input
stringlengths 89
9.33k
| output
stringclasses 2
values | instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|
CMV: Sex shouldn't have to require "enthusiastic" consent. +
+ Recently there has been some discussion about the exact limits of consent where it regards sex, and I am somewhat skeptical about consent having to also be "enthusiastic".
Now I could be interpreting it wrong in this context, but that seems like it could lead to some weird situations.
For example, say a guy wants to have sex with his GF, so he asks her. But she isn't that horny, she just wants to watch Game of Thrones.
Obviously if she shoots him down then that is that. But what if she says something like "Whatever. I just want to watch Game of Thrones, so as long as you don't block the screen do as you like."
Does going ahead make him a rapist or guilty of sexual assault simply because she wasn't enthusiastic enough? I honestly don't think so.
How often does that happen? No idea. But given how many people have sex and how fucking good Game of Thrones is I bet it has happened once.
Am I saying it is a good idea? No. Do I acknowledge that sometimes a "yes" can be forced? Of course. But requiring "enthusiastic" consent just paints with an overly broad brush imho. Maybe say "not pressured" or something else instead.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Reddit would be a better place if they banned the racist/hate/white nationalist sub-reddits +
+ Reddit is home to some very large white nationalist/racist/neo-nazi communities. CoonTown got about [500 000 unique views last month](https://www.reddit.com/r/CoonTown/about/traffic/) and has about 24k subs.
These users affect reddit in general and they make it worse. If you don't think they do, then please read through some of this [IamA with a German refugee worker](https://np.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/3faghx/iama_german_who_works_with_unaccompanied_minor/).
If Reddit banned all of these hate subs (and any new ones) then of course the users would blow up, but just like the FPH drama it would die down within a week or two. Then these racists would leave and reddit would be better.
Everybody comes to reddit initially because of some link/thread that they got from somewhere else. As long as reddit still hosts large racist communities (and hosts them ad-free no less) then the number of racists on the entire site will only grow.
**TL;DR - The ban process wouldn't be perfect, but I think that reddit's policy should be "we don't want racists here. Go somewhere else." Instead of their current policy which is "racists are totally fine, please enjoy your ad-free experience which is subsidised by other content".** | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Time dilation and relativity theory are not to take seriously. +
+ The problem with Time Dilation theory and relativity theory, is that it assumes that is not possible to know whose moving. It is! The outsider can see.
If time is relative why isnt height ? The eiffell tower looks smaller to me then to the guys standing next to it. So it is smaller? No... it's the same size no matter where you look from, but you'll see it in different sizes from where you look. But we can all agree that the eiffell tower has the same size right? Fgs... that time dilation theory and relativity theory is so nonsense to me... I don't understand how so many cientists believe in that.
Time dilation and relativity theory works the same way as this:
I hold my hand up next to the sun, I have both next to each other in my sight. My hand is bigger than the sun. It's relative from where I'm looking, cause I'm closer to my hand than I am to the sun. If instead of my hand, you think of another star (smaller then the sun but much closer) you don't know it is closer than the sun so it is bigger for you. That's it... that's time dilation and relativity theory for you...
But there's a the truth, the sun is bigger then your hand and also bigger then the other star. And for me, time is not bendable, it has it's own measure and doesn't change no matter how fast/slow/away/closer you are from whatever. It might look like it does, but it doesn't.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The national minimum wage should be $10.10 per hour immediately. +
+ Three pillar of my changeable view:
* America desperately needs an immediate minimum wage increase right now today.
* It should be $10.10/hour nationally. States and cities can raise it from there based on their own regional costs of living.
* Nationally, it should be raised periodically, tied to inflation.
* There is a such thing as too high. $15/hour is too high.
**TLDRs in bold!**
Obviously, I'm not even going to entertain arguments that say minimum wage is too high (at $7.25) or shouldn't exist. I'm just going to skip that.
**Earning less than $10/an hour is akin to slave labor - even without considering cost of living.** In 2012 I worked a very very labor intensive job for $9.50/hour. I was a been merchandiser. I was responsible for lifting heavy cases of beer all day long. It really felt like salve labor. I made about $1300 over the summer while I finished the final requirements of my college degree. I was living on campus and student loans/parents were paying for my food and housing. So the money I made was just savings and pocket money. Forget about cost of living, it still felt like I was a slave. **That's why the increase to $10.10 should be immediate** - not a gradual increase of the next four years.
It should increase periodically commensurate with inflation, not once a decade, but every other year. So that we're not having this same conversation again in a decade: people working 60 hours and still homeless.
I don't know what mathematical formula the Obama administration used to come up with $10.10/hour, but that amount seems fair to me. It's not so much that you can get comfortable flipping burgers but it's enough that you can earn money without being enslaved. **I really feel like $15 is too high.** You're not supposed to be comfortable flipping burgers. People who support that are just ignoring drawbacks to a high minimum wage.
Try to change my view either way - to $15/hour or if you're republican try to convince me in the opposite direction.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I find hunting inherently disrespectful to animals +
+ With the recent killing of Cecil the Lion, I've heard people say things along the lines of "this isn't hunting, as a hunter I find that guy repulsive" and I see where they're coming from. That all makes sense. But I've heard people say how when they hunt, they believe in keeping it respectful to the animal, and I've even heard hunters say they find taxidermy respectful to the animal.
I personally think that if you're going kill an animal, it's inherently disrespectful to the animal (unless you're putting it out of misery like it's been hurt badly and is suffering). Even if an animal is killed painlessly, it's still obviously in their interests to not die. In fact just about every action and impulse an animal has is from the interest of survival.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I am afraid that being politically active might harm my future +
+ I live right near DC. It's only a 30 minute drive and I'm always free to go any weekend. For some reason, I have this pathetic fear that being politically active might bite me in the arse someday. Like I'll somehow distance myself from the people around me by going to marches. In an age with no privacy(and as a person who heavily values privacy and anonymity), a simple picture taken by a stranger might bite me back. My family, church community, workplace, they might all view me differently if I decide to participate in a certain marches. This fear is so absurd, but it's exactly what's stopping me from trying to be a part of anything. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Non-radical libertarianism is the political philosophy most compatible with utilitarianism. +
+ So I tend to hold a utilitarian viewpoint, and specifically one concerned with human wellbeing (putting little intrinsic value, but substantial instrumental value on animal wellbeing).
From this premise, I further believe that a society in which free markets are the dominant economic force, and governments do the minimum reasonably possible to interfere with them is the optimal structure for producing the most long-term good for humans overall.
As a first point, I believe that market economies have been remarkably successful in producing material wealth. I as a middle-income westerner live in far greater luxury than did Louis XIV, and I believe markets are the primary structural reason why.
Further, I believe that material wealth is a key source of human happiness and satisfaction in life - maximization of which is the core objective of a human-focused utilitarianism. As some evidence for this, I would point to [this excellent paper by economists Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers](http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2013/04/subjective-well-being-income). It finds, from a truly enormous number of studies, a robust linear-log relationship between income and reported happiness or life satisfaction.
Third, I believe that pro-market policies are likely to continue to promote economic growth. As evidence, I would point to the massive reduction of poverty in China since the adoption of a a private market system, which is probably the single greatest humanitarian miracle of the past 100 years.
Now, I should define my terms a bit here.
When I say non-radical libertarianism I mean a model of the state roughly in line with modern liberal-democratic states. In general, that would include the existence of some level of a welfare state, nor of progressive taxation schemes. It would however strongly favor policies in that vein which minimize market interference - so things like cash transfers as opposed to in-kind transfers or government provision of goods and services. It would also include a robust protection for the right to private property, and for civil and political rights.
As an example of where this would diverge substantially from current policies of liberal democracies, the right of people to migrate between countries is a key civil right which produces I think extraordinary human wellbeing which is routinely denied to people.
**TL;DR:** Libertarian pro-market policies make more stuff than other policies. Stuff makes people happy. Happiness is the goal of utilitarianism. Ergo, libertarian pro-market policies effectuate utilitarianism more than other policies.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Batman is a violent, fascist asshole +
+ Think about it this way: would you approve of federal funding to support a special task force of batmen in every major city in America? The batmen are well paid and highly armed with military grade technology. They can use theatrics to scare people. They operate outside the law, do not require evidence or due process of any kind, and suffer no penalty for excessive use of violence. The argument in favor of this is that the batmen can better intimidate, scare and ultimately beat up low level criminals, which will reduce crime.
This solution assumes that a) crime is a major problem, b) only bad people commit crime and c) they will only stop committing crime through the threat of violence. It does nothing to address issues of poverty, inequality, domestic violence, mental illness or any of the myriad of other social issues that lead to crime. Having batmen patrol the streets of any city is an absurd extension of a modern police state.
I think this is really what the story of Batman is though. It romanticizes a lone vigilante who carries military grade weapons, uses theatrics to scare people, operates outside the law and suffers no penalty for excessive use of violence, which he frequently resorts to. He is trust-fund baby who is motivated by childhood trauma which he has failed to deal with in any sort of mature way. Batman is really just a mentally disturbed violent anti-social psychopath who is an agent for the wealthy elite and whose tactics resemble fascism taken to an absurd extreme. He is a villan, not a hero. CMV
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Nonviolence doesn't work. Excessive violence, especially killing or enslaving children, is proven to be the most effective military tactic and is justified for a sufficiently noble cause. +
+ Nonviolence is how the establishment asks us to seek redress when at the same time they use violence against the common people. Your brother got shot by a cop? How dare you even *think* about so much as shooting a cop's brother. This is ridiculous and ineffective; the few times that nonviolence has actually been successful it has occurred in the face of greater violence. The peaceful dissipation of the British Empire occurred not because of Gandhi's or Nkrumah's fortitude but instead because the horrors of the Second World War made Blighty respect African and Asian fighters as their equals on the battlefield. When you're dealing with an establishment that sees both Jamal from Ferguson and Voula from Lesvos as equally dispensable, there is no way to nonviolently deconstruct this system.
On the contrary, violence against children has proven to be one of the most enduringly successful tactics; as heinous as it is in the microcosm, in the macrocosm it yields very successful results for a noble cause. One can see this in the Old Testament, where the Israelites showed no compunctions towards killing small children and were rewarded with a defensible state, and in modern times the success of the State of Israel as well. You see the same in ISIS; they show depraved indifference towards civilian life and as a result their enemies shut down because their lizard brain cannot condemn a baby-killer. If those who fight against imperialists (in the US, Europe, Canada, Ukraine -- both sides are imperialist scum -- etc) used the same tactic, the global system would not see the threat they faced until it was too late.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: We are not better than the criminals we lock up in prison as we waste enormous amounts of resources on frivolous things while we could save lives +
+ My idea stems from the following analogy:
Scenario 1
John is a rich businessman and Caroline a homeless girl that will die in few days if she is not given some money for food. John does an action (stabbing) that result in Caroline to die. John is therefore responsible of another person's death.
Scenario 2
Carl is a rich businessman and Jacob a homeless guy that will die in few days if he is not given some money for food. Carl does an action (ignoring Jacob's needs, spending his money on the last iPhone instead) that result in Jacob to die. Carl is therefore responsible of another person's death. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Professional athletics and sex work are morally equivalent. Either both should be illegal or legal. +
+ Arguments against sex work, primarily but not limited to prostitution, often include but are not limited to;
1) It is frequently used to exploit a societal underclass
2) Training for these activities often begins with the exploitation of children
3) It frequently leads to adverse long-term health effects, including high rates of drug addiction
4) Enables rich individuals with significant networks (often illegal) to control peoples' lives
5) People engaged in these activities are often forcibly relocated
6) It is "indecent"
I believe all arguments, except number 6, also apply to professional athletics. Why can a man, or even worse, a child, elect to become a football player and absolutely destroy his body (The average football player [dies in his fifties](https://www.boston.com/lifestyle/health/2013/01/29/nfl-players-union-and-harvard-team-landmark-study-football-injuries-and-illness/aCGnf96h7ptWX2Lnp5MIiP/story.html)) but a woman cannot elect to be paid for sex? They are both professions that use and arguably abuse their bodies. The majority of individuals engaged in both fields often engage in related, self-destructive and/or illegal activities. Having one not only legal but celebrated and the other shunned and rendered illegal is hypocritical.
Disclaimer: My circle of friends includes a higher-than-average amount of women in the sex industry, some of whom engage or have engaged in activities that are illegal in the United States and most other developed nations.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The end of Moore's Law will drastically reduce the pace of technological change +
+ A few years ago, the CEO of Intel said that if cars had developed as quickly as computers, they would go at 470,000 mph, get 100,000 miles to the gallon, and cost 3 cents. This got me wondering, what would the world be like if computers developed as slowly as cars?
With the delay of Cannonlake to 2017, we have the first objective signs that Moore's law is slowing down, and most experts seem to be predicting it will come to an end within the next ten years or so. This is significant since shrinking components is really the "low-hanging fruit" of the computer industry, with each shrinkage allowing 60% more transistors (which allows the processor to do more things) and having 60% lower power consumption (fairly important for mobile applications). Outside of just processors, shrinking transistors are also a key enabler of increasing SD card sizes and SSD drive storage.
The increasing speed/power ratio of processors, and the increasing ability to store large files on solid state memory, have enabled practically every computer-related technology. PCs, digital cameras smartphones, tablets, smart watches and the like all began their lives, and continue to improve rapidly, thanks to Moore's law.
Once Moore's law stops, all of these devices will stop improving at such a rapid pace. There will be no more iPads which double in speed from one generation to the other, no more laughing at the phones from 5 years ago.
I am well aware of the developments relating to graphene, optical computing and the like, but I believe that they will end up improving much slower than the old improvements of Moore's law, i.e. they are "high-hanging fruit" which will be slow to market and slow to improve. In other words, I am aware that computers will keep developing, but I feel they will develop at the same speed as cars, where a model from ten years ago is outdated but not really all that different.
Having computers/mobile devices/other electronics which grow at a much slower rate will sap much of the dynamism from the entire technology sector, as fundamentally new software and applications often grows from the enabling factors of new hardware. The entire world of technology will grow at a similiar pace to the car world, where improvements in engine efficiency and the like are constant and gradually, and kind of boring.
As a technology lover, I really hope I'm wrong about all this, so I hope someone can 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: Atheism is a faith. +
+ If anyone believes that there is no god it is because of faith. There is no possible way to know for sure that there is no god. So why do people believe that there is no god if that belief is not because of fact or proof. I think it is because of faith. I don’t see any way around it. The stronger someone asserts that there is no god, the stronger their faith must be. I don’t know how anyone can insist that they only believe in things that they can prove and still say that there is no god. This of course does not apply to people that don’t know whether or not there is a god. I am excited to read your responses.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: .gif is pronounced like the peanut butter +
+ I was only able to find one other thread about this topic, and it was kind of a train wreck.
Common arguments:
* "It's not Jraphics Interchange Format" by that logic, NASA would be pronounced Nay-sa and SCUBA would be pronounced Scuh-buh. Acronyms that are not initialisms are pronounced like they are words of their own, which brings me to point 2:
* "It's pronounced like 'gift' because that's the only other word with 'gif'!" by that logic, due to the existence of the word 'girth', 'giraffe' would be pronounced with a hard g. 'Gift' is the exception not the rule. See; [here](http://www.theschoolhouse.us/lessons/lesson53.html). To base the pronunciation of a word on an exception is highly illogical.
* "The dictionary says both pronunciations are fine!" The dictionary also says that 'literally' means both literally and not literally. See; [here](http://theweek.com/articles/466957/how-wrong-definition-literally-sneaked-into-dictionary). This is because the dictionary typically reflects how words are used, not what is correct. So if people started pronouncing epitome like its spelled, the dictionary would also likely say that the incorrect pronunciation is fine there, too. This does not, however, make the pronunciation correct.
So without further ado, 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: Without capitalism, we wouldn't have clickbait headlines +
+ So websites put out clickbait headlines in order to get as many page views as possible to get profit from their ad sponsors, which is the way those sites are able to support themselves under capitalism. Abolish capitalism, abolish clickbait. I feel this might be one of the strongest and most agreeable arguments for an anti-capitalist politic. Who is with me? Sure, Not having a boss dictate and control nearly every aspect of your life would be nice, but it would be REALLY nice never to see "We put 3 cats together in a room with a goat, and you won't BELIEVE what cuteness follows next" again and instead get useful titles like "Watch as these 3 cats play soccer with a a goalie goat who is able to block EVERY shot". | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I don't see how the poachers who killed Cecil and his brother are evil when peoples' consumption of meat leads to the killing of billions of cows, pigs and chickens. +
+ I understand lions are endangered animals and that these people were poaching illegally which was wrong. However I don’t think it’s fair to call them evil and treat them like monsters for killing lions.
Let me clear something up, I am not a vegetarian. I eat meat and don't feel sorry. Because of my contribution to the market animals have died. The average Joe is also a meat consumer. He’s okay with an industry of mass murder of animals so that he can enjoy their dead bodies with his evening meal. Why is that okay when someone killing for sport isn’t? Why is it okay for farmers to kill animals and sell their remains but not okay for the same thing to happen to lions?
The men who killed these lions did it illegally and deserve to be punished for that but I don't think they're evil murderers. I fail to see why lions are more important just because we see them as more beautiful or rare.
Lions are endangered animals and it’s a shame that two are now gone from the earth. These lions seemed to have been a big deal to their country which is sadder still but at the end of the day, they were killed for money just like farmers do hundreds of times a year.
These men are not monsters, calling them that is calling everyone who has ever killed or contributed to the killing (by for example eating) of animals.
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: Auto manufacturers should make their vehicles' headlights shut off when the car shuts off +
+ Headlights are mostly useful for improving the driver's vision while driving in low-light conditions and for increasing the visibility of the driver's car in low-light or foggy conditions. While stationary, the only non-malicious use of a car's headlights (I.E. other than parking the car and turning on the headlights/high beams in an attempt to confuse or blind oncoming drivers) is to light up an area for somebody on foot. However, a flashlight would be much more effective for this purpose.
With the lack of usefulness of stationary headlights in mind, cars should be designed such that the headlights turn off when the car is turned off in order to prevent the car battery from running down.
Deltas:
* [Always-on behavior in addition to auto-off behavior](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3ffta7/cmv_auto_manufacturers_should_make_their_vehicles/cto7tnn?context=1)
* [Headlights on a timer](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3ffta7/cmv_auto_manufacturers_should_make_their_vehicles/cto8c9k?context=3)
* [Stopping on the side of a country road in low visibility conditions](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3ffta7/cmv_auto_manufacturers_should_make_their_vehicles/cto8zsu?context=3)
| 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 the Olympic Games should be held in Greece every four years, with all the other IOC members contributing to the costs. +
+ The host country thing has run its course. Organizing the Olympic games is financially ruinous, blatantly wasteful and the procedure favors corrupt regimes willing to put themselves on the map.
Similar to the financial organization of the UN, all International Olympic Committee members should pay according to their ability. The Committee could invest in large stadiums that have an actual purpose after being used for the Olympic Games, namely, the next Olympic Games.
Furthermore, and this is just speculation, this would allow Greece to reap the benefits of the economic surplus generated by the Games.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Rock music is no longer culturally relevant +
+ Rock and Roll music is no longer an important part of the cultural conversation. This is obviously not to say that there is no longer rock music being made, that that music is never popular, or that that contemporary rock music isn't good. But rock has become similar to jazz and classical—while there is still lots of it being made, it's not a powerful cultural force any more. The modern cultural conversation is being played out in hip-hop and EDM.
Of the current Top 10 on the Billboard charts, the only rock single is "Shut Up and Dance" by Walk the Moon, at #9, and that song is heavily influenced by EDM. The current Song of the Summer is generally agreed to be Fetty Wap's "Trap Queen." The most consistently popular rock band currently is probably either the Foo Fighters, a band that has been around since the late 90s and still plays a very similar style of music to what they were playing then (and arguably still owe a large portion of their popularity to nostalgia for Nirvana, a band whose largest cultural moment was 24 years ago), or the Black Keys, a band playing with a deliberately retro style.
Tame Impala and Arcade Fire, two bands that have been lauded for their innovation in the rock genre have on their most recent albums embraced EDM influences, and largely moved away from guitar-based rock.
I would argue that the most culturally important albums of the past few months have been outside of rock—Kendrick Lamar's *To Pimp A Butterfly*, Drake's *If You're Reading This It's Too Late*, Mark Ronson's *Uptown Special*, Taylor Swift's *1989* (in which she ditched her country roots for an embrace of EDM pop).
There has been a lot of rock music recently that has been great too (Father John Misty, Courtney Barnett, Colleen Green, and Jim O'Rourke have all released albums I have absolutely loved, and I just listened to the new Titus Andronicus album yesterday) but that has become an exception, and as my examples point out, it's not really commercially popular or culturally relevant beyond a small core.
I don't have a real problem with rock losing its cultural cachet. I love rap, R&B, and electronica as well, and think that there is a lot of great innovation going on in modern music (and even that 2015 is an all-time stand-out year). But I think that rock has lost its importance in the wider culture, and that rock music is now even imbued with an inherent feeling of throwback, the way that jazz now makes people think of a certain time period even as jazz continues to innovate to this day.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: "Synthesis" in Mass Effect 3 in inherently unethical +
+ **Spoilers for Mass Effect 3**
For those who don't know, the "Synthesis" ending to Mass Effect 3 alters the DNA of all life in the galaxy to something that an ancient (billions of years old) alien race considers to be the "pinnacle" of evolution, making the race of genocidal "Reaper" robots bent on wiping out all sentient life somehow obsolete. The other options are "Destruction" (which destroys the Reapers and their technology, crippling the residents of the galaxy's ability to travel between systems) and "Control" (which gives the protagonist control of the Reapers and their tech, who then proceeds to use them to repair the damage they caused). **Edit -** The game's devs consider "Synthesis" to be the game's "good" ending.
My main compunction with Synthesis is that it is a massive decision that is left up to literally one woman (in my playthrough). **No one else has any choice or even knew the choice was being made.** Shepard is given her 3 options and has two minutes to make a decision before Destruction is chosen for her. Sharon o'Grady in Sheleighly, Ireland has no choice. Gork Magork on Sigma VII has no choice. But they both have to live with a choice a woman they've never met made, a woman who died immediately after without having to live with the consequences herself.
There's also the religious implications. Abrahamic religions preach that Mankind was made perfect in God's image and given explicit supremacy over the other animals. Not only does Synthesis blur the line between (according to scripture) the supreme human and the inferior raccoon and fish, but it sullies the perfect form God made for them. At least one other race in the galaxy has a similar religion. I may not agree with their beliefs, but forcibly changing something that is so key to their faith is unethical.
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 think libraries are useful and should stick around for the foreseeable future +
+ 1) There are books on the internet but it's harder to get anything non-popular on the net than by going through a library.
2) By sticking all kinds of books next to each other in one place, one is exposed to a variety of content.
3) A lot of libraries have computers/free internet which is obviously hugely useful to people who need information and don't have access to the internet. Homeless people, people who ran away from home, who were kicked out of their house, etc.
4) Libraries are also useful places for people who wish to study to go to if they cannot find quiet time at home for whatever reason.
5) Paper is easier to read for a prolonged period of time than LCDs. Ebooks are changing this but many work with library systems for borrowing books.
6) People need places where they are exposed to ideas that don't come from their friends or corporate overlords to maintain a diverse outlook on life which is arguably necessary for a happy society.
7) Many libraries also have various free programs to help people find jobs/etc. It's a nice, convenient rallying point of sorts for community assistance.
CMV. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: welfare depresses wages for low skilled workers +
+ This is an idea I just thought of and it seems possible so I've brought it to you guys to be challenged.
Many people's current salary are totally insufficient to pay for both housing and food for their family. In addition to this all workers must spend money on transportation and health care.
Imagine that there was no welfare. What would happen? Well, workers would find themselves with some combination of homelessness, malnutrition, rapidly deteriorating health, or inability to get to work.
How could a business that relies on low wage workers sustain itself with a workforce in this condition? Walmart and McDonalds cannot have a workforce that is terribly stinky because of homelessness, or passing out and performing poorly due to malnutrition. They cannot have a workforce who cannot even show up to work en masse.
In the absence of welfare companies would have to pay more wages to have a functioning workforce.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Being alive is fundamentally a bad thing. +
+ 1. Boredom is the default mood. Mere existence isn't enough to satisfy us, we constantly have to distract ourselves from boredom.
2. Pleasure requires effort, suffering does not. I literally don't have to do anything to suffer from boredom and starvation.
3. Suffering is more powerful feeling than pleasure. Is there an opposite to a [cluster headache](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCSyikUiXm8)?
4. The universe doesn't care about how we feel. No one is protecting us. If I'm falling onto spikes, universe is not gonna pull me away and protect me, no matter how hard I pray.
To clarify: Most people seem to think that life is inherently good and some sort of "precious gift", which just isn't true. Life is fundamentally shit, but happiness is possible. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Crisis simulations would be better than debates. +
+ So I saw someone link to [this column](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/want-to-be-president-show-us-how-youd-handle-a-disaster/2015/07/30/00fa4d8e-315c-11e5-97ae-30a30cca95d7_story.html) and thought it was really clever.
I think debates are very poor ways to get useful information about candidates. If you want hard questioning, or to know their stand on the issues, interviews from journalists can do that. Debates are just grandstanding and "gotchas."
A crisis simulation on the other hand would be really useful for getting information about how candidates would do the job of President. We would see how they asses a situation, how they handle disagreeing advisors, and how deep their knowledge of government runs.
This is also a technique used in a lot of other situations to train and evaluate people who will hold a lot of responsibility. If you want to be an astronaut, you're going to be doing a lot of simulations.
As far as getting candidates to do it, I could see this being something that a somewhat more obscure candidate does as a way to generate publicity, and which might catch on. Probably not for the major party candidates for this election cycle, but maybe in the future.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:It's okay to pay money for a Tom Cruise movie +
+ My wife refuses to watch the new Mission Impossible because she hates Tom Cruise. I think we should go.
My points:
* I don't care if someone believes something silly. It's America, we all have the right to believe what we want.
* Scientology is probably no weirder than other religions.
* I read Tom Cruise is probably going to leave Scientology anyway.
* Tom Cruise is a great actor who has usually amused me in the past.
Saturday night is Date Night in my marriage.
CMV so I can see eye to eye with my better half.
Update: Great responses so far. Be back in a few hours. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Spitting out junk food rather than swallowing it is not an eating disorder +
+ Preface: 6 months ago I was obese, 2 weeks ago I was overweight, today I am a healthy weight... all according to the BMI chart. I lost this weight deliberately and methodically, by calculating my TDEE (Total Daily Energy Expenditure) and eating at a 1000 calorie per day deficit in order to achieve about 2 pounds per week of weight loss. I am still 10 pounds shy of my goal weight, and when I reach that weight I will modify my diet to eat at a 0 calorie deficit/surplus, that is I will eat according to my TDEE.
In order to help myself have the willpower to do this I started to allow myself to enjoy all of my favorite snacks and junk food but instead of swallowing I would spit it out, usually into a separate bowl that I would then dump into the toilet and flush. This allowed me to enjoy the taste and experience of eating the food, which is what I was really always after, without affecting my weight loss goal, and it worked, very well. I've been doing this half a year now daily and have seen no negative effects, in fact I am FAR more healthy now than I was when I started, I feel like a totally new person and couldn't be happier.
The problem started when I told a friend about this and they insisted that I had an eating disorder and needed to see a psychologist... they were seriously grossed out (which is why I made an alt account to post this... people seem to react very badly to this and I don't know why).
I insist that I am far better off for having done this and losing all of the weight and that I am in complete control of it and will not allow myself to get overly thin (I'm a man, I workout with weights, I care about being muscular... can't build muscle without eating).
CMV
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: After an apocalypse, society would lack the natural resources needed to rebuild an industrialized society +
+ There is a very interesting theory I've read about recently which discusses humanity's capacity to rebuild after an apocalypse and support any sort of industrialization a second time around. A very in-depth discussion is available in this article
http://aeon.co/magazine/technology/could-we-reboot-civilisation-without-fossil-fuels/
So, let's assume the world collapses, through some terrible tragedy. For the sake of argument it doesn't really matter if it is nuclear war, or plague, a zombie outbreak, or whatever. Let's simply assume that its devastating enough that 99% of humanity is gone, and society completely collapses. Humanity has basically hit a reset button, and except for some ruins lying around the world, we are back in the stone age. Eventually, we'll assume that society begins to rebuild. First as small communities, and then eventually into larger and larger cities/states like we've seen in past human history.
However, if we wanted to replicate our modern society, we simply wouldn't have the natural resources necessary to do so. The basic theory is that due to our current use of fossil fuels, we've mined or extracted all the easily accessible fossil fuels that would be needed by an early industrializing society. Almost all of the easily accessible coal, oil and other fuels are simply not available. The remaining sources that are available require complex engineering that would likely not be available in early stages of industrialization. And while renewable sources of energy, such as wind and water are available, they lack some of the benefits that fossil fuels bring. The basic argument is that in order for a society to industrialize, it needs a source of relatively cheap, easily accessible energy, and that really only comes from fossil fuels in a pre-industrial society. Renewable energy is really only feasible much further down the technology development curve.
For the sake of clarity, let's assume that reindustrialization is the goal. Ultimately, we want to be able to colonize another planet. I understand humanity could simply go back to living more in tune with nature, but for this discussion, lets assume that the goal is the longer term survival of the species by moving to another planet.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Coupes and manual transmissions are both novelty/useless items. +
+
Economy coupes used to be a budget choice for younger people who didn't need the space, so auto companies can also save money on two doors. Marginally better gas mileage may be an incentive as well. High end luxury sport car manufacturers can argue that the coupe offers better aerodynamics/lower weight to improve performance and handling.Today, coupes cost the same if not more than the same model sedan. I don't believe a slimmer profile can noticeably improve performance in an economy 140HP car, similarly, I find the fuel economy improvement from 30 to 32 mpg hard to justify the loss of two doors at the same price.
Automatic transmission performance used to be inferior to manuals, and an expert could handle a car with manual significantly better than an auto. Today, the highest performance cars come with automatics, and manual often isn't an option anymore. Even in models that offer both, the 0-60 and quarter mile speed is quite a bit better in the automatic, which offers "manual shifting" anyways.
I believe that their long history and inferior counterparts has created a aura of superiority over automatics, similar to the Stradivarius violins. Due to production quantities, a manual transmission costs the same as automatic if not more.
This leaves me with only a few situations where one would practically want a coupe:
High end 400-500+ HP sportscars which accelerate and go fast enough that the profile and marginal weight makes a difference.
And for manual transmission:
Old classic imitation cars for the nostalgia? They're plainly under performing now.
Whenever I see a Bentley or Benz S550/600 coupe, I cringe a bit since they're very obviously not performance based cars.
Manual freaks who refuse to own any other cars also seem illogical as hell.
Any thoughts?
Please leave the footnote below the following line, but remember to delete this sentence by replacing it with the body of your post. Thank you!
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Learning a second language (beyond English) isn't worth it for most people anymore. +
+ Translation software already exists and is pretty good. Image recognition lets you translate signs, and with voice recognition, it may be possible to have a conversation between two people who don't share a language (although it would be slow and occasionally confusing). Google translate may have its hiccups, but I can understand the majority of its translations and it's only going to get better over the next few years.
I understand that most universities (at least in the US) require some time spent in a foreign language class, but this is really part of what I am arguing against. Most people I have ever taken a foreign language class with resented being there and putting in years of effort to learn a skill they might only use a couple times in their whole life, and will likely forget.
Obviously people in some careers, like diplomats or aid workers, need to learn another language, but I just don't see how the average person will spend enough time with people who don't speak their language, in a place without an interpreter or internet access, to justify the amount of time spent learning a language.
*I am excepting English from this because so much of the Internet is available only in English.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I shouldn't rally against social structures which benefit me [white, male, hetero privilege] +
+ The people closest to me, in my opinion benefit from these privileges too. So, what's my motivation to vote/fight against them?
Here's a few arguments I've heard that I don't care for:
#1 Privilege isn't zero sum - you can increase it for everyone.
How? Evening the playing field means that those that are benefiting will lose some of their advantages, however unfair they may be in the first place. How else could it work?
#2 Because you value equality and fairness.
I used to think I did until I looked at my behavior, and realized that I only paid lip service to these values. And I think it's the same for everyone. How many of you are for completely open borders? How many of you give away the majority of your paychecks to help others born into extreme poverty? Most people do enough to ease their conscience - which is normally an amount which doesn't threaten their position of western privilege. Yay, you give $30 a month. What happens when you're asked to make a real sacrifice? Do you still believe in equality then? I think when push comes to shove, you will protect your easy life. Why shouldn't I do the same?
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Sex in public should be legal. +
+ Specifically, people should not be *legally* punished for enjoying themselves through sexual activity in a public place (governmentally operated), like a park or a beach. This activity should be treated by the state as any other public activity, like having a family picnic, a pickup basketball game, or tanning in the sun, and be liable to the same restrictions. That is, sex on a public highway would be unreasonable just as having a picnic on a highway would. Again, in the same grain, this applies to purely public land, not private areas, like businesses (unless they allow such activities). Finally, this is in the context of the United States, but could probably be extended to other countries.
There are a number of reasons which some might oppose this, so lets preemptively address some of them:
* **Sex is a safety hazard to others.** This is one of the more legitimate points. Full public nudity is opposed for the same reasons; people could reasonably not want to sit in the buttsweat of someone on a bus. However, this would apply to beaches and parks, where clothing is already very optional and the environment is assumed to be unclean (as opposed to a semi-sanitary bus seat). Furthermore, similarly risky activities are allowed in public places, like pickup football, or parties where litter affects others.
* **People don't want to see it.** Public spaces are generally viewed as areas where freedom should abound- restrictions on speech and assembly are looked down on. For instance, an 'unattractive' person is not *legally* disallowed from a beach, even though some might not want to see that person.
* **It promotes STDs.** Telling people that they can't have sex is an infringement on personal freedoms, and as long as the sex does no harm to others, that basic human desire should not be impeded.
* **Casual sex is morally wrong.** If casual sex is morally wrong from a religious perspective, then seperation of church and state should apply to public recreation areas. If sex is morally wrong from a secular view (like theft), then I would need to see a convincing argument that justifies this stance.
* **Children should not see sex.** Sex is a activity innate to humans and animals alike, and as such should be considered a part of life that everyone should be exposed to. Certainly, children should be guided to mitigate risks (physical and emotional) involved with sex, which we currently do with sex education, but sex itself should not be seen as something harmful to a child.
I'm open to criticism about any of these points, but for now sex seems like it should be legally treated as any other activity in a public area. CMV.
I've heard a lot of interesting points today, which is great for a Fresh Topic Friday! Unfortunately, none have been strong enough so far to change my view. My inbox is now overflowing, so I won't be able to reply to every comment. I'll read all of them, but only reply to those that are not addressed elsewhere. If I don't get a chance to reply to you, please take a look around at some of the other comment posts!
The best response so far is due to /u/AtticusFrenchToast
One of the big concerns is that someone might masturbate to you without your consent. After talking with a few people and looking up some sources, it seems that [current harassment laws are underwhelming at times](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/10/upskirt-photos-legal-dc_n_5966406.html). While I still think that sex should be legal in public spaces, just like other activities, our harassment laws would need a fair revamping.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Math should not segregate students of different skill levels by placing an adept student into the next year's class. Instead, advanced students should be placed in a rigorous class that uses the same concepts in their peers but in more unconventional and challenging ways. +
+ Disclaimer: I am only well versed with the math system in the USA.
In the contemporary classroom, math is an integral class to any student's curriculum. Students are all required to take math for nearly every year. The teacher usually teaches just the concepts in these normal classes. Some students score much higher on these conceptual tests administrated to the class than others. When this consistently happens, the school opts to place the student in a so-called advanced math class, in which they learn material in advance and at a faster pace than their peers. For example, those who demonstrate exceptional ability in 6th grade can skip to Algebra 1 if they pass a ~~national~~ standardized placement test. Supposedly, the schools have demonstrated that they have accomodated the student's needs for a more rigorous class. However, I believe that they have instead wasted the potential of the student's ability because the student never is allowed to expand and extrapolate from the concepts they are taught.
When we examine the student who skips to Calculus in year 10 when their peers are learning Geometry, we can see that both the advanced student and the regular students are learning math at the same depth. The Calculus student is supposedly more advanced simply because they have learned more content. However, when we consider that the advanced student has taken summer classes which claim to teach a year's worth of math in 8 weeks, one must then question how the adept has demonstrated their true mastery of the material. Most classes in the USA are little more than plug and chug classes. Algebra 1 teaches students how to make linear and quadratic functions, but it doesn't teach the context behind why they're used. Geometry, which supposedly emphasizes proofs and thinking beyond plug and chug, presents its questions in a straightforward manner. The diagrams are simple enough to "eyeball" the answer before one even starts the proof. Algebra 2 is a mashup of so many random concepts, like exponentials and logarithms, polynomials, sequences and series, and matrices, but it doesn't teach amything about why we have those functions and why we use those functions. We don't learn in Algebra 2 that logs were used to represent numbers of greater magnitude than what is comprehendable, nor are we taught about the ability for sequences and series to approximate a value. Trigonometry only teaches us how we can graph a sinusoid and how to use the Law of Sines. It doesn't teach us how we can use sinusoids to represent harmonic motion, nor does it teach how people rearranged the Pythagorean theorem to create a more convenient rule for different scenarios. The school only teaches surface level content to its students, creating a math foundation which is a mile wide, but only a millimeter deep.
Even in differential calculus, students are usually only taught a.) what the derivative is, b.) how to differentiate this long equation, and c.) how to maximize/minimize the function. They aren't taught the true potential and the true challenge of using calculus, and why people created calculus in the first place. For example, while most may know how to maximize the volume of a box, they most likely won't know how to find mutual tangent lines of two quadratic equations. The second task requires understanding of not only what the derivative is, but also requires one to know how to combine the concepts of two points on a linear equation and the how having two different parabolas will affect the model/setup used. What is the point of learning faster if a.) the slower peers will reach the same amount of understanding as you and b.) you will run out of so-called harder and more advanced classes?
Some schools claim that their honors classes solve this problem entirely. They claim that with their honors class comes a chance to view material in "greater depth". From my observations (feel free to post counterexamples), I see the schools just jamming more surface level content into their classes. Algebra 2 Honors simply adds conics and asks the students to transform the rectangular equations. They are never taught about how conics begin with parametrics and then transform into rectangular equations. Precalculus Honors simply covers limits (and in some places, simple derivatives) without really expanding on said concepts. What I don't understand is why these schools don't spend more time on developing mastery and context to each concept.
Math, after all, is about understanding patterns of numbers. It's not about simply plug and chug. We don't do harder math by saying "99x99 is easier than 999x999, which is easier than 9999x9999, therefore we should teach the advanced to do 9999x9999", we ask ourselves why the answers of those multiplications creates a pattern of 9801, 998001, and 99980001. It's a shame that this kind of teaching is what's driving some people away from math. To them, it's simply busywork, because no teacher provides a challenge which requires much forethought to answer.
CMV?
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Dating Sites Shouldn't Have a 'Just Looking For Friends' Option +
+ **Partial Delta for /u/DHCKris.**
*I'll give you a partial ∆ because I do think that New Friends works as a combination option, but I think my CMV is more focused on the idea of someone who's either exclusively listed as For Friends, or their profile makes it out that they are primarily (nearly exclusively) for friends. I think in terms of actually being useful to users, it would be nice to have some kind of flagging system for this. My main gripe is that all these sites just show you faces and user names, and you don't really know that these people aren't interested until you've already been drawn in.*
___
*This is based on my experience over about 4-6 months of casually using Tinder and OkC, if that helps you form any counter arguments or gives any perspective. Also, this isnt about poly relationships looking for another partner, the scope of my view doesn't even approach that.*
Something I've noticed with slightly surprising frequency on dating sites are profiles that have one of the following kinds of statements- "Looking for friends, no commitments.", "My husband/boyfriend knows I have this to make friends, and I'm not going to cheat so don't bother", "I just moved here and thought this would be a good way to make some friends", "I don't take this seriously, I'm just here for the laughs, really not looking for a relationship" ... etc...
Personally, I feel these kinds of profiles don't belong on dating sites, and only serve to come off as disingenuous or disappointing. Most dating sites just give you a series of profile pictures and names, and you choose which ones you find attractive to open up and read. The image draws you in, and then the "Just for friends" lets you down. To me, this is like someone attending a speed dating night at a singles bar, someone finds them very attractive and wants to see about striking up a relationship, and then they say "Oh I only came here to maybe find some friends and enjoy people trying too hard". If you're really looking for friends, there are places designed for platonic relationships- in the context of online communities there's places like subreddits for local towns, there's meetup.com, there's plenty of public Facebook groups for all kinds of interests, etc...
Going to a place specifically marketed to and called a dating app is just disingenuous. I wouldn't go to Ashley Madison if I just wanted to get a platonic shoe shopping buddy.
| 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 possible exception of the GBA incarnation, Mario Kart 64 was the worst iteration of the series. +
+ Necessary context: I am not old enough to have grown up with Mario Kart 64. The first console I ever owned (aside from my Game Boy Color) was a GameCube, and the first game I got for the system, aside from MVP Baseball '04, was Mario Kart: Double Dash. I've played the crap out of the GC, DS, Wii, and 3DS versions of the game, and have touched every other version to some extent (I own the GBA and N64 versions and play MK8 with my friend who owns a Wii U relatively often).
Hear me out on this one. I think Mario Kart 64 was the worst game in the series for a few reasons, some of which I'll outline here:
**Course design.** With a few exceptions (Choco Mountain and Yoshi Valley, for example), I think the courses in MK64 are the most boring courses in the Mario Kart Series by far, not counting SNES and GBA. And while it's easy to make the case that course design steadily improved with each game as more material became available and more memory was available to devote to each course, I think that the courses in MK64, SNES MK, and GBA MK were significantly, significantly worse than any of the other games' courses. The courses in these games are often flat and uninteresting, not particularly dynamic in terms of interesting turns or bits of track, and (especially with MK64) far too long. I think it's possible to have relatively gimmick-light courses which are still exceptionally fun (courses like the DS' DK Pass and the Gamecube's Dry Dry Desert did this very well), and I think that most of the N64's courses failed to accomplish this - they were largely dull, slow courses which were too large and monotonous to stand up very well. (And no, being able to skip half of Rainbow Road very much does not make that course any less of an absolute slog.) It has some of my least favorite courses in any Mario Kart game - Toad's Turnpike, Moo Moo Farm, and Rainbow Road are some of the worst MK courses I've played. I'm willing to give the SNES a pass for poor course design given exceedingly limited memory and the fact that it was one of the first games to really play with 3D in such a revolutionary way (as well as the fact that it, well, started the franchise, and therefore was allowed to have prototype bugs). I'm also willing to give the GBA version somewhat of a pass, given that it was the first mobile title and was on a tiny screen, though I also really don't like the course design there. But the N64 version? Not so much. The differences between the courses in the N64 and Gamecube games is so staggering that it's tough to give the former as much of a pass.
**Graphics.** Call me crazy, but I liked the SNES game's graphics a lot more than those of the N64's version. The N64 had some absolutely beautiful games for the time - Mario 64, Majora's Mask, and Banjo-Kazooie are all phenomenal-looking games. Compared to those, MK64 is flat-out ugly. The character models are very blocky and way too angular, the trails behind shells look gross, and the "POOMP" effects are really, for lack of a better term, "immersion-breaking." Especially compared to the very clean graphics of the previous console's incarnation (SNES) and the beautiful graphics of the next version (DD), MK64's graphics are particularly egregious.
**Rubber-banding.** It's bad in all Mario Kart games, but it's especially flagrant in MK64. In no other MK game I've played have I held a commanding lead and then literally seen second place *teleport* right behind me. They don't even do it the justice of speeding the player up - Wario or Peach or whoever will literally fade away and reform right behind me. I'm fine with rubber-banding (or more tolerant of, at least) as long as it's "believable," and MK64's rubber-banding is one hundred percent not that.
As far as I can tell, the only thing MK64 really has going for it is its four-player multiplayer. This is huge, sure, but it would have probably come anyway - the SNES already had two-player multiplayer, and giving a game a pass just because four players can play it together doesn't mean all that much. Plus, I'd argue that pretty much every other game's multiplayer was better - what with online modes in almost every later incarnation and better balancing for all four players and some of the best battle modes we've seen yet in Double Dash and Funky Stadium in Wii, I'd argue that 64 was good multiplayer-wise but not good enough to elevate it above any of the other games (with the exception of the GBA edition, whose multiplayer was naturally near-impossible to implement).
So, CMV. I assume many of y'all feel pretty passionately about the quality of MK64, so this should shape up to be an interesting thread!
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:Due to global commerce and countries making tons of money off of each other's imports and exports, we will not see another World War (unless there is a global market collapse). +
+ Barring a global market collapse where countries can no longer exchange goods between each other, our global economy is a strong insulator from another World War. For example, trade ties are too strong with China for them to throw away all the money they make off of the US and European countries to join sides with a country like North Korea.
Today's world is often cited as one of the most peaceful times in human history. A lot of that is due to global trade, easy travel and shipping between countries, and the ease of communication via the internet.
Are there other avenues in which a true World War would be possible? CMV.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Women are inferior to men in most aspects of life. +
+ I understand that this is a very controversial thing to say. Perhaps my view comes from the women I am surrounded by, which is quite a small sample size. I look forward to hearing another point of view.
My main points:
1.) Physically. Men dominate sports and physical events. I can't think of one sport that women are better than men at, in general, and if there are a few, that's only a few, and men dominate the rest.
2.) In the work place. This is the most controversial part. Women want equal pay, but from what I've seen in my limited 8 years in industry, is that women are not as good as men at their jobs. My industry is oil refining. 99% of the plant workers are men, why? I work in the Engineering office. There are no women engineers, only secretaries, and some of them baffle me at how incompetent they are. (Admittedly our one secretary is excellent at her job, and does far better than I ever could. But my point here is that a man could do that job just as well.)
3.) At home. This is where most of my point lies. It could just be a gender roles thing, but why am I so much better at everything than my girlfriend? I'm not saying I'm great, but rather most of the girlfriends I've had are completely incompetent at a lot of things. Things like building an Ikea cabinet, she can't do it. Small, mundane challenges like un-stacking and re-stacking a sleeve of solo cups. We had to do it as part of a challenge, and I was much faster at it. She couldn't figure out how the gear shifters worked on a newer mountain bike after riding it for 10 minutes. I had never seen this type before, but figured it out in 10 seconds. Not because I'm clever, but because it is simple and something I believe should be easy for any adult to figure out.
These reasons are why I hold this view. I look forward to being completely flamed for this view, and also for another perspective. Thanks.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I do not, and have no reason to, care about Microsoft using my data from Windows 10 +
+ Many people have expressed their disdain for Microsoft's new [Privacy Statement](https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/privacystatement/default.aspx) and [Service Agreement](https://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/servicesagreement/default.aspx) in the wake of the release of Windows 10. I, however, see no reason for me to care about this. My reasoning is as follows:
1. **I have nothing to hide.** Quite simple. I don't do anything illegal with my computer, so I don't really have anything to hide.
2. **It will help catch criminals.** One of the reasons Microsoft gives for needing to access your data is if they suspect you're doing something illegal involving that data. With crimes like scams and underage porn still prevalent on the Internet, is this not the logical next step in the stopping of those and other crimes?
3. **It only applies to data you give to Microsoft anyway.** From my understanding, Microsoft can only access your data that is stored on Microsoft's own services, like OneCloud and Outlook. It does not include your personal, offline files. I choose not to use OneCloud, excepting professional work, and so I don't have any reason to worry that they will access my private files.
4. **I am just one of millions of Windows users.** Why should Microsoft care about my data any more than any other individual Windows user?
If I have misinterpreted any part of the Privacy Statement or Service Agreement, please tell me.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Planned Parenthood is not evil +
+ Not only are they not "selling" body parts, but they don't just do abortions, even if pro-life views lead you to see abortion as wrong. 97% of what they do is NOT abortions. STD and cancer screenings, contraception, and HIV counseling, to name a few.
Also, this baby part thing is a ridiculous. If a patient wishes to donate the unborn child to science, is that wrong? Is it wrong that Planned Parenthood gets paid for gas? Would Planned Parenthood haters rather the unborn babies be thrown in the trash? Provided you find abortion wrong, do two wrongs make a right?
| 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 there should be publicly available information on the "best" way to self-harm or have an eating disorder. +
+ It is very hard to find any information anywhere on what specifically are the danger factors with eating disorders and self harm, and how to do them more safely. All the easiest "information" to find online comes across very alarmist, and with clear agenda (to scare you away from the idea).
This sounds noble, but a lack of access to that information robs people of the opportunity to make the best possible decision, at a time when they are in a lot of danger and need all the help they can get. The lack of this information could well be contributing to the (significant) fatality rates eating disorders carry.
I'm talking about practically helpful information, not directly aimed at stopping the reader from engaging in the risky behaviour. The types of foods that are safest, and most pleasant to throw up. The actual relative risks of the various possible negative outcomes. How to keep your metabolism active and take care of your skin, teeth etc. while calorie depriving. (I focus on eating disorders, because they are what I have experience with, but I'm sure similar advice exists for self-harm that could be useful).
I understand that providing this information poses a serious risk of increasing the rates of uptake of eating disorders and self-harm. This strategy is by no means an end game, it's a band-aid. I believe it will increase rates, but decrease total harm caused by eating disorders and self harm, while we continue to work on more sustainable strategies to decrease these behaviours in the longer term. It's a band-aid solution, and I know those can be dangerous. But this problem is bad and getting worse, and it's time to accept that we need a band-aid to ease the bleeding while we find a better answer.
I think this will help.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: We need to do away with all the small countries in Europe and unite them as a single nation like the U.S, and later strive to turn all small countries into large, united tracts of land. +
+ Greetings!
I've long held this belief and constantly fought with more patriotic members of my country (Hungary) over it, as they say it will lead to cultural decay.
However, as far as my understanding of History goes, Humanity kept uniting into bigger and bigger groups.
I'm not sure whether my order is correct, but it's merely to give an example of what I am seeing.
First, families started working together as it was easier to hunt that way
Then, they started to form small tribal communities
Then, these tribal communities united into alliances and "great tribes"
Then, the tribes became petty kingdoms
Then, the petty kingdoms were either swallowed by a larger one, or swallowed the smaller ones.
Then, the kingdoms they formed kept absorbing the smaller communities that were similar in culture
And then there are countries like the United States and Russia, both spanning almost entire continents or more. Likewise, they have the strongest presence as well. The United Kingdom had an equally great presence during its Imperial days, which it more or less managed to retain.
I feel Europe could easily raise its economy to the third power if each current country paid its tax to a single, central government that viewed each part of the union equally, at most... with different strategies, investiture focuses.
The main counter arguement I see against an united Europe is cultural decay or incompatibility, but I do not understand how it would get in the way too much. Culture won't disappear just because people answer to a single elected government, neither will it disappear due to people wandering within the borders.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: big game trophy hunting shouldnt be veiwed as a sport, nor should it be legal +
+ I have several issues with it. But before i get into that, i will point out that i am perfectly fine with people hunting things to eat. Things like deer, and fowl.
But to go hunting for exotic animals is just selfish, cowardly, and just plain retarded to put it bluntly.
When people hunt exotic rare animals, like lions, rhinos, bears and girraffes to keep the head on their wall, they are taking what belongs to everyone, and basically stealing it. Everyone should be able to enjoy them in the wild, but with poaching threatening many species, there are fewer and fewer in the wild to see.
Calling it a sport is a joke. Anybody with half a brain can go out and shoot an animal. They put them on their wall to tell everyone "look at the dangerous animal i killed, pay no attention to my tiny penis". All it shows it cowardice. You wanna make it a sport, hunt them with your hands and teeth, like they do. Animals like lions aren't afraid of humans, especially on the preserves. They don't run to hide, it's shooting fish in a barrel.
When an exotic animal needs to be culled, then let wardens do it, don't sell off the tag for someone for thousands of dollars so the can come and play king of the jungle.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The same arguments that can be used in favor of civilians owning AR-15s and other assault weaponry can also be used to argue in favor of civilians having access to surface-to-air missiles and heavy artillery. +
+ Whenever people argue in favor of civilians being allowed access to things like assault rifles, high-capacity magazines, armor-piercing bullets, etc., the only case I've ever heard for it (other than how cool and fun that stuff is to own and use) is that they feel like they need to be prepared for some sort of showdown that might take place with the government.
Just to clarify, I respect the 2nd amendment and appreciate that the writers of that amendment had the sentiment that Americans should be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government by force if necessary.
I just think that in the age of F-18s and predator drones the notion that civilians, even if they are armed to the teeth with assault weaponry and an unlimited supply of ammunition, would stand even a ghost of a chance in an actual toe-to-toe encounter with the federal or even state government is beyond laughable and has been for over a hundred years.
That is, unless we are also allowed to arm ourselves with artillery, missiles, and heavy explosives that might actually make us somewhat of a match for the US government.
I personally believe this to be a ridiculous idea, because I think the potential for user error and disaster outweighs the usefulness this kind of armament might provide in a showdown with the government. This is also exactly why I don't see the need for assault weaponry to be made available to the public.
I am not a major gun enthusiast by any means, but I have shot plenty of guns on multiple occasions and it's a total blast.
I fully support people owning hunting rifles, shotguns, and even handguns to a degree (they also seem unnecessary to me but that's a whole different topic so I'll keep them on the table for the sake of this CMV). My line kind of ends there though. I don't think there is any practical reason outside of "it's my hobby and I think it's cool" for anyone who isn't regularly in combat situations to have access to assault rifles, missiles, mortars, or anything that is designed to kill soldiers, policemen, or enemy combatants.
TL;DR: The only argument I've heard in favor of civilian ownership of assault weaponry is that we need to be able to protect ourselves from tyranny. I posit that you would need a lot more than assault weaponry to defend against the government, and that unless you are in favor of civilians being able to purchase surface-to-air missiles, that's not a real argument.
CMV.
To everyone who contributed to that conversation, I thank you for your time and responses. While my V wasn't necessarily C'd, it was informative for me to read your positions and I was able to see the issue from a couple of new angles. Thank you.
To everyone else, I thank you for the realization that I have way less of an idea about what constitutes assault weaponry than I previously thought I did. It wasn't really to my point, but I thank you for your input, and after reading some of your responses I can see that it must be infuriating to have people who don't really know what they're talking about come and weigh in on something that you are knowledgable and passionate about. I apologize for being one of those guys, and will keep it in mind and avoid it in the future.
Thanks again, everyone.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: If you decide not to participate in elections you shouldn't complain about the results. +
+ I just had a long political debate with my friend and it ended with him stating that he wouldn't be voting. I believe if you don't vote in the system that you live in, you have no ground to stand on to complain about those elected. I have heard this argument before that the "lesser of two evils is still an evil" but I find it a moot point when someone is going to win regardless. By not voting for someone who you could even begin to identify with then you are essentially allowing someone you oppose to run with less competition.
I understand not everyone has an ideal politician running but if you don't make any attempt to get your say into government, then why would you complain if something doesn't go your way.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: If you or I were in charge of the entire nuclear arsenal of the United States and were to find out that another country had launched multiple warheads at the U.S., the correct response would be to not launch our own nukes and instead let them hit us and only us. +
+ So I was arguing with a friend of mine about this recently and here is my main reasoning behind this view.
1: Assuming they have already launched their entire arsenal at us there most likely nothing we could do to stop the missiles from destroying us. This essentially means we have lost at this point and there's nothing we can do about it. To launch the nukes at that point becomes an act of revenge accomplishes absolutely nothing for anyone.
2: To launch these nukes hurts innocent people in whatever country attacked us who likely had no choice in the launches and causes us to sink down to the level that the agressing country sits at.
3: Returning fire almost certainly bears the promise of environmental collapse and in doing so dooms everyone on the planet as well as billions of species of plants and animals. If we don't launch and instead let ourselves be hit we still have the possibility of saving the world entire.
If i remember any of my other points I will edit them into the main post.
| 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 domestic labor has value, and the principles behind alimony laws are valid. +
+ Working in family law, I meet a lot of men facing divorce who feel no obligation to support their ex. You also hear a lot of mens rights activists bemoan the concept of alimony as unjust. They usually cite statistics showing how often men are the ones disproportionately ordered to pay support.
I don't give much merit to these claims. What most of these men don't understand is that marriage in the eyes of the law is primarily an economic partnership. When a couple marries, they voluntarily agree to equally share resources produced during the marriage.
The traditional view of marriage has the wife contribute via domestic labor, i.e. cooking, cleaning, childcare, etc. First off, I think it is important to realize that this labor has real economic value. These tasks need to be done in order for either spouse to succeed in another professional setting.
The counter argument you often hear from divorced men is that their wives refused to work, and also refused to perform these domestic duties, and thus should not be entitled to support. While this may not seem fair, the reality is that this outcome is still produced by the man's *choice* to marry someone with no professional prospects, and no willingness to perform domestic duties. In other words, the man.entered into a bad economic partnership and must now shoulder the costs.
In many cases, whether the man realizes it or not, there was a reason why they chose to marry who they did. Maybe it wasn't directly economic, maybe it was for sexual attraction, emotional support, or social status. I would argue that even these factors have economic value, even if it is difficult to quantify. When you develop a career, you pour your soul into your work, and everything about your lifestyle affects your success. So regardless of whether the individual got what they thought they would from their spouse, their spouse still had an inexorable affect on their career and thus has earned a stake in it. I think this is fundamentally fair, in my opinion.
Finally, I want to point out that there is a distinction between temporary and permanent spousal support. Temporary support is usually close to a 50%, flat calculation intended to maintain the parties lifestyle until permanent support is determined. Permanent support is always a lower amount, intended to provide the supported party enough time to become self-sufficient through education, job training, etc. In longer marriages, there might not be a termination date, for example if the spouse is close to retirement or the relationship lasted so long that a permanent stake in the others career is warranted...but in most cases, there is a termination date involved.
I can concede that it is more than possible for men to become subject to unfair rulings. However, I don't think unfair outcomes necessarily reflect unfair principles. Usually, when something unfair happens it is because the case was not handled properly by the parties or the Judge; this is not the fault of the laws themselves, or the principles behind them. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The U.S. government is completely untrustworthy and giving in more power is insane. +
+ Now in the spirit of fairness - I believe this to be true for all governments, but in this case I'll touch upon the U.S. gov.
First of all [Lusatania](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Lusitania#Undeclared_war_munitions) the U.S. government deliberately loaded a civilian ship with munitions, so that the German can sink it and the population be dragged into a war they wanted nothing to do with.
Second - [Gulf of Tonkin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident#Later_statements_about_the_incident) where the government lied about engaging enemy targets, in order to stimulate the population into supporting the Vietnam War.
Third - [Nayirah](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah) testified before congress to encourage U.S. into entering the Gulf War
Forth - [MKUltra](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra) is a thing.
After this, how can anyone trust the government in any way? It's insane to give it more power. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Constitutional "originalist" interpretation of the Eighth Amendment cannot justify taking inflation into account, and thus any bail or fine that the Framers and/or Americans in general would have considered excessive in 1791 should be considered unconstitutional by originalists. +
+ Originalism is a constitutional interpretive doctrine in which one reads the provisions of the Constitution to retain the meaning that they had when they were originally adopted. Thus, an originalist (such as Justice Scalia) would say that if the First Amendment was not understood to prohibit public school prayer in 1791, it should not do so today; and if the Fourteenth Amendment was not understood to guarantee a right to same-sex marriage in 1868, it should not do so today. The rationale for this is that the people, through their representatives, only actually properly ratified those original meanings, so those are the only meanings that should be considered law. I take no position, in this post, on the correctness of this general originalist philosophy or its underlying justification, except that at the very least I don't think it's blatantly *un*-reasonable.
In interviews and concurrences/dissents, Scalia often brings up the Eighth Amendment in explaining his philosophy, and his frustration with the idea that current Supreme Court precedent applies the "evolving standards of decency" test, which he passionately opposes. As I understand it, the standard originalist argument against the extension of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments clause of the Eighth Amendment to, say, the death penalty, goes something like this:
* The people adopted the Eighth Amendment in 1791, and thus forbade "cruel and unusual punishments".
* Another amendment (the Fifth) adopted at the same time specified some rights of a defendant charged with a capital offense. Captial offense means one you can be executed for.
* Moreover, they kept on executing felons afterwards, and no one really thought this was incompatible with the Bill of Rights they had just passed.
* Thus, the Eighth Amendment can't possibly prohibit the death penalty.
Of course, this is entirely correct, assuming principles of originalism. So, thus, the originalist-interpreted Eighth Amendment prohibits only those punishments that were considered "cruel and unusual" in 1791.
Now, I think it has to go the other way, too. So if, hypothetically, the modern government wanted to torture someone as punishment, I think any originalist would have to call that unconstitutional as well, even if there was popular support for it, since that was clearly one of the things the Eighth Amendment proscribed when it was adopted.
So, it seems to me that the proper originalist reading of the Eighth Amendment is one where it prohibits some discrete set of punishments (such as those involving torture), a set whose elements are defined as those punishments that the Framers and/or American society would have found "cruel and unusual" (compared to the crime) in 1791, and that set cannot ever change, regardless of how society or the Supreme Court or anything else changes. Nothing can be added to or removed from that set without a Constitutional amendment.
Fine. But what basis is there, then, for not using the same rule when interpreting the *other* provisions of the Eighth Amendment? If the same logic is used, the Excessive Bail and Excessive Fines clauses should be interpreted as forbidding a discrete set of bail amounts and fines (paired with certain crimes) that were considered "excessive" by the Framers and/or American society in 1791. **And that set can never change, regardless of how society or the Supreme Court or anything else changes.**
I can't think of any reason why inflation, which I think can be fairly described as "evolving standards of currency", should be seen as fundamentally different from the same "evolving standards of decency" factor that Scalia and other originalists object to so strongly. During oral argument in *Hollingsworth v. Perry*, Scalia asked the respondents' attorney when prohibiting same-sex marriage became unconstitutional. Scalia's own answer to that, of course, would be "not in 1868, obviously, which means never". In that same vein, though, when did it *cease* to be unconstitutional to set bail at $1 million, which would surely have been considered ludicrously excessive for *any* bailable offense in 1791?
I don't think most originalists actually hold this view, but I really don't see a principled reason why not, and so as a result, this is my view. That said, I honestly do believe there likely is such a reason, and that I just haven't thought of it. So, CMV. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The American military shouldn't receive the praise and glamour they do. +
+ Everyone is constantly reminded that the military is keeping us free with their sacrifices. They make it sound like without them, we'd be enslaved by Arabs.
However, I don't believe that there were any large scale operations since the second world war which was fought for our freedom. Even the cold war was a political battle carried out to maintain economic interests.
In the past two decades or so, our military operations are even more questionable, and can be considered purely offensive. I fail to see how sending patrols around a country in their own civil war has any benefit to our country. I don't think anyone realistically expects any terrorist organization to obtain an air force or navy of any strength, much less develop the logistics to carry out an attack across the Atlantic ocean.
On a more controversial note, most soldiers aren't very talented people either. The military is seen as a place where you enlist after high school if you don't have money or the grades to go to higher education.
Sure, there are many rich families who carry a tradition of going into the military, but even then they're more often than not ROTC.
Everyone keeps on thanking the servicemen. What exactly are we thanking them for? Without them, we'd be just as free and noticeably richer as well. We should feel sorry for soldiers instead, for signing up as pawns for the politicians chess game. They haven't done anything of worthy service to the country in years.
It's unquestionable that Americans are overdoing the military. Just look at the budget and waste.
The US volunteering to police the world for peace at my cost is not something that I'm too happy with, but may be a necessary evil.
Why we're thanking the troops for "service" and regarding them as heroes is something I still don't see.
In order to turn around this unsustainable terror and war machine, the public has to change their perception of the military from selfless servicemen to empathy/pity for the poor kids who had no other path to follow but sought for discipline/future.
Please leave the footnote below the following line, but remember to delete this sentence by replacing it with the body of your post. Thank you!
| 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 it's inappropriate and irreverent to discuss the extraction and distribution of fetal tissue for medical/scientific purposes over lunch. +
+ I'm not against using dead fetal tissue to further medical and scientific pursuits, research, cures, etc. However, the recently released videos of negotiations over the fees paid to abortion clinics for providing tissue and specimens at lunch and/or dinner meetings seems needlessly disrespectful, callous and irreverent to ALL parties involved with regard to abortion (including and especially women who have had abortions). I wouldn't want medical professionals involved with organ transplants or mortuary science professionals having such discussions in such casual and public surroundings. Imagine overhearing such a discussion at a restaurant after having lost a loved one, who had donated an organ or tissue?
I just simply find it to be needlessly careless, unprofessional and to display such a cavalier attitude towards this (or any other) procedure. Is there really no room for "decorum" in science and medicine?
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Apple makes the best laptops on the market +
+ A little bit of background. I haven't owned any Apple products until very recently, a little over two months ago, when I got a macbook pro as a new laptop. I had a windows xp machine that died on me quite some time ago, got a chromebook, and have been using my desktop since, with an android tablet for mobile computing. After much consideration, and reading, I decided on the computer that I am typing this post on, a 15" Macbook Pro. I have used other people's computers in passing, and have tried other laptops, and while I am not a laptop connoisseur, I think that this is the best computer I have ever bought or used. Here are a list of some of the reasons.
It is really fast, 10 second start ups, and fast load times for everything.
It is well engineered, well weighted, and has a whole bunch of really nice features in the machine itself. The small rubber feet keep the machine in place without pretruding out from it too much, the ports are well placed, the charging cable is great, the magnetic attachment is wonderful. The battery life is really good, when I am not running much on it, I can get 10 to 15 hours of battery life. The keyboard is fantastic, well spaced, and has a nice clicking feel. The screen is nice and bright and text is sharp and clear. And it does a great job of managing heat. This is all just the hardware. On the software side, Mac OS X blows Windows out of the water (My desktop runs Windows 7) I really like the finder, the tabs and different options for sorting files and viewing media are really good. Safari is actually useable, the Mail app is one of the best email programs I have ever used, and is one of my favorite programs. And the iWork suite is really nice, well designed optimized. I actually prefer the menu bars in Mac OS X, and the full screen options make focusing on work easy. The interface isn't cluttered, or overly colorful. Even the packaging is great, simple easy to pull apart, and well laid out. The function keys have a legitimate function in all applications. And so on, and so on. I am not a huge Apple fan or supporter, I really don't like the iMac's "magic mouse, or the iPad or iPhone, I like operating systems I can tinker with a bit. This machine strikes a nice balance between ease of use and power computing. Are there any better windows laptops than the Macbook Pro for general computing? I would like to hear of them. Also, I have found a fantastic writing app that is mac only, called Ulysses. It is the best creative writing app I have used on any computer.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: It's just a lion and I see no reason to care. +
+ To me, a human's well-being and enjoyment always trump an animal's. It's why we can morally justify continuing to eat meat despite rampant abuse of animals and despite no specific human need to continue to eat meat in much of the western world. This is the same thing; most of the time, we aren't hunting because we need to, we're hunting because we want to.
What this selective outrage over Cecil tells me is that we, as a society, simply don't have any unified logic towards how we are supposed to treat animals and instead attach our moral views of animal treatment to whatever our culture finds fashionable. Walter James Palmer is potentially going to face criminal charges while Tyson and Perdue make an industry out of their treatment of animals. There is little difference.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Saying, "with all things equal I would rather be born white," is a racist statement. +
+ This view can be interchangeable with any race, but in my experience, it is made by white, liberal Americans.
Just recently I was in a discussion with a social justice warrior type and they said they would rather be born white then black, all things equal. I find this statement to be quite racist.
For one, I've never heard a black friend, peer or coworker say they would rather did born white. For that matter, I haven't heard anyone of any race say they would rather have been born any other race or even their own.
I recently read an interview with Ta-nehisi Coats where he was the beauty of black people.
Interviewer: Speaking of beauty, and seeing things for the fullness of what they are, early on in the book you talk about your time at Howard, and how you discovered the majesty of black people while on the Yard. Can you talk more about your time there, and how it shaped your years after that?
Coats: I grew up around black people, but I didn’t grow up around black people like that. Howard pulls from the entire black diaspora. And black people, being human beings first and foremost, there is a great variation among them. And to see all that variation united under one thing, and yet still be individuals—I had never seen anything like that. It gave me a great respect for how full the black experience really was. How much it really meant, and how big it was. Somebody once told me, black people, in and of themselves, are cosmopolitan. There’s cosmopolitanism within the black experience. There’s an incredible amount. It’s an incredible thing, and I first saw that at Howard.
I thought this was a particularly moving explanation of his black experience. He doesn't appear to have any regrets for being born black and appears to be proud of who he is and the racial and ethnic culture he was born and raise in.
That being said, people who say that they would rather be born white, I think it diminishes those who are born black and can be restated as "white is better than black so I would choose to be white." | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Free roaming cats should be treated as pest and destroyed if possible. In addition, letting your cat outside should be made illegal. +
+ It is estimated that roughly 84 million owned cats live in the US, and that there are 30-80 million un-owned cats, which include feral cats, barn cats, and cats who are not allowed inside. Researchers "estimate that free-ranging domestic cats kill 1.4–3.7 billion birds and 6.9–20.7 billion mammals annually. This study calls cats the [worst invasive species](http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v4/n1/full/ncomms2380.html) in the USA. Thus I believe cats should only be allowed indoors and should treated as pest (like pigeons or rats) if found outside. I am a Bird lover and I can witness the damage done by cats every day. As such I should be allowed to destroy any cat coming at my property. CMV please.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Tom Brady is guilty. +
+ I've read the [20 page report released from Goodell.](https://nfllabor.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/07282015-final-decision-tom-brady-appeal.pdf) I've read [Kraft's speech.](http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/07/29/robert-kraft-tees-off-on/) I've read [Brady's Facebook post.](https://www.reddit.com/r/nfl/comments/3f0m1w/tom_bradys_statement_via_facebook/) The entire thing seems like a sloppy attempt at a coverup.
The texts/phone conversations between the two equipment managers:
1. One giving the other a "heads up" that his name came up in an interview with NFL Security.
2. Multiple references to Brady's preferences of the PSI of game balls and of providing a needle for use.
3. In the context of an exchange about the pressure of game balls, one said to the other that Brady "actually brought you up and said you must have a lot of stress trying to get them done." Mcnally's only assigned responsibility regarding game balls was to deliver them. What is there to "get done?"
4. One expressing anger with Brady states that "the only thing deflating sun[day] is his passing rating."
5. One refers to himself as "the deflator" and jokes about "not going to ESPN ... yet."
6. Multiple requests for autographed gear from Tom Brady.
7. One says to the other "I have a big needle for you this week." The response is "Better be surrounded by cash and new kicks... or its a rugby sunday". When asked about this message by investigators, Mcnally confirmed that the reference to "rugby" meant an over-inflated football.
8. About a week before the AFCCG, one told the other it would be a "big autograph day for you." Several days later, Brady signed 2 footballs and a game-worn jersey and handed them to Mcnally in the equipment room.
Brady ordered his phone that had been used the past 4 months to be destroyed. Even though the phone was talked about in the investigation, he failed to tell them this until several weeks later. Brady says it is what he does with old phones when he gets a new one, but he gave NFL investigators an older phone before that. He was told his own lawyer could select the communications off his personal cellphone that were of interest to the league and send them those specific records, so the excuse of his personal privacy is irrelevant. He says in his recent Facebook post that his old phone was broken, but in the appeal he offered no explanation as to why his phone was replaced the exact day the investigators visited.
Brady claims he does not focus on inflation levels, but he always requested his balls be inflated to the lowest legal level. He complained about over-inflated footballs in a previous 2014 game, and in an interview had said 12.5 PSI was "the perfect grip for him". His claim is a blatant lie.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Speedos (briefs) are by far superior swimming trunks +
+ We're getting into summer here so I've been swimming more. I think speedos (ie brief trunks) are by far the best kind of trunks to wear in the pool. But I gather that in America speedos are pretty lowly regarded except by competitive swimmers. I challenge you to persuade me speedos aren't superior.
Here are my main reasons:
**Cheaper**
They use less material so they are obviously cheaper than other options (like jammers, those trunks like cycling shorts).
**Lighter**
Don't weigh down your bag, especially when wet.
**Less Bulky**
Related to the previous point but still worth mentioning in its own right. I can fit a pair of speedos in my bag and barely know they're there. I can roll them up with my magic towel and still fit the magic towel back into its plastic tube.
**Dry Faster**
Speedos dry super fast and because there isn't much material they don't carry much water anyway. After swimming and a quick buzz in the spinning trunk dryer I can put my speedos in a bag with a book.
**Help You Swim Faster**
Speedos cause way less drag than board shorts. It's true that the full-body suits can improve speed even more but not significantly unless you're a top pro--and the cost is prohibitive.
**Help You Swim Better**
Drag from board shorts lowers your legs in the water causing poor body position. This has a negative effect on technique.
**Cleaner**
People often wear board shorts on the beach and get sand in their pockets. When they swim in the pool the sand comes out and collects on the bottom of the pool. One pool I go to has this problem really badly. There's always sand in the pool. It's also skank when people walk around in their sweaty shorts all day in the summer and then wear them into the pool. (This is one of the main reasons speedos are comulsory in French swimming pools.)
**Funky Tanline**
If you swim in an outdoor pool.
**Feel Better in Water**
Board shorts waft around in the water and don't feel as good. You have much less restricted movement in speedos.
**Good for Body Image**
The main reason people don't wear speedos in my experience is because they are embarrassed about their image/don't feel comfortable in them. I think that's really sad. Where I grew up speedos were compulsory and no one gave a toss because they were used to it. I think that's a much better attitude to have.
To be honest, given all these points I don't know why anyone would want ever want to wear board shorts. I challenge you to persuade me speedos aren't superior!
(BTW I'm not arguing that speedos are better on the beach. I happen to think they are but I realise the fashion qualities of boardies may be more significant on the beach/when you aren't actually somewhere to swim.)
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: People who are against racism on reddit should vote r/CoonTown posts to the front page +
+ Like many people, I want reddit to ban r/coontown and other subs. However, u/spez disagrees, saying ["you can't win an argument with racists by silencing them"](https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3f10up/good_morning_i_thought_id_give_a_quick_update/ctk9uk0). Well, if he really believes that, then I'm sure he'd be happy if r/CoonTown posts were on the front page, so that more people can "engage in the debate" about whether black people are in fact human beings. Maybe ordinary users and media outlets would then be able to engage in the debate as well, who knows. Obviously reddit is too afraid to ban r/CoonTown, so I say the next best thing is to put them on the front page for all to see.
I believe the best tactic for those of us who are against racist subs is to bring them to the light of day. CMV.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: it makes sense to have a standardized test used for undergraduate admissions based more on thought process than knowledge +
+ Tldr there should be a reasoning based undergraduate admissions test
The SAT is getting a large redesign soon. Many have said its focus on reasoning versus knowledge had a negative effect on college admissions. Reasons like it favored those of higher income backgrounds and whatnot.
However, I think it makes sense to have a reasoning test available to students. The ACT is an achievement test. It is available to assess knowledge. A students grades in their classes also demonstrate what they have learned. Now, with the test change, there will be nothing to assess reasoning abilities. If a student is truly at a disadvantage because of their background they are able to take the other test. Providing a different kind of test allows students to play to their strength.
And the only argument I hear against it, that it favors economically advantaged students, doesn't make sense. Economically advantaged students are going to benefit with any test. They have access to more resources that can either help with their thinking process or with their knowledge base. A reasoning test allows a disadvantaged students to actually stand out if their school was sub par in terms of teaching, but the student had good reasoning abilities.
Sorry if this is formatted weirdly, I'm on mobile. And if this doesn't make sense it's for the same reason. | 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 say "don't come to me with problems, bring solutions" don't understand problem-solving or don't care about problems. +
+ Bosses who demand you bring solutions are oblivious to the fact that the majority of workers may have a very good and accurate assessment of a problem, but lack the training and expertise to fix it. The fact that someone isn't a chef doesn't mean they don't know the soup is lacking in flavor.
If a boss says "it's best to come with solutions if you can", that's a good enough thing, but to say "don't bring me any issues that you don't have an answer for" is ignorant or willfully dismissive.
For example, if the workers are saying that the new time-off policy is not working and people are stressed/morale is low, they shouldn't have to have a plan to fix it to voice the fact that it is an issue. Rather, the requirement that they must have a solution when they have neither the expertise or power to do so is a sure way to make sure that workers are discouraged from communicating openly with management which will create a rift between layers in a workplace. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Those who condemn the hunting of trophy animals and are not vegetarians are hypocrites +
+ Tonight's front page of r/all, as well as headlines on many other news sites, are dominated by content related to the hunting of "trophy" animals, sparked by the killing of Cecil the lion. Although admittedly it is far from a consensus, many seem to believe that the hunting of these exotic animals is objectively wrong and therefore should be prohibited. It is likely that many of those vocal with their distaste of hunting for sport (like ***[the >500,000 signatories of the "Justice for Cecil" petition](http://www.thepetitionsite.com/821/738/351/demand-justice-for-cecil-the-lion-in-zimbambwe/)*** ) however are also consumers of meat. I believe this can be inferred by the sheer amount of negative press Walter Palmer is receiving contrasted with the fact that a minority of people are vegetarians. This perspective seems hypocritical.
I can imagine two main counterarguments to my claim. Their general ideas, with my responses, are below:
1) "The killing of endangered animals is worse than the killing of animals under no danger of extinction."
Response: Objectively I do not think an individual life can and should be valued more than another. Therefore although killing a member of an endangered species is deplorable, due to the smaller room for error for the management of the populations of these species, the killing of an animal like a cow is equally so.
2) "Killing for sport is unjustifiable whereas killing animals for their meat/pelt/whatever serves a purpose, making it justifiable."
Response: It is no longer true that humans, at least those in developed areas, need the goods of a dead animal to survive. Although it could be argued that at one point the hunting of animals was a necessary evil for the survival of our species, there is no longer any need to murder animals for sustenance. All of the nutrients necessary for the well-being of humans that are gained from eating meat now have more ethical alternatives.
I'd appreciate if anyone could either further develop one of the perspectives presented above or share a new one. CMV
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: We live in a society designed for "Morning People", but this system should be abolished and replaced with one that favors "Night People". +
+ The idea that individuals have circadian rhythms that determine their sleep behavior is [well studied](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17936039). For the purposes of this CMV, I'm assuming this phenomenon is at least semi-accurate for most of the population. I am also assuming we live in a society that is based around the sleep patterns of morning people.
However, my view is that society would be better off if it catered to so-called "Night-owls". Night owls are shown to be more intelligent, more personable, and more productive than morning people. [However, there is empirical evidence that they suffer from a kind of "social jet-lag" that results in less happiness, less white matter in the brain, and more self-reports of feeling tired](http://www.medicaldaily.com/night-owls-smarter-new-study-suggests-late-bed-late-rise-leads-greater-workplace-success-244753).
My hypothesis is that Night owls show increased aptitude *despite* suffering through unfavorable conditions. If presented with favorable conditions, such as a societal system of late-to-bed, late-to-rise, we would see an even more pronounced productivity and success from these people, which would benefit society as a whole.
We no longer live in a strictly agrarian society. "Business Hours" as they stand are arbitrary, and in an increasingly international business world, strict hours become even less reasonable. We have lived under the tyranny of morning people for too long. Their antiquated and inefficient system must be abolished. Long Live the Night Owl. Long Live the New Flesh. CMV.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: "open" and "equal" debate is not the right way to combat ignorance and hate +
+ This morning, the admin /u/spez made a post giving the reason why they're not banning /r/coontown. Here's his posts:
#
---
Many people in that thread agree with /u/spez there. That to fight racism, we need to *debate* racism *with* the racists. I think this line of thinking is naive, and simply wrong, for these reasons:
1) There is mountains of scientific evidence that climate change exists (and is a result of human activities) and there is also mountains of evidence of the efficacy of vaccines. No serious, respected group of scientists deny this. Yet, the way the media has addressed these topics (which is to give "both sides" of the "debate" an equal platform/time) has *not* resulted in these positions declining in belief among the general public. [The BBC has just recognized this](http://www.salon.com/2014/07/06/bbc_staff_ordered_to_stop_giving_equal_air_time_to_climate_deniers/), a bit late though. The anti-vaxxer movement is going strong, and has grown thanks to many "debates" being put on air. There are *politicians in the U.S. Congress* who don't believe in climate change. Open debate does not help to weed out such positions, clearly.
2) While I can't say how effective "silencing the opposition" is, I disagree with the idea what "not giving them a platform" is the same thing as silencing. Nobody is stopping them from shouting what they have to say over the Internet in their blogs and websites. What shouldn't happen is pretending giving them the respect of an open debate and claiming that both sides have merit. You wouldn't bring on a KKK member to argue with a civil rights activist on TV, why should reddit?
3) reddit as a platform itself is very ill-suited to the style of "open debate" that /u/spez and his supporters claim will be enough to weed out the racism in society. The upvote/downvote system and the userbase's affinity for liking long arguments that sound logical and scientific is perfect fodder for the white supremacist's style of argumentation, which is basically a Gish Gallop. You inundate your opponent with a bunch of links and cherry-picked facts to *strongly suggest but never outright state* a conclusion (that black people are inferior) which leaves you a lot of lee-way with claiming victory over your debate opponent. Plus, the general disdain for any explanation that deals with "SJW" terms and explanations makes it harder for anyone to side with you. The white supremacists come to the debate with the intention to *win* an argument, *not* to debate. So unless you're equally as prepared with your own walls-of-text copypasted, you'll lose unless you have the hours (and the brigade of supporters) to deal with them.
4) As an addendum to #1 and #3, given how the issue of race and biology, sociology, etc. are still not nearly as understood as how vaccines are necessary and how climate change is happening, giving them an equal platform gives them an even better shot than the anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers in converting people to their ideology. Dylann Storm Roof became a racist after he looked into intentionally misleading copypasta of black crime statistics posted by the Council of Conservative Citizens. And you can see where that led him.
I think for these reasons that /u/spez's reason for not banning a place like /r/coontown is naive and possibly dangerous.
---
That being said, I'm not exactly sure *what* the right way to combat ignorance and hate is. Better education in our public schools would probably be a good first step.
Alternatively, we could follow the example in the story of [the Racist Tree](http://lardcave.net/text/the_racist_tree.html). | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: A benefit of believing in subjective morality is that it forces you to really think about why something would be "good" or "bad". +
+ My position is that if someone believes there are things that are objectively good or bad then they may fall into a mindset of simply accepting things as good or bad without much thought. This can lead them into blindly following their so called objective morals. On the other hand if they don't believe that there are things that are objectively good or bad, then they will more often try to think through why something could be "good" or "bad". This in turn can make the person more aware of little details and nuances that may cause a big change in their way of seeing a situation. This can allow a more flexible outlook of the world. This will prevent the blind acceptance of ideas of what is good and what is bad.
Note: when I use good and bad in quotations it's because I understand that a component of subjective morality is that it takes the position that nothing is inherently good or bad, but I don't know what would be more appropriate words to use.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: NCAA Athletes should be paid +
+ The NCAA made close to a billion dollars in revenue in 2013 and their athletes were awarded with none of it. Yes I understand they get scholarships and are worth thousands of dollars but when players such as Shabazz Napier report to go to bed without eating because of lack of money that becomes a problem. Most athletes put in 40 hours of practice into their sport a week so the argument of getting a job is invalid considering they have classes to worry about on top of their sport. Division 1 college football coaches see a salary of 1.63 million dollars ( on average) and their salary continues to grow while the actual athletes don't see a dime. These athletes should be appropriately awarded with money made from merchandise sales that use their names. I am not saying that these athletes should be given thousands of dollars but be appropriately compensated for their work.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The victims of the majority unjustified police shootings could have prevented it by simply complying, therefor I don't believe they deserve any sympathy for their behavior. +
+ I'm not sure at what point people stopped thinking about the ramifications of their actions and became so head strong that they believed they were invincible, that officers judgements were infallible, that their rights would keep the blood inside their body.
I have practiced civil disobedience in my life. I have been arrested more than once. But I'll tell you one thing, I have never failed to comply with an officers orders.
I nearly ever incident of a person involved in a police shooting, they have one problem. They are not being compliant. The United States offers you rights, but your rights can't keep you alive. This often turns into a matter of "you're victim blaming." I'm simply saying that right or wrong, the behavior of these victims can most often be described as "exercising outrageously poor judgement."
For one simple reason, I value my life. It's not a matter of principle, it's a matter of practicality. I don't want to die. And I don't feel sorry for anyone whose ego is bigger than their brain, whether or not their shooting was justified.
CMV | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The Kurds are the good guys, and western nations should be engaging in a hands-down alliance with them in the Middle East. +
+ I am a cynical man. I don't believe in heroes, and so I'm prepared to change my view on this. THe trouble is, every last bit of news I hear about the current Middle East conflicts goes only to reinforce my ever-growing belief that the Kurds are the only group involved with any moral high ground.
1) The Kurds espouse a number of western values that are largely absent in the region.
Only The Kurds and the (middle and lower class) Iranians show any tendency to respect women's rights or treat them as equals deserving of respect or status. The Kurds have women in their military, and even their conservative tribal organizations can have Matriarchs in charge of political and military decisions.
2) They care about more than just themselves.
The Kurds have gone out of their way, at significant danger to themselves, to rescue other ethnic minorities in the region, including famously the Yazidis, who everyone else was more than happy to let ISIS literally murder, enslave, and rape at genocidal scales.
3) Their political opponents have all shown themselves to be monsters in the fullness of time.
Turkey is key here. For a while Turkey managed to keep up quite a reputation as a modern secular-Islamic state. Now they're wringing their hands about how *powerless* they are to stop ISIS while they gleefully watch the black banner do all their dirty work for them, then step in with overwhelming force to rescue Ataturk's grave the moment it's threatened. They're bombing Kurdish targets *right now* while crying about ISIS. I would want independence from them too.
**Things that will not convince me:**
1) A Kurd did something bad once.
Every group consists of a bulk center and extremes on either end. It takes a pattern of ideological violence to establish that a group is responsible collectively. I need to be shown that the Kurds, as a national or cultural entity, are at least half as bad as their neighbors in terms of the actions they will routinely, officially, or systemically commit or tolerate.
2) It is advantageous to ally ourselves with monsters.
Look, you can be totally right about this. I won't even argue that this isn't possible, and might even agree with you, but it does not change my view about what we, the west, *should* be doing.
Make me a cynic again, please.
| 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 problem with the TSA and would honestly feel less safe if there wasn't the extensive searches +
+ I have never felt unsafe on an airplane. I used to have some fears related to them but those were mainly due to fear of turbulence and such, not terrorism. I think that this is mainly due to the TSA's policies. It's damn near impossible to bring any dangerous devices onto a plane.
I will disclose this. I was born in 1998 (17 years old). That means that I don't remember 9/11 (I remember that day, but not the significance) and I don't remember life before the TSA's newer policies. I grew up with them.
I just feel like the extra 30 minutes it takes to go through security is no big deal and generally gives me peace of mind. I totally understand minority complaints and I'm not arguing about those at all, but what I am saying is that the general (neither expedited or extended) search is totally reasonable and generally I don't feel annoyed or like my rights have been taken away in any sort of way.
CMV
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Nuclear energy is the only way to achieve global CO2-free energy independence in a realistic time frame and the dangers of nuclear technology are severely exaggerated. +
+ 1. **Global Energy Independence** What it means is that every nation can sustain their own energy demands without being dependent on a certain economy or exportation from a country. This would solve international conflicts (ex. Oil in the middle east and it's effect on the global economy)
**Argument:** Not every country have the resources to gain complete energy independence. It might be a lack of rivers to install hydro, a geographical location that does not get enough sun for solar, a lack of forests for biomass or just lack of coal or oil. Nuclear energy can utilize Thorium which is so common we literally have tons of it laying around and it is found in most rocks all around the world.
2. **Time frame** It's theoretically possible to have 100% renewable energy production (ex. solar, wind, hydro) but to reach 100% and to meet the growing demand of energy in the world is extremely difficult and requires multiple technological discoveries that can revolutionize energy production and storage (batteries, nano-tech materials (graphene?), fusion energy). I think we should invest in these technologies but we will realistically never reach 100% renewable within this century, and we don't have enough time [insert generic global warming argument here].
3. **Nuclear is OK** If an alien lands in a jungle and gets bitten by a venomous snake he/she might think that all animals are bad. But we all know the alien is wrong, sure snakes might be bad but what about kittens? The same principle goes for nuclear. Just because Fukushima blows up (uranium light water reactor) doesn't mean that all nuclear reactors are bad. There are hundreds of models and the ones of the forth generation (ex, thorium, LFTR) simply cannot blow up and are walk-away safe. The little waste material produced emits alpha rays that can't penetrate your skin. It also has an half-life of 300 years (the waste produced today has an half-life of over 200000 years) and this waste cannot be used in nuclear weapons. **To summarize the nuclear-is-ok argument** Generation III = bad (uranium, gamma emitting and long-lived waste, nukes, extreme pressure hydrogen explosions (Fukushima)) Generation IV = good (Thorium, alpha emitting short-lived waste, walk-away safe, 100% nuke-free) The thorium technology is old and simple. Some models still needs improvement but this is just a question of funding and money (no sci-fi technology involved)
What's holding nuclear back is lack of funding (why fund scientist to invent better reactors when we can dig up coal instead?) and an unhealthy view on nuclear technology produced by carrier-politicians and mass-media (ask a scientist or an engineer and the majority will probably be pro or neutral to nuclear technology)
English might not be perfect in this rant
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Hunters who hunt for pleasure are no worse than anyone who eats meat (I am not a vegetarian) +
+ With the big witch hunt going on for the hunter who killed Cecil the lion, people are in an uproar over this guy because he likes to hunt animals for pleasure. Morally, I don't see this as any different from anyone who eats meat. Nobody needs to eat meat and it isn't healthier, it's something people do just for pleasure. Even though you aren't doing the act yourself, by eating meat you are contributing to far greater suffering than a hunter ever could, with the horrible conditions throughout modern livestock through far greater numbers of animals. Just because you aren't pulling the trigger doesn't remove the responsibility, you are still causing the exploitation and death of hundreds of animals.
Again, I do eat meat, but I'm just pointing out that these two situations are moral equivalents. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Lying to the FBI shouldn't be a crime unless it actually covers something up. +
+ Currently, [it is a crime to lie to any federal officer.](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001) It is an astoundingly severe crime too, carrying a maximum sentence up to *five years in prison.* Under the current law, it is a very serious felony to make any materially false statement to any federal agent.
This law is routinely abused by the government to give them leverage over defendants. [Ken White at Popehat describes how:](http://popehat.com/2011/12/01/reminder-oh-wont-you-please-shut-up/)
I think there should be no crime here unless it can be proven that the falsehood actually impeded an investigation in a meaningful manner. Also, I think the penalty should be much less severe, more like a misdemeanor.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: CMV: Unless you're vegan, you have absolutely no justifiable reason to be upset about this Cecil the Lion business. +
+ Vegans have every right to get upset about someone senselessly murdering a majestic animal just for the hell of it. But if you eat meat, fish, poultry, or eggs, then you can just take your self-righteous "animal rights" non-sense and shove it.
Let me be clear, I'm not vegan. I eat meat regularly though probably less frequently than most Americans. I'm also not really upset about this dude who bought a permit and license to hunt a lion and then went ahead and killed one. I wish he hadn't; I think it's messed up that this sort of thing even exists; I wouldn't do it in a million years.
But, I also understand that I morally don't have the right to be upset about one animal being murdered for the enjoyment of a human if my habits actively encourage the murder of literally billions of animals each year, simply because bacon tastes good. Pork chops taste good, too.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Being proud of one's "race" is ignorant & only contributes to & reinforces the social construct of racism. +
+ **Definitions:**
**Race** - The classification of humans into different sub-sects based on physical attributes (skin color, bone structure, etc).
**Racism** - The belief that the racial classification one identifies with is superior/inferior to others, primarily on the basis of genetics (including but not limited to: intelligence, athleticism, etc).
**Pride** (taken from Google) - a feeling or deep pleasure or satisfaction derived from one's own achievements, the achievements of those with whom one is closely associated, or from qualities or possessions that are widely admired.
------------------------------------
My position on this comes from several different beliefs I hold:
1) Race is an arbitrary social construct, not a genetic one (i.e., it's impossible to objectively define race, much less determine one's race by observing their genome).
2) Skin color / bone structure are inherited attributes, not achievements. Taking pride in an inherited attribute (sex, skin color, height, etc) is reflective of a belief that said attribute is superior to others on it's own merits.
3) Culture, nationality, and ancestry can be meaningfully separated from the social construct of race (i.e., being proud of *the achievements* of one's ancestors, culture, or country is not equivalent to being generally proud of one's inherited attributes).
4) Defining oneself by a social construct like race empowers and reinforces the social construct, thereby perpetuating racism.
In my view, the statement "I'm proud of my _____ lineage" is totally valid, whereas "I'm proud of my race" is ignorant and serves only to uphold racist social constructs (regardless of whether the impact(s) of that construct could be argued to be positive or negative).
CMV
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The only way to change the ignorant is with violence. +
+ I've (M) grown up in a very accepting family where they accept me for who I am and how I express myself. Now, I can't say that for some of my friends or the people who have gone through that with family or people in general.
As I was walking with my date (M) through town, a group of college students started laughing at us for holding hands. As we were walking by, I kept thinking of all the ways I could get them to stop because if they were to laugh at us, who else are they gonna make feel humiliated or disgusting. I felt like a pet. Some play toy. And that my life was humorous to other people.
I can't say that there would be anything to say or do to make them realize that it's normal to appeal to the same sex. I'm ALL FOR education. I believe education makes the world go around and it's so perfect to learn abd understand new things about the world AND be open minded to everything.
However, when I see a group of people act ignorantly, I can't help but clench my fist and think about raising hell in their life. The people they are are the kind that take pleasure in hurting people. Why? Because they want to do it for themselves. They can only think about themselves and that they're more perfect than everyone else.
I sure as hell am not perfect. I resort to violence when it comes down to this topic. But when I hear or see ignorance made to hurt others, like this (https://youtu.be/1df_i26wh-w). I can't help but feel like this ignorance needs to be dealt with a punch in the face. Nobody deserves what I got. And nobody deserves the ignorance others recieve.
Ignorance stems from close mindedness, which is something in this world we don't need. If we were all close minded, we wouldn't have advanced as far as we have. Do we really need more of it in this world? Is it necessary for our survival? I believe so to the extent that when there is an absolutely close minded person,there is an equally absolutely open minded person (the bell curve).
So to deal with these people is to punish them with hurt nowhere near the pain they've inflicted onto people, while still sending a message. CMV
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: "Lockdowns" should not be the default response to armed intruders in institutions. Lockdowns should not be drilled. +
+ This post is not about coming up with a solution to individuals engaging in mass violence. This post is about the effectiveness of lockdowns and specifically using a lockdown as the default, go-to solution that should be trained for, and drilled for. I do not believe schools should be drilling lockdowns. Which is basically described as:
* Locking and possibly barricading doors,
* Turning off lights
* Hiding in the corner
I understand why a "lockdown" would be the best thing to do in certain circumstances. For example to avoid bottle-necking exits and police are on-scene and when no other options are available. I don't think it's a good first choice. I view it as a choice of last resort.
**Effectiveness**
The rationales I've heard for lockdowns look good with a cursory glance but do not stand up when examined rationally in detail. That the ideas and goals behind them have not bared out true in real world cases. Where the assertions involving lockdowns are a series of logical fallacies, like bandwagoning, false cause, special pleading or other logical fallacy. Where basically people want something to be effective and therefore assume that it will be effective, all without looking at evidence if it was effective or not.
**Security Theater**
Something must be done! Something will be done! Something is being done. Something has been done. All is therefore well and the masses are happy.
I believe lockdowns are more about optics and emotion than about logic, evidence and effectiveness. That drilling for school shootings are the modern equivalent of "Duck and Cover" to avoid a nuclear attack. I'm sure that "Duck and Cover" could help some with falling debris. But like lockdowns, that's not what it was really about.
Does anyone honestly think that turning off the lights and being still in a corner is going to help in any meaningful way? It's a human being bent on violence and murder, not a velociraptor that is attracted to movement and does not understand a light switch.
**Doors**
The first argument I hear is that locked doors slow an attacker down. No matter how strong it is, locking the door is never going to be effective if an attacker has the key. Keys can be acquired in advance or via force from a victim.
People wildly overestimate the amount of time it takes to break down a door especially when the person expects to be breaking down a door. It's seconds. It's not hours, it's not minutes, it's seconds to destroy the kind of door at a school. The types of doors that are effective are the types of doors you find in prisons.
For example, [Sandy Hook Elementary](http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2012/12/us/sandy-hook-timeline/?sa=X&ved=0CBYQ9QEwADgUahUKEwjMub3DmIDHAhWIz4AKHWgEB-w#1) was specifically 'hardened' against outside attack. Administrators viewed it as a credible threat and took precautions. There was a security door that required buzz in and the school locked it's doors at 9:30am each day. The attacker in that case destroyed the security door, and broke into two other locked classrooms in order to kill 20 children and 6 adults. The ones in the classrooms were warned via the announcements and followed procedure. Police responded in 2mins 41 seconds and it was over before police could do anything. I don't know what could have been done-- if anything. I do know for certain that 1) locking doors, 2) turning off lights, and 3) hiding in the corner, did absolutely nothing useful. Which should not be surprising since it's not particularly difficult to break down a door.
**Drilling**
Drilling is so that people know what to do. This the part that I object to. Having a plan, sure. Taking precautions, sure. Talking about scenarios, sure. Practicing huddling in fear when someone is at the door-- No.
Drilling one thing beyond all others reinforces it as being the 'right' solution and the one that 'should be' followed. It is a dynamic situation where all options need to be considered and drilling locks into one train of thought. It is harmful in that it is limiting. The correct solution is the one that they go home alive and unhurt. That should be the only thing that matters.
**Knowing is half the battle**
Drilling has another drawback. Odds are it is also going to be teaching attackers how best to find their victims. In most cases of school shootings the perpetrators were students. Knowing how everyone else will respond helps them plan how to do more harm.
**Panic**
A spurious reason I've heard for drilling is that it reduces panic. It's not going to do anything for panic in a real situation. If something does not go according to the drill then it is suddenly an unknown situation. The drill itself is creating a situation where panic is going to set in at the crucial moment.
The reason why panic is a problem is when someone panics they can freeze. Freezing is bad. However in this case the entire point of the lockdown drill is to teach children to freeze!
Drill every day for a year and it will not matter. Muscle memory is not going to kick in. Nobody is going to know while huddling in the dark if the shots and scream they heard means their best friend is dead. Nobody knows if the person shooting has a key. Nobody knows if their room is going to be next. Nobody knows if they will be saved in time. Sitting in the dark all these things will be the only things they are thinking about. When [a school did an unannounced school shooting drill](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/19/principal-suspended-shooting-drill-jewett-academy-jacquelyn-moore_n_6188418.html) it was terrifying for all involved and the consensus was it was bad idea.
**Meh. I'm sure it is fine.**
Kids generally do not take drills seriously. Drills themselves (as opposed to the real event it is simulating) are always kind of silly. Kids will make light of pretty much anything especially something like shooting up their friends. Drilling for anything carries the danger that when it really happens that people assume it is a drill especially for something that is a one in a million chance. "Meh. I'm sure it's fine."
**Triggering harm**
There are 55 million school children in the USA. About 20 suffer violent deaths on school grounds each year—a 1 in 2.5 million chance. Those are the odds that harm will occur. How many of those deaths would have been prevented by running drills? Compare that to how many of those 55 million school children had a real traumatic event similar to the drill. If all 55 million go through lockdown drills how many kids are going to be triggered and suffer real harm by the fake drill?
Drilling lockdowns wastes time that could be spent educating kids doing an activity of questionable value that is potentially psychologically scaring. Change my view. Make me believe that **drilling** lockdowns is a good idea. I do not believe that lockdowns are a good response to an armed attacker.
Note that I do not have alternative but I do not believe I need to champion something else in order to criticize something I believe is a terrible idea. However the merits of lockdowns is a secondary concern. My primary concern is that actively drilling them causes real harm.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:I believe that everyone should learn some form of self defense +
+ I believe that everyone needs to know how to defend them selfs. Weather it's learning how to shoot a gun or martial arts or even basic combat skills. Learning how to fight has helped me a lot. I will however go on the record saying that I don't believe violence is always the answer and if you can get out of a confrontation or fight without the use of violence you should. there's nothing more badass then telling someone "this dude at the bar was pissed and wanted to fight me but I talked to him and he ended up buying me a beer". | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Realistic graphics in video games are no longer amazing - they're boring now and detract from other possible priorities developers can focus on. +
+ I'm not inherently against realistic games, but resent their ubiquity as well as the fact that they're the top priority. I see most of the games in the store, and they just don't speak to me. I enjoyed Brothers A Tale of Two Sons far more than Red Dead Redemption, The Witcher 3 and Skyrim.
1. Games were invented as an abstract expression. In the NES days, games weren't literal and drawn to scale. Mario wasn't literally jumping on turtles. I appreciate games today wanting to add story and human elements, but all games will ever be (in terms of immersion) is an abstraction with more realistic sprites.
2. With realistic graphics, there's little room for imagination now that everything is literally represented. With games like Doom and The Wind Waker, you could fill in plenty of blanks and make lots of assumptions about where you were.
3. Realistic games have a short shelf life. In 3 years, people aren't going to care. Notice how Bioshock 1 still looks great from an artistic perspective to this day, but Call of Duty Modern Warfare (released the same year) looks ugly.
4. Being wow'ed by realistic graphics is a hedonic treadmill. When a big graphical leap comes, you're at first amazed at how far video games have come. Shortly after, it's just another game with good graphics. Why chase a fleeting moment?
5. We've had too many realistic games in the past 10. When Crysis and Gears of War came out, they looked amazing. Now every game looks like that.
6. Current gen consoles aren't a big step up, compared to leaps in previous generations. Even remasters are starting to push the hardware limits. Going to 1080p today wasn't nearly as significant as the jump to HD in 2005 or the jump to 3D in 1995. There's only so much you can do with realism this gen.
7. Realistic graphics usually result in (sports aside) games that are violent. They're ubiquitous. Ubisoft has made 11 Assassin Creed games but can't make 1 3D Rayman game. Sony abandoned Jak for more violent titles. Violent games aren't inherently bad (I enjoyed games like L.A. Noire and The Last of Us), but don't people get tired of playing the same game over and over? Don't people get tired of shooting soldiers or beating up zombies all of the time?
8. There are more important priorities. Story, characters, player reward/motivation systems, depth of mechanics, balance of meta/strategies, unique online/social experiences, user created content sharing and such.
---
I was inspired to make this thread by seeing realistic demos of Zelda such as Ocarina's Temple of Time on the Unreal engine or Nintendo's Wii U tech demo. And I'm not by principle against realistic Zelda. I'd love to have one when technology can handle it without costs being crazy. But just because someone looks amazing in a trailer, doesn't mean the game will be anymore amazing than Ocarina of Time's graphics when we actually play it. It will be something like. Wow!!! Zelda looks real!!! ...Now what?
---
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Food stamps should not cover soda +
+ The purpose of food stamps is to ensure that even society's poorest households can obtain needed nutrition. And, there's no need to deliberately deprive them of all palatable or enjoyable food -- "you're poor, so you're stigmatized and condemned to subsist off protein gruel" -- that's not what I'm advocating.
However, soda is not food. It provides no nutritional benefit, and causes plenty of nutritional harms. While it is theoretically possible to conceive of a "healthy" soda, you could surely find the same benefits from other non-soda sources. Somebody makes a veggie soda? There are dozens more veggie juices. Or, hell, you could buy actual vegetables.
I am aware this careveout isn't perfect, since there are juices, candies and other grocery store items that can be "just as bad" as soda in some instances. However, parsing fine distinctions between juices and snacks would require very detailed regulation that would be expensive to enforce. "Soda," by contrast, is a category that can be pretty simply defined and wherein almost all offerings are bad.
Some people need caffeine to help them earn money? Fine -- coffee and tea are still allowed.
Bottom line is, I see no reason that my taxes should be spent feeding the poor a carbonated mix of sugar and toxic chemicals. Doesn't help the poor. Doesn't help society. Why is it a worthy expense? CMV if you can.
[Study shows banning soda purchases using food stamps would reduce obesity and type-2 diabetes](http://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2014/06/02/study-shows-banning-soda-purchases-using-food-stamps-would-reduce-obesity-and-type-2-diabetes/)
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Regular season games are boring. +
+ **tl;dr - Why do you find regular season games exciting?**
I would describe myself as a pretty avid sports fan. I don't watch every game but when it comes to sports, I know more and watch more than any of my peers through work, school, or friendship. I like hockey, baseball, and the NFL. But regular season games are boring.
Boring can be good sometimes. A casual baseball game on a lazy afternoon is amazing, and it's great in the background during a family gathering. Seeing a game in person is awesome and regular season games are perfect for that because if you miss a play it's not the end of the world. I find the NFL regular season *almost* engaging because of the short schedule. I understand that in the NHL and MLB you need to play more games so the gap between 1st and last is sufficiently large, so I'm not suggesting shorter schedules. I would just really like someone to make regular season games more exciting for me.
The NHL is my favorite by far, but I can't stand regular season games. Until the very end of the season it just feels like watching practice. There's no excitement. It's like a 10 cent bet. Until the end of the season, very little is on the line. I don't see the appeal.
So can someone explain it to me? When I ask my friends who do watch the regular season they get condescending. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:It's impossible to believe in free will without also believing in the supernatural. +
+ After a couple philosophy classes and some long winded discussions it seems as though many people find it hard to believe that free will doesn't exist in any real scientific way.
Let's start off with premise #1
Everything that is observable in the universe follows laws of nature. All laws of nature follow the universal law of causation, which states that everything in the universe has a cause and is thus an effect of that cause.
If premise #1 is true then everything in the physical world must be determined.
If everything is determined than there is no such thing as free will.
If every behaviour is determined by laws of causation it is physically impossible for someone to be free, as that freedom would require the nullification of the laws of causation. In other words to believe in free will is also to believe in spontaneous magic, it's to believe that humans possess powers that could only be explained by the supernatural.
For example: In most legal traditions it is customary to judge whether someone is guilty of x crime by accumulating evidence in order to prove that x person intentionally did this crime. Let's assume that there was enough evidence to prove without doubt that Greg Smith robbed a convenience store. Now that we have proof that it was Greg, we should ask ourselves if Greg really chose to rob the store. As soon as you ask yourself that kind of question the only scientific recourse you have is to understand Greg as a causal agent. What caused Greg to rob the store? Was it the fact that Greg is from a low socio-economic class? Was it the fact that Greg lost his job 2 weeks ago and Greg wont be able to feed his kids if he doesn't find a way to get more money? Is it the fact that Greg was abused as child? Did Greg rob the store due to complex laws of causality that are reducible to both biological and environmental reasons? Or did Greg simply rob the store because he felt like it?
Even more simple decisions like choosing between a chocolate bar and an apple can be reducible to complex causal interplay between biological and environmental laws. Did you choose the chocolate bar because you like it better? Or is it because we have an evolutionary pull towards sugar and fat dense food? Is it because you read an article on naturalnews.com talking about how dark chocolate can cure your pancreas cancer? Or did you chose the apple because you grew up on an orchard farm and apples remind you of your innocent childhood? or did you choose the apple because you already had psychologically determined bias for foods that will fit in your limited calorie budget for the week?
What I am trying to say is that as soon as you try to define freedom of choice scientifically it inevitably reduce down to causal mechanisms. Whether those casual mechanisms are internal/biological or external/environmental or a mix of both they are the only things that influence us and completely shape our behaviour. Anything else that can be said to have a role in our behaviours (like our "independent volition", our "moral compass" and all other notions pertaining to freedom of will) is inherently unscientific and can only be explained through a belief in the supernatural. CMV
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Hearthstone and its card economy is incredibly unbalanced and shallow, especially after the Gnomes vs. Goblins expansion. +
+ I have played Hearthstone since its beta and have had great times with it (I still do).
My massive issue with the game is that the current meta relies too heavily on strung together mech cards that perfectly mesh with each other and do no evoke a skill-based theme or tactic. The expansion has encouraged players to make decks that kill quickly before the game can even begin to get interesting; this avoids the entirety of what makes Hearthstone special.
Another thing is that Legendaries are totally whack as a core concept. They come off as useful tools to take out foes but are secretly a ploy to get "consumers" to buy packs to try and earn them (in a free-to-play game). The rarity of these cards even further prove that it benefits those who purchase packs in bulk and get them quicker, letting them get "better" faster and leave other players in the dust.
Blizzard has also recently lowered the chance of getting decent dailies, meaning you have a lower chance of generating in game currency, further benefiting the payers.
Cards involving random chance while also altering the mana curve (Voidcaller, Unstoppable Portal, Alarm-o-Bot) are devastating and should not exist. This is different than Druid's mana increasing cards as this is a calculated strategy that is understood by the opponent.
| 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 toll roads are pointless +
+ I have lived in Columbus, Ohio my entire life and have now been legally able to drive for 5 years. I have driven near and far and have never had to take a toll road. I recently ventured into Pennsylvania for an internship and was absolutely flabbergasted by the toll roads. I have always heard from people that they are good because they have higher speed limits. A lot of the free highways i have been on have 70 mph speed limits and when I went into Pennsylvania, I paid $5.00 to go 40mph on a "highway" for a whopping 2 miles. I also have gone through some other toll roads since my time here but that was the most obnoxious one. Anyways I just think they are pointless because in no way did it make my travel more convenient. Maybe I just don't know enough about them but 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: Amazon Echo is an incredibly harmful piece of technology. +
+ A lot of futuristic technology has floundered lately (3D TV, Google Glass, etc.) but Amazon Echo can be incredibly harmful if it takes off.
[Watch the launch video to understand what Amazon Echo is.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQn6aFQwBQU) If you don't have the time, this is the pitch:
Amazon Echo is designed around your voice. It's hands-free and always on. With seven microphones and beam-forming technology, Echo can hear you from across the room—even while music is playing. Echo is also an expertly tuned speaker that can fill any room with immersive sound.
Echo connects to Alexa, a cloud-based voice service, to provide information, answer questions, play music, read the news, check sports scores or the weather, and more—instantly. All you have to do is ask.
Essentially, it is an omnipresent Siri that lives in your home and is constantly listening. The device already has 23,058 reviews from testers and it is just hitting the market. Now imagine one of these in everyone's home. I will cover some of the highlights of the launch video as examples in my argument.
---
**Reason 1: Laziness**
A lot of technology today encourages laziness. However, this takes it to a whole new level.
Example: "Alexa, add waffles to my shopping list." Now we don't even need to jot things down or even type them into our smart phones at the very least.
Example: 'Alexa can provide news!' Instead of reading the newspaper or watching the news we can listen to a mono-tone robot recite world events.
Example: "Alexa, what is the chance of rain?" The woman is literally standing next to the door when she asks this question. However, she would rather receive the weather from her nifty new gadget than to actually look outside or watch a weather report.
---
**Reason 2: Reliance on Technology**
Most of us can admit that we are uncomfortably dependent on our smart phones. However, what if our smart phone was never in our pocket? What if it was always plugged in and tempting us? This is essentially Amazon Echo. The narrator even proclaims that Echo will, "Become a part of the family!"
Example: "The echo is a tool that we use to keep our household functioning." This is a quote from a mother as she dresses her daughter. I am aware that these are commercially invented situations being reenacted by paid actors. However, I feel as though they are fairly accurate depictions of how people will use this technology and how they will respond to it. Clearly, there are many issues with one piece of technology keeping a household together.
Example: "The prime re-ordering is when you can ask Alexa to order something you've already ordered through your prime account." Now we can shop by shouting a phrase at a robot! No need to go out.
I think laziness coupled with reliance on technology have been the most harmful qualities that todays youth (myself included) suffer from. We find it difficult to go out and make plans. We find it difficult to socialize. We find it difficult to talk on the phone. In a world full of constant updates and fast information, why should we access things in any other way? We want things instantaneously and at our discretion.
---
**Reason 3: Invasion of Privacy**
Major corporations will do anything to learn more about consumers and what they want. Echo allows consumers to order things through Amazon Prime. I am not afraid of what this AI will do granted that it can always hear and learn. As long as it's just a black cylinder speaker (with no hidden flame-thrower) I don't believe we have a reason to fear an Echo uprise. Rather, I am more afraid of what the men and women behind the scenes will do.
Example: 'Echo can hear you from anywhere in the room, so it's always ready to help!' "I can have the water running, I can be cooking, the TV can be on in the back room, and she still can hear me."
All I could think while watching this was, "Genisys is Skynet!"
---
Here is a link to the [Amazon page.](http://www.amazon.com/Amazon-SK705DI-Echo/dp/B00X4WHP5E)
So, can anyone give me some reason as to why Amazon Echo can be more helpful than harmful?
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Any food past recommended daily values should be heavily taxes +
+ I'm not here to argue how this would be implemented. There would obviously be challenges in that sense but I'm sure rationing could be done in the digital age.
There's millions of people starving every day, yet in countries where people make slightly above average are permitted to deplete the world's food supply, waste food, and pretty much cut in line in front of others for having money. Food that could be used by poor regions is instead shipped out to feed those who can afford it.
Then there's the fact that obesity has increased, at least within the US, in the past decade. Our only real solution has been to attempt to tax soft drinks or try to hurt corporations who make "unhealthy" food, but that does not directly treat the problem, which is over-eating. I'm sure we can all agree that if you become overweight that shows that your body has more food than it requires to live. When people are permitted to purchase as much food as they want, no matter how healthy the food ends up being, they will gain weight. This in turn causes more problems and costs money in healthcare.
Food should be taxed/rationed. Based on what is factually calculated (for example, with a doctor's visit) on how much you need to consume, you should be *encouraged* (not forced) to eat the proper amount monetarily. Since eating excessively damages those who cannot afford food due to inflated food prices, as well as costs others by your deteriorating health, a tax is a reasonable/viable option.
Just like you're not permitted to do harmful drugs (for the most part) or permitted to kill yourself or harm yourself (for the most part) this would at the very least be another measure to keeping people in our society healthy and from also damaging others. Since it would not be forced, you're technically still permitted to eat more food, however, you should be able to prove that you can afford your lifestyle that causes health issues and issues for others, and support the system by paying a tax, which could then be used to feed the homeless and fund welfare programs.
Here's an article of something similar in place and proof that it's effective:
http://mic.com/articles/84521/japan-has-cut-obesity-to-3-5-in-a-controversial-way-that-wouldn-t-fly-in-america
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: "Downtown" is a bad name for the central business districts of most towns and cities. +
+ I think "downtown" is a bad name for most central business districts. For one thing, most places that call their central business districts "downtown" don't have areas or neighbourhoods called "uptown" or "midtown". Shouldn't "downtown" be actually down of something? I feel that whatever a city decides to call it's central business district it should reflect either it's geographic location, history, or purpose.
Relating to that, calling central business districts "downtown" seem to me to be unoriginal. North American cities could give their central business districts names that aren't just imitations of New York's CBD.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: It's justified for innocent detainees accused of terrorism to escape captivity +
+ There are currently people being held in the war on terror who are innocent and do not have any due process rights. If you do not have a way in which to lawfully and peacefully petition your captors, then your only choice to gain freedom is to escape.
The right to be free and petition a government to justify your incarceration are fundamental human rights. So, since you cannot petition your captors any innocent person who escapes under these circumstances is therefore completely justified.
Any subsequent administration should therefore forgive the crime of prison escape under these circumstances. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: There is no difference between believing you don't know how the universe came in to being, and believing that God brought the universe in to being +
+ The universe exists, and came in to being somehow.
Some claim that we don't know yet exactly how the universe came in to being, we know roughly when it did, and roughly *how* it did, but what caused it to come in to being is a unanswered question - one we may never answer.
There are others that believe God brought the Universe in to being (that is, an all powerful entity was the first-mover, setting the universe in motion).
But if God is all powerful and infinite, we have no idea what His/Her/its nature is, and couldn't possibly know, as mortal, finite beings. What is the difference between saying we don't know how the universe came in to being, and saying that this entity that we don't know the nature of, and couldn't possibly comprehend, brought the universe in to being? Aren't they equally nebulous beliefs?
How does believing that God brought the universe in to being differentiate your beliefs from those who would say we don't know how the universe was brought in to being? Aren't they pretty much the same belief?
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: There's nothing wrong with letting my dog drink out of the toilet bowl. +
+ Our house has a guest bathroom that rarely gets used. I tend to leave the door open and my dog will sometimes drink out of it. I just flush it to "refresh" the water and call it a day.
People have remarked that it's gross though. I don't see how. The water is clean, and even if the toilet bowl has germs on it I've seen my dog eat poop before, I don't think a little urine in his beard will kill him. Plus I end up cleaning the bathroom semi-regularly anyway.
I see it as a convenient way for my dog to get water when I don't notice his water bowl is empty with no downside. What's the big deal?
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Parents should not allow their child to live transgender/ cross dress under the age of 12-13 +
+ I am friends with a woman on facebook who does drag. She has a young son (10) who she dresses up (I have to think she dresses him, as he is not old enough to attain his own clothes) as a girl. It has gotten to the point where she has made a fan page for him where she constantly posts pictures of him in his drag/ female attire.
Are children able to consciously make a decision like that, which will likely effect their entire schooling experience, at such a young age? Or is it a "dress like mommy does" case, where the parent allows it because they are so affluent in that lifestyle?
I am all for gender equality, fluidity, and expressing yourself how you see fit. But I have a hard time believing that a child can choose that and they want to begin to pave their life after that when their brain is developing. It almost feels forced and that the parent is making that choice for them. It also kind of rubs me the wrong way that the parent posts all these public pictures of her son on Facebook in a fan page, none the less. Should he not be able to decide who sees his lifestyle choices? He obviously doesn't have a facebook, being that he's 10, so I very seriously doubt that he was asked if its ok.
Regardless, 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: intellectual property is property in name only +
+ Theft: copying something can't possibly be theft because theft requires taking something away and copying doesn't do that.
Economic efficiency / average happiness: violating the individual rights to be unharmed and to not have property taken without permission (e.g. fines) while *pursuing* higher average happiness is immoral and impractical. For the plan to work, one would have to show that average happiness would increase and that the oppression inherent in the prohibition on commercial copying (taking into account the nature of the organization required to enforce that prohibition) would not outweigh the benefits; a calculation that seems to me impossible to make. What we do know for sure, if a prohibition on commercial copying is implemented, is that individual rights will be violated.
Homesteading ideas / ownership extends to what we create: I have no problem with people owning their ideas. I don't suggest that they be extracted from their brain or deleted from their computer. Copying adds more of an idea, it doesn't take it away from its owner.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Studio Ghibli is overrated and their films more often than not require an adaptation in the western film adjusted viewer's watching habits in order to be perceived as enjoyable +
+ I'm posting this hoping that someone will point out what I might be missing or that I can begin to understand why Spirited Away, for example, sits so high in top movie list rankings. I am a westerner who has had exposure mainly to western film but also enjoys many other film types and cultures including Japanese and anime film.
However, I don't much care for Studio Ghibli stuff. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that I don't like it. Except for Hisaishi's music, which I think is beautiful. I don't know why everyone seems to like these films so much.
It bothers me as lots of my other views in life are congruent with the norm, or I can see why they vary.
I've watched lots of Ghibli films in order to give them a chance. I've already heard lots of people arguing that the artwork is great (and I do agree it is) and that's what makes the film great, but that doesn't cut it for me; the same people who argue in this way don't seem to apply that logic to the other films they watch and so must be adapting their viewing style for Ghibli or just repeating something they heard somewhere else, not responding as they normally would (perhaps with reference to direction, plot, acting, action, scripting, etc) when asked why they like a film.
Any comments or thoughts (outside of 'the artwork is so good') would be appreciated. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Bus Rapid Transit is vastly superior to medium and heavy rail +
+ Update: By heavy rail, I am referring to the US definition that refers to metro rail services only, not commuter rail (travel outside the city) or intercity/national service.
[Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_rapid_transit) has many definitions, but I'd like to define it in its maximum state, which is when [bi-articulated](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bi-articulated_bus), modernized buses operate metro style on reinforced, dedicated roadways with much greater distances between stops than on usual bus routes and with greater frequency than buses.
Reasons:
* Many studies have shown that a BRT system supporting the same number of riders at the same frequency as a medium or heavy rail system will be much cheaper, both to operate and support and especially in installation. It is also faster to install such a system.
* Where a disabled train has the potential to bring an entire metro line to a standstill, a disabled BRT bus may be in the way, but not a total obstruction, and can easily be towed or removed from BRT roadways via frequent exit ramps even on single lane systems. Train lines can also often be taken down just by a signaling problem, something as severe as a lightbulb burning out. Buses have no such weak points.
* BRT relies on existing maintenance infrastructure and can utilize existing bus drivers with only a little extra training. Trains require a lot of specialized training for what seems to be less advanced work, and from my own experience with the [MBTA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Bay_Transportation_Authority) results in far less capable vehicle operators.
* As was proven during the Boston winter of 2014-2015, trains offer no severe weather benefit, and as can be seen by the mass use of buses to replace train service, a BRT system would be much more weather durable for above ground systems, especially so for systems with dedicated roadways.
* Buses usually are seen as less comfortable than a train, but on a dedicated roadway that has fewer to no turns and one that is reinforced to be less bumpy, a bus can be more comfortable, especially since it offers more seating capacity for the same amount of space than most rail lines. Buses can also be replaced or refitted much more often for comfort than trains, both due to price and ease of the process.
* Buses are much better placed for adoption of automated operations than trains because of much more investment in the technology for cars and buses than trains. Even automated switching has proven to be an unreliable system at the WMATA and centralized train sensing, on the other hand, [disastrous](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_2009_Washington_Metro_train_collision).
I wanted to touch on another point:
* I have been on trains that would not open their doors because it could not move completely onto a train platform (by 6-10 feet). A BRT would not have as much trouble letting people off if it didn't quite reach a station.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:The USA is the least trustworthy nation to possess atomic weapons +
+ I have come to this conclusion for several reasons.
*The USA is the only nation in the history of humanity to actually use atomic weapons against an enemy. From past experience alone it is the country most likely to use them again.
*The main positive effect of atomic weapons, that gets brought up a lot , is mutually assured destruction. The USA dropped 2 atomic bombs, not as retribution to an atomic attack. It demonstrated a lower bar for considering using them.
*The USA regularly starts new wars. It's certainly the nation among the big superpowers that is most likely to initiate a new war and, in the case of Irak, can not even explain why they went to war in the first place. A country that is this likely to be involved in wars is more likely to find itself in a position where it would consider using another atomic bomb.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:Not wanting to have children due to the state of the global environment is an overreaction, population control is not the best answer. +
+ I had a conversation with a friend a few weeks ago, where I spoke of having children. His response that was that it was selfish and actually quite brutal due to the energy that my offspring would consume in it's lifetime.
There are simply other ways to solve the environmental problems we currently have. Population control is a completely reactive, knee-jerk solution.
Slowing down consumerism by giving corporations less power than they already have would be a good start. The big corporates are the ones that are destroying parts of the planet to find more energy and consuming mass amounts of energy to manufacture products. Due to globalisation, the problem we have nowadays is that these corporations are so big that its hard to hold individuals accountable and and they are so powerful that it's hard for the masses to stand up to them. because a lot of the time we think we have a reliance on what they are providing.
Change our attitude as individuals. We need to be more conscious in regards to how we affect the our ecosystems and the planet as a whole. We rarely think about what had to be done to create the plastic packaging from the food we eat, or what has to be done to power our homes. There needs to be more awareness here. Too often I hear people will not recycle because other countries don't and they don't see the point. It is also hard to convince individuals to take this attitude and not leave their lights on when they go out at night when Las Vegas is constantly lit like a Christmas Tree.
It's almost like we need a substantial event to take place before it is indeed too late, the energy issue is starting to pick up traction but we need to move quicker. It absolutely must be on top of every political agenda of every government in the world.
Which brings me to my last point, a friend once questioned why people in third world countries mainly in Africa would continue to have children and that they needed to be educated and discouraged from this as they are contributing to the exponential population growth we are currently enduring. Developed countries consume a lot more than developing countries.
Some of you may argue that countries with larger populations need more energy, I ague back that Indonesia's population is only 29% less than that of the United States. However the consumption of the United States is 95% more than Indonesia.
I say again, the problem is not the size of the population just the actions we are currently carrying out. There are enough square miles for every human being on this planet ten times over.
Lastly, I do think there is some legitimacy to this claim. But more people do not necessarily mean more energy consumption. I don't have any empirical evidence and will try to get some but I can bet a family of 6 in East Africa consume a lot less than your average family of 3 in the United States.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Companies should be legally liable for not promptly responding to security patches +
+ Specifically with the Android mobile OS and recent hacks like [this](http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2015/07/27/426613020/major-flaw-in-android-phones-would-let-hackers-in-with-just-a-text) one, once a vulnerability has been found and reported, companies should be required to publish security patches in a prompt manner. Google is very fond of wringing their hands and saying how they patched their upstream OS, but it's up to Device Manufacturers and Carriers to roll their own releases. However, all too often, patched releases don't make it to older phone/tablet models for months if ever after it has been fixed. Since most carriers lock their phone OS, it is literally not possible to LEGALLY patch your phone due to the restrictions of the DMCA, leaving a customer with only one legal option - buy a new phone. (yes, I know about rooting a phone, but if you have to violate a law to receive security patches, there's a problem)
More and more of our personal data and digital lives lives on our phones. People use their phone for banking, to receive text verification of accounts, to pay for transactions, and any number of other sensitive communication. The frequent mantra from industry apologists is "companies don't get paid for work done on phones they've already sold, they've already moved on to newer things", except that every industry is responsible for issuing recall notices if it is later found that the product has safety issues. Somehow, software has remained free of recall requirements, but maybe it's time to open up liability for unpatched security flaws.
Things that might change my view:
* Facts that most manufacturers and carriers DO support security updates within a reasonable timeframe
* Existence of legal liability or recall requirements for device / software manufacturers
* Demonstration that this would be infeasable
| 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 most education beyond Middle School is useless - UNLESS it directly pertains to your field. +
+ I've seen a lot of CMVs regarding College education being unnecessary but I haven't actually seen a great deal regarding High School. For me, I thought that my college was a very interesting and career-oriented program. But High School was almost the opposite.
I'm not going to speculate at the reasons; it could be the focus on standardized tests, or the push to treat every student exactly the same regardless of their actual abilities, or the fact that they're simply not relevant in modern society.
Whatever the case may be, I felt during most of my time in HS that none of my education was remotely relevant. History I found interesting, but utterly inapplicable beyond basic knowledge and political past. Science has never been something I found remotely useful in my daily life, then or now, and after very basic Biology (and I mean very, very basic) nothing was applicable. By Chemistry, I can't even name a class topic beyond something as general as (periodic table).
English classes have applied to me, but I recognize my own bias - I love to write, I love to read, and I would love for my efforts to one day lead me into a career as a novelist. If it wasn't for that, I would've had *slightly* more use for this class than the others, but only because writing is a fairly universal application, which I appreciate the education for.
Math is by far the worst offender. History you could argue must be known to avoid repeating, and Biology can give us insight into our own bodies... but I have no use for anything I learned after 8th grade in Math class. I've never used tangent, cosine, or sine. I've never once had to determine what (3x^2+5)(2x-2) was, simplified. I don't even remember what the quadratic formula was used for, much less the entire thing.
And of course, the miscellaneous (Art, Music, etc...) that are utterly useless to anyone without an interest in the field. While fun as children, and important to explore, I fail to see these as useful fields for non-artists/musicians beyond basic socialization that could be fulfilled in any other fun/explorative class.
I scored a 34 on my ACTs and a 36 in my math, but I specifically took as few Math classes as possible during my time in High School. I needed three years, and used them to take AP Statistics - not because I thought it was useful, but because I wanted to *avoid* college math classes. My fourth year, I took Math For a Living - and it was by far the single best thing I could've done. We covered checks, tax forms, account management... basically all the things I think should be mandatory anyway for every student, because they *actually apply to every student*.
I went on to forget 90% of what I learned shortly after exiting high school, retain just enough to get along, and enter a degree which specialized drastically. I had 0 math classes (got credit for 1 from AP test) 2 English classes (both electives, got out of my 2 mandatory through AP Tests), two science classes (even less applicable than my HS classes; Earth Science and Biology), and three history/government classes (Plus an elective, educational and fun but not useful, except for Government). Other than that it was a few paper-writing classes (pretty universally useful), a speech class, and the rest were 75-90% career/field-related classes, many taught by people who were in/left the field.
I guess TL;DR: CMV - Virtually nothing we learn after MS is applicable beyond passing tests to get extra funding for our schools. Time in HS would be better spent teaching common sense, problem-solving skills, basic computer literacy, communication, working in teams, and how to apply said knowledge instead of "Find X with this equation, this is how many protons are in Oxygen, what was the name of John Quincy Adams' Secretary?". I also believe this is a significant reason many people feel so overwhelmed after finishing education at a college/university and are facing the world for the first real time.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: "Offense is taken, not given" is an illegitimate argument since it can just as easily be applied to any emotion we have control over (which according to the stoics is most of them). +
+ I see memes and statements all the time around the idea that "offense is taken not given". Usually in the context of someone protesting that something is offensive, and people poking fun at them for the unreasonableness of the offense they took.
But while I would agree it is possible to behave as if something is far more offensive than most reasonable people would agree it is, this is a qualitatively different issue than "offense is given not taken".
Stoicism is the ancient philosophy that pain and suffering can be made far more endurable by your reaction to it; specifically, deliberate indifference shields you from suffering. The stoic solution to pain and misfortune is to refuse to let it dominate you and therefore reduce its ultimate harm.
Similar ideas of detaching yourself from suffering or seeking value in painful experiences can be found in Buddhism and Existentialism. Viktor Frankl, holocaust survivor, wrote *Man's Search for Meaning* about how focusing on the positive and meaningful aspects of life in the midst of a horrible experience helped him and other's survive and rebuild their lives.
So I agree with the notion that someone can stoically endure offensive behavior, and I'd even agree with the idea that this is, for the individual, the least mentally stressful or distracting way of dealing with these experience. This doesn't necessarily mean complete internalization - passivity is not the same as stoicism.
The problem I have is with anyone asserting that because offense is 'taken and no given', bad behavior should not be called out, or should be suffered silently. Words and actions *can* betray sordid underlying attitudes. They can make people feel unwelcome. Saying that people should silently tolerate this emotional harm from offensive remarks because they control their own attitudes is like saying people should silently tolerate any harm or injustice, simply because they can (according to stoicism).
Let's step back to the specific case of the 'unreasonably sensitive'.
If you are drunk and shove someone, we'd probably agree that it's a bit hysterical and even unreasonable for that person to sue you for assault. But you are still in the wrong; you've done something wrong and you could have saved yourself the trouble by not shoving them.
And if that person had a bizarre medical condition where his skull was eggshell thing and he fell over and shattered his skull, then you'd *definitely* be liable, and 'he shouldn't have been out in a bar, where people shove people' or 'he should have worn a football helmet' or 'he should have kept his balance' or 'he should endure his serious skull injury without suffering because of the existential meaninglessness of all our lives which forces us to find meaning subjectively' are all horrible excuses that won't and shouldn't help you in court!
If you bumped into this man by accident with the same result, you'd not be a criminal, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try to watch where you're going and not accidentally knock them over.
The same goes for emotional harm. Some people really are emotionally fragile and some aren't themselves but like to advocate for those who are. And maybe like the thin-skulled man shouldn't become a boxer there are some decisions the emotionally fragile should make carefully, but that doesn't mean you should go around shoving people and insulting those who call you out.
**TL;DR** To change my view, convince me that there is something substantially differentiating offense from other types of harm and suffering that justifies "offense is taken not given" as a reaction to those saying a thing is offensive, rather than defense of the thing itself. Or attack from another angle you think of. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Cancer will never be "cured." +
+ I've been hearing these conspiracy theories that basically state that a cure for cancer would not be made public because it would lead to the downfall of the massive industry behind various forms of treatment for cancer. As much as I don't want to believe this, it seems plausible. 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 should never drink Pepsi, especially the one in my fridge. +
+ I *really* like Coke (hell look at my username), like really. I made the trek to Atlanta about a year ago for the sole reason of visiting the Coca-Cola Museum. So when yesterday came by and one of my friend put a Pepsi in my fridge, my choice was to throw it away. But I didn't for... some reason.... And now I have a Pepsi in my fridge. I don't like Pepsi, and I never will. I haven't drunk Pepsi for 2 years about this point, and now I ask reddit to try and find a way to get me to drink the sweat of Gary, Indiana.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The SJW movement uses language of the elite and privileged, and thus does very little to empower or educate. +
+ Let me preface this by saying that I consider myself socially liberal, and I actually agree with *most* SJW talking points. Like other left-leaning movements, it seems to have good intentions, but I actually think it does more to silence non-privileged voices than it does to encourage education, empowerment, progress, or harmony.
A college education (or at the very least, the Internet and plenty of time on one's hands) seems to be a standard cost of entry for dialogue with a typical SJW. Dialogue that consists of terms and concepts such as: patriarchy, heteronormativity, trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF), cisgendered, gender spectrum, gentrification, respectability politics, privilege, oppression, identity, assimilation, queer, otherkin, institutionalization, marginalization, etc....I could keep going.
These are all terms that I've just pulled directly from SJW Tumblr pages/comments. Some are more easily defined than others, but there are still layers to each concept (such as privilege or oppression) that people may have a difficult time grasping if it was the first time they've been exposed to these ideas.
Honestly, I have a master's, and the first time this language was thrown my way, I felt dumb for not understanding some of it. How might someone who could only afford a high school education feel? I get that they want to use intelligent, specific language to explain some concepts that are difficult to put into words, but how is someone who doesn't have the privilege of a college education, or at least the time to sit down and learn these concepts, expected to engage in dialogue that sounds like it's spoken by a women's studies textbook? It can be intimidating, and no one likes to have a conversation that makes them feel stupid. How is this use of privileged language encouraging those who are economically and educationally marginalized to participate?
I don't want to generalize, but from my own experience, a majority of SJWs enjoy doing what they do because they like winning arguments. It's not about empowering and educating. In the face of ignorance, SJWs tend to belittle and insult, rather than educate or allow for a balance dialogue. The attitude is, "Oh, you're ignorant? Let me make you feel *more* ignorant by insulting you and using words you don't understand."
Again, I'm in favor of most ideas SJWs tend to champion...transgender rights, #BlackLivesMatter, feminism, etc. I just think they're going about it in a way that turns people off, because they're so concerned with being able to flex their knowledge and with shutting down those who might disagree with their ideas the tiniest bit.
| 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 support GMO's. I believe altering Mother Nature is wrong and could cause (and probably already have) serious problems. +
+
I do not support GMO's and do not want to consume them. Many other countries have restricted GMO's because they don't consider them safe alternatives. I personally don't believe that we should mess with the composition of the natural world. Especially on this level, where about 80% of our food is GMO in the U.S. We don't know enough about it to widely accept them in the country, as there could be long-term effects. We already know cancer, obesity, heart disease, autism, mental illness( especially anxiety and depression), and diabetes is a growing problem.
With this whole GMO labeling issue going on right now I definitely think everyone has the right to know what they are eating, because not everyone wants to consume food that's in essence a science experiment. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: When driving on the highway, it is much safer to pass on the right, than to tailgate until the person in front of you moves over (USA). +
+ Following too closely is one of the most dangerous things you can do when traveling on the highway, and there is never an excuse for tailgaing in *any* driving situation, ever.
If someone is going slower than you in the left-hand (passing) lane, it's much safer to pass them on the right hand side, than to follow them closely to try and force them to move over. If passing on the right is not an option, you should wait patiently until a passing opportunity presents itself.
If someone is already traveling over the speed limit, and you choose to tailgate them because they aren't going as fast as you would like, you are an overly aggressive driver posing a dangerous risk to everyone on the road.
While it's true that, legally, the left lane should only be used for passing, this is not realistically what the lane is used for. Arguments from a legal perspective will not sway my view. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |