cat just died. He was a 2 and a half year old Bengal that got stricken with a sudden sickness, and just when the anti biotics seemed to be turning him around, he died.
I'm not intelligent, capable, good looking, or anything. I've never had a gf, don't really have friends anymore, and live a solitary life. But he was my only friend, he was the best cat who never bit or hissed at anyone, and was friendly and playful even with strangers. He was the only real good thing in my life, now my awesome PC and expensive headphones don't mean anything.
This is pathetic, I know. It's not just him, it's just that now the sun of my life is gone the darkness that really is everywhere is more apparent.
The world is a sinking ship, everyone is scrambling for a high and dry spot. You all may have some super inspirational quote to give me, it makes the whole state of the ship seem less sorry, and maybe gotten us through when we go sprinkled with water (few in the first world know being near drowning in this analogy). Whatever existential philosophy there is wont justify how many people live lives where they do nothing but starve to death. The world isn't a story, everyone just crawls around like ants until we die. Even in less fanciful stories like ASOIAF at least there's a point, and there is some plot armor, but nothing's preventing a baby from being kidnapped later in life, eventually forgetting who she is year 16 in some strangers basement while having rape baby #6 punched out of her.
Decay and negativity is the default state of everything. All things just erode away, everything is fated to end in destruction. It's ingrained into the universe and human brain.
I was sheltered in the top deck of the ship, but now the ceiling of my room is leaking, and I'm reminded of the nature of everything.
It's best I don't have any more attachments, no investments in a world so capricious and uncaring.
Shit can still happen to me. But nothing so terrible as an abducted child, a career worked so hard for going down the tubes, getting cuckolded, or losing the best cat in the world when he was so young, can happen to me.
I should just find a stable job that'll get me enough to go on, a small cheap apartment that I'm not at risk of not being able to afford, and just stick to my vidya. Or I should kill myself. Anything to get out of/escape this fundamentally tainted reality.
You can post your stories about how life once sucked for you but now you're happy as a clam. You just lucked out, doesn't mean life is actually worth it. Doesn't matter how touched you were when your kid was born, women are being circumcised right now and they were when your kid was being born.
You can say I'll grow out of this thinking, you may be right, doesn't mean I'm wrong. People feel like this a lot at my age, but they don't grow out of it because of maturity like their belief in the Easter bunny. It's just because you got the job, mortgage, wife, and all these things binding you to the world. You can't bring yourself to admit how bullshit everything is when you have serious stake in it. Everything but what I'm saying is just a distraction in the end, so I should just retreat and turn into the skid, not giving life the chance to fuck me
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Warwick Davis shouldn't have had kids with his wife +
+ Referencing to [this article](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2590573/Losing-two-babies-stronger-Warwick-Davis-opens-tragic-effects-dwarfism.html), he had two miscarriages with his wife, Samantha, before having two more children with the same defects he and his wife shares. Isn't it completely ethically wrong to seek out a spouse that has similar genetic defects and reproduce with them? Why is he trying to preserve an illness?
It even states in the article, "Their condition means constant operations and medication". The kids' quality of life isn't that great. They purposely brought genetically defected children into the world. They even quote Samantha saying, "I always said I wanted one tall child and one with achondroplasia, like me". She wants deformed children.
They laugh at the condition, saying that dwarfism isn't debilitating and they're proud to be hindered. But these are serious medical conditions that shouldn't be given to children on purpose. Just like how we like to shame "fat logic" or "fat pride", why are we not shaming this? They shouldn't be reproducing together. They know it's a risky business trying to make children with their gene pool. They've made at least three failed children (one died at 9 days old, one stillborn and one miscarriage according to the article) and two deformed ones.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: People dont eat meat because they think its morally okay, they just dont give a shit about morality. +
+ I think its fair to say that most people dont give a single shit about morality unless they're driven by compassion/"their conscience" or worried about being judged by others for doing the wrong thing.
So people eat meat because
* Most people wont judge them for it
* They have no compassion for the animal
I feel compassion for animals and so I dont contribute to their mass-abuse and slaughter, aside from the obivously immoral support of animal cruelty there's a bunch of reasons why vegetarianism is better for the earth, for your health etc, but until I gained that compassion it didnt matter to me.
People like to act like their decision to eat meat is some kind of well thought-out position that they're sure is logically and morally sound, but IMO its 100% backwards rationalisation. They already made the decision to eat meat as a child without thinking about it at all, and they want to keep doing it so they try to explain to themself why they do it instead of honestly thinking about whether or not they actually should.
Eating meat can never be more or as ethical as not eating meat, because you're taking life needlessly and contributing to/causing (no snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible) all kinds of abuse towards animals. But people just dont really give a shit.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The vast amounts of zero karma posts on r/changemyview prove that the downvote button is a disagree button. +
+ So I browse this sub from time to time and I've come to the conclusion that the downvote button is a disagree button. A good chunk of the posts here (not new posts, posts that are over 8 hours old) with only around 10 karma points, or even 0 karma points are "bad" or "dumb" or in better terms, don't have enough good points to help the OP look like their view is good. The original purpose of a downvote is to mostly help remove irrelevant posts that nothing to do with the current sub. 99% low/no karma posts are relevant to this sub. This is the main reason I will always see the downvote button as a disagree button. 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: The recognition of Europe as a separate continent is a remainder of white supremacy. +
+ Geologically, there is no basis for the traditionally taught list of continents: North America, South America, Africa, Asia, Oceania, Antarctica, and Europe.
Europe does not have its own tectonic plate, and was attached to Asia even as far back as 200 million years ago, when the "mega continents" of Laurasia and Gondwana were estimated to have separated. Meanwhile, India and Arabia have their own tectonic plates.
There are no geographic boundaries that clearly demarcate Europe which are not also present elsewhere. People usually bring up the Ural mountains, but the Urals are insignificant when compared to the [Himalayas](http://www.osaka-kyoiku.ac.jp/~syamada/map_syamada/PhysicalGeography/C1207Map_elevation_world.jpg). Yet, India is only considered a "sub"-continent, despite having far more geological qualification for continent-hood than Europe.
When I've mentioned, or seen the issue mentioned online, the most common response I see is extreme disapproval, with no logically sound arguments defending said disapproval. This is probably due to simple status-quoism, but I'm sure some white people are also insulted at the prospect of losing a geographic "special" status.
My position is that if Europe is a continent, then the term "continent" has no meaningful definition, and is purely a social construct. 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: Hip-hop songwriting is extremely underrated. +
+ Not here to wax poetic about how great hip-hop is, this is strictly about the writing. Rockstars like Lennon, McCartney & Dylan deservedly get hailed as some of the greatest songwriters ever, but you rarely ever hear the same of a rapper. Not saying a rapper should necessarily be above them or even in the same league, but it's weird that they aren't praised for some of their brilliant lyrics. Lyrics that are often co-opted by the masses, celebrities and even used as slogans for corporations.
Now, this is obviously due to a bunch of factors - rappers aren't singing, hip-hop is still young & people still don't really respect it, other genres are more established, etc. However, rappers still compose lyrics and rhythms for songs, which by extension makes them songwriters. Empire State of Mind is a great example because many people have heard it and some could pass it off as just another mainstream song. Much of the song's acclaim was for Alicia Key's singing/hook (which arguably made the song what it is), but the writing on the verses are quite overlooked.
Especially the third -
So they can step out of bounds quick/
The side lines is lined with casualties/
Who sip the life casually, then gradually become worse/
Don’t bite the apple, Eve/
Caught up in the in-crowd, now you're in-style/
And in the winter gets cold en vogue with your skin out/
The city of sin is a pity on a whim/
Good girls gone bad, the city's filled with 'em/
Mommy took a bus trip and now she got her bust out/
Everybody ride her, just like a bus route/
"Hail Mary" to the city, you're a virgin/
And Jesus can’t save you, life starts when the church ends/
Came here for school, graduated to the high life/
Ball players, rap stars, addicted to the limelight/
MDMA got you feeling like a champion/
The city never sleeps, better slip you a Ambien.
Excellent use of imagery & wordplay while still being fairly direct and evocative. This isn't much compared to some of the other writing on other hip-hop songs, but it showcases how good the writing is even on some of the biggest hits. I'm pretty sure that if some bands came up with even half of what some of the best hip-hop lyricists come up with, they would be endlessly praised. Might all seem very trivial, but I really feel hip-hop songwriting deserves more praise.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Far too many people (specifically Redditors) do not understand Biblical homosexuality and often read the Bible at face value +
+
Hello CMV, practicing Christian here!
I believe that far too many people (this will be reddit-centric) hold many ideas about the bible that reveal only a cursory (and often secondhand) idea about the bible. This post is largely in response to [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3fsgbp/cmvbelief_in_christianity_does_not_necessitate/) one, which harbors several critical arguments including:
1. Homosexuality is sinful as stated in the Bible
and
2. Christians who eat shellfish and wear mixed fibers are just as guilty of sin as homosexuals.
Now, both of these views do not take into account the historical context in which they are presented in the Bible. I will start with point 2 because it leads into point 1.
Many people argue point two is ridiculous. Anti-theists use it point out the absurdity of the Bible, whereas (Liberal) Theists use it to point out the absurdity of Homosexuality being sinful. What this point fails to address, though, is the difference between [Moral and Ceremonial Law](http://www.gotquestions.org/ceremonial-law.html). From the website: "The ceremonial laws are called hukkim or chuqqah in Hebrew, which literally means 'custom of the nation'; the words are often translated as 'statutes.'" Rules such as not eating shellfish and wearing mixed fibers falls into this section. Now, main reason why people single out homosexuality is because Paul lists it as a sexual sin in the New Testament, and is among many of the other "big sins" often enumerated in the Bible, including killing, stealing, and lying.
On point 1, the question becomes why the compilers of the bible centuries ago felt compelled to add passages calling out monogamous same-sex relationships. [Unless, of course, it doesn't.](https://moanti.wordpress.com/2010/08/02/gaychristians/) The crux of the matter is that homosexual sex was used during antiquity as a means of humiliating and demeaning foreigners ( [as explained further in this link](https://moanti.wordpress.com/2013/07/07/the_bible_verse_most_christians_dont_like_to_quote/) ), and was therefore an act of **Rape**, distinct from the 21st century idea that two homosexuals can have a loving and fulfilling relationship.
I implore the on-the-fence theists reading this to examine the links provided as I also implore the atheists reading to use these links to please *call out* any of my so-called brothers and sisters who use the Bible as a tool for hate and power.
Thanks for reading.
Also, I am by not by any stretch of the imagination a biblical scholar, pastor, or the like, so be gentle please :)
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The 7th Harry Potter book should have ended differently. I have a problem with a specific plot point. +
+ For the record, I am not a fan at all of how the second half of the Deathly Hallows went, but I want to focus on Harry's "death". I think he should have remained dead.
I thought it was really beautifully done. He was surrounded by the spirits of those who loved him. Harry was giving himself to rescue his friends. The readers were properly prepared for it. It was a great emotional experience.
Then it became stupid. By a complete deus ex machina, Harry Potter was allowed to come back to life because "Voldemort only killed part of his own soul". I have had this argument with a lot of people, but I seem to be alone in this opinion. Having Harry come back for essentially no reason cheapens and trivializes that great experience the readers had.
Think of the awesome emotional and important parts of the series. How many people think of Harry's "death"? I know I don't. Cause it didn't mean anything. If he had stayed dead, it would have been one of the most famous tragic moments in all of literature, given how widely read and loved Harry Potter is.
I'm not sure how exactly it would end after that. My favorite way would be for Voldemort to be killed by all of Harry's friends who he has trained. Or even by the combined love of Hermione and Ron because the love theme is so strong in Harry Potter. Voldemort would still destroy the Harry horcrux when Harry died. It could end different ways, but the main point is that I think it would have been a great, if sad and tragic, moment if Harry died. | 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 speed limits are an overall negative force in road safety and are too often used as tools for revenue generation for small towns who unreasonably lower their speed limits to trap motorists into paying fines. +
+ Too often when driving down the road and driving into a small town off of a major route I see speed limits suddenly plummet and invariably a police cruiser is hiding somewhere around the sign. This has caused me several times to nearly get into rear end collisions either by almost hitting someone or almost being hit due to sudden deceleration. I believe that most speed limits outside specific instances like school zones, residential areas, and signage around sudden hidden turns in the road are unreasonable, and if they were removed motorists would intuitively adjust to a safe driving speed that they feel comfortable with. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:Abortion is not a woman's rights issue, and framing it that way just confuses the argument. +
+ I have never met a person who said they were against abortion because they did not think woman should have autonomy over their own body. Every pro-life person I know says that they are against abortion because it ends the life of a person. Thus, abortion is about when a fetus becomes a person, and if a woman still has the right to exercise autonomy over that person once it is considered such, and if so, is there a limit on when that right could be exercised?
I do not believe I need to cite people claiming abortion is about women's rights, its on my Facebook wall every single day. Additionally, this is not an argument about whether pro-life or pro-choice is correct , but rather about what the real issue is. The vilifying of people of who want to protect what they see has human life is inherently counterproductive to what pro-choice people are trying to accomplish.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: If there is nothing we can do about climate change we should destigmatize suicide as soon as possible +
+ As threads like [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/3fqtyj/speed_of_glacier_retreat_worldwide_historically/) show, the world is on a slow motion path to oblivion. Notice how all discussions about what can be done all boil down to "Nothing. Enjoy your life". Maybe some people can take solace in that but not all. Even climate scientists [are showing signs of PTSD (and I think I might be as well)](http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a36228/ballad-of-the-sad-climatologists-0815/).
Society should encourage the use of voluntary euthanasia. Aggresively campaign to tell people that anyone who chooses it is NOT a coward, is NOT selfish and they should NOT be mourned. In fact, they should be celebrated, because they have either transcended their base desire for survival (or never had it in the first place) and have made a decision that not only benefits them but the world at large as well.
It is sick how people are forced to keep playing the game of life even though they have already lost. People are brought into this world by the surpremely selfish desires of their parents who are either completely oblivious to the fact that their children will die drowning in their blood of the bodily fluids of their violators cursing their parents' name while the latter will likely sleep soundly in their graves or because they want to make their own "tribe" to fight in the ashes convinced of their own superiority. The children never had a choice. If any of them did and could be conscious enough to understand it, no one would be borne.
I don't see the point in living in a post collapse world. I hate exercising. Most people I know are incapable of having a conversation that doesn't involve sports, travel or the weather and I can only assume the number will grow as access to the Internet collapses. The thought of having to grow my own food makes me sick, let alone the thought that 12 hours of my day will have to be spent there. Probably until my back gives out and I'm left to die by the outside "community" that took me in before they realized I was "weird" and was looking for an excuse to murder me.
I don't want to learn self defense, I don't want to fight. I want to live in a world where specific people exist to protect me and as long as I don't do anything stupid, they won't hurt me. I want to live the rest of my life doing what I am told and being rewarded for it. I don't want to become a leader, I don't want to be responsible for people's well being. I never had any sort of relationship and perhaps it's for the best because if I did have a family during the collapse, I don't know what I would do.
More people like me must exist. We must help them.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Communism is very inegalitarian. +
+ I shall start with an axiom, i thing what really makes the biggest difference between humans is : Physical attractiveness, money/social statuts, personal characteristics (the third is very tricky because sometimes it's interconnected with the two first : Example an intelliget person may make more money, attractive people are judged more intelligent. I think physical attractiveness is the most important but this is a personnal opinion that i won't add to the axiom).
So, IF WE accept that axiom, won't the fact of making everybody equal on economical grounds (even if it was a realistic goal, free of any abuses of those power), gives the attractive a very big edge ? Bigger than what they have now.
At least now, a man can compete against a more attractive peer in some circonstances by making more money, having a better status. That possibility would be gone in a perfect communist system. At least there is a chance of making money, it can be a really remote chance depending on the circonstances, but it's possible. Becoming attractive in the other hand.
The only way to make communism more egalitarian is to tax people more for physical attractiveness.
If you don't accept the axiom, you can also try to change my view.
Thanks in advance. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: If women are allowed to wear small earrings in the workplace, I should be allowed to wear small spacers. +
+ I currently have my ears spaced to a size 0, which is 8.25mm or 1/3rd inch. They definitely aren't the smallest size you can stretch to, but they're much smaller than what a lot of people do, and I've never had any complaints at any of my part-time jobs. In fact, people often don't notice that I have them.
People often say that they're unacceptable in office or professional settings, but I disagree. Not only have I seen people dressed for professional work wearing spacers before, but I believe the argument against them is weak, especially if you allow women to wear small earrings at work. My spacers take up as much space on my ear lobe as the average earring (maybe a little bigger), and I tend to wear them in mute or neutral tones, making them not distracting.
I also believe that the definition of "workplace appropriate" here is subjective. Obviously there are parts of workplace dress that ought to be enforced, such as dressing somewhat conservatively and having clean, well-fitting clothes. But when workplace appropriateness allows earrings but not spacers, I believe allowing one but not the other is arbitrary. My spacers wouldn't be any more distracting than earrings, so I believe I have just as much of a right to wear them. CMV!
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Even today being gay is awful +
+ So I came out recently and well I am finding out how much homophobia still exists in my little corner of England. Since I came out people have been spreading rumours about me (My Mum called me at 11:30 last night after hearing someone claim that I am dating a guy in his 40s (I am 24) and that we were seen doing drugs or something, both claims are bullcrap) .
Someone put a note on the windshield of my car full of homophobic drivel they got of the internet and saying that they will "pray for me" (the city where I live has a sizeable Muslim population and well this is what happens when you are gay in a Muslim part of town I suppose) stuff like that drags you down.
I lost a lot of friends as well, a few of them are religious and dumped me when they found out, I know people say "well they weren't really your friends" but I am still pretty lonely to be honest.
Then last night, feeling crap I went to one of the local gay bars in the city in the hope that I would maybe meet someone to speak to or something more, I hung around to closing time and when I left I was greeted by shouts of faggot etc. by a gang of pissed chavs. How is this meant to be living, so what we can get married but that is only going to help a lucky few, for ones like me I just wish I wasn't gay seriously I regret coming out and seriously wish I did a better job at hiding my depression which inevitably ended up with me being outed.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: within the next few decades, AI will replace a sizable portion of our jobs. Within a few centuries, they'll replace almost all of them +
+ It's already been happening with factory workers, online shopping, etc., and with self-driving cars on the horizon and computing technology getting better and better, the long-term job security for many professions is shaky at best. This surge in unemployment may even cause a great economic crisis. [This video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU) explains the situation quite well.
BONUS: With many humans out of jobs, I've heard talks of unconditional basic income eventually being required. Indeed, the idea that everyone should have a job may become more arbitrary as time goes on as fewer people are able to contribute to the economy. Robots will simply do everything better, making humans far less useful and needed.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Anti-Victim-blaming culture is suppressing the spread of helpful information that can prevent rape. +
+ I often see any talk about rape go hand in hand with two sides: people advocating increased safety of all people, and people defending victims of rape by saying that information triggers victims, and therefore the information ends up at ends. This includes language such as "Pepper spray can deter attackers of any kind, and therefore it is strongly recommended that ANYBODY carries it with them at all times." or "Hot zones for crime include times after dusk and before dawn, so it is advised to travel in groups at this time to deter attackers."
People rage at this information saying that I should not ask anything of the victim, and that this information is useless. People often use the argument "We should teach people NOT TO RAPE"
My issue here is that the suppression of this information in lieu of pursuing an idealistic rape-free culture neglects the current standing of our surroundings, and that dangerous people still exist, and will exist for the foreseeable future. I see no harm in telling anyone that safety is important, and that there are very cogent steps to significantly lower your risk of being attacked and/or raped.
The only instance I would excuse my previous statement would be people telling actual victims of rape what they COULD have done. This does nothing to change what happened, and is a slimey thing to do.
Maybe this is just an Anti-SJW rant that I didn't even know I was making, or maybe I have an actual argument here. If I am not clear on this classic argument, I would appreciate some clarity, and am always open to thoughtful and courteous discussion.
Please no flaming, arguing, or fighting. 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: I don't like tipping. +
+ Leaving a tip feels so customary in certain places that it's become an incentive to do your job properly. I understand that it's the service that they provide and not just the food, but isn't that exactly what they're paid for? To give a paying customer a good service? Although I sympathize with their outrageously low wages, but why should I have to fork out more of my money that I'm already spending at a restaurant to subsidize young Jenny here, to get her up to normal living wage? Isn't that a governmental issue of poverty/low wages? | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
Cmv: Black celebrities should donate money to education in black communities to help them out. +
+ I'm talking about donating endorsement money or similar. It would be millions of dollars a year to help the community out of poverty.
If they would donate everything but a million dollars they will still be rich and the poor would be better.
It would be over a billion dollars in help a year which would be very beneficial.
Instead you see the black community admiring their new cars instead of putting pressure in them donating and helping.
It would be good to know if there is a reason why even though they are in a privileged position in which they can actively help instead of using their money for material things. I would think that if they understand the hardships why they don't donate and create a better world. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Each & every downvote needs to be substantiated with a reasoned comment. +
+ The current system on most subs discourages substantive arguments & promotes brigading, popularity contests & bullying.
Example:
**"I like cheese puffs. They're the best snack."**
If you like cheese puffs, then you may upvote such a comment.
But if you want to downvote the comment, then I think you should be required to submit a reasoned comment as to why cheese puffs aren't the best snack, with unsubstantiated or nonsensical downvote comments subject to removal of both the post and downvote.
Disclaimer: I don't like cheese puffs.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: There is no practical reason that guns should be black. +
+ There are some hunting rifles and rifles for children that are neon orange and pink. The majority of guns (rifles and handguns) are black though. Guns should be required to be neon safety orange. This would allow police officers to more easily identify firearms, and recreation gun owners should have no reason to objection to this.
This would have to affect toys' colors, but that would be easier to regulate colors of than real firearms. Toys would no longer be able to be the specified color.
What reason is there that guns are almost all black?
I would have no objection to a hunting rifle ( let's say a 12 gauge) being brown for camouflage purposes. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Basic income is a horrible idea and anyone who has ever taken a basic economics class should know that. +
+ Let me start off by stating what I believe the reddit basic income theory is. From what I have read from /r/basicIncome, the idea is that in a future utopian society computers will take all of our jobs and there will be a huge number of people out of work. Basic income would be a government-issued wage that would act as a safety net for these newly underemployed/unemployed workers.
I am not making this post to argue against future automation problems getting rid of jobs. Yes, jobs will require more skills and basic menial tasks may soon be replaced. But that is frictional unemployment, not structural. Its incorrect to say that because a McDonalds cashier got laid off because of a touchscreen order screen that said McDonald's worker will never work again.
Many people on reddit would like to implement Basic Income today. They state that it would rid our problems with a complicated tax code, food stamps and other welfare programs. The huge issue is when you have a dead wage safety net you create a massive systematic disincentive to people to work. If people make a certain wage while working zero hours a week, why go get a job at the grocery store? The marginal value of a full time job becomes diluted.
Next off, wages are considered elastic. Wages are often sticky, but they will still react to the market, especially new hires. If everyone is getting basic income, employers would simply cut costs and pay people less in wages because why not? Employees would be indifferent because they aren't netting less money, since basic income would make up the difference. Competitive wages would suffer.
CMV
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Papyrus is a much more annoying and useless font than Comic Sans. +
+ All fonts are in some way contextually appropriate. Comic Sans looks like crap on an essay or a official document, but in a cutesy letter from grandma or in a joking yet soft note. Papyrus, on the other hand, seems to have only one appropriate use: 5th grade projects on Ancient Egypt. The font isn't aesthetically pleasing: the capitals are far too large and the letters fit weirdly. Not that Comic Sans is good, but certainly the lesser of the two evils. And yet we end up with situations like [this](http://www.thepaperstore.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/store_front.jpg) or [this](https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3786/13919983212_d92fe40f8d_b.jpg).
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Humans are actually a very primitive species. Crimes like murder and rape are to be expected, are not inherently immoral, and we overreact to them because they break order in society. +
+ Okay, this is a tough, long one to write out and explain, but I'll do my best. Currently I am actually having trouble understanding why these crimes are inherently wrong, other than that if they were not thought of as terrible, all hell would break loose and there would be no order. I am honestly open to changing my view (I even desire to change it, as I think I'm becoming extremely cynical). For some background I am in a graduate program in neuroscience.
Moving on...I am sure someone might say "well how would you like it if you/your family were raped/murdered", but I feel that kind of reinforces my point - this reason just shows we are afraid of backlash, and thus order in society is necessary.
---> First of all, despite what we pretend to be, I honestly believe humans are actually very primitive. This means they are violent, still think with their "reptilian brains", and except outliers, are trying to fulfill their evolutionary/biological purpose - to create offspring. Examples of what I see as proof for the primitive claim:
a) Perhaps some will point to the vast increases in science in technology as evidence that we are in fact not primitive, but 99.9999% of those increases come from 0.00001% of the population. Does the average human (on a global scale) really have anything to do with sending a man up to the moon or discovering a cure for a disease?
b) Incredible amount of violence. The Holocaust was not too long ago...hundreds of thousands of soldiers/civilian supporters/etc all advocating for and carrying out genocide that killed millions. And that is just one example (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genocides_by_death_toll). I don't believe that a handful of "evil" people could have carried these out - instead they were carried out by a group, albeit smaller, like 10% or so, and supported by something like 40%, and shown indifference by the majority of the rest. Again, need I mention ISIS, American acts against Natives, African tribe warfare, the list goes on. I believe every single human (yes you behind the computer screen) is capable of shocking violence or brutality. Our capacity and frequency of violence shows we are primitive.
c) Factors in sexual attraction. This is a big one, because almost every single human is "guilty" of it. Both men and women will say they are looking for someone who is "kind, intelligent, etc", but much research has shown the most attractive trait women look for is height. The biggest reason for this is evolution - a bigger hunter/gatherer, protector, even dominator of women. Do women in cushy Western society today really need a big guy to protect them...I don't think so. For men, it is a combination of fertility signs (e.g. hip ratio) and youth. Again, personality goes out the window when you are looking at a woman with a beautiful figure. If you think about it, the sexual preferences of a human today (height, strength, resources for women...or beauty, fertility for men) are honestly closer to the sexual preferences of our closest relative, the chimpanzee, than to some mythical advanced human civilization that places the utmost value on compassion, intelligence, etc. Again, to me this shows that we are quite primitive.
d) There is a similar primitive basis in other human ideas, like blind patriotism, or even racism in all aspects of society, from dating to careers (similar to animosity between tribes of chimpanzees, and attempts to maintain social hierarchy within tribes). Another one is harmful religious beliefs and traditions held by majority of humanity (showing a lack of understanding for science, progress). Not to bring another argument into this debate, but a good example is circumcision - 60% of male babies in the USA will be circumcised (99% for non-medical reasons), and 100-200 will die from complications, although thankfully there are a few societies, like Germany, where this is illegal, it still shows you how primitive we really are. Same thing (worse health effects for most types) on the other side of the planet with FGM.
----> Thus, I think we've fooled ourselves into thinking we have become so advanced (morally, scientifically) as a species and civilization. In fact, we are extremely primitive, and I think the outrage and shock that we feel when we hear of a rape or murder victim (or any other serious crime) is honestly just a farce. Of course I don't mean to say that people who feel sad and angry are lying, but I mean that our empathy here stems from societal teachings.
Given what we are capable of, given our track record in history, is it really so surprising if a man rapes a woman? After all, if we are this primitive, we are all just trying to spread our genes, create offspring, survive, reproduce, and so on.
Example - I might say: Isn't it wrong that a compassionate, intelligent person will not reproduce if he/she does not meet the primitive biological preferences of humans today? Well, you would say: It might be wrong, but it's just because of the sexual preferences (read: primitive nature) of humanity. In the same way, you might say: Isn't it terribly wrong if a person rapes another, steals all their money, kills their enemies and competition? I might say: It might be wrong, but it's just because of the primitive nature of humanity.
---
**In summary: humans are actually very primitive, as is evident by their violence, sexual preferences, racism, and harmful religious practices. Murder, rape, theft is to be expected in such a primitive species. We overreact to these crimes because it disrupts the order of society, not because they are inherently immoral.**
Anyway, please CMV! By the way, I talked about murder/rape because it is easy to feel empathy for the victims, but this extends to all other crimes. Also, no religious arguments please.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Current Title IX interpretations, in practical terms, means only the man can decide if she can say yes. +
+ With responsibility, comes authority. Cases such as [this one](https://www.thefire.org/sexual-assault-injustice-at-occidental-college-railroads-accused-student/) at Occidental College. There are other example cases as well, but this one is relatively 'clean' in that there was considerable documentation/evidence that both parties consented (and both parties had been drinking). The man was expelled from school, the woman was not.
With this as a cautionary-tale/backdrop to the male decision making process, I come up with the following logic being the only reasonable interpretation for men to consider in terms of governing sexual relationships with women in college.
1) If the woman says no, it means no, obviously.
2) If the woman says yes but has had a drink, it's up to the man to determine if she still has the authority to consent, the safe answer being 'no, she does not.'
3) If the woman says yes and has had **no** alcohol, it is up to the man to determine if she has the emotional maturity to consent at all (e.g., will she regret it).
So, she can certainly say no, but only a man can determine if she has the right or agency to say yes, and women are under no reciprocal obligation.
This doesn't feel like a very positive outcome for women, I feel it robs them of control over their bodies. It would also seem to rob a happy couple of the simple pleasure of an evening at home drinking with some sex before bed. However I am unable to arrive at another intepretation or approach that mitigates the risk to men given the current Title IX interpretation.
**NOTE:** To be clear, I have no desire to undermine women's agency, and I am posting this in ernest with no ulterior motive, although I do recognize it may be a controversial subject. I hope there is an alternative view that makes sense to me.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:Belief in Christianity Does Not Necessitate the Belief that Homosexuality is a Sin +
+ It is well known that the old testament refers to homosexuality as "an abomination." However, most christians do not believe in the applicability of Old Testament rules to the modern day due to the new covenant of Jesus Christ. Under this interpretation, homosexuality should be judged to be just as immoral as wearing mixed fabrics or eating pig, which to almost all Christians is "not at all". In fact, the notion that "homosexuality is a sin" is inconsistent with the theme of the New Testament, which Christians put much more emphasis on. In the New Testament, Jesus encourages believers not to judge the immorality of a person by what is socially acceptable, which is essentially what those who would say that homosexuality is a sin are doing.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: It is not Scar's fault the Pride Lands went to crap. +
+ In the Lion King, once Scar takes over the Pride Lands, the herds of prey animals move away and there is a severe scarcity in food and water. This causes Nala to leave to find food and help, which leads her to Simba.
However, the scarcity of food and water is due to a drought and the blame is placed on Scar since he is now King, but it's not his fault since he can't control the weather.
Simba is just lucky that it started to rain right after Scar was defeated. Had it not started to rain, he would have been in the same position Scar was. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Acceptance of cigarettes defeats the purpose of the War on Drugs +
+ Cigarettes are the leading cause of preventable death, responsible for roughly 480,000 deaths per year in the US. 41,000 of those deaths aren't even those of users -- they are the deaths of those exposed to secondhand smoke. If you use the drug (nicotine), it can directly affect the health of those close to you.
Smoking harms nearly every organ in the body, causing cancer and disease. Cigarettes are extremely addictive and many people can't quit even if they try.
Yet other drugs pose less threats and have a much lower or even a nonexistent fatality rate. They certainly aren't killing 1,300 people per day.
Can you imagine if an illegal drug killed over 1,000 people everyday, users and nonusers? There would be political crusades.
For all illicit drugs combined, the number of resulting deaths were about 17,000 in 2013. For all drugs combined -- legal and illegal -- that number jumped to about 46,500 for that same year. That's an extra 29,500 deaths from legal drugs.
Cigarettes cause 10x more deaths per year than all the drugs in the US.
Why are we pouring so much time, resources and money into the Drug War to keep these *super dangerous* illegal drugs out of the hands of the American public such as marijuana (easy argument, 0 deaths) or even heroin (much more difficult argument, ~6,000 deaths in 2013) when cigarettes are so acceptable?
Cigarettes kill nearly half a million people per year and are the direct cause for serious health issues and reduced lifespan. They are highly addictive. If the objective of the War on Drugs is to keep people safe and not addicted to drugs, how can we rationalize this continuing support of cigarettes while stigmatizing the use of other, less harmful drugs?
- - -
**Reasons I think we overlook this high fatality rate...**
* culture and ingrained public perception of acceptance.
Cigarettes used to be advertised as good for you and everybody knows somebody who smokes. Smoking is not something you necessarily have to hide. Jobs don't (generally) screen for cigarette smokers.
* in the eyes of the public, cigarettes aren't really "drugs" (i.e. they don't alter your state of consciousness; they don't get you high)
An 18 year old can legally buy as many packs of cigarettes as they want. In the US, they can't even do that with alcohol (which gets you drunk). In states with legal marijuana, you also have to be 21 to buy/consume.
* cigarettes don't cause immediate death. (shortsightedness)
You don't overdose on nicotine. Instead, cigarettes slowly kill you so there is no instant connection between cigarettes and death. For example, a heroin OD would be an instant "drugs kill you." If you smoke a cigarette, you know you aren't risking your life right that second.
- - -
**What are some other reasons we overlook this fatality rate and continue to socially and legislatively accept cigarettes?**
*Sources*
[X](http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/) [X](http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Causes_of_Death#sthash.2ALBksdH.dpbs) | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: When drivers park in the far left lanes, I see no reason not to drive in the empty right-most lanes and pass them. +
+ When I am driving on I-75 between Ann Arbor and the Mackinac Bridge in Michigan, I have noticed a very disturbing trend in the past few years. For some reason, on a four lane expressway, the majority of drivers will drive exclusively in the left-most two lanes, practically leaving the right-most two empty or lowly populated. When I get onto the expressway, I find it extremely convenient that I can just park myself in the far right lane, henceforth known as the “slow lane” and only have to switch lanes periodically to get around slow traffic who actually know how to drive. Most of the time, I find that the slow lane is empty, but it feels odd to me that I am passing so many cars while being in the far-right lane. I have talked about this to many people, but the responses I get range from “you are driving too fast” to “you should never pass on the right”.
My view is that if those people didn’t want to get passed on the right hand side, they would be driving in the right-most lane they are able. That is what I learned in Drivers Training many years ago, and it has rang true so far. Cars should ALWAYS travel in the furthest right lane they are able. The way I see it, if you don’t want me driving in this lane, you should be.
So, CMV, Change my view on why I should park myself behind all of the idiots who are congesting the left-most two lanes and leaving the right lanes pretty much wide open. And please spare me the “you shouldn’t be driving so fast” garbage. I drive at speeds I am comfortable driving at. If that means I am doing 80 in a 70, then so be it. I would like this discussion to focus on the “Passing on the Right” idea and not “Speeding is bad, mmmmkay?” drivel.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Hollywood is making movies that are less and less good...here's why +
+ Where are the balls on Hollywood?! I get that ticket sales are down within certain key demographics that don't care about where they consume their content, but do films HAVE to focus on having such huge profit margins in order to greenlight movies? Hollywood is making more money than it ever has before...but look at 2014's top 10 grossing films. None of them were nominated for Oscars and every single one was a sequel or spinoff, AND on top of that studios are producing 1/3 of the films they were making a decade ago. The ones they are producing are costing more than ever. Has America or the International market really been so blind to realize this country is producing shit! Boycott!!! Pirate the shit movies and go to the theaters when amazing directors who deserve our money and a proper budget like Wes Anderson make something. The only films I have to get excited about are these bullshit flicks like Zoolander 2...which im still gunna see...bc...I love you Zoolander, and Hollywood knows it dammit.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: guys and girls can NEVER be 'just friends' +
+ First Let me just say I am 16 and don't have much experience with how it is in the 'adult world'. But I don't think a 100% platonic relationship can exist between a straight male and a straight female.
Can you think back to any friendship and say with absolute certainty that there was never even a hint of attraction? And even if you can, how do you know they don't or never haven't felt that way?
It doesn't even need to be acted on to affect the relationship. It often with subconsciously. From my personal experience, this sort of friendship doesn't exist.
So, change my view, Reddit! | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Please convince me we aren't currently in a North Korea-like situation +
+ How can you convince me that all the nations that i'm allowed to visit aren't all working together to hide a bigger and better and more free world. Maybe the internet I know is actually just a restricted and monitored intranet. I personally don't know anyone who has tried to fly a plane in any direction they wanted for as long as they wanted, so maybe all commercial airlines are restricted to brother nations that perpetuate the lie. You get the idea, convince me we aren't in North Korea #2.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Times New Roman is actually a good font. People only hate it because of it's over-use. +
+ I got a slap on the wrist for choosing Times New Roman on a design project, and I had to take a stand. Times New Roman is not the Arial of serif fonts. Poor choice of angles and weight actually make Arial a difficult font to read. Times New Roman, much like Helvetica, is invisible. It's so readable that it does nothing to draw attention to itself, leaving only the content. The only reason people hate it is because it was licensed differently than Helvetica, leading Microsoft to decide to use it as a default instead of making a cheap knock-off.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The West should fight Islamism by supporting the academic study of Islam and the religious education of Sheiks worldwide. +
+ **Some Definitions**
**Islamism** - Political Movements that use Islam to justify either their end goals (ie. a religious state, or "caliphate") or the means they use (ie. violence, terrorism).
**Islam** - Religion with 1 billion followers worldwide. Draws doctrine from the Qu'ran (a holy book) and the Hadith (the biography of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)).
**Sheik** - An educated religious leader that are theological scholars, and have power to issue religious opinions/rulings, known as *fatwas.*
My case is this.
* **Fighting Islamic Terrorism through military force DOES NOT WORK.**
The emergence of ISIS/ISIL/Daesh is strong evidence that foreign invasions cannot create stability in a country.
* **A key feature of Islamic Terrorism is theological ignorance.**
Islam only permits violence in certain circumstances, which are fairly well established. This mirrors a general ignorance among Muslims of what Islam is. This is compounded by the fact that Sheiks pass on their knowledge to students via a mentoring process. Lines of Sheiks are dying out due to a lack of willing students, and knowledge is being lost with them. The pull of Islamism on young men may be contributing to this.
* **A greater understanding of Islam is incompatible with Islamism** - The Qu'ran is a suprisingly thought-provoking text, even for the secular reader. It constantly promotes critical thinking, and warns against interpreting its verses in a dogmatic way. A study of the life of the Prophet (pbuh), where he only fought as a last resort and was firmly against the killing of non-combatants, is totally at odds with Islamists. The fact that modern Islamist organisations (eg. Al-Quaeda, ISIL) are theologically innovative (rather than trying to get back to 7th Century Islam) is something that Al-Quaeda openly admits and is one of their most obvious flaws to Muslim observers.
My solution is that the West, with its traditions of academic study and economic power at the greatest they have ever been, should help educate Muslim countries about their own religion. Education should be at the grass roots level, the theological, and academic levels. I think there is a rather poetic justification in that the Islamic Empire safeguarded many of the texts of Europe and the Greeks at the time Europe was going through its Dark Ages. A similar thing could be argued to be taking place in the Muslim World today.
**TL;DR** - I think it would be more effective, more sustainable, and it would diffuse the antipathy towards Islam in the Western World. It answers a lot of the current political problems in Muslim countries and would help establish Islam as the progressive force I believe it has always been, rather than the regressive and conservative force people fear it to be.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:The narrative for Black and Hispanic Americans struggles in this country are bogus based on the success of Poor Asian Immigrants. +
+ This CMV has been done in some form before, but from an outside perspective looking in. I am open to having my mind change or at least swayed, but this belief is rather ingrained.
My wife and I are both children of Poor Asian immigrants to this country. I will reflect on my mother’s story. She had me very young out of wedlock with no support from my biological father while her parents were stuck in our native country. When she came to this country she was on government assistance. With very little support she was able to finish community college, transfer to a four year college majoring in computer science eventually getting a Master’s Degree. Her story is not unique to the rest of my relatives or the Asian immigrant community. I don’t need to discuss how my wife and I are doing since we have greatly benefited from our parent’s generation, their hard work and sacrifice.
I hear the arguments regarding systemic discrimination of blacks in this country. I’ve read Unequal Childhoods by Annette Laureau regarding kids in disadvantaged environments are less likely to succeed than those in middle to upper class upbringings. However I don’t completely buy into it. I’ve seen countless family members and friends go from food stamps to sedans in the burbs, and I attribute that to a culture centered around hard work, sacrifice, and education. As my mom was going through school, we lived in poorer neighborhoods, and I was raised in neighborhoods with Blacks and Hispanics, sure I’ll throw out the I had black friends card, I still do. At the time we were on the same level economically, yet culturally we were worlds apart in what was emphasized from a parenting standpoint. As I grew up I met more successful black kids in undergrad, grad school, work, but most of them came up from middle class upbringings. They had no problems acting 'white' while I saw my childhood poor black friends get mocked for doing so, therefore I believe its a cultural part of poor black americans which is hindering them from assimilating into middle class america. That is why I don’t have compassion for the narrative that is pushed in the media for the poor black or hispanic american unable to rise from poverty. I know this is a strong talking point for the right wing yet I have not read any tangible counter argument to the dispute the Poor Asian immigrant story. If there are books or articles which provides a cogent counter argument please feel free to share.
TL:DR – The rationale for why blacks and Hispanics are unsuccessful in the U.S. are bunk because of the success of Asian Immigrants.
1) That current poor black culture is a result of systemic discrimination.
2) No one has disputed that culture which I have generally claimed is the REASON for the state of poor black americans.
3) The present day racism and white privilege that exists today is not sufficient enough to either hold a demographic down or lift them up, not as much as the modern day media seem to claim.
4) I want to beef up on some books and articles cited
5) The IQ debate. hmmm I'm just not going to touch that right now. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: That congressman who delayed safe injection site in DC is in some important way responsible for the thousands of HIV cases / deaths that ensued +
+ So watching John Oliver last night,
(yes Last Week Tonight is not a source of news - I haven't researched this further and in case some facts are off, treat this is more of a hypothetical)
a politician basically delayed DC's clean injection site for some number of years, with thousands of people getting HIV per year. Once that politician ceased blocking it (while the whole time he had solid data of its effectiveness based on it being implemented in his own state!) the HIV infection rates went down by 80% or whatever, of course. So, because of his blocking the safe injection site, thousands of people got HIV and many probably died.
I think he is responsible for those deaths, to some degree, and should face some sort of consequences. I am not sure what they would be, or what the crime would even be (if an appropriate one exists (yet)), but he was surely negligent, deliberately acting against this proven life saving thing.
This obviously reaches toward some greater point about how responsible politicians are for the harm they cause, and a precedent here would have far reaching conclusions. For example, a politician who broadcasts to 300 million people that homeless people are merely lazy, will convince millions of people of that and cause poorer treatment of homeless people, which will lead to deaths in some threshold cases - how responsible is that politician for those deaths he clearly indirectly caused?
I'm not sure what the right path is, but surely there is something more just than "those people made their own free will choices, not his fault" and "well, just don't vote for him next time." | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I'd like to be convinced that veganism is not currently most moral diet taking into consideration the suffering of farm animals as of right now +
+ Hi, CMV. So, I chose to become a vegetarian about 7 years ago. I've had trouble becoming a vegan, but I do what I can.
However, recently, many of my friends have been attempting to convince me that by my own utilitarian views, neither veganism nor vegetarianism are the most moral choice, and in fact, a gluttonous amount of meat is the best for environmental, ethical, and health reasons.
So far, I've been able to counter most of the evidence offered to me either with my own evidence from trusted sources or by pointing out the lack of merit from the sources given to me (lots of comic sans blogs).
This is something I do honestly believe that, given enough evidence, I would change my view on, and it seems like a lot of people seem to think they have evidence that a diet of meat is better in some way that I might consider meaningful, and of the many that do, there's bound to be some that might actually have something worth considering, so please change my view. :)
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Dirty plates should not be stacked, in a household. +
+ I believe that stacking plates is a silly way to get the perfectly clean undersides of plates dirty, by making them come in contact with the dirty side of the plate below.
I do believe plates should be washed on both sides, but if you don't stack the plates then you won't require to do as much scrubbing and cleaning of the underside.
I myself have washed plates with greasy Mexican food bathed in salsa, which IMHO is some of the worst mess to clean, and in my experience keeping the underside clean makes my life easier.
I specify at the post title that this view applies to households, because in restaurants or places with many plates to wash, it may make sense to stack plates to save space.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Monuments to confederate soldiers are symbols of racism +
+ Written hastily, but hopefully I can clarify any mistakes in comments, here we go:
The Confederacy was racist according to the cornerstone speech and secession papers (tx):
[Cornerstone Speech] excerpt (http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/cornerstone-speech/)t:
[Texas secession papers] excerpt(https://www.tsl.texas.gov/ref/abouttx/secession/2feb1861.html):
If the new government the Confederacy was trying to replace the current one with was based on that Cornerstone, there is no denying the Confederacy was racist. Those that fought for the cause of the Confederacy and helped further it, helped further "the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition" are culpable.
Point 1: Someone who fights for a racist cause, helps create an institution to power that racism, and otherwise spread it is racist. People who have done this don't deserve to be monumented, or at the very least don't deserve to be monumented something as defining as a town square.
Point 2: A monument with the words "Our Confederate Soldiers" cannot monument just the soldiers without endorsing their actions to some extent.
Point 3: The image of a Confederate soldier being a defining landmark in the center of a city is an endorsement of the Confederacies actions and perpetuates racism by virtue of it being a defining part of the cityscape.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: In software development; and in other fields involving extended thought-work that depends on focus and concentration; there is no value in having coworkers to interact with face to face - and in fact, distractions created that way are counter-productive +
+ I believe this comic expresses the argument most cogently:
http://heeris.id.au/2013/this-is-why-you-shouldnt-interrupt-a-programmer/
Now, to my wall of text:
I run a small software company that's reasonably successful. I've been doing this for the past 15 years.
I've been employing people for years that I have never met — and quite possibly never will meet.
Last time I met any of my developers face to face was maybe 6 years ago.
I perceive no value whatsoever in meeting face to face. None.
Working together in an office is an impediment to getting work done, and is a source of constant interruption.
Email is generally better for productivity than face to face contact, or instant messaging.
Both face to face contact, and instant messaging, are distractions, and are useful primarily in the situation that you cannot progress on anything without immediate input. Such situations are extraordinary.
The people I meet face to face in my life are my wife, my son, and our nanny. I don't have a social need for more.
I believe people who think they need face to face contact for work in software development are either confusing social needs with work — or possibly, I would fear, aren't competent to work on their own. Or maybe they're involved in some kind of work that involves extraordinary synchronization — the kind of which I do not know.
If someone can't work independently, and must constantly interrupt other developers, I would consider them a burden, rather than an asset. To be an asset, one must be able to get work done on one's own, and coordinate as necessary.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that, if you're not going to physically touch the other person, there is nothing you can do in a face to face meeting that you cannot do online.
There's literally no reason to meet unless you're going to kiss, or have sex, or give a person a massage. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: With the proper classes, men and women could compete fairly in sports +
+ **See update at the bottom**
Yesterday I suggested that men and women could compete fairly against each other in sports, **if** we split up competitors into the proper classes for the sport. In other words, instead of gender segregation - men's tennis vs. women's tennis, we would have multiple classes of tennis, based on physical attributes. The goal would be to pick classes in a way that gender doesn't matter, so everyone in class X has the same raw physical potential.
For some sports like boxing the classes would probably be the familiar weight classes: heavyweight, featherweight, etc. But I'm definitely not saying that those classes are the final word, and for other sports I'm not sure what the class criterion would be. Some possibilities include height, weight, % of muscle mass, % of different types of muscle, lung efficiency, and so forth. **The criteria for classes would be chosen by experts in the field based on objective criteria.**
When I suggested this, I was basically downvoted into oblivion, told that this idea would destroy women's sports, that men are obviously superior to women so my idea doesn't even make sense, and mostly just told "but men will still beat women" many times.
Now, of course, in the top weight classes in boxing men would dominate, simply because most people over a certain mass of muscle are male. But that's the point of having non-heavyweight classes in boxing - the other classes let other people compete fairly too.
And likewise, in basketball, height is a huge advantage, and there are far far more men in the extreme high end of height, that I don't expect to see women there. But I would expect to see women in a height class of basketball which is low enough so that there are far more women than men (talking about adults here), and even more so if we also took into account % of muscle mass.
I was told that Serena Williams, the top female tennis player in the world, lost to the 200th top male tennis player, and I guess people infer from that that women are simply inferior to men physically. To which I ask: Are they inferior, **if** you control for % of muscle mass, weight, and other relevant factors to the sport?
I don't see why women would be inferior in such conditions. Yes, women have less size and % of muscle mass than men, **on average**, but for two human beings **with the same** height/weight/muscle mass/etc. (whatever makes sense for the specific sport), but one is a man and the other is a woman, surely the competition would be quite fair?
As far as I can tell, there is no "magic" difference between male and female athletes. [There is no "male muscle" or "female muscle"](http://www.jaxtrainer.com/m-vs-w.html), it is just that men tend to have more of it.
The only potentially valid argument I heard against my idea was the claim that men have **so many** advantages - from big ones like amount of muscle, to small ones like shape of their hip bones - that if sports created categories based on them all, it would end up with men in one and women in the other, reproducing the current gender segregation, and that if that isn't taken to that extreme, then women will basically vanish from sports. I concede that is theoretically possible, and it would be hard for me to disprove it, but it goes entirely against my intuition on this.
**UPDATE**: Thanks to everyone for all the discussion so far. At this point I'd like to summarize things up to this point, because it seems like 100 people are making quite similar arguments, and I don't have enough time to answer every person. I apologize for comments that I don't get the chance to respond to.
* Many people say that women are just not good enough. Most people support that with anecdotes like this women's team lost to a team of teenage boys. I am not saying there is no value to such anecdotes, but:
* There are anecdotes going the other way, like Serena and Venus losing but not losing by that much to the 200th top male player. If Serena and Venus can beat everyone but the top 500 or so tennis players in the whole world, then they are doing amazingly well. If we split people also by some physical factors (response time? % of muscles? % of fast-twitch muscle fibers?), I don't see why they can't win in their own class, and the few hundred or so men that can beat them would be in the other class.
* Even if most professional women's teams currently lose to more mediocre men, we don't know how much of that is physically based. Part of it, as posters correctly brought up - this was a point I didn't realize before - was that women compete against other women, so they aren't getting challenged enough. For example, if Serena and Venus practiced heavily against male players, maybe they would have beat that 200th guy. And the best way to change this is to open up more cross-gender competition.
* To further see the importance of competition, look at [this article about the gender gap in sports](http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/08/daily-chart-olympics). Female olympians would have won the gold against male olympians if they competed against the men from just a few decades ago, in several sports. Male bodies weren't much different then, so this isn't due to simple physical differences between men and women. The question is why scores - for both genders - improve so much over time. Better training techniques might be one thing, perhaps better shoes etc., but also better competitors that push you harder might be another. Overall, the fact that improvements keep happening in each gender, and that the best women of today would beat the men from the near past in many sports, does **not** support a simple explanation of "men are just better and always will be". (It doesn't rule it out either, of course.)
* Other people say that women are just not good enough based on scientific data. This **could** convince me, but so far I don't see enough. For example, yes, women have less muscle mass on average, but AFAIK the science shows that the muscle they do have is equivalent to male muscle. So if we control for the amount (and %) of muscle, it should be fair, in sports where raw muscle is the crucial thing. But, if you find data showing that 99% of men have better coordination than the top 1% of women, I might be convinced on this. The criteria for my being convinced is, as I wrote in my last paragraph: If, to make the competition fair, we need to control for more and more physical factors, until the categories end up having all women in one and all men in the other (or 99.99% of all), then I am just recreating the current system, but with added costs but no benefit.
* Also, don't forget that we can create classes based on various factors, like a basketball team of people of height 1.60m. Since very few adult men exist of that height, I assume it would be dominated by women. So even if in a no-restrictions competition men would always win, if we limit by physical criteria, women can win in some classes. You can convince me I am wrong if you can show that even in a category like basketball 1.60m, that despite there being far, far more candidate women, men would still dominate it, and would do so even if we control for say % of muscle mass.
* And if you think 1.60m basketball sounds odd, I would say it is no more odd than lightweight boxing. It's actually a somewhat different sport, and interesting in a different way. I personally would be fascinated to see, just for variety, basketball played **not** by super-tall people.
* Some people said that even if we find a way to split into physically-based classes, women would dominate the "lesser" ones. I do concede that more money goes into heavyweight boxing than lightweight. But, that is also already the case today with women's sports (compare the WNBA to the NBA), but those classes do well enough. I think my proposal could actually help, because I think making the classes more objective and having mixed-gender competitions would be novel and interesting.
* Overall, I think a common thing happening in this discussion is that it seems obvious to most of you that women are just never going to be good enough, and I am asking for more concrete evidence for something which you take almost for granted. Of course, I agree it is hard to estimate how my proposal will work, especially when each sport would have its own criteria for classes, but I still think there is plenty of reason for optimism. So far my optimism has not been proven unjustified, as far as I can tell.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Someone who exaggerates their finances or has $10,000 in credit card debt at over 20% interest is not qualified to be President. +
+ *I am not saying that they should be banned from running, but I am saying that regardless of their policies, it is dangerous to let someone with $10,000 in credit card debt or someone who inflates their net worth by billions to run a major economy.*
**Donald Trump**: His self-reported net worth, in excess of "TEN BILLION DOLLARS", is significantly above third-party estimates as well as above his own figure of ~$7b from several months earlier, which included over $1b of bullshit naming rights. If he can inflate his own balance-sheet, who can trust him with the US' budget??
**Scott Walker**: Has $10,000 in credit card debt while posturing as a fiscal conservative. I do not want someone as President who will continue borrowing, and his personal borrowing habit bodes ill for our country's future (not to mention that he has nearly bankrupted Wisconsin). Also, I could not trust him with any executive power as he could use it to wipe out his personal CC and student-loan debt.
CMV!
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Gaston was the good guy in Disney's Beauty and the Beast +
+ Gaston, the loud and boisterous dreamboat is known as the main Antagonist of Disney's Beauty and the Beast, and is arguably one of the most known Disney villains of all time, fighting and womanizing his way through the small French village before ultimately meeting a brutal end by falling to his death off of Beast's Castle and impaling himself on a spiked fence. While Gaston is written to be the evil character in this film, I believe that it is unfair to put him in this light, and if anything, he's a good guy. Here is my reasoning
1. Overwhelmingly, the villagers seem to absolutely adore Gaston, and not because of some shady shit where he's hiding who he truly is. Everybody knows the true Gaston and yet they loyally follow him anyway, even into battle. I refuse to believe that this is because the village is populated entirely by villains, and instead it must mean that Gaston truly has a way of winning over people.
2. People often say that the way that he approached Belle in asking her to marry him was rude and misogynistic. While I don't necessarily believe that any of these traits make a villain, I still think that it is unfair to paint him with any of these labels. He approached her with great confidence, a trait that just about every woman likes in a man, and his track record of having every woman in the village swoon over him means that it's really not his fault that he expected Belle to be different. The fact that he even asked Belle herself as opposed to demanding her from her father shows that he probably really did care about her, especially since he probably could have done the former given the time period the movie is set in.
3. The act that truly cements Gaston as the "villain" of the story is when (in what I think is the movie's best song), he rallies the entire town to go kill the beast, now at this point in the story, the beast had attacked and kidnapped Belle's father, and he also held Belle hostage during which he verbally abused her, kept her locked in her room, and even came close to physically assaulting her. While the beast had gone through some personal growth during this period, Gaston had no way of knowing this, and none of that excuses the fact that he fucking kidnapped Belle. So, disregarding his own personal safety, and acting out of anger for what has happened to Belle even though she brutally rejected and insulted him (a very selfless act if you ask me), Gaston charges headlong into a castle to destroy this beast that he logically believes is a violent and dangerous creature, and then the story ends.
Overwhelmingly, I see nothing that shows Gaston to be the evil sociopathic villain that Disney wants to portray him as. In fact, I see him as a lovestruck and rightfully angered man, albeit a little bit egotistical, but hey, plenty of us are.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: "Thin Shaming" (of women, by women) is not a thing because, in American society, there is nothing shameful about being thin. It is a desirable trait and those who criticize it are just jelly. +
+ We sometimes hear thin, attractive women get offended because they have been "thin shamed" or "skinny shamed" by another woman. I don't see how that is possible in American society, being a thin woman is a desirable quality. [*edit for clarification* - having an actual eating disorder is not desirable, but being thin *is* desirable]
This alleged shaming is typically expressed with language such as "you need to eat something" or "do you even eat" or "you're so skinny" or "you need some meat on your bones" or "you need a hamburger". In all of those cases, the speaker is not criticizing the subject of the speech for being thin. Rather, the speaker is deflecting and express displeasure about the excessive size of her own body relative to the size of the subject's body. In other words, she *wishes* she was thin and she's just jelly. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The law should never be used as a moral compass +
+ First of all, the *law* I'm referring to isn't the law of any particular country, just laws in general.
Imagine sitting on the bus when an elderly woman comes in. The rules don't tell you to give up your seat for her, but you do.
This short scenario illustrates that rules and morals are two different things. However, I see more and more people defending actions saying it was "legal", and therefore it should be alright.
The death of Cecil the lion is an (extreme) example: the man who shot him defended himself by declaring that what he did was legal. As the global outrage over his actions showed us, it was however completely immoral.
Another example: bankers. I read in a book that bankers that are considered "professional" disregard their own morals as much as possible and instead try to do as much as is legally possible. Immoral bankers and brokers are a core part of why the 2008 crisis was able to happen.
I think this illustrates what happens when people use the law as "moral compass": immoral behavior.
Secondly, I think this is caused by the fact that our law is not our morals themselves but rather these morals applied into (simplified) rules.
Thirdly, I think it's impossible to enforce socially appropriate behavior like giving up your bus seat. This follows from my second viewpoint: because rules are simplified results of our morals, they can never cover every aspect of our lives, therefore leaving gaps for bus travellers and dentists and bankers to exploit.
**I think it's up to us to be aware of this and never use the law as a moral compass. 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: Saying you rescued a kitten/puppy shouldn't give you the moral high ground +
+ Some of my friends have adopted kittens/puppies from a breeder and some have gotten them from shelters. Recently one of the girls I am friends with has gotten "morally righteous" that she got her kittens from a shelter. This has me thinking that its not really fair on her part to put down people who go to breeders to get kittens/puppies as she essentially did the same thing by going to the shelter and looking at all of their kittens and bypassing all the adult cats.
**CVM: It's not really "morally" better to rescue a kitten/puppy from a shelter. If you really want to make a difference rescue an animal that is older and will have a dramatically lower chance of getting adopted because of people who just want kittens/puppies.**
I, of course, recognize there are edge cases like ones that are sick and whatnot and am not including them in this view because anyone willing to take on the burden of healthcare for a pet doesn't really fall into this. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:Sniper as a class has no place in TF2 [X-post /r/tf2] +
+ A little background, I have over 600 hours in tf2, mostly playing as pyro, soldier or medic. I don't think that anything would be lost from TF2 if sniper was entirely removed.
A good sniper has no real counter apart from another sniper, making them frustrating to play against. A majority of the other weapons have damage fall-off to discourage long-range play, further separating the sniper as a class.
As far as I can tell, snipers mainly exist to pick off slow moving or high value targets, which the spy already does and does in a more interesting (to play as and against) way.
I can't see any way the sniper, sitting at the back of the map away from the action, adds to the game (as a side note, I also think the removal of sniper would do nothing but good for the class diversity on pubs).
Please, CMV!
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: There are times when smacking a complete stranger's misbehaving child is justified. +
+ I'll allow that, in most cases, the misbehaving kid is just throwing a temper tantrum, but what do you do in cases where the kid has thrown himself on the floor in the middle of a restaurant and the waiters are going to trip over him and the parents are refusing to do anything about it? The rest of us have just become too polite of a society and other people who are affected by the bad behavior or might be injured in cases where the kid is throwing things, biting and kicking other people should be justified in disciplining a misbehaving child in a way that doesn't cause welts. Just a few instances of getting knocked on his butt by a complete stranger should be enough to get it through the kid's head that this is not something you do in public. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:It is impossible to be an educated voter +
+ I've often heard people claim they want educated voters. These people will often be upset at the level of political ignorance.
But here's the thing, the scope of the federal, state and local government make this job effectively impossible. Even in my field in particular, of education ( I teach at a k-8 charter school) it's beyond my ability to tell for certain which candidates best represent my interests. Is it better if there are more jobs and the average quality is a little lower or less and the average quality is a bit higher?
I'm not sure. Is is it better if we have stringent accountability standards and a system sold to Pearson or less stringent accountability systems and greater degrees of economic freedom. These all hold huge macroeconomic effects that will play out over many, many years.
And this is just in my personal field, let alone fields which I have very little knowledge in such as what's the best place to get a balance of income and growth for the tax code? What the appropriate amount of debt to allow the government to carry, what the appropriate immigration policy is and so on on and so forth.
I suspect I'd actually be better off flipping a coin than I would at really having a nuanced understanding of every part of American life touched by one level of government or another and yet people just like me are supposed to be able to accurately steer the ship. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Saying you shouldn't care about X when Y is so much more important is never constructive +
+ I have been seeing this a lot recently with this lion uproar. Critics say that people shouldn't care about the lion because of all kinds of issues from racism to abortion. I haven't really followed the lion thing, that was just an example. People do this in all sorts of conversations.
I find this reasoning completely flawed. Are we only going to care about the most important issue? Before we care/talk about something do we have to make sure there is no issue more important? Also, the conversation about X is already happening. The issue is out in the open and people are passionate about solving it. This is great and a bit rare. We should roll with it when people want to make positive change instead of making them feel bad for being passionate about the wrong thing. People have the capacity to care about more than one issue. Humanity as a whole can work together to solve more than one problem at once. Saying something like this you are trying to derail the argument about X rather than help either argument.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Approving the Iran deal is in the best interest of U.S. national security. +
+ I don't see a lot of discussion of the Iran deal on Reddit, which is surprising to me since I think there's a good chance it will wind up as the most significant foreign policy development of the Obama presidency.
**Before I launch into my discussion of this issue, let me state the assumptions I'm making about how we evaluate America's national security interests:**
1. The top strategic priority for the U.S. is to minimize the chance of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon. This would be considered the "worst case scenario" for the U.S. and its Western allies.
2. The U.S.'s second strategic priority is to minimize the chance of the U.S. entering another ground war in the Middle East (i.e. the "invade Iran" outcome).
3. The U.S.'s third strategic priority is to minimize Iran's capacity to support terrorist organizations (i.e. Hezbollah, Hamas) and engage in "proxy wars" with our allies (basically Israel and Saudi Arabia), as well as to push Iran to improve the human rights situation within its own borders.
My understanding is further that these priorities are strictly ordered, i.e. that 1 > 2 > 3 in importance, and that (for example) we would only want a better outcome in #3 if it did not come at the expense of #1 and #2. If you disagree with the assumptions I'm making here, I'm willing to discuss them further in the comments. But I feel pretty comfortable making these assumptions because pretty much everything I've read (both from the left and from the right, both in favor of and against the deal) has made more or less the same ones.
With that out of the way, let's consider the possibilities on the table.
As I see it, when you push past the rhetoric and boil down what proponents and critics of the deal are saying, **there are basically only four options:**
A. Approve the deal.
B. Reject the deal with the intention of returning to the negotiating table for "a better deal."
C. The military option-- invade Iran for the strategic purpose of destroying their nuclear program.
D. Do nothing (don't approve any deal and continue with the status quo).
Almost everyone seems clear that C is a terrible option. As we saw in Iraq, our ability to achieve strategic goals through military force in the Middle East is limited. We would be committing perhaps another trillion dollars or more, to say nothing of the massive loss of American and Iranian life (probably on a scale far greater than we saw in the Iraq war, due to the more advanced nature of Iran’s military infrastructure), and the end result would be further destabilization of the region and more breeding grounds for terrorist groups akin to ISIS. Some have suggested an air-war only approach, but this would not guarantee eradication of the nuclear program because of sites like Fordow, which houses a nuclear facility deep in an underground bunker. Michael Hayden, who had been CIA director under George W. Bush, also makes a credible argument that an invasion would actually *cause* the creation of a nuclear weapon, since they would then pull out all the stops on producing one and we wouldn’t be able to destroy their infrastructure in time.
So the military option is awful. But in my reading, Option D (do nothing) is almost as bad. If we do nothing, then there are no restrictions and no oversight on Iran's nuclear program from the West whatsoever. There would be nothing to stop them from developing a nuclear weapon in as few as a few months. Israel would likely invade Iran before they let that happen, potentially drawing the U.S. into a Middle East war anyway. So the status quo is pretty untenable. Even opponents of the deal tend to concede this.
That brings us to Option B, which seems to be the main conservative alternative to the deal. The idea here is that we should leave sanctions in place, or even toughen them up, until Iran is forced to agree to a much more one-sided capitulation.
This sounds good in theory, but there are several reasons to think this is just unrealistic:
* Russia and China are desperate to resume trade with Iran. Whether we approve the deal or not, they are likely to repeal their own sanctions (frankly, it was amazing that Obama even got them to go along with the sanctions in the first place.) Therefore, even if Congress passes tougher sanctions, overall economic pressure on the country will decrease, not increase, weakening our negotiating position.
* The EU and our other non-Israel allies will blame the U.S., rather than Iran, for the deal falling through, and may even act to decrease their own sanctions.
* Iran has to appease its own hardliners in government. The Supreme Leader would not consent to any deal that didn’t include some sort of “face-saving” provision, that lets them propagandize to their own people about their victory over the West. Therefore, the chance of any deal passing that eliminates 100% of their centrifuges (a key demand of the American right) seems impossible.
The point has been made that Option B is basically the best-case scenario for the *Iranian* government. If the deal falls through, then they get relief from the economic sanctions that have crippled their country (regardless of what Congress does), they are left with zero international oversight over their nuclear program and are thus free to chug ahead, and best of all, the *Americans* take the blame for the whole thing on the world stage.
Advocates of Option B point out that if we grant Iran any form of sanctions relief, it is likely that they will spend at least some of the money financing terrorist organizations. As far as I can see, this is probably true ([Iran no longer funds Hamas](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/palestinianauthority/10091629/Iran-cuts-Hamas-funding-over-Syria.html) but they do still fund Hezbollah, as far as I know). But I also don’t really see any way to avoid this without compromising Priority #1 or Priority #2, or more likely, both.
Approving the deal at least gets us oversight, in the form of IAEA inspections, which will have the right to go to any suspicious facility at any time for any reason. Experts estimate that Iran would not have enough uranium to produce a bomb in less than a year. If they attempt to "cheat" or deny access to inspectors, the "snapback" provisions will mean a return to crippling sanctions (and Russia and China won't be able to veto them.) It's not a perfect deal, but as far as I can see it does achieve Priority #1 and #2 for the U.S.'s national security interests better than any other present option.
If George W. Bush had developed a more coherent Iran strategy beyond just “let’s have some sanctions and eventually they will capitulate to our every demand somehow,” we would probably be in a much better negotiating position (and Iran would be much less far along in its nuclear development.) He also pretty much destroyed the credibility of any military threat by demonstrating just how unable we are to advance our strategic interests through war in the Middle East. But given the situation as it stands, I just don’t see any reasonable alternative to approving the (admittedly imperfect) Iran deal. CMV.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |