input
stringlengths 89
9.33k
| output
stringclasses 2
values | instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|
CMV: Referring to the Pao Gender Discrimination Case in the Change.org petition is counterproductive and makes Redditors look childish, if not sexist. +
+ [Petition.](https://www.change.org/p/ellen-k-pao-step-down-as-ceo-of-reddit-inc)
Why does this previous litigation have anything to do with her competence as a CEO? Why reference it? It makes no sense to me.
But bringing it up certainly makes any argument against her seem sexist or childish from the perspective of anyone who is unfamiliar with the entire backstory (hell, I am familiar with the backstory and I find it childish to keep bringing it up).
I am more than happy to change my view. I just don't see a good reason to.
So even if the petition is more productive at gaining signatures, it is not more productive at achieving its end result.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The Civil War was about slavery +
+ You often hear the phrase "The Civil War wasn't about slavery", particularly from socially conservative people. Take for example this quote:
"Slavery was a “side issue to the Civil War,” said Pat Hardy, a Republican board member, when the board adopted the standards in 2010. “There would be those who would say the reason for the Civil War was over slavery. No. It was over states’ rights.” [Source](http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/150-years-later-schools-are-still-a-battlefield-for-interpreting-civil-war/2015/07/05/e8fbd57e-2001-11e5-bf41-c23f5d3face1_story.html?hpid=z4)
Yes, the war was fought over states rights...**to have slavery**. I believe that those who deny that slavery was the cause of the war have no factual basis for this and are simply saying it to make the Confederacy appear less racist.
I will admit though, I am not familiar with civil war history. So if you can CMV by pointing out another reason for the war, independent of slavery, go for it.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Sword Art Online is one of the best Anime of All Time [SPOILERS] +
+ I've recently subscribed to r/anime, and as a long time anime watcher and considering myself to have the appropriate amount of good taste, I feel that Sword Art Online is massively misrepresented as mediocre among fellow fans and otakus. Currently ranked [#459 on MAL](http://myanimelist.net/anime/11757/Sword_Art_Online), this show scores an average rating of only 8 out of 10 nerd points.
I believe this is due primarily to *hater votes*. It should be in the top 50, if not top 25, anime of all time.
In fairness to the haters, the ALO arcs sort of ruined it with the whole sister romance harem thing. Japanese people are weird, but they sure know how to milk a hit show. For that reason, SAO II is not considered here; just vanilla SAO please!
Some Background
---
I am a 30-year old male product writer for the web, and I am not what most would consider an otaku or weeabo. (I prefer Korean culture, if we're comparing asking, and I don't go to cons, collect or read much Manga, or follow every anime series.) I watch anime recreationally, and consider myself a reasonable self-styled critic. I've recently watched quite a number of shows, being bored at home, and I've watched and rewatched SAO several times and am familiar with it.
---
**Why The Show Is Good**
Characters: The cast is great. Voice acting isn't overdone or underdone, and the characters all feel like people from a real world stuck in a game for a long time together. It also makes sense that they're all there.
Plot: The premise is not made of solid gold, but it's interesting enough to lend itself to greatness. If you die in the game, you die for real no quitsies. This has been done before in fiction, of course. However, SAO takes a different treatment of this premise. Normally, you would see horror, like in a show like Gantz, applied, or game aspects, such as in No Game No Life.
SAO's goal is rather to show that a virtual world can be real and fulfilling. Its creators accomplish this by focusing not on the MMO aspects, which are limited to flavor, but rather on the interaction between strong characters and the tension of being trapped within this scary world. The story itself lends itself to a rich world, and the writers take advantage of the larger arc to fit in almost a dozen sub-arcs in 24 episodes. The show is *very* story dense for an anime; normally, a single sub-arc would take 4-6 episodes. These sub-arcs balance developing the world, fighting, and building relationships. The characters build on their strengths and flaws and often find themselves in situations partially crafted of their own making. (Example; Asuna is hard on her guild and pushy, and this results in a poor culture within the guild that causes problems as the series develops.) There are no unbelievable moments.
In the end, the heroes triumph, but it's not a boring triumph. They often sacrifice during the show and make many mistakes that weigh upon them. At the ending bar scene, you can feel the air of both relief and regret washing over all of the former players.
At the symbolic level, SAO is very symbolic of life itself. God puts us on this plant, and we don't get to leave unless we die. So we adapt to it and live in it, the same as in SAO's virtual world. This allegoric story pairs well with the show's many slice-of-life scenes, creating a very vibrant and real-seeming virtual world.
**Writing:** SAO does not waste time or words. No episode is filler, and each main character is multi-dimensional and arrives naturally in the main story arc. Characters do not break character. Villains are villains. Episodes are succinct and *excellently paced.* This show is so clean that you can eat off of it.
**Art:** The art direction is superb. Each character's outfit is suitable for their personality and status. Motion and combat is more fluid and direct as well as it was in Fate: UBW and other highly regarded similar shows. It was smoother than classic epics like Record of Lodoss War and Gurren Lagann or modern releases like Arslan. Admittedly, it probably had a bigger budget than those shows, but that shouldn't be a detracting factor at all. The only *fantasy world* anime I would give a higher regard to in art direction is Berserk, but in quality of animation, SAO crushes Berserk.
The only complaint you could make in the art department is that the show wasn't stylized enough to differentiate it from other fantasy anime. For instance, the art direction in Kill la Kill was an incredible thematic rush of color with awesome hand-painted backgrounds. I'll grant that point, but can you name a fantasy anime with a better quality of animation offhand?
**Avoids Most Awful Anime Pitfalls:** Fanservice, chibi conversations, people falling off of park benches or turning into paper; these are the marks of an anime breaking the fourth wall and ruining suspension of disbelief for the view. In short, they're signs that an anime doesn't take itself seriously. Almost no anime of any level of notoriety, excluding comedies, uses these generic tactics.
---
**Arguments Against**
The story follows Kirito, a regular guy with some Kendo training and beta test experience in an online game. Kirito earns almost all of his levels solo and is on par with the very best fighters in the game. He starts off with an advantage due to his experience, gets full exp. for the very first boss, and grinds pretty much every day from there on out to stay on top of the curve. He clearly earns his main character slot through a number of trials instead of being handed it by the divine will of the writers, such as in every other anime ever. He is given a unique skill, eventually, which is powerful, but it's relatively balanced because it's difficult to use. His backstory and skillset are reasonable, and given that there must be a "best" among all the players, it makes sense that the show would follow him.
Meanwhile, in How to Pick Up Girls in a Dungeon, the main character is literally given a skill that says "become overpowered against things you can't beat." It's shit like that which makes me want to throw my laptop.
In the first or second episode, another beta tester dies in Kirito's arms not because he was defeated, but because he turned down a potion. That guy was obviously a fuckin' idiot, and that scene could have been saved if he had just drank up and laid there. This is a fair criticism. Additionally, the army guild unit that marches in to fight the minotaur boss half dead is also made of retards. However, it's noted in the show that the reason they do this is because the army has been terrorizing its members. However, those deaths serve a purpose within the show and are not overtly distracting. The dumb beta guy's death serves to inspire Kirito to action and turns him into the MC. The dumb army guys are, much like the group that runs into the trap room early in the series, there to set Kirito on the right path and force him into action.
In the meantime, how will you excuse characters like Faye Valentine in one of your favorite anime, Cowboy Bebop? She's just there to be a plot instigator with a pair of giant boobs. Almost. Entirely. Fanservice. Many other very good anime have done much much worse with their cast and still rank top 50. Hell, Hajime no Ippo is fan ranked 20 on MAL, and although I won't disagree that the show is awesome, it's just following the formula of a hundred other sports anime shows like Prince of Tennis. OWARI NO SERAPH is even up there, and that show literally only has one redeeming character -- who isn't in most episodes. Hell, characters are invented out of thin air and people do dumb shit in Game of Thrones every other episode. Are you really going to say that SAO's weak point is a few serviceable plot blunders and side characters that didn't think through some obvious mistakes?
The ending probably irked a few of people because it was so sudden. However, that's really the magic of the series. It's a virtual world controlled by a nutty, manipulative scientist-god whose purposes are unknown. That's the driving mystery behind every episode. Why are they even there? Why is the NPC planted in the guild as the final boss? Why is the psychologist AI disabled?
Without that underlying tension, the series doesn't take shape. The story is about human actors making intense decisions, and the elusive creator adds another layer to the conflict. It makes the story feel bigger than it is and every victory seem hollow. This in turn allows our main characters to keep driving forward.
Plus, they've already put in so many boss fights. I thought the defeat of the technically invincible guild leader was an awesome way to end, although it's obviously hedging a sequel.
I'm tired of typing, so I won't bore you with more examples. Although I really wish they had done much more with the sequels, I believe the original series ranks among the best-produced, best scripted, cleanest, most heartfelt Anime of all time. I look forward to your spirited replies.
| malleable | 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. Constitution isn't nearly as great a document as it's made out to be, especially in the modern day. Making it as hard as it is to amend is a spectacularly disastrous oversight by the Founding Fathers. +
+ The U.S. Constitution is an old document. At the time it was written, it made a lot of sense, and it was a large jump ahead for democracy, politics, and the human condition as a whole.
Unfortunately, failure to foresee that conditions in the future might warrant a radically different document means that the Constitution enshrines certain rights that make no sense in the modern day, and can indeed be harmful to the fabric of society, while ignoring others that are now far more relevant. The Constitution depends on there being nearly no nuance in the rights it affords, something that may have worked better in a simpler, less complex, and crucially, less populous nation.
The problem is compounded by the fact that making substantial changes to the document is difficult, if not to say nearly impossible in any but the best of circumstances.
Those combined factors mean that the U.S. may, slowly but surely, become backward compared to other countries with modern founding documents and laws. The solutions are apparent, and in some cases have been tested successfully in other countries, but the Constitution makes change insubstantial and insufficient if changes come at all.
[First Amendment as it relates to corporate personhood and lobbying.](http://www.npr.org/2014/07/28/335288388/when-did-companies-become-people-excavating-the-legal-evolution)
[Second Amendment as it relates to gun deaths in the U.S.](http://www.businessinsider.com/americas-gun-problem-explained-2013-4?op=1)
[Fourth Amendment as it relates to privacy, specifically digital privacy](http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/04/nsa_reforms_obama_s_playing_a_fourth_amendment_shell_game.html)
[Tenth Amendment as it relates to federalized health services.](http://www.businessinsider.com/best-healthcare-systems-in-the-world-2012-6?op=1)
Those are my favorite problematic Amendments.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I don't think people, banks, countries, etc. have a moral obligation to repay loans given to them with the expectation of profit to the lender if they are willing to accept the consequences. +
+ Banks provide loans for other entities with the expectation that they will profit from the interest on those loans. They are not lending the money as a favour or to help the other entity. Another important assumption is that it is in all parties' best interest for the lendee to keep paying the loans and the lender to not call the loan.
Therefore it is the bank's responsibility to assess and independently verify the lendee's situation to verify these assumptions. The degree of verification depends on the amount of money and other factors and may include viewing paystubs, audits and other due diligence, etc.
Based on the above factors and assumptions, the lender determines the interest rate, penalties for not paying, etc. and creates a contract. Once signed this is a business contract like any other.
If later on the lendee determines the "default" option in the contract is more favorable than continuing to pay, this is a perfectly reasonable business choice and would be no different than paying a contractor an early termination fee to get out of a contract with them.
All discussion of people/countries/businesses "screwing over" lenders etc. by not paying is just rhetoric to emotionally manipulate the lendees to pay, and has no logical or legal basis.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: There is no way in hell that humanity will make it to mars before 2050. +
+ How is this even possible? A self-sustaining vehicle such as the ISS can only last for 90 days without a resupply and it cost upwards of 100 billion dollars. With at least a 6 month timescale, we would need to design a self-sustainable craft that can supply a multi-person crew for 6 months, the stay on mars (which could be alleviated by periodic yet expensive resource drops from earth), and the 6+ month return trip back to earth. The vehicle would have to be something on the scale of the ISS if not greater and require technologies that have either not been developed or are in very early testing stages.
The EU, China, US, and maybe Japan are the only ones that could make somewhat of a contribution to this thing and as said from the things listed above, this would cost several hundred billions of dollars at the very least. There is absolutely no need to spend that much money on ANYTHING right now (with maybe the exception of the US military) and the impact on humanity would be much better served investing that money on education and science research (Which would be an optimistic scenario considering the underfunding of education and science in the present day).
I think planet colonization is the most essential thing to the continuity of the human race, but there is no incentive to do so and although the cultural impact would be immense, there's no benefit in dumping hundreds of billions of dollars for an expedition which would not really yield any tangible results.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Cigarette smoking should be a choice you're allowed to make without getting criticized. +
+ Aside from the aspects of smoking that affect others (smell, second hand smoking, etc.) cigarette smoking is a choice you should be allowed to make without being judged and criticized to all hell. Nowadays it seems like the media portrays smoking cigarettes as the worst thing you can possibly do and a lot of people look down on smoking and smokers. Sure it may take a few of the later years off your life but life is short to begin with and if you enjoy smoking why not? FYI: i don't even smoke cigs.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Fireworks are really boring, have little to do with celebrating independence, and are not worth the risk. +
+ A friend of mine held a Fourth of July event, and spent upwards of $500 on fireworks. I've seen professional displays, choreographed and set to music, which were pleasant enough, but after a few minutes, what else is there but more of the same?
But this private display, ergh. One, two, three tubes, willows, spinners, blah blah blah. An hour and a half of this? I got good and buzzed, and gave myself time to sober up, and still it went on and on and on. No pace, no art, just whistle, bang, pretty lights. And I drove home, and saw dozens of similar displays, all the same.
These people are just enjoying the bang and zoom and pretty lights, they are not commemorating anything. And I've seen all kinds of stories, people injured, even killed, by these things, which in my opinion offer little or no excitement or entertainment.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: reddit could be doing an excellent job with the way they handled letting go of Victoria +
+ Reddit execs have been taking a bit image hit over the last few days. The issues are numerous but it seems like the catalyst for the blackout was the way they let go of Victoria without involving the reddit community or communicating with them, and seemingly having no plan of action on how to fill the gap in her responsibilities.
I believe that perfectly acceptable reasons could have caused this course of action and to not accept that possibility and start a blackout and/or reddit exodus is irrational.
For example - a few years ago my company fired a VP quickly without having a real good plan on how to bridge the gap before we found a replacement. This individual had referred to another manager(semi-openly gay) as "the faggot" in a small meeting. We simply could not tolerate that behavior so we fired him the next day. It wasn't what was best for our bottom line, but it was best for the environment and culture that our company believes in. We didn't feel it was in the best interest of telling the whole company the reasoning for termination and several on that team were very upset by the clearly abrupt and unplanned separation - for several people their impression was "management doesn't have their shit together".
I could imagine several scenarios where Victoria should be terminated quickly and it would not be appropriate to give a reason publicly. I would even say that reddit has been incredibly professional by continuing to remain silent on her termination even when facing the vastly damaging public backlash. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: (Financial) technical analysis is like a pseudoscience. Finding "Bulls", "Bears", and other sentiments in a market is no more accurate than reading Tarot cards. +
+ CMV!
I know that there are some instances where the only way to analyze the performance of some asset (e.g. commodities, FX currencies, futures) is by looking for trends and predicting the future prices, since there aren't any financial statements to perform fundamental analysis on. But to my knowledge technical analysis doesn't work. I can't think of any instances of long-term superior performance by people who use charts as a basis for decision making.
I know that George Soros bet against the British Pound in the early 1990s and became fabulously wealthy doing so. But I view that as trading on the news, not an effective application of technical analysis.
I'm not saying that fundamental analysis is necessarily better or worse than technical analysis, I'm just arguing that there is no scientific basis for technical analysis. I'm also arguing that recognizing trends and patterns in the data is guesswork, and that you can see whatever you want to see, whether it's a "bull" or "bear" or "reversal" or "peak" or anything else.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: You cannot object to a mosque being built unless you're also prepared to protest the building of any other place of worship. Anything else is discrimination. +
+ This has become something of an issue in my home country of the UK where far-right groups have often targeted the building of mosques as a point of contention, even calling for bans. However I take issue with this.
Firstly, under the provisions of UK building law, anyone or any group is free to buy land, to submit planning permissions and to them build any building permitted by the provisions of the planning agreement on said land. Muslims are not and cannot be discriminated against in this regard. My local mosque was built by community donations, raising almost £2m almost entirely of their own doing, before quite legally submitting a planning application, getting the plans approved and then building the mosque (using local builders and trades actually). This would be no different in my eyes to the building of a synagogue, church, gurdwara or any other place of worship.
Secondly, the actual dedicated building of a completely dedicated mosque building is more an exception than a rule, especially in smaller Muslim communities. Certainly for my own town, there exists probably only one actual brand-new mosque (the one I mention above). Others are in previously existing buildings.
I am aware that there are issues to do with noise, people parking and blocking local streets/blocking resident access, but this is something which is typically taken into consideration at the planning permission stage. The way it works, there is usually a consultation period where civil planning experts consider issues such as these, and any person or group who feels the need to do so can raise an objection to the council for consideration. This goes for ANY building within a council's area, not just places of worship.
It must also be said that the noise and parking issues are also going to be an issue with any place of worship. I live in an area where the main church for that area is on a main residential road, and come any activity held at that church sees the main road itself, as well as a nearby tiny carpark, blocked with cars. I've also lived near a church which, come any major event, used to ring the bells and have large amounts of people there. The noise was very loud.
The only objection I can see seems to amount to a form of discrimination where simply because it is a mosque being built, people object. There seems to be no logical reason for their objections other than 'because Islam'.
So, can anyone 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 result of the Supreme Court case on gay marriage is the next step in the "sexual revolution" and might have certain negative implication on society. +
+ First of all, I want to first express how happy I am with this subreddit. It has always been a hub for civilized discussion on complicated and difficult topics. I have never witnessed uncivilized discussion on here before and I'm glad to be a part of the community. Good job, Reddit!
With that said, if you are unfamiliar with the sexual revolution I am referring to, this is a time beginning in the 1960s where people experienced an "urge to 'find oneself'" ([Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_revolution)). During this time, lots of previously taboo'd sexually related acts, ideals, etc entered into society and have more recently, at the end of the 20th century have thoroughly integrated themselves into it. This involves a large variety of things including but not limited to: proliferation and normalization of pornography, sex before marriage, acceptance of sexually explicit movie/television material, contraceptions, and the LGBT movement.
For example, pornography, which was formerly unheard of in public conversation is now often not only discussed, but glorified and upheld as a great thing. This is just one example of what I am talking about. *I am not arguing the moralities of pornography however.*
**My argument: **The recent decision by the Supreme Court to rule in favor of gay marriage is simply the next step in the sexual revolution and essentially negates some of the arguments against the next step after this; I am specifically referring to incestuous relationships, and other ways of "loving" someone. However, I will mainly refer to incest for the sake of a shorter discussion.
* One of the main arguments against gay marriage is that it is "unnatural". One could also argue that incest is unnatural, but even more broadly, any sexual relationship outside of marriage between a man and woman can be argued effectively as unnatural.
* Gay marriage activists very frequently champion progressive thinking and non-discrimination as basis for legalizing gay marriage. The term progressive is very open for interpretation, but eliminating discrimination is very straight forward. If someone named Cercei loves her brother named Jamie, should it be allowed? Should they be allowed to marry and procreate? Incestuous relationships very often breed deformities and retardations in children; should these children be forced to have an incomplete, handicapped life on the basis of equality. *For more information on incest please view this very informative [documentary](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068473/).*
* Another argument against gay marriage has frequently been that it further inhibits the ability for the human race to procreate. This is fairly obvious as to why people say this: a man and a man cannot bear a child and vice versa. However, the same argument stands for incest; in fact, it is worse. Incestuous relationships don't further the human species, but rather they turn it backwards by corrupting genes and eliminating diversity. Also, as previously stated, incest often results in retardation in the resulting child.
With gay marriage legalized officially, these arguments become unsubstantial and hypocritical to argue with against incest.
**In conclusion, my fear is that the sexual revolution has the potential to continue to progress and eventually today's taboos will become everyday occurrences all on the basis of equality and non-discrimination.** This has the potential to effect humans on not only a genetic level by potentially allowing incest to corrupt human genetic material and cause genetic disorders, but also on a societal level where humans become more concerned with catering to someones sexual identity/preference rather than the actual person inside. I believe this could be devastating to humans. I don't claim to know what would happen, but it isn't too difficult to come up with a worst-case scenario of what society could become when the main focus of peoples interactions is politically correctness, being non-offensive, and catering to every form of person on a sexual basis.
Please feel free to ask questions and I will be happy to clarify.
CMV,
Tresky
*Disclaimer: I am in no way attempting to say that gay marriage in and of itself is causing the downfall of humanity and am not attempting to demonize or put-down members of the LGBT community. I am merely making a case of a path that humanity could potentially be (and I now believe is) on that leads to a corrupt and evil society.*
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: A carbon tax and a wealth tax would be more rational than income, payroll, capital gains and sales taxes +
+ Let's assume that we will never reach consensus on the reality of AGW. We do know, however, that oil and coal are non-renewable resources. It is therefore wise to preserve them for our children. Fossil fuels are also direct pollutants by way of ocean acidification and particulate matter.
A carbon tax would encourage conservation of a limited resource, and discourage pollution. Just in case AGW is real, we would also have hedged our bets there.
A wealth tax is equally virtuous because it discourages the pooling of money and encourages it to be pumped through the economy. It whittles away at inheritance and encourages investment (you need your investments to "outrun" the wealth tax).
Conversely, income, payroll, capital gains and sales taxes all act as brakes on the economy. All of them "punish" things we want people to do: make money, get paid, invest money and buy things.
For example, in the economy I describe, a small time musician would see virtually no taxes except those embedded in the fossil-fuel-based products that she buys. She would pay no income tax or sales tax. Once she went on tour and started using significant amounts of electricity on lights and sound, the event organizers would have to build those costs into the ticket prices. This means that the tour might be a bit smaller and a bit less coal might be burned. This might save the life of an asthmatic or old person.[1]
If she became a ballionaire, then she could "give back" to the community through the wealth tax. This seems a lot more sane than taxing her every which way from day 1.
Where is the flaw in my logic?
[1] http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2014/air-pollution/en/
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Calling rock/metal real music - but not Rap - is an ignorant biased white-centric viewpoint. +
+ 1 - There's nothing wrong with preferring one genre over another. The problem is when people say one is a respectable form of music but the other isn't.
2 - I said ethnocentric and not racist. I'm not saying they dislike black people. Rather that their closed minded culturally.
I think both genres are legitimate music. Both proved that music doesn't always have to be harmoic and smooth. And it's hypocritical to say white-noise is music and black-noise isn't. It's hypocritical to get offended whenever an old-timer or critic says Slayer isn't real music, and then make fun of a rapper like Lil Wayne because he comes from a different culture and makes different music as well.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Female Nintendo characters have recently started to be role models instead of sexist caricatures. +
+ Back in the day, the only thing Princess Peach did was get kidnapped by King Bowser. For the purposes of the story and the limited resources available to the developers, saving the princess was the main goal. It made sense. But as time went on we get to see Nintendo princesses and women kick serious ass. Samus, Zelda (and Sheik!) and even Princess Peach when she's not getting kidnapped.
We see women characters in Nintendo games get treated as equals in games like Mario Kart, Mario Party/sports games and even Smash Bros. Princess Peach is one of the best characters in Sm4sh if you ask me. And while Nintendo has some progress to make (Super Princess Peach was an embarrassment), games like Super Mario 3D world (where Peach AND Rosalina are playable) show that they're willing to make the women the star of the show too.
Even in the Zelda series, Princess Zelda isn't a character that just gets kidnapped. Twilight Princess shows us that she's the strong and powerful ruler of Hyrule. She was willing to stand up to Zant and Gannon, with a sword in her hand. Even in Ocarina of Time (spoilers ahead, lol) she is running around helping out Link as Sheik. In Wind Waker she's a kick-ass, take no prisoners kind of pirate.
I know that the history of "your princess is in another castle" type stories are problematic but we've seen Nintendo's female characters grow and mature in a way that few other female video game characters have. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: even though I'm a straight white male, I'm not oppressing anyone by being professionally successful and I don't owe less "privileged" ethnicities/genders/sexual orientations anything because of the way I was born +
+ First of all, I'm no racist or sexist and I love everyone. I understand that not everyone has the same chances for success. I just don't think I should be forced to feel guilty if I'm successful if I earn what everything. Just being a white male shouldn't automatically make victories the same as oppressing others. In fact, I feel like people that succeed in their careers are the biggest taxpayers, creators, innovators, and contributors to society, regardless of their skin color or sex. I very fully believe in giving back, but I don't think white men have any more or less of that obligation than women or minorities, and I don't think anybody is evil for achieving or for being rich or powerful so long as they are ethical. I'm very open to reevaluating all of this so please CMV
TLDR: succeeding is different than oppressing others
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Countries besides USA (and a small select otheres) have had a long, rich history of a certain ethnic group. I think it's okay for these countries to severely restrict immigration to preserve their respective nations. +
+ There's been so much uproar over Sweden and the Netherlands and other countries that have been dealing with immigration issues. I would like to move to another country in the future so I understand wanting to move to a country in Europe, although I am not seeking asylum from a war torn homeland. At any rate, these countries have a history of an ethnic population and when one thinks of Sweden, there's a certain image just as when one thinks of what and who constitutes any specific country. I would hate to have Sweden be overrun by rampant immigration from any country (my problem is not with the Muslim population specifically/Middle eastern immigration but the idea of rampant immigration in general) just as I would hate for any other country, let's say Bangladesh, to be overrun with let's say, British immigration.
| 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 having a preference against promiscuous people is as valid as having a height or weight preference nor does it constitute "slut-shaming". +
+ I don't know if it is skewed on Reddit or not, but anytime I see a comment about not being attracted to a "slut" the poster gets railed for it. I also don't think it is strictly the language being used. Regardless of the label, not wanting your partner to have been with 5+ people is 100% defensible. If we, as a society, can tell people that being tall is attractive or that being fat is unattractive, we can tell being that sleeping around is unattractive.
Another logically invalid argument is that the person with the preference, must not be promiscuous themselves. I think this is as non-nonsensical as telling a man he can only be attracted to men, otherwise he's hypocritical. My choice in partner is independent of my partner's choice in me, we can like different things. Many physically fit men are "chubby-chasers" and man slutty men are virginal chasers.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Handwriting/Cursive is an important skill that should be taught throughout a minor's schooling. +
+ I spend my summer as a representative of the college I attend and interact regularly with kids between the ages of 10 and 18. In these interactions, I have noticed that - regardless of age and gender, these kids are often unable to write in cursive and sometimes even their print Handwriting is hardly legible.
Now, I realize that we live in the digital age and typing is king (I think touch typing should also be taught), but I believe that learning handwriting from an early age (and throughout even high school) has several benefits including...
1) Improved sense of symmetry and order
2) Improved appreciation for art of different time periods
3) Larger/more diverse vocabulary
4) Prepares users for the business world where signatures and other handwritten items are still fairly common
Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I really think good Handwriting is useful even in the digital age.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The government should NOT be able to force businesses to serve customers/cater events the business does not want to serve/cater. +
+ So neither side of this debate feels morally right for me to be on, but I think logically, I'd have to support the conservative side of the argument.
All modern economic transactions involving physical items (no stocks, capital, etc.) can be simplified down to a trade of money for labor. Yes, you can buy an item off the shelf at someplace like Target, but what you're really buying is the labor involved in making that item, the item being the end result of it. In other words, it is impossible to buy a physical item that is not shaped and made valuable by labor. In this sense, what you do when you walk to a pizzaria and buy a pizza is *directly* contract the labor of the pizza maker in exchange for money (as opposed to indirect contracting through a store, e.g. DiGornios). Because of this, businesses should have the right to refuse to labor for any particular individual, *for any reason*. If this is NOT the case, and some outside authority can force a person to preform labor they don't wish to preform, that could be seen as a type of slavery (I hate to use the term), because an outside authority is forcing a person, under the threat of force, to labor, even when that person doesn't want to.
So prove me wrong everyone, help me come to better formulate and understand my own ideas! That's what this sub is about, after all.
Please excuse the weird grammar and sentence structure, I just woke up | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: We should change from using Base 10 to using Base 12 +
+ Currently we use Base 10 which as we all know goes 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 and then rolls over 10 and the process repeated. There is an alternative to this called Base 12 would similarly go 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 X E with X=Ten and E=11 and then would roll over to 10=12, that really isn't terribly different to Base 12 but has some advantages. First fractions become simpler. Under Base 10 1, 2, and 5 are all multiples of 10, but under base 12 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 are all multiples of 10. This makes dividing much easier than in Base 10. Secondly in Base 12 multiplication is much easier to remember. In base 10 the multiples of 4 are 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24; but in Base 12 the pattern is 4, 8, 10, 14, 18, 20. The ones place repeats every three numbers in a regular patter unlike in base 10. Lastly we do use twelve as the base for a lot of things in are lives. For example a day has 24 hours, an hour has 60 minutes, and a minute has 60 seconds. All of those numbers are multiples of 12. If you don't use metric then you know that there are 12 inches in a foot.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: "Objectivism" is the most optimal way to go through life. +
+ I have been a liberal (using the binary American political scale for simplicity) for my entire adult life. I have advocated for the rights of homosexuals, women, and other groups; however, I do not feel like this stance has benefited me in the slightest. In fact, given my regional location (the South or Southeast United States) it has probably hurt me personally more than anything.
I have not read Ayn Rand, nor do I ever intend to, as I consider her philosophy to be frankly immoral. Moral people should look out for their fellow humans.
However, I believe that I would be better served by pursuing my own rational self-interest rather than spending even an ounce of my resources on the betterment of others who will just attribute my good deed to their god anyway most likely. Donating to charity might prevent a child from dying from cancer, but I am not a child and I don't have cancer, so that extra dollar from my pocket is better spent being used as tax on my latest board game purchase. This could be extended to other people that I consider friends, but I think it is a better use of my resources for me to aid my own comfort than to save a stranger's life.
Things that will not change my view:
* "You aren't really describing objectivism! It really is a more nuanced..."
I don't care. I am not here to argue the definition of objectivism.
* "My wife/child/other family member was saved by..."
Are you related to me? Probably not as I have never had these sorts of problems, so I don't care. It is good that your family member didn't die, but that has nothing to do with me.
* "What if you needed help?"
I probably wouldn't get it unless I was able to provide it for myself.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: We should dramatically decrease the maximum work hours while eliminating minimum salary, both to increase efficiency and to achieve full employment +
+ The logic goes like this: If there's unemployment of any kind, then the demand for jobs is *higher* than the offer for jobs.
Consequently, if the maximum work hours were decreased in those sectors that show unemployment, then there would be a shortage of employees, companies would have to *compete* with each other to get enough employees, and thus unemployment would become 0 in every sector of the economy and minimum salary would be unnecessary, as companies are willing to pay much more than that to get some really needed employees.
And of course, this would also mean a drastic decrease in the amount of time that people have to work, what would greatly increase the overall wellbeing of society (and to an increase in the efficiency of work hours, since companies now wouldn't be able to hire someone for little money to do tasks that a cheap machine could do, and thus there would be an economical "laissez faire" incentive for them to make jobs more efficient).
The only negative effect would be a decrease in the competitivity of the economy (what is bad but not catastrophic) due to decreased company profits as they'll now have to treat their employees like valuable, limited assets instead of disposable sources of labor (which is the case for unqualified jobs that anyone can do).
I believe that the increase in wages would be dramatic enough that people would be able to work less and earn the same without any dramatic effects in the economy.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: If you cheat on your SO, and he/she never finds out about it and your behaviour doesn't change, there is no harm done. +
+ Let me preface this by saying I'm currently single but I have cheated on an earlier relationship.
Here's my view: If I can 100% ensure that my SO will never ever find out I cheated, and my behaviour doesn't change, and I do not hurt the person I cheat with, there is literally and factually no harm done and it's therefore ethically acceptable. I know there are people who find out, and I know there are people who change (= fall in love for example), but those are not the scenarios I wanna discuss.
One example: In an earlier relationship, I cheated on my SO with a girl I liked. I loved my girlfriend and I wouldn't want to ever hurt her, but I could 100% assure that she would never found out and for me it was just sex. After that, we were just as happy, she does not know 'til this day and we were just as happy until we split for something unrelated. So, if you assign it a value, my girlfriend was happiness(+-0), the other girl was happy(+2) and I was happy(+5), which gives you a clear net plus in happiness.
| 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 Internet has become a place where free speech is severely damaged. +
+ So as I have searched the internet for places where I can have sensible political or topical discussion, and have been grossly disappointed. Places like imgur, reddit, 4chan, news media, etc., have all become ultra politically biased places where I am drowned in hate whenever I post my opinion. These places seem to have a dreadful "hivemind" mentality. Even if its really a basic thing, like my thoughts on next years elections. I feel as though I cant find a place that is not a complete hate/ circle jerk (just look at the disaster of tumblr for all real discussion).
I identify with the Republican party. OK, simply my opinion. But whenever I want to state my opinion, I am often shot down by the masses. And, I guess I could add in the aspect of government surveillance hurting privacy also, and limiting what I wish (feel safe) to discuss online (politics, guns, etc.).
Whenever I challenge groups of my own belief (because moderacy is good right?) I also am ostracized.
I feel as though the internet is no longer a place for reasonable discussion. 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: I Think Men are a Detriment to Societal Cohesion +
+ For whatever reason men commit about 80-90% of crimes in every society that they exist in. The numbers get a little more equitable when we account for property crimes where men only outnumber women 2:1. However, white collar crimes, blue collar crimes, violent crimes, sexual crimes, etc. are so vastly male-centric that the numbers increase that much. They are both the overwhelming amount of perpetrators and victimized, though women are victimized significantly, as you'd expect, in intimate crimes and sex-related offenses.
Aside from criminality, men are also more likely to be impulsive and aggressive which is likely to eliminate cohesion and cause undue caution due to the erratic, unpredictably violent and harmful action of this sub-group.
Why does this persist? Why are men so much more criminal and violent? Does this have a tangibly negative effect on society?
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Greece deserves all the shit they have coming. They have been living above their paygrade for years, dodging taxes and avoiding all responsibility for their country +
+ Let's see if i do this right, first time posting here:
I just cant summon up any sympathy for the Greeks at this point.
Despite Europeans trying to give them billions to fix their economy, they have done nothing whatsoever. They refuse to pay taxes, they blame Europe for their own fuckups and they are incredibly entitled and somehow expect everyone else to solve their problems for them.
I know this is not a progressive or productive mindset, and i know it won't lead to anything good. But i just don't get why i should have the slightest shred of sympathy for the Greeks.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Parents are not entitled to unconditional respect from their children just by virtue of being their parents. +
+ First off, I am not a parent. Maybe that disqualifies me from making any comments about this matter in the first place. Either way, I am a fairly objective person and I can admit when I am wrong.
I do not buy into the whole argument of 'just because our parents brought us into the world, we owe them our lives.' Whether a child was brought into the world by choice or not, I don't think that being born should impose a debt of respect on the child.
Furthermore, I think that this respect needs to be earned. I define respect in this context as 'regard for another person's rational ability, trusting that they can admit when they are wrong and that their decisions are well-thought-out.'
This is why I think that giving the reason 'because I said so' is a total cop out. If the parent is not open to having a conversation about the reason for their actions, then I don't think they deserve the child's respect.
Don't get me wrong, I think it is crucial for a child to be told when they are wrong so that they don't grow up into narcissistic asshats. However, I think that they deserve a logical conversation with a parent until one side admits, of his own accord, that he is in the wrong.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:Religion overall is a negative force in the world and has been for the entirety of it's existance +
+ Sorry in advance, this sub must get a lot of posts like these. I've been studying religion for a while, and am going to university next year to carry on my studies, and the more I study religion, the more it seems to suck. Studying Sikhism, the rampant censorship, hate and murder from Emperor Jahangir and Aurangzeb of the muslim Mughal Empire against the Sikh people, the church's resistance to adopt condoms, and therefore aiding the spread of AIDS, especially in Africa. Bear in mind I've been brought up in a secular area of Britain and that may distort my view in the same way people who are brought up in ultra religious societies. I probably sound awfully pretentious and I apologise for that. Please either refine or 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:Patriotism is intrinsicly bad. +
+ I believe that it is bad for humans generally that we have patriotism. It leads not only to discrimination. (hello Mr Trump)
But also to economic and political difficulties and misstrust.
It prevents not only people from accepting everyone as their partner in human, but also causes hatred and sometimes war between nations or ethnic groups.
I dont mean that partriotism is worse than no patriotism, but that as a concept and as an element we experience all the time it it in itself bad for us.
(Intrinsic badness versus comparative badness)
Without patriotism we could form one great community and society. This is prevented by prejudice against others and arrogance about themselves, partiotism conveys.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Voting for "the lessor of two evils" is more important than voting your conscience. +
+ What's wrong with choosing the lessor of two evils? You do it every day. (Either get out of bed and work at a job you hate, or watch your family starve. Mets or Yankees. Coke or Pepsi.) Framing every choice as a binary choice between good and evil is naive and potentially dangerous.
How many liberals in Florida would like to take their vote for Ralph Nader in 2000 back? They voted their "conscience", and ended up helping to elect the worst President since Nixon. Maybe voting for Bernie Sanders this time helps put Donald Trump in office. Sometimes "the lessor of two evils" can mean preventing a whole lot more evil. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I'm a libertarian +
+ I view taxation as theft because if you refuse to pay, men with guns [ namely, cops] will kidnap you and lock you away. I oppose obamacare, social security, medicare, and medicaid as immoral because theyre coercive. I belive you own your body and, therefore, can put whatever you want in it. If you own your body, you own your labor. So you have the right to rent your labor to any employer at any price. Therefore, we should abolish the minimum wage. Lastly, i think government should only have excise taxes, and it's only role should be to provide a court system, and small military.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: People shouldn't be proud of America +
+ America has accomplished nothing in its history that makes it worth of such widespread pride and love by its people (particularly this time of the year). Every event that Americans glorify either has a disgusting background to it or is grossly misread by most people. These are some examples:
-The American Revolution: It did involve great thinkers and advancement of political philosophy, but the French did it better, and American Revolution was an overreaction to British enforcement of fair taxes that paid for the 7 Years War to protect Americans.
-Industrial revolution: Granted high developments in technology and economic prowess were built on slavery, child labor, discrimination against immigrants, poverty and greedy, amoral robber barons and corrupt politicians.
Civil War: The fact that it needed to happen and that a flag that represents those who fought to defend slavery is still being flown and celebrated is disappointing.
World War 2: Significant military power, certainly helped turn the tide, still killed 300,000 civilians with atomic weapons and put Asian Americans in camps (with little reparation that came way too late).
Of course there are worse countries in the world, but current day America is a wreck. Frequent mass shootings that don't really happen in other developed countries, continued high race tensions, religious fundamentalism in the South and a poor education system. So tell me CMV, is there any reason to celebrate or be proud of my country?
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Windows 8 isn't nearly as bad as a lot of people say. +
+ A lot of people like to rag on Windows 8 and say that seven was way better. And [sales figures](http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10&qpcustomd=0) seem to reflect that ragging. However I use it as my day to day operating system and I don't really see what's wrong with it. The main complaint seems to be the start screen replacing the start menu. And while the start screen UI could be better, I prefer it to the start menu and if you really hate it you can install something like classic shell to bring back to the start menu.
To change my view here you should tell me if there's something worse than the start screen in Windows 8 that makes it that bad. Or if the start screen really is that bad.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I am over 10 years out of college and have a great career. I have a hard time accepting that a driven, intelligent person would fail in finding success. +
+ This is not meant to be a troll post, but an earnest attempt to determine if my views are incorrect or unfair. I have two minds when it comes to the fact that so many people have trouble finding a job that pays a living wage and is something they enjoy. On one hand I am very sympathetic and feel that I have been lucky in life to get to where I am. On the other hand I got to where I am through taking calculated risks and then stacking the deck in my favor. There was definitely luck involved, but not all the risks I took paid out and I had to move on to something else. I feel like too many people aren't taking matters into their own hands regarding their own success, like I feel I did, and I simultaneously feel proud and callous in that belief. I am unsure which one is more correct.
Example #1
I have been on the recruiting side of multiple companies (tech sector) and have been blown away by the low quality/behavior of applicants. These are the people that get through the resume filter and are invited on site. Now I never test applicants on specific details of systems, because in practice you look those up as needed on the job. I asked about what they have done in the past or what parts of their training they were most familiar with and tested their understanding of it. I have had people that came into interviews and tried to act like they were running the show, people who refused to answer questions I asked, and people not familiar with the most basic parts of what they said they were experts in. I know this is anecdotal, but the fact that it was so difficult to find people that were remotely qualified in fields they had spent years studying completely confused me. The bar for applicants was not high in most cases my team was very motivated to find someone to hire. I could not understand why people seemed to put in so little effort to sell themselves.
Example #2
I once worked for many years at a company that was funded off of venture capital around '08, where all investors closed up shop. There was a lot of pressure on the company and there were multiple mass layoffs that cut staff to the bone and then even further. I survived all of them, and eventually resigned because I correctly predicted the company would fold in a month. I was fully aware of the risk of me losing my job and I countered that by simply being very useful. This was a win-win scenario, because I was an enthusiastic employee and was happy to improve my skills through working on any existing part of the system or try to develop new ones. Because of this I was more valuable than most of the other employees and had a ton of work/learning experiences I could talk about with recruiters. Anyone on the team that was remotely difficult to deal with got cut, and I saw their downfall much earlier than it happened. Now if everyone is being the star employee it would be a different but I have never found a group where that is the case. For any individual on a team, you don't have to work more hours than someone else to be more valuable than them; you just need to be more friendly, cooperative, and effective. In my experience that just requires effort and not any special creativity.
Example #3
I started off with a lot of bad habits that inhibited my professional development. I am very stubborn, so I tend to go down the wrong path for quite a while before I accept that it is wrong. Despite that, I always honestly evaluated why other people were more effective employees/professionals than me. In those cases, I would take a step back, forget my ego, and ask myself what they were doing that I was not. I'd talk to close friends about this to analyze my conclusions and when I figured out what they were doing better I would work incorporate that into myself. It seemed much easier to mimic the habits of successful people rather than come up with the behaviors on my own. The fact that I don't see a lot of people doing this completely baffles me.
My experience has been limited to the tech sector but I don't see why this wouldn't generalize to other fields. Now there are certainly fields where the supply of people overtakes the demand, but I were in that position I would give it my best shot and if it didn't work out I'd move on to something else. Please tell me if I'm wrong.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Bernie Sanders is too old to be president +
+ Bernie Sanders is clearly an intelligent man with a lot of interesting views, many of which I support. I think him getting some traction in the election is a great way to draw attention to those ideas. But right now I feel I cannot truly support him for actually being elected president because of his age.
Bernie Sanders will be 75 when the next president of the USA is elected. If elected, he would be 79 at the end of his first term, and if re-elected would be 83 at the end of his second term. The oldest president in US history was Ronald Reagan, elected at 69 years old. And he ran into health trouble later in his presidency.
The man appears to be in good health now, but health can decline quite precipitously at that age. A president dying is a trying thing for the country, but I think a president in ever-declining health would be worse.
In addition, POTUS is an incredibly demanding job. I am quite skeptical that someone that age can really keep up with the rigors of such a job, even if they manage to stay in otherwise good health.
I currently feel these concerns are strong enough that they outweigh any support I have for his views. Care to change my mind?
(FWIW, I have some concerns about Hillary Clinton's age, too).
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Users on reddit have been significantly overreacting to the recent drama revolving around Victoria and the admins. +
+ While I will admit I, I assume like many other users on the site, don't know all the details of the recent drama on reddit I still believe users are overreacting.
If anything I feel like blacking out all of these different subreddits is counterproductive, and may be reddit's downfall, as users may grow tired of not getting content and move on. I've even seen posts that go as far as to call Ellen Pao a whore and a piece of shit, which to bring up another point, proves that reddit does have a bullying problem and maybe banning subreddits like r/fatpeoplehate was a good idea, or maybe reddit does not deserve to be totally uncensored.
Somebody please allow me to see the point of view of those doing what they are doing, 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:Holding Subreddits Hostage Is An Immature/Ineffective Way of Going About Protesting The Recent Events +
+ First off, let me say suspending /r/iAMA was reasonable, as it is very difficult for that subreddit to function without the woman they fired.
But freezing unrelated subreddits is a bit overboard. it feels like 50% or more of the subreddits I visit have been frozen. If anything, all this will do is bring light to how broken the moderation system on Reddit has, and how all it takes is 1 bad moderator to completely destroy a subreddit with millions of users.
Trying to get people to care through taking things away is unprofessional and ineffective. When I first heard of the layoff, I was initially upset. I didn't like how they got rid of someone so important. However, now with all these subreddits being blocked, I'm beginning to become more annoyed with the community itself than the Reddit owners. The overall actions taken by the community seem much more upsetting than getting rid of 1 employee.
**PS: Gilding people for good comments related to being against the layoff is counter-intuitive, you're giving them your money. If you're upset hit them where it hurts, stop buying Reddit gold** | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I find it very irresponsible of the LGBT community to create videos about being bullied and showing it around. +
+ I would like to apologize in advance if this has appeared in the subreddit before.
I am 100% for the LGBT community, and have several friends who are parr of it (who also got mad at me when I poorly attempted to explain this).
I sort of imagine this as being similar to that of slavery, imagine; a slave creates a documentary interviewing other slaves about how poorly they are treated, then show it in theatres where slavery is outlawed.
I find it irresponsible of them to ask anyone, let alone those who do nothing, to solve their problems for them.
I also consider it very rude of them to state that "If we are not part of the solution, we are part of the problem," not only does this demonstrate a serious lack of empathy for those who are not similar to them, it also shows that they believe they are entitled to their rights.
I'm not saying they're not entitled per se, I am saying that it seems like they think they should be allowed to just sit there and expect others to do it for them.
Like the women who completely deserved their rights in the first place, they should do their own work, and they should address the problem, not the neutral.
Watch *Iron Jawed Angels* for some inspiration.
Also, if it sounds like I'm being an asshole, I apologize, but this is what I think, and that's why I'm on 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 love being the bad guy everyone rips on: straight, white, middle class, religious, etc. I'm proud of what I am and I can show it off just as much as anyone else. +
+ We always hear about white supremacy, guns are bad, religion kills, rebel flags are bad, etc. I own guns, Catholic, have a sweet scary dog, got steely blue eyes, listen to country music, dip tobacco, have girls, you get the idea. I'm everyone's worst enemy. I'm the guy that divides cultures. I'm the guy to stop the change. I'm the old school guy to put my foot down.
So why do I get shit on while people get to go around parading the black power flag or rainbow whatever, or claim social justice at my expense? I didn't do it, so I should be able to fly my flag freely so to speak.
Basically I'm the stereotypical good ol boy to a tee and I don't see a damn thing wrong with that. 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: There is not a major difference between ISIS smashing artifacts and US banning the confederate flag +
+ First, I understand America did not ban the confederate flag, but that it has just been strongly discouraged. However, there are many who support the banning of the flag, and is about those whom I speak.
At the time of me writing this, the top article on CNN is called "erasing history" and is about how ISIS is yet again smashing artifacts in a city called palmyra. This is seen as a terrible atrocity. The reason they give for destroying these artifacts is that they represent idol worship and heathenism, and in fact some of the artifacts are themselves idols. The news outlets report on this with the mentality "But it is history. You can't just wipe out history because it doesn't agree with your ideals! This is the physical record of human culture and development!"
These same news outlets then turn around and support the banning of the flag. They say this is a symbol of a racist time, and a racist ideology, and must be removed and forgotten.
I don't really see the difference, outside of saying that ISIS is wrong (about idol worship being bad) and America is right (about racism being bad), which to me doesn't seem to be a fair distinction (I don't agree with your views, so I will hold you to a different standard of acting upon your views than I hold myself).
Link to cnn article: http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/02/world/isis-syrian-artifacts/index.html
TL; DR: America uses the same justification about Banning the confederate flag that ISIS uses to destroy ancient artifacts.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The US government owes reparations to descendants of slaves. +
+ I acknowledge straight away that sending checks to black people will not solve all modern the issues caused by the slave economy.
With that said, I do believe that the government owes the reparation. The fact of the matter is that slaves generated wealth for their owners. This wealth translates into capital that is still present in our economy.
A good amount of this capital went to the federal government. The government taxed some of the capital generated by slaves for owners.
Some other capital was produced directly for the government. Slaves built the Capitol building. **Slaves built the Treasury, and their capital rests in the Treasury.**
So we can think of reparations as back pay. The recipients are not here to accept it, so their most direct heirs are entitled to it.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: There's nothing wrong with "children on leashes." +
+ In fact, they are not leashes - they are harnesses.
Disneyland a couple years ago, my brothers, sister, cousin, dad and stepmom are walking past the dumbo ride, towards the Matterhorn.
My cousin is about 12. It's very, very crowded. You see a lot of people with young kids on "leashes" - harnesses. My dad makes a comment about people walking around with young children on harnesses, calling them leashes.
Meanwhile, my cousin kind of disappears, wanders off. We found her 30 seconds later - not a big deal. She's 12 and she's so spacy she wanders off.
I'm not saying a 12 year old should be wearing a harness - that'd be humiliating at her age, but when she was younger she used to do that too. Just vanish into a crowd in a matter of seconds.
Anyway, child harnesses are extremely different from dog leashes:
* They do not go around the child's neck.
* Parents do not hold leashes in their hand
* A harness is a strap tied around the parents' waist and a strap tied around the child's torso.
* You keep a dog on a leash to control it's behavior.
* You keep a child on a harness because Disneyland is extremely crowded and I could very easily see how you can turn around for 2 seconds and your 5 year old has wandered off, vanished, or been picked up by a child snatcher.
TL;DR: **Children on "leashes" which are actually harnesses is in no way tantamount to treating your children like animals.**
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Whoever is responsible for letting go Victoria from reddit (u/chooter) should be fired. +
+ CMV: Whoever is responsible for letting go Victoria from reddit (u/chooter) should be fired. If Ellen Pao, I will finally jump on the Pao should resign bandwagon. /u/chooter [1] has been a fantastic, active member of the reddit community for years. It is due to her personal efforts that we can have so many good, verified AMAs. One might say that her work has made it possible for reddit to grow into what it is today with all of the publicity we get, especially from the Obama AMA. Reddit has made some really stupid decisions over the almost five years I have been a member. This may well take the cake.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Practicing Catholics who know about the sexual abuse conspiracy are morally culpable for their continuing support. +
+ 1: The Roman Catholic church is institutionally guilty of evasion of justice for shielding rapists from trial all around the world. This behavior permits the further rape of children by not properly stopping it. The corruption goes all the way up to the top levels, including former pope Benedict, while he lived as Joseph Ratzinger, overseeing the movement of the fugitives.
2: Catholics who believe the theology of the church have alternative options. They could join the Anglican or Episcopal churches, which have, for all intents and purposes, identical doctrine, or make a brand new Catholic Church 2.0, identical to the old church except for the criminal bureaucracy.
3: Practicing Catholics donate 10% of their income to the church. Thus, they support the criminal organization monetarily.
Therefore, non-ignorant, practicing Catholics are morally culpable.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Bernie Sanders actually has a very realistic chance of winning the 2016 election. +
+ People seem to feel right now that Sanders is just not well-known enough to even have a chance at the presidency, and that it will stay that way. Everyone has mostly accepted that it will be Clinton vs. some ill-fated Republican, and that Sanders stands no chance.
I believe this is fully inaccurate, and anyone who believes this must have forgotten what age we are living in. This is the age of the internet, of instant communication, and of viral sensations. The amount of commercials a candidate is able to put themselves on does not determine their chance at winning. From what I've seen in just the past couple of months, Bernie Sanders has a very strong presence on the internet. He's old, but has the progressive ideals and values of most younger Americans. I think his name has been and will be spreading like wildfire over the next 16 months. And that's the other part people are forgetting...we still have a whopping 16 months till the election. That "Alex from Target" kid got popular in about a day for no reason whatsoever. Now think about someone who could potentially lead a nation - someone who many people are very passionate about supporting. Sanders will become just as much a household name as other prominent candidate.
**TL;DR - Through the help of the internet and a shitload of time, Bernie Sanders has very good chance at winning this thing.**
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Religion is the only thing in the Universe that objectively compels us to live for something other than ourselves +
+ *tl;dr* - **Nature dictates that the strong survive and the weak perish. Those with power will do and those without power will not. Human beings are naturally selfish and self serving creatures even through our acts of love and kindness. Due to these 2 facts, there is nothing in this world that compels us to live for another human being other than the threats of punishments and promises of rewards religion brings.**
I've broken my argument down into 4 parts and a final part to make it more digestible.
**Part I: The Law of the Land**
Right and wrong are man made concepts that apply only to humans. No other creature on earth follows rules of morality and ethics other than human beings. Nature dictates that the strong will survive and the weak will perish. Who tells a lion it is wrong to slaughter a gazelle for food when it can just as easily find plant life to eat? Imagine if cows and chickens could talk. Imagine one of them walking up to you and saying "Human, I have feelings and emotions. You capture and breed my kind as livestock and reduced our existence to the mere purpose of providing you food. We have hopes and dreams and aspirations. We do not want to die". You, like myself and like the lion would reply "HAHAHA I eat you because I have the power to and you do not have the power to stop me. I have been equipped to exert my dominance over you and will do so because such is the law of the land" and you would have every right to say so. If you have the power to do so, whatever it is, then it is in your right. Morals and ethics are immaterial, there are only absolutes (strength, speed, intelligence). This is the world we live in.
**Part II & III: The Nature of the Human Psyche & The Mysteries of Love**
I am not religious nor do I believe in a god but I am a visionary. I often thought of how to create a "perfect" society free of corruption and greed. No matter how much I contemplated on how such a society could be formed, I always arrived to the same conclusion: perfect societies are impossible because of human self interest. The most basic instinct in every living creature is survival. Every living creature on earth seeks to increase its own utility (content, happiness) through primary needs such as food, water and shelter but also through secondary needs such as entertainment, love, and companionship. Our entire existence is a goal to acquire those needs and serve our self interests. Greed will always exist because it is in our best self interest to be greedy. Corruption, cheating, stealing, lying - we do all of these things because they serve us. They work to achieve our desires and fulfill our self interests.
Right now you're probably saying something like "well then how do you explain the love we have for other people". Understanding "love" is a mystery unto itself that I can't fully explain but I can say that for the most part, it still functions (for the most part) under self interest. The love we show our close family and friends is a result of having familiarity (and I would even go far as to say a sense of belonging/ownership) to them. MY son, MY daughter, MY mom, MY dad, MY friend, my my my....We typically don't develop love for other people until they have a stake in OUR lives. Whether you find them funny or charming or simply and inherent love that comes with coming from the same bloodline, we appreciate them for the joy they bring into our lives. Next you might say what about the compassion and kindness we show strangers less fortunate then ourselves such as the homeless people downtown or starving children in Africa. To that I ask you can anyone truly appreciate the pain of others without ever experiencing it or having the ability to sympathize with it first themselves (empathy)? Without familiarity to one's suffering on at least a basic level, I believe it is impossible to truly care for that person's well being. Think about it, when you give a homeless man $10 to buy lunch that day, you're doing it because you understand the pain of going hungry. Had you never experienced hunger or at least been able to empathize with his feeling of hunger, you almost certainly would not care for that individual's problems because you simply cannot relate to them. It is not until you can put yourself (literally, psychologically, or emotionally) into someone's situation that you feel compelled to make a change in that persons life. So I will repeat myself when I say everything we do is dictated by self interest, even the love and kindness we show others. I cannot think of one thing human beings are known to do that does not give us some kind of emotional, psychological or literal satisfaction.
Whether they are from a different race, sex, religion, or culture, we fail to empathize with those who we view as different than ourselves and cannot place ourselves in their situation. Most genocides are typically predated by a period of propaganda used to besmirch the victimized group and dehumanize them from the people who commit the act. The German people didn't let the Nazi power commit their terrible acts because Germans are inherently evil, they did so because they were brainwashed not to identify with Jews as fellow human beings but as trash that needed to be exterminated. Everything we do is dictated by the self interest we hold in ourselves.
**Part IV: An Inconvenient truth**
And this brings us to the crux of my argument. When you live in a world where the only thing stopping you from doing as you please are your own capabilities and your main drive for living is serving your own self interests, what use is there to care for other living creatures? What compels us to help those less fortunate than ourselves other than the satisfaction we get from knowing we did something "good"? What is there in the world to compel us to live for someone other than oneself? You guessed it: religion. The only thing that objectively compels us to live for other human beings are the punishment and rewards religion brings. The only thing that truly compels humanity to care for others is knowing that if you don't, an infinitely more powerful being than yourself will punish you for it. There is no subjectivity here: either you do it and get rewarded or don't and pay. Even if you hate the person you are helping and cannot empathize with them whatsoever, you do it because it is in your own self interest. I have literally met people who have said they help others not because they want to necessarily but God wants them to. I will use Judaeo-Christianity as an example because it is the religion I am most familiar with. As awful as some of the messages in the Bible are, there are some good virtues in them as well such as helping those less fortunate and embracing your fellow man with love and kindness. The problem with this is most of us don't care about helping people we don't know and very very few of us would go out of our way to do so simply out of personal satisfaction. Without the threat and rewards religions bring, there is nothing compelling us to live for our fellow man.
**Part Finale: Common Counter Arguments:**
**But you even said yourself religion is motivated through self interest. Aren't there also scenarios where showing other human beings kindness serve our self interests and compel us to live for our fellow man?**
No. Showing kindess does not compel us to live for our fellow man because there is always the use of force. Remember the law of the land: Those with power will do and those without power will not. I cannot think of a single scenario where the use of kindness cannot be substituted for the use of force.
**Religion does not compel us to do anything because you don't have to believe in a god**
I'm not saying everyone has to believe in a god or that identifying with a religion automatically compels you to live for other people. I'm saying those who truly do believe in the existence of a heaven and hell and truly do hold the values of their religion are compelled and those who do not believe have nothing in this world to compel them to.
My rant is officially over. Now someone 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 the people wanting to raise the confederate flag in response to the recent church shootings and other tragedies are hypocrites +
+ In short, the reason i think they are being hypocritical is because they so adamantly want to raise the confederate flag but to me it is just an earlier version of something like the Isis flag and yet the people that want to raise the confederate flag are also the same people that are quick to judge Muslims because of the affiliation Isis has with their religion. Back when the confederacy was an actual thing they could easily be seen as a terrorist group in my eyes. They sought to overthrow an already established government through violence and other means that were not stated in the constitution as proper ways of making a political change and they wanted to oppress the blacks and make them their slaves.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Zach Jesse should not have been banned for life from MtG tournaments by Wizards of the Coast +
+ So I'm not sure how many of you guys are aware of the recent events in the MtG world but today a professional player, Zach Jesse, was banned presumably because of his past criminal history which includes a sexual assault guilty plea when he was 19. I'm not aware of the exact circumstances surrounding his offense.
What unsettles me about the ban is that it seems to have occurred because another player, Drew Levin, pointed out Jesse's criminal past with a Twitter post: ""Quick reminder: Zach Jesse is a literal rapist who got away with serving three months of an eight year plea deal." It should be noted that this is a very speculative and misleading statement, as the public is not aware of the details surrounding his plea.
Wizards of the Coast gave a short statement saying that the reasoning behind the ban was to ensure that players feel safe at events. Obviously a worthy endeavor, but I don't see how it really applies here. We are talking about large events at convention centers with thousands of people, security, etc. If, in the eyes of the law, he is not considered a threat to the public (i.e. not in jail) then how can Wizards see him as one?
And what's the point in attempting to rehabilitate criminals if they are to be forever shunned from participating even in large public events? It's not like the guy is applying for a teaching job at an elementary school or something. They even banned him from online play.
Lastly, I do not think Wizards should have taken this action based on a Twitter witch-hunt that was started by another player. If they want to have a universal no criminal record policy at all of their events, then maybe it would be justified. But to selectively ban one person because he was villified on a social media site is pretty unreasonable, IMO.
I want to hear people's thoughts on this because it seems like the r/magictcg community is vehemently opposed to the ban. I'd like to hear some outside opinion's. The SRS crowd seems to support the ban, calling r/magictcg a bunch of rape apologists, etc, but then again the SRS crowd is not very logical or reasonable. So I'd like to hear what you all think. CMV,
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: It's irresponsible to have more than two children. +
+ Regardless of your personal situation, whether rich, poor or in the middle, I feel it's irresponsible, on a global level, to have more than two children. With the world's population at 7 billion and growing, the agriculture industry is struggling to keep up, the world's oceans are being depleted of fish and other sea creatures at an alarming rate, humans are encroaching on the little remaining natural habitats of a number of endangered species... It seems to me that having more than two children would be irresponsible. 3 children and up equals more children than parents and therefore is contributing to population growth. 2 children and under, per couple, would lead to a slightly declining population, as not all children will choose to reproduce, either by choice, or some will not live long enough to make it to reproducing age. And I think that would be a great thing for the world for a few generations. Level the population out and get it to a more manageable level. CMV. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: It's better to have Reddit admins which evenhandedly censors bullying, than ones that don't censor anything. +
+ This is a direct response to the banning of /r/fatpeoplehate and the other subreddits.
Subreddits whose whole purpose is to promote hatred based on appearance, race, sex, gender, etc., are not important to free speech. Especially if they "leak" by either brigading other areas of the internet or Reddit, or if they cause harm to people by posting personal information without their permission.
This kind of behavior is often defended under "free speech." But it's not really conducive to having a level-headed kind of discussion. It prevents the freedom of other, more meaningful, kinds of speech. It's technically free expression, but allowing it to exist does more to harm free expression than support it. A non-internet analogy is like somebody going to a debate and blowing an air-horn the whole time. Technically, what they're doing is expressing themself, but doing so in an obnoxious, destructive way which prevents others from expressing themselves.
To this end, I would be happier if Reddit admins ended all communities that act like this (include /coontown and /SRS) than just have complete laissez faire modding.
CMV
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: As a straight male I should be allowed to frequent gay bars. +
+ I'll try to keep my thoughts as simple as possible.
Where I live there are only two bars with in walking distance. One of the bars is by all accounts unpleasant. They have sketchy clientele, high prices, bad food, and terrible service. My girlfriend feels uncomfortable there because of the behavior of the patrons and the employees who do nothing to stop it.
The other bar is a gay bar. It's cleaner, has better service, better drink deals and is much more women friendly (which my girlfriend appreciates). Now I had regularly gone to this bar in the past by myself, usually to just grab a drink after work, watch a wizards game (I don't have cable so I go to bars for my sports) then leave. This past tuesday I brought my girlfriend there for the first time. After about an hour the waiter asked us to leave. He told us it was 'gay safe' and a 'gay space', that they didn't want us taking over there space and that we were making some patrons uncomfortable. So we paid and left, trying to not make a scene or cause any problems.
Now I've had a couple days to think about this and as right now would be a time that I would have stopped in for a beer, I'm a little pissed.
I feel like I've been discriminated against because of my sexuality which is something that the Gay community has fought to stop. I've always been supportive of the LGBT community, and I don't want to make a straw-man argument, but I can't not see hypocrisy in this. I don't understand how my issue is different then the bakery who refused to bake the cake for the homosexual couple. Them asking me to find another bar is no different then a bigot telling a homosexual couple to find another bakery. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Personal use vehicles (except with handicapped plates) should be banned from city centers +
+ Let's face it. Nobody likes driving in the city. Some people have chosen to arrange their lives in such a way that it's necessary, but overall, it's a miserable experience for everyone involved. By forcing this change, everyone's life would ultimately be improved. I should clarify I mean personal use *motorized* vehicles. Bicycles are fine. Commercial vehicles such as buses, taxis, and delivery trucks obviously need to get into and out of the city.
1. The budget for road repairs would be greatly reduced, as would the need for traffic police, and meter readers.
2. The money saved from the above could be used to expand and improve public transit.
3. Parking could be moved from expensive downtown real estate to the cheaper fringes of the city (where drivers could park and take public transit downtown).
4. Pollution would be greatly reduced.
5. Traffic would be greatly reduced. Instead of becoming increasingly concentrated as everyone approaches downtown, it would remain dispersed in the suburbs since there would be more spread out points around the city where people pick up public transit.
6. The city would be much safer for bicycles and pedestrians.
7. The real estate freed up from parking could be given over to other uses, lowering rents in desirable areas for everyone.
8. Emergency services would have a much faster response time due to less traffic in the city.
I'm sure there's even more benefits. I can't think of any downsides except that it would annoy some people who currently drive because they would have to change.
| 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 should leave NATO +
+ Note: my argument is not that NATO is bad as a whole, simply that it does not help the USA, the largest financier of the organization.
NATO was important when the USSR existed. NATO enabled the USA to minimize the influence of communism in a war torn Europe that was still getting back on its feet after two world wars. It also provided allies to the USA vs. an equally matched superpower. However, although NATO today provides many benefits to Europe, these benefits are not reciprocated to the USA. The USA funds the majority of NATO, both in terms of the military costs and the costs to run the organization as a whole.
source: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm
Today, NATO acts as a funnel of money and resources to Europe from the USA with no clear benefits for the USA. Countries in Europe are easily able to afford adequate defenses for themselves, but they choose not to because they know that the USA will handle all their defense for them. Although this is good for Europe, it forces America to maintain high levels of spending for the military and European bases. If the USA pulled out of NATO tomorrow, Russia would not immediately take over all of Europe. Instead, European countries would simply increase their own military funding to an adequate level to defend themselves. With the GDP of the EU nearly equal to that of the US, there is no reason for the USA to continue funding them. The USA would then be able to eliminate many of the hundreds of costly bases it has in European countries, and not have to be worried about being pulled into wars that are thousands of miles away.
Even aside from the economic costs to the US of NATO, there are likely some political costs as well. As long as the US is in NATO, the US essentially affirms its commitment to Europe over Asia. With world power increasingly moving away from Europe and to Asia, it does not make sense for the USA to tether itself to a declining Europe at the expense of improving relations with countries like India and China, who always feel they are playing second fiddle to Europe when dealing with a USA that is in NATO.
Europe provides no real benefit to the USA in terms of military support, and yet the USA is expending enormous amount of resources to defend an already rich area of the world with no benefits to themselves. At the very least, the USA should refuse to protect NATO countries that spend less than the required 2% GDP for defense spending, which would allow the USA to decrease its military funding at least a little bit. Ultimately though, I think the USA should leave NATO. 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 agree with Justice Scalia's ruling on the death penalty (Glossip v. Gross) +
+ First let me say that I strongly disagree with the death penalty and would like very much to see it abolished; I just feel it should be done with an amendment, rather than by a supreme court ruling.
Justice Scalia states that it is the court's responsibility to decide whether or not laws violate the constitution. Glossip contested that lethal injection violated the 8th amendment (cruel and unusual punishment.) Breye's dissent argued that the death penalty, in and of itself, is cruel and unusual punishment.
The authors of the constitution were well aware of the death penalty (which, at the time, was the only punishment for a felony), and had they meant for it to be outlawed, they would have specifically mentioned it.
You might consider hanging or firing squads (the methods used at the time the constitution was written) to be more humane than lethal injection, but this argument could be countered by simply giving the inmate a choice between the three.
I feel that Scalia is just doing the job he was appointed to do. It is not the place of the supreme court to make or strike down laws based on what they feel is right or wrong. It is their job to interpret whether or not laws violate the constitution. It is our job as a population to elect representatives to change the law.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: There is no more effective method of archival/preservation than mass piracy. +
+ During the first week alone [32 million people](https://torrentfreak.com/game-of-thrones-piracy-surges-to-new-high-150422/) downloaded a copy of a Game of Thrones episode. Even if only 1% of those people keep the file they downloaded after they watch it it's still an amazing 320k - it's a pretty safe bet that possibly hundreds of years from now we'll still be able to watch that show.
At no point in history has it ever been easier to ensure archival and preservation due to digital mediums, and yet by applying copyright protections the content makers are doing nothing more than ensuring their great works might be lost to the ages.
It's not too hard to believe something like this might be lost - only 46 years ago millions of people *watched* the moon landing on TV, but almost no one had the technical means to have their own recording of it. Here we are now with the [original tapes missing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_missing_tapes) - sure we have a recording, but think of how much better recordings we might have if (like today) people could have made their own high-end home recordings at least matching the quality of the original broadcast.
A very similar story can be said about the [missing Dr. Who epsiodes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Who_missing_episodes) - of which [some were recovered thanks to piracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Who_missing_episodes#Private_collectors)
500+ years from now - I think the only copies of some uncommon films going to be some pirated copy taken out of a private archive, of which copyright protection had to be illegally circumvented to make. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: If the Civil War were fought again today, the South would win. +
+ For the purpose of this CMV I'm defining "win" as they would be successful in breaking away from the United States. They would succeed to secede.
I believe this for several reasons.
First, the population of the North has very little taste for war. If the South were to break away, extremely few people would have the stomach for a fight that would result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of citizens.
Second, the South is motivated, and the North is not. If the South were to break away, it would be because the population has a great desire for their own independence. People in the north have no great motivation to keep the union together. I doubt that there would even be a fight.
Third, if there was a fight, the outcome would be totally different than the first time. The South is in a much better position to defend itself than it was in the 1800's. The large population centers of the North would be more of a disadvantage than an advantage in a modern war.
Fourth, the only plausible way that the North could "attack" the South would be economically, but that could leave both countries in an economic ruin. There is just simply too much to lose to risk starting an economic war.
So, TL;DR.. The South would likely be able to secede without a fight. If there were to be a fight, they are much more motivated. The North would have too much to risk to try to stop 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 Venus Project has nice ideas but is foolish in the real world. Monetary systems are better, and Capitalism incentivizes innovation and production. +
+ I recently saw a Facebook post from a friend stating that profit-based economies are outdated and must be replaced, so I asked, "What is a better alternative?" I was told to look up the Venus Project because "it's amazing." So I looked it up, did my research, and this is basically what I found:
The Venus Project is a form of technocracy, where all of the natural resources of the world are shared and owned by everyone, and everyone gets to live better than even the best get to live currently. Their website claims that greed and other such behavior is learned and not inherent, so the idea that the Venus Project goes against human nature is false. I say that the desire to have more than those around you is inherent, not just learned behavior. The Venus Project seems to ignore the fact that some living areas are better than others, so simply because we cannot occupy the same space at the same time, inequality is created. Why does John get to live on the beach and Fred is stuck in a desert?
The Venus Project, from what I've seen, also ignores the *how* aspect. How do we convince leaders of different countries to give up their power and for the owners of resources to give up those resources?
Capitalism, although flawed, is a better system and ideology. Competition increases production and innovation, and it also generally decreases prices.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I don’t believe that heterosexuality is “default” or “normal”. +
+
The answer seems to be hiding in probabilities so if anyone can expand on that more I'm willing to give deltas.
Also, if you have a problem with my reasoning, please leave an explanation with your downvote so I can understand why it's off.
---
I struggle to believe that most human beings are naturally supposed to only be attracted to the opposite sex and are inherently repulsed by same sex characteristics. I think most people identify as straight out of convenience and having never needed to question what was assumed for them. I’m not denying that heterosexuality is a legitimate orientation but I have not found convincing evidence against, for example, the possibility that most humans could be predisposed to bisexuality and simply develop a preference of one or none from there.
The only arguments I’ve read for heterosexuality being default is the biological urge to have children, which I believe is neither universal nor exclusive to heterosexuality and the (imo fallacious) “most people are straight so there ***must*** be a biological mechanism that supports this phenomenon” path of reasoning.
I'm willing to give a delta to any argument that can demonstrate why heterosexuality might be more advantageous or likely than bisexuality.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Adult-adolescent sexual relations is illegal because we think it's icky, not because it's child abuse +
+ Ok, I first posted [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/1qc9pw/the_real_reason_why_child_porn_is_illegal/) last year. My mistake was going to /r/philosophy hoping that no topic is off limits for so called lovers of wisdom. To my surprise even they can get quite boorish when they suspect that the person who posted has a pedo agenda behind him. For the record, I don't have one. I don't like appearing as if I am being defensive but I feel I have to say that because I have posted this opinion in the past and in my experience it is too provocative for most people to remain civil and rely only on the rational parts of their brains. BTW I have spoken about this with real life friends and professors - none of them have had any second thoughts about whether I am mentally ill or a child abuser or have been provoked to anger in any way - quite a contrast to the online forums. Anyway I am genuinely subordinate to the truth of the issue and my promise is that if I find any convincing arguments to the contrary I will change my mind. Hopefully this subreddit is full of people who are interested in discussion and not name-calling, witch-hunting, and all other sorts of abuse. If not, then I've lost all hope for the internet.
First I'd like to make clear where I'm standing. I believe that amorous emotions that teenagers experience are very real and should be taken seriously. In other words, they are capable of genuine feelings of love and for the most part know what is in their best interest when they take part in a relationship. It's pretty clear also that we have almost no problem with them having sex with other teenagers their own age. Or if we do, then we aren't doing anything about it and have very relaxed attitude. Therefore, we believe that teenagers are capable of consenting to sexual activity to other teenagers.
Now here is my main argument: If we do believe that teenagers can consent to have sex with each other, I believe that this means that they are able to give consent in general. It seems to me that it is inconsistent to believe that teenagers can consent to have sex with each other and not with adults because consent is something that is determined from within and is in no way dependent on the age of the other person. Therefore teenagers are actually capable of consenting to have sex with adults.
This is not a strawman at all. From the first comment of that post I linked by user slickwombat:
Another one from dogGirl666 found [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/3bmka6/why_is_it_ok_to_let_my_daughter_fuck_some_14yo/csoi92k?context=3):
If what slickwombat and dogGirl666 are saying is true, why let them have sex at all? Wouldn't that be potentially letting them fall into abuse out of their own doing? To me it is highly suspect to have a situation where we are extremely lax, or even encouraging, toward two 15 year olds having sex but as soon as that 15 year old has sex with a 20 year old, it is called child abuse. I'm not sure how this attitude came to be - it is possible that it arose out the moral panic from the 70s where children were being ritually abused in a day care center - before that there weren't even laws on child pornography. It was not even considered weird or perverse a hundred years ago for very older men to be engaged to girls who were still going through or just past puberty. So just as the new atheists come and try to flip the table on theists to prove their claim on the existence of god, who are we to say that before the 20th century, all societies were pathological where child abuse was rampant? I'm not saying that it is actually a good thing if it were the norm, for example, that girls were married at age 13, just that why the swing of the pendulum is justified at all. So in other words, I'm laying the burden of proof on you to to prove that all or a sufficiently high number of cases of adult-adolescent sexual interaction results in the adolescent being harmed. Or barring that, why the thesis - that allowing teenagers to consent to other teenagers but not to adults is inconsistent - is wrong.
I know what the first reaction will be and although I admit to not having a good rebuttal to it, my answer is equally forceful as yours will be. First, let's be aware that teenagers naturally don't want to have sex with someone disproportionately out of their age group. They find it creepy, just like any normal human being would, and our laws of consent prohibit any unwanted interaction or even advances. Second, I believe that teenagers are for the most part and perhaps with the help of a little awareness and education, able to determine what is in their best interest when it comes to seeking a relationship. That doesn't mean that they are perfectly able to avoid negative experiences from it. That's the name of the game. Next, I would like to know from you that just allowing adult-adolescent sexual relations to happen, that there WILL be abuse. How do you know that teenage boys aren't already abusing other teenage girls if they are so impressionable at their age as most people would like to believe? How can you even adjudicate this when you define adult-adolescent sex ITSELF as abuse?
The last point I'd like to cover is supportive of my thesis. I mentioned this in my other post and I think it is a fairly strong point - and that is that our opinion toward young people is idealized and our attitude toward them is overly protective. Case in point: [groping a female is abuse only if she's underage](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-725352.html). My question is, why is age even being mentioned? Clearly the guy has an idea in his head that underage persons are naive, innocent, chaste or simply don't know what's going on and letting them have in on the fun would be doing them a disservice. Let's consider another case, not quite the same but related. Whenever something tragic happens to children, the news always capitalizes on them. Oklahoma bombing in 1995, more than 100 people died but news MUST mention that 19 of them were children. News of the Boston Marathon bombing, you can bet that the eight year old who died is always given a mention. [After Sandy Hook Piers Morgan got more riled up than usual and this is not the first time he's had a debate on guns](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RC4JJWUtzkc). My point is that we give in to our emotions more when it comes to children for some reason. I believe this may be connected to our attitudes on adults-adolescent relations.
That pretty much concludes it. If you will answer, I would like to challenge you to make it clear on where you stand on the following questions:
1) If you had an underage daughter, would you let her date an older man if you knew 100% that they would not have sex;
2) On the topic of consent, would you agree that any girl who voluntarily takes a topless photo of herself and sends it over snapchat is abusing herself?
3) continuing the above question, if no, then would you consider it abuse if she took that photo and handed it over to her boyfriend, who then would be guilty of possessing child pornography?
4) Do you think it is possible for older men to genuinely fall in love with teenage girls?
5) An older man has sex with an 18-year old. Turns out she lied about her age and she's really 16. Was the girl sexually abused?
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: There should be a national holiday commemorating the ass-kicking of the racist traitors of the South. +
+ Quite inflammatory, huh? It could also be phrased The End of Slavery Day and be held on May 9th, the day the Civil War was declared over.
The reasoning is that there are too many misconceptions regarding the purpose of the Civil War and less regard for the sacrifice and moral standing of the federal government's army as compared to the Confederate army's justification.
Martin Luther King Day recognises the more recent civil rights movement. The Civil War should be recognized as the greatest civil rights movement in the history of the US.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I (and many others) have no need to use Linux for a desktop computer. +
+ Linux is a hard to learn OS and seems daunting for the average Windows user. Many things on Windows cannot be used on Linux (Distros I have tried were Mint and Ubuntu).
1. Gaming. Games such as ARMA 3 or any other DirectX 11 games cannot be played on Linux at all. In fact, Steam refuses to download them. Even some directx 9 games cannot be played using Wine. (personal issues were splinter cell, battlefield (any of them), and SWBF2 to name a few.)
2. Ease of use. Whenever I try to look up how to do something on Linux it always involves the terminal and confusing commands. With Windows, everything has a easy to use interface. Compared to Windows, Linux is not as polished and requires a lot of setup to easily use.
Many technologically challenged people have no idea how to use the terminal, especially without Google's help.
3. Drivers. I applaud Linux for its ability to easily recognize system drivers (chipset, USB stuff, etc) but when it comes to things such as joysticks and gaming controllers, even Nvidia drivers and other special drivers (ps3 eye webcam), the terminal has to be used with varying degrees of success.
4. Applications. Almost every program is Windows only and has no alternative in Linux. Some examples are anything GPU/gaming related, (MSI afterburner, geforce experience, etc.) fan control, temp monitors, and any program that has an exe at the end.
In short, the excessive use of the terminal combined with the lack of common programs/drivers make Linux unusable for both the everyday consumer and the gamer.
I am completely willing to change my view, as I have tried Linux many times with the same common issues appearing. I just see no benefit Linux has over Windows, besides being free.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: As a citizen of a developing country, there's no reason for me to have savings in my local currency +
+ Hi there,
I'm a young citizen of a developing country from America. I'll soon start working and generating income -- of course I'll be paid in my local currency.
I've studied the story of the Latin American countries: it hasn't been uncommon from them to engage in several debt crises, followed by defaults and hyperinflation. Just take a look at Venezuela, Argentina, Mexico or Ecuador (which is now dollarized!).
Millions of people have seen their savings wiped out by inflation in a couple of years. In fact, I'd argue that my savings right now are being eroded: banks are paying a measly 1.6% of interest per year, inflation is around 5-6% and the local stock market has been stagnant for the past years. What's worse, every time there is a crisis ANYWHERE in the world, investors "flee" from developing countries to hard currencies (USD, EUR, GBP, CHF) and cause my currency to crash.
Thus, the most rational decision for me to take is to completely transform my long-haul savings in my local, soft currency to a hard currency and foreign stocks, thus greatly benefiting from the perpetual devaluation my country is experiencing.
| 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 immoral to spend any more money than what you must spend for basic needs and reasonable comfort, when that money could be used to help people in need. +
+ **GONNA START OFF RIGHT NOW BY SAYING I DON'T LIVE BY THIS RULE.**
Reasons being:
1. I am 16 and (obviously) live with my family still, I don't have a job or any personal income to speak of. I don't have the financial independence to live by this creed.
2. It sounds like not much fun
One of those reasons is pretty valid and one definitely isn't.
I believe this because it just makes the most logical sense to me. Why on earth would it be fair for me to walk around with a new pair of shoes when there's people I can see *in my own damn neighborhood* who can't afford a square meal, to speak nothing of comfortable clothing? It's just...wrong.
That's why I think that as soon as somebody has their basic needs and some *reasonable, modest* comforts like a TV, and air conditioning, any more money past that should go to a charity, or similarly be used for good.
**I'm really, really not trying to be high and mighty about this**. I don't live like this, and honestly even when I move out and start making my own money I don't think I'd be able to bring myself to throw out the PC and the cellphone and the car. I also don't think there's any non-arbitrary specific point where it could be declared that someone is being selfish with their money, and also everybody's definition of "basic needs and modest comforts" is probably different. I think you still get my meaning.
I still believe, speaking in idealistic terms, it's unjustifiable to keep to yourself what would be best spent saving others.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: As an uninformed citizen, I shouldn't be allowed to vote. +
+ **Update! See Edit #2 below!**
I don't know much about politics. I have a pretty poor understanding of real world economics. I don't follow world events or watch the news. I generally don't bother to keep track of what's going on in the world unless it impacts me directly, or maybe I think there's something meaningful I can do to change it to my own benefit (which has never actually come up).
When it comes to who should be elected in any local, state or federal capacity, or what laws should or should not be passed, I am simply not a qualified to provide input on any level.
So why am I allowed to vote?
Changing my view may require addressing the following positions of mine:
* If one wishes to cast any kind of vote related to government or legislation, one should be required to complete some sort of test to confirm that they understand the subject on which they are voting. This could include acknowledgment of a candidate's qualifications and positions, or the *actual content* of a particular bill. This has the added benefit of rendering wild claims and accusations made by the media, random bloggers, etc. less impactful on the views of the general public. *Note: Regarding this point, I don't want to discuss the specific content of such tests. As a rule, I believe it can be known what is true and what isn't, and so let's assume that the pre-vote tests won't contain personal opinions or interpretations of the subject.*
* If voting is limited to only citizens deemed "qualified" by some form of the process described in the previous bullet point, the general outcome is more likely to be better (e.g. the people are more likely to choose a candidate they will still approve of a year later, and there will be less confusion regarding what is contained in proposed bills, etc.).
* The "right to vote" should be a privilege that I am not entitled to if I'm not even going to take the time to research the subject.
Change my view by convincing me that, as a 29 year old citizen of the United States of America, I deserve to be able to vote on important matters and issues without doing any research or showing that I understand what I'm voting for/against.
My view is that, assuming we *could* somehow successfully identify qualified individuals for a given subject and restrict the polls to only these people, it would be advantageous to do so at the expense of the (Constitutional?) right to uninformed voting.
In general, I feel that it's justifiable to say that no American citizen should be allowed to cast a vote regarding a subject about which he/she doesn't have a clear and accurate understanding.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: White people should be allowed to say Nigga or any other variation of the N-Word when singing along with a song that includes those terms. +
+ Hip-hop has become mainstream music. Songs containing some variation of the N-Word routinely rank high on song charts.
* Drakes 0 to 100 / The Catch Up got as high as 35th of the Billboard top 100 with the refrain of the song prominently featuring nigga with the second line containing the word "Fuck bein' on some chill shit We go 0 to 100 nigga, real quick" and the outro of the first half of the song containing nigga every other line.
* Kanye West's All of the Lights got to 18 on the billboard top 100, it was also nominated for three Grammys including Song of the Year and won two Grammys: Best Rap Song and Best Rap/Sung collaboration. It includes several uses of the word nigga and draws attention to it with emphasise in this portion of the song "Something wrong. I hold my head. M.J. gone, our nigga dead!"
There are countless examples of incredibly popular songs containing variations of the N-Word, these are just two examples I pulled because everyone knows Drake or Kanye and how popular they are.
***
I believe white people should be allowed to quote along with these songs in their entirety without censoring the portions that contain the N-Word. I've been to several parties that have many people of many different races in attendance and these types of songs are played quite often. It is always odd when an entire portion of the party ceases to quote along with the song as another portion does and I believe it just draws attention to the racial divide that this word creates.
I am not advocating for widespread usage of the N-word. My point isn't that white people should have free usage of the N-word but I do believe in the context of singing along to a song that it shouldn't be frowned upon and shouldn't be seen as offensive, especially considering how popular hip-hop has become.
I'd equate it to anything else that is offensive, out of context quoting a recent episode of True Detective "I'll come back and butt-fuck your father with your mom's headless corpse on this lawn."
Out of context, telling someone you're going to butt-fuck their father with their mom's head would be incredibly offensive, but in a discussion about the show or while rewatching the show with others it is perfectly acceptable to say something that would otherwise be offensive.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Having a soft currency is not an economic benefit for a country's citizens +
+ **Context:**
Greece has been on international news lately, after defaulting on its IMF payments. A referendum is being held regarding the people's stance on a memorandum agreement next Sunday, and one of the topics of discussions is whether Greece would have been better off out of the Euro.
After entering the Euro, Greek economy, fueled also from cheap loans, converted to mostly retail services, with the industry and agricultural sector faltering, after being overwhelmed by products that were cheaper and of better quality compared to Greek alternatives. As a result, industry and agriculture positions paid less well, further fuelling a drop in production.
However, I do not believe that this was a currency issue, but rather an issue of internal lack of competitiveness. And in this sense, I believe that getting out of the Euro would not solve by itself directly any of the issues, apart maybe as a swim or sink method.
**My position:**
A soft currency as a means to increase competitiveness is useful only in populist societies, where the government can devalue its currency and effectively lower the income of its people across the board, thus hurting disproportionately those with the lowest incomes.
Additionally, a soft currency is inherently more open to market speculation and reduces trade, as more volatility implies higher risk of business.
I have thought a bit on the subject and I sincerely would like to hear informed opinions on the subject, so naturally I defer to [Cunningham's Law](https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cunningham's_Law), to get the most balanced view possible. | resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Toilet paper is better than bidets. +
+ I am American and have used toilet paper my whole life. I've had to use a bidet the past week for medical reasons, and I think that toilet paper is the far superior option.
**Cleanliness**
In this area, I prefer toilet paper for a few reasons. First of all, there is actual visual confirmation that you've got it all. With bidets you just have to keep spraying until you think you're good. And as the amount of wiping/bidet-ing can vary greatly, the visual aspect is a great help. (I used a towel to dab afterwards, as toilet paper doesn't hold up against all the water.)
Secondly, a bidet shouldn't be necessary as people (should) shower daily. Many people like to point out that bidets are better because they rinse away bacteria and other nastiness. But, a shower with actual soap and water and scrubbing should do that job much better than just water alone.
**"But you wouldn't just wipe it away if you got some on your hands!"**
No, and I don't think you'd just rinse it away either. You'd use soap and water and scrubbing. Another point, your hands are usually the first thing you use to touch something. Until you grab things with your bare ass, wiping is just as good.
**Comfort**
Good quality toilet paper is amazing. It's soft, thick, almost like Kleenex. Hell, you could wipe with Kleenex if you wanted. Point is that high quality stuff is glorious. On the other hand, you're getting a cold spray of water in a very sensitive area. Even if you have a super luxury bidet that uses heated water, it's still basically shooting water up your ass. Even low quality toilet paper is better than that. In a shower the water flows down, which is much less uncomfortable. With a bidet there's also the added trouble of being all drippy with water while you move to towel off. And unless you want to reach into the bowl with a towel while you're still sitting on it, you're going to have to at least move up to a squat to towel off. (Those with an air dryer feature may alleviate this somewhat, but toweling will probably still be necessary if the air hand dryers are anything to go by.)
**Price**
I understand bidets cost less. But for me and where I am in life, I can and will pay extra for quality. There must be many others who feel the same, or else only single ply sand paper toilet paper would exist. In this area bidets are better, but I think that if this is the reason someone buys a bidet it would be because they have to save money.
**Eco friendliness**
I think we're past the whole 'save the trees' business. Reforestation is greater than reforestation in most of the world. Bidets may actually do more harm in low water and drought areas, if everyone dropped toilet paper and got bidets the gallons would add up.
To clarify; I'm talking about a bidet for home use, that's built into the toilet. The bidets that are completely separate just seem impractical.
So, CMV.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Copyright terms should be approximately 20 years. +
+ Copyrights are currently granted for insanely long timeframes. Currently for the US it is 95 years, or for 70 years after the death of the author.
The original purpose of copyright is to give creators an incentive to create by giving them a temporary monopoly over their works before eventually giving those works to the public for the public's benefit.
I think the term of copyright should be only long enough to incent creators to create and publish their works. And I think very few works which are created today would not be created under a 20 year copyright term, whereas the public benefits to a shorter term are enormous. A huge number of creators are prevented from creating derivative works without licensing incredibly old primary works. And owners of popular old works are able to extract economic rents for simply owning something which has a statutory monopoly.
20 years is the same term as currently applies to patents, and it seems to be plenty sufficient to incentivize new inventors. There are no shortages of patent filings lately. Which is great for me, cause I work in patent law.
As to the legality of such a change, there is no question that it would be lawful to do prospectively for new copyrights. [This law review piece](http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/01/copyright-reform-and-the-takings-clause/) makes a good case that it might not be a 5th amendment taking requiring compensation to cut short copyright terms, though it came out before [*Horne v. Dept of Agriculture* strengthened per se takings](http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-275_c0n2.pdf), and there is a plausible case that *Horne* could be used to argue that terminated copyrights are per se taken and subject to compensation. So for the moment, I will limit this to a forward looking proposal for new works.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: People should try to catch shiny pokemon before playing the lottery. +
+ As a person who has never caught a shiny pokemon, I think people should try to catch some before playing the lottery Im not talking about scratch cards, I mean things like megabucks and powerball. Both are a huge gamble, and people who play the lottery regularly (and havent won) are throwing their money away. I think that people should play pokemon and try their luck if they can catch any shiny pokemon (legitimately) before they try to play the lottery to see how ridiculously low the odds are. If someone cant achieve that, why bother trying to do something with an even lower chance of success?
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Cheese is unequivocally better than chocolate +
+ I fundamentally view cheese as a step above chocolate in every domain of food usage and consumption. It is more varied: cheese can be soft, hard, orange, green, blue, white, or purple veined. It can be softly milky or pungent.
Cheese pairs better with wine, bread, and meats; elevates hamburgers and pizza crust; makes potatoes au gratin worth eating; takes caesar said to its true height.
Cheese sustains life. Bread and cheese were the foundations of the northern European diet. Roman soldiers carried cheese. Cheese won't kill your dog (probably). Cheese can be eaten at every meal from breakfast to a midnight snack.
Cheese can be made easily in the home with backyard goat. You can make cheese in your post-apocalyptic fantasies.
So give it to me, chocolate lovers. Can you CMV?
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: People should be standing out side with signs that read "Stop Inflation!" as a opposed to signed that read "15/Hour!" +
+ I saw a post about about workers wanting $15 an hour and I can't seem to wrap my head around how the public hasn't decided that inflation is the problem and instead decided that the companies that actually employ them are? Its so short sighted and is as if the whole of society has just accepted the rat race created by the Federal reserve's mandate to create inflation and just seem to want additional check points along the way with cheese so they can keep running the maze. It would make more sense to me to just stop inflation so the poor (or everyone for that matter) stop getting taxed (which is what inflation is) every time the Fed prints a dollar.
I know many people will say that deflation is bad because if prices come down then people won't spend while waiting for a better deal and we will just get stuck in a downward spiral of jobs getting lost while everyone waits to spend their money. I never understood that argument either because with all products from TV's to refrigerators to cars and even homes people buy them as soon as they can afford it because they want it now. TV's come down in price every year... doesn't stop people from buying one every couple of years to get the best tech that's on the market. Despite decent used cars being available people still buy new ones. there really is no logical basis for any prolonged collapse spiral due to people waiting for a better price on everything. That's just not how it works
The only real problem we have now is that rat maze that has been built over the last 100 or so years due to constant inflation of the money supply is that if we were to correct to the problem and shut down the maze the result would be temporary catastrophic as the deflation (or lack of cheese) that would occur that would bring us back to some sense of normalcy would be pretty painful. I know this is probably the biggest reason why no politician will touch this subject and why we need to be in the streets actually demanding it so we ca get rid of the systemic issue that is slowly (faster for some) driving us all into poverty.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: You should know how to do simple car maintenance in order to be issued a driver's license. +
+ To be issued a driver's license, you should, at minimum, be required to know how to do the following:
1. Check/top off fluids
2. Change a tire
The first one of those is super easy and it's surprising how many people don't know how to do it. It is extremely important though for the care and functionality of your car.
The second one is more physically taxing, but with enough leverage and the correct tools almost anyone can do it. Either way, the knowledge is what is important.
The argument I usually get it "That's what AAA is for". To that I say "What if you're in the middle of no where without cell reception and you get a flat tire." Or any other scenario where you can't call AAA. AAA is great; I have it and use it. But there are times when AAA is unavailable and relying on any resource other than your own knowledge is irresponsible.
I have yet to hear a good argument against requiring this knowledge for drivers. Please, change my view!
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The best way to achieve marriage equality is for everyone to just stop getting married. +
+ There is no real argument against allowing people of all genders from getting married. However, Marriage as a whole is in fact an outdated and completely unnessecary institution.
It may have served a purpose in the dark ages, but now, there is simply no need for the state to acknowledge a romantic union.
I understand that there are some Tax benefits to some people as married couples, and it certianly helps a few people stay in foreign countries, but these are not good reasons to sign a government contract that is against human nature.
instead of making marriage legal for everyone, it would have been far more progressive to just get rid of marriage alltogether,
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Drag Queens are damaging and hindering the progress of Transgender acceptance. +
+ I firmly beleive that drag queens are one of the reasons why Transgender people are ostracised from society, and I (speaking as a transwoman) find it
hard to be accepted and understood by a large portion of the population.
A drag act is just that. An act. It is not supposed to be taken seriously (just look at the bearded lady Conchita Wurst) and as far as I understand
a drag queen isn't supposed to 'pass' in the transgender sense. A drag queen may have a 'female persona' but they are not transgender, it's not a medical
condition.
I'm going to assume that most people in the west know what a transgender person is, and what a drag queen is and can probably tell the difference. But
I am also going to assume that most people don't know what it actually means to be transgender, that it isn't a choice. The only choice a transgender
individual makes is the choice to transition.
I feel as if because of drag queens and the confusion between a transgender person and a drag act, we're not taken seriously by someone who can't tell the difference. I am not a drag queen, I don't put on an act, or dress ridiclously, nor do I want to look obviously like a man in a dress (the main point
of a drag queen). I act myself, which isn't overly fruity, camp or feminine, and I dress like a typical woman.
If someone outside LGBT circles sees a gay man in drag, they might assume that is a transgender person and therefore treat the issue of transgenderism as silly and as an act, rather than realising that true gender dysphoria is horrific for anyone who has to deal with it.
I would almost go as far as saying that drag acts are (intentionally or unintentionally) mocking the plight of transgender individuals, and it is akin to dribbling and pretending to be someone with downs syndrome, and at the complete extreme (further than what I believe) akin to blackface.
I want to not hate drag queens, but I can't help but feel that do nothing but trivialise transgender people and make it harder for us, 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 "Bathroom Lock" analogy against Government collection of data is flawed. +
+ First lets make a couple of things clear: I do not necessarily believe that government spying on its own citizens is ok, and thats not what this post is about. This post is about the following:
Often times someone might make the argument "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about" defending government collection of data. To counter people will bring up the "bathroom lock" analogy: We all lock the door when we go to the bathroom even though what we're doing is not inherently wrong.
My problem with this is that it is actually arguable that bathroom locks are an analogy in FAVOUR of "government back doors". Most bathroom locks are not designed to keep intruders out - they are designed to make sure someone doesn't accidentally walk in on you. But in fact it is common to see in bathroom locks a very simple unlocking mechanism - one that can be unlocked simply by pressing a bobby pin in the hole. This is put in place with safety in mind - if something happens to you while you're in the bathroom someone can get in and save you without breaking down the door. I don't know about you, but this is something that comforts me.
In the same way that no one wants to see me shit and would only actually use this "backdoor" through the bathroom lock in emergencies, the government doesn't care about my email to my mom about my sisters birthday, and only actually use collected data when it might be of some help fighting terrorism.
When I noticed this I couldn't think about any reason why what I have said above is wrong, so please, CMV.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Wanting to be a different gender is no different than wanting to be a different race or age +
+ If I was to say that I always relate more to women, and in my heart feel that I should have been born a woman, how is that any different than saying that I feel like a Mexican stuck in a white man's body? Or a 65 year old stuck in a 32 year old's body?
If I started wearing a poncho and sombrero and asking people to call me Pedro, I'd be laughed at and ignored (or beat up). If told people that I feel 65 (or even went as far as having surgery to make me look 65), AARP still wouldn't accept me. It wouldn't matter if, deep in my heart, I truly wanted to be a 65 year-old Mexican. Why would my desire to be a woman be respected?
I don't mean to come across offensive or callous, and I have no problem with people dressing as another gender (or even having surgery to make them more closely resemble another gender). I just don't think that the government should classify somebody based on their desires, but rather on the presence or absence of a Y chromosome.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Tattoos are just as vain if not more so than cosmetic surgery. +
+ This thought occurred to me some time ago. I do not have any tattoos but I have had minor elective surgeries such as removal of non-cancerous moles. Let me point out that I don't judge anybody for having tattoos or cosmetic surgery.
The reason I would say cosmetic surgery is less vain than tattoos is because they are often performed after an accident such as a broken nose or breast implants will be put in after a masectomy to make the person feel normal or like themselves again. I think this is done somewhat out of vanity in that the psychological effects of worrying about looking different are caused by vanity but I don't think it is purely vain like many tattoos are.
I think many people will point out that tattoos are often done in memoriam or dedication to a loved one. To me it seems that the love the person has is very real but the feeling that the their love needs to be expressed in their physical appearance ultimately stems from insecurity or vanity.
With that said most tattoos seem to be an attempt to make the person distinguish themselves with their appearance or as an act of rebellion as teenagers. Additionally in the last 10 years there has been the emergence of the ironic or absurdist tattoo. These are tattoos that are random or meant to be funny. Again this seems like a situation where the person feels a need to let people instantly know they are goofy or funny.
The reason I am posting this is because I feel that there is a stigma against cosmetic surgery that is not there for tattoos while there should be one. I understand there are many other stigmas against tattoos but I don't think vanity is often discussed. It also makes me wonder if in the future tattoos will be viewed in the same way that plastic surgery is now.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: We are seeing the beginning of the end of Nation-States being the primary form of Civilization. +
+ This concept as it applies to the Middle East is explained by former Stanford Research philosopher [Jay Oglivy in a recent interview.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&persist_app=1&v=J5ZcSwhPUzg) He notes that while the Islamic State keeps their religious front, the economic factors have become a firmer root in their actions long-term.
In Latin America, of course, this trend of shifting tides has been occurring on a smaller scale for some time, with Cartels on both the large scale and decentralized smaller scale destabilizing/continuously picking at the governments of Colombia and Mexico respectively. The latter is divided currently between Cartels associated with either the Sinaola Federation, the Tierra Caliente, or the Tamaulipas.
Even in Europe, where our modern definitions of the Nation-State were born, intrinsic faults with this structure are showing in the crisis of Greeks default today. Whereas individuals or corporations would have only themselves to blame if they lent money to a poor investment or borrowed money they couldn't ever pay back, [societies collected under the national governments of Germany and Greece have used political systems to push the issue of unplayable debt to its inevitable conclusion, and both are to blame. [Beyond the Greek Impasse</a> is republished with permission of Stratfor](https://www.stratfor.com/weekly/beyond-Greek-impasse) The problem here comes from the European issue of Social Democracy, which built up entitlements as "rights" to material goods, which would never be assumed in a private institution, where some degree of input is always expected for participation. More often than not these kind of institutions form a meritocratic chain of command, where rational analysis means much more than opinion by a momentary "popular vote" substituted for fact.
No firm of organization has been eternal, from hunter-gather, to city-state, to classical empire, to feudalism, to now with the "nation-state." As Jay said, the most likely form of socio-political organization to come is the Market State, where the ability of greater actors to achieve economic profit will determine the trend of global events, much more so than any state. In Austrian Economics, one such version of these Market-States is known as the REA, or Rights Enforcement Agency, which could be a preferable theoretical alternative to the partly Theocratically driven Islamic State, if put into practice. Such experimentation may be necessary if we wish for the future of civilization to remain stable.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Felons should be allowed to vote +
+ I think, personally, that felons should be allowed to vote. It is a human right for someone to vote for their government, and is listed as such in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (I've forgotten which article). Just because someone makes some decisions, no matter how bad, doesn't take away their status as a living, breathing, human being and should not have their inalienable rights as people taken away. If this is a right that all humans have, taking the right away from them is denying them status as a human being, and a violation of their rights.
I think this is further exacerbated by the fact that many felonies (or at least in the US, not sure how this applies in other nations), are not inherently... bad. Possession of a certain amount of marijuana (varying by state IIRC), heroin, or MDMA, for example is a felony. Someone who simply wanted to exercise their right to put a certain substance in their body could have their human right taken away and thus have no say in the governing bodies that decide what happens to them as a felon.
| 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 it's OK for politicians to change their public stance on issues. +
+ Same-Sex marriage in the US is one of the "hottest" news stories of June, and many people are upset that some politicians (especially democratic ones) have gone from being against same-sex marriage to being for it, with statements often pointing to the (likely true) idea that their stance is based on public opinion.
However, I don't think we should be denouncing these politicians for changing their views on issues such as this one. We should actually *encourage* politicians to do so, *especially* when they change their views based on public opinion. Is this not a representative democracy? Isn't the whole point of a representative democracy for our representatives to actually *represent* the public's views on issues?
This isn't a CMV about whether politicians *really* change their views based on our opinion (I've seen the data; often times they act against the majority opinion due to lobbying efforts). I just think that it's OK *if* politicians change their view based on public opinion. CMV. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: America can't afford universal healthcare or free college education. +
+ I really like Bernie Sanders for his honesty, integrity, and his views on election finance reform and foreign policy. However, I don't know if I can support him because of his main campaigning points: free healthcare as a right for all, and free college education.
Both things obviously sound amazing, but I worry that we simply cannot afford it. Where does the massive amount of funding come from for these things? Bernie talks about fixing corporate tax loopholes, but will that really bring in enough income? | 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 poor people have every ability to pull themselves out of poverty, but most don't due to a lack of motivation. +
+ **Firstly**, I'm using a throwaway because most people get really sensitive about this and my views are pretty much the antithesis of reddit (love Rand Paul, support Mens Rights, hate Pink Floyd).
**Secondly**, for context, I come from a wealthy family and have had very little experience with people from the lower socioeconomic spectrum, which probably shapes my view of the wealth ladder and how one climbs from rung to rung.
**MOST IMPORTANTLY**: I believe there are levels of poverty within the lower class and perhaps each level should be approached differently in this discussion. They are as follows:
1. *Physically/Mentally Unable to Work*: For all intents and purposes, this category should not be considered in my argument. They physically can't produce value and have little-to-no means to change that situation.
2. *Homeless/Welfare/Food Stamps*: Sometimes shit happens and people need help, but six months to a year should be enough time for anyone to get out of this category, yet many don't. I think [the 35% of Americans](http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/terence-p-jeffrey/354-percent-109631000-welfare) asking for handouts get so used to doing it that they forget how to be a valuable member to society and end up just sucking resources from the rest of the productive population which brings everybody down.
3. *Crippling Debt*: I think people in this situation, regardless of their financial education, show a general lack of care to manage their money. It's not difficult to see if a degree will be worth the salary raise or if a loan will actually solve your current problems and their are more than enough resources online and in libraries to learn about proper finance skills in order to do so.
4. *Below the poverty threshold*: This is the general catch-all for everyone else in the lower class. I think problems like a botched health care system, over-imprisonment for drug sentences, and a generally rigged system such as having to pay to cash checks, not being able to afford the bulk deals, or own a home are factors that plague the lower class and rigidize social mobility, but it does not take away their opportunity to pull themselves up.
Every person starts somewhere in life, some get college education paid for, some join the family business and some are born an orphan without a bank account in their name. There's no question that some situations are more difficult than others, but there is also no question that examples of social mobility exist in both directions: rich kids wasting away a fortune and migrant farm workers becoming well-paid astronauts.
I believe that as long as everyone has the freedom to climb the socioeconomic ladder rung by rung, that the only difference is between those that take the opportunity and those that don't and the reason why many people remain in poverty is because they lack the motivation to take the necessary steps, be it because they don't have peers pushing them to do so or because they would prefer to work a minimum wage job instead of applying for better positions--I can't say.
Although I was fortunate enough to start adulthood with no debt, I have had to work my ass off to get everything else I have and believe that anyone could be doing what I do and making as much money as I do regardless of their starting hand if they desire it.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: People who read/user their phone while pooping are fucking weirdos +
+ There are no excuses. If you take a book, magazine, smartphone, etc, to the bathroom when you poop, you're a weirdo.
· "But hey, I like to read something while I do it, it makes me relaxed"
What exactly makes you relaxed about smelling shit while you read? Why don't you read in the bed, whitout smelling shit, and in a much more comfortable position?
· "Hey, but pooping takes time, what should I do with sooooo much time in my hands? stare at the wall?"
Ok, but then you have a health problem, because pooping is quick. You feel like you have to do it, you go to the bathroom, you do it, you clean yourself up, you finish. How much can that take? 2-3 minutes maximum?
I don't really see the point of spending any more time than the necessary sitting on the toilet. You guys are in a Freudian anal stage, I hope you realize it.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The YouTube comments aren't that much different than Reddits. +
+ On Reddit, people like to shit on YouTube comments and how horrible they are. I personally don't find them bad, same for Reddit, but the complaints and reasons for why YouTube's is bad can apply to Reddit as well.
Here are some of the complaints:
Stupid/pointless comments.
People arguing a lot
Shit, there is more, certainly more, but that's all I can think of right now because of a stupid brain fart. I don't know, reply with some other complaints.
Looking at just those two, you can most definitely see that on Reddit. I mean, how many times have people bitched about "pun threads" how many people bitch about "F" comments and whatnot. As for arguing, oh boy do people argue a lot. Especially when feminism pops up. I can't say I'm not part of what others would consider "the problem", but oh well. So, those two complaints can be seen on Reddit and YouTube.
There are other things, too, like the Reddit hivemind. You know, disagree with the majority, get downvoted to hell, see those askreddit threads about unpopular opinions, or things people dislike, and when someone dislikes something popular (Though, in those threads they tend to not get downvoted) people reply with "2edgy4me" which from my experience, also get upvoted/don't have a lot of people shitting on the person. That kind of a thing.
On YouTube, it's pretty much the same. Disagree with the majority? As in, "I didn't like this video because so and so" and you'll get completely shit on. Constructive criticism or not.
There is an important difference, though. On Reddit, this "hivemind" is more...effective, because downvotes (Depending on what you set the hide thing to, which you can change if you didn't know...least I'm pretty sure you can.) make the comment hidden and it's buried at the bottom of the thread so that your opinion shall not be questioned or challenged at all. It's like a combo of a hivemind and an echo-chamber.
On YouTube, least I believe this is how it works, comments with lots of replies and likes are usually the first comments you see. A comment with a shit ton of comments can be above a post with lots of likes and just a few comments. This means that someone posting against the hivemind, and since people like to argue against people who appose their beliefs or what they like, it can result in a post saying "This video is fucking awful because so and so" being one of the first comments you see, somewhat getting rid of the hivemind and echo-chamber. It doesn't, but it looks like it does.
So, that's what I think.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: The second amendment is not effective as protection against the government's tyranny +
+ I've seen many times the claim that guns help protect against the government getting out of hand. I don't find this argument persuasive for these reasons:
**The threat isn't effective:**
* For the argument to really work, guns must present an effective threat to the government, or at least to the politician introducing some sort of freedom restricting legislation. Just having the gun isn't enough, there must be a perception of that people are willing to use it.
* Guns are a weapon of last resort. To take arms against the government means a near guarantee that you'll sacrifice your life for it. This means it only makes sense if what the government is doing is so awful that death is an acceptable risk.
* To achieve success there needs to be a large amount of agreement that this is the right path. Until that, it'll simply be terrorism and opposed by the rest of the population.
* In fact, the actions of the US government don't seem to be especially careful when compared to the actions of say, an European government where gun ownership is restricted. So the threat doesn't seem to be working.
**There won't be a clear point at which to resort to weapons:**
* One path a government may take is to slowly reduce freedoms, in such a way that no single reduction warrants a violent response.
* The other path is to drastically reduce freedoms, at a time where the country seems to be under attack. The violent response will be prevented by patriotism.
**The results will be counterproductive:**
* By the speed with which things like the PATRIOT act and the TSA appeared it seems like there are laws and proposed organisms lying in wait for just the right incident. An attack against the government that doesn't have widespread public support will result in the swift reduction of freedoms, using the attack as the perfect excuse for it. And the public will support it.
* The American public is deeply patriotic and any such attacks won't get a positive reception, even despite the people having a serious distrust and lack of faith in the government.
**The willingness to fight will be neutralized:**
* A government changing to a tyranny, unless it's completely stupid, will do so with an amount of care and will try to ensure its own success.
* A slow introduction of surveillance and restrictions will be able to push back the willingness to fight and undermine any forming resistance. Already existing laws and mechanisms can be used to sabotage such efforts.
* If a resistance is forming anyway, a government may make just enough concessions to avoid a revolution.
**My conclusion:**
Guns as a way of protecting against the government overstepping its bounds aren't effective until things really get out of hand. By that point, there isn't really any freedom left to protect.
CMV.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: A police officer shouldn't be punished for dancing with civilians at a LGBT pride parade +
+ I'm sure we've all seen and heard of police officers who were aggressive and violent while on duty, but much less frequently do we hear of officers who have friendly interactions with civilians when there is no clear or present danger present. I've seen a few videos on the internet of cops dancing at block parties or playing a short round of cards in a park but none have gone viral like [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hl972jf8cs4) of an NYPD officer dancing at the NYC LGBT pride parade this past weekend. The general consensus is polarized; some people like myself are perfectly fine, even happy, that some officers are finding enjoyment and positive interactions with civilians in their day-to-day work rather than hostility and aggression; others feel that this interaction was completely unprofessional and that the officer should be fired or at least punished.
I believe that the officer shouldn't face any punishment for simply dancing with a civilian for less than 20 seconds at a parade with clearly no imminent threat or danger present. My logic behind this is that many officers won't be punished for using excessive force or even wrongfully killing someone, so why should an officer be punished for taking 20 seconds to dance with a friendly civilian at a parade. Even if we lived in a world where excessively violent officers were rightfully punished, I would still be angry if this cop were to be punished for dancing at a parade. | malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Donald Trumps "rapist" remarks are not as bad as they seem. +
+ [NBC Universal to Donald Trump: You're fired!](http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/29434000/nbc-to-donald-trump-youre-fired)
NBC has decided they will no longer air the apprentice, or the Miss USA/universe contest. They have cut ties with Donald Trump altogether.
[But let's take a look at what trump said.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6QEqoYgQxw)
Now it was obviously stupid and false to call Mexican immigrants rapists. But I strongly suspect he was referring to human sex trafficking that happens across America's southern border, which is brutal. [Sex trafficking is slavery.](https://www.dosomething.org/facts/11-facts-about-human-trafficking)
There's nothing wrong with pointing out the problem of sex trafficking.
The way he said it, it almost sounds like he's saying Mexican immigrants are generally rapists, but I don't think that's what he meant.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Qui-Gon Jinn should have freed both Anakin and Shmi Skywalker after the podrace, by force if necessary. +
+ When Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan land on Tatooine, they encounter Watto, a junk dealer who owns two slaves, Anakin Skywalker and his mother Shmi. When Qui-Gon learns he cannot buy them from Watto, he gambles for Anakin's freedom.
I believe that Qui-Gon should have removed both Anakin and Shmi from Watto's control, using force (or the Force^haha ) if necessary.
Since the Jedi are "guardians of peace and justice", they are presumably called to right moral wrongs. While slavery is apparently not illegal on Tatooine, it is nevertheless immoral, and Qui-Gon seems to recognize this.
I realize that gambling on the podrace was necessary, since it would be wrong to take Watto's (non-living) property by force, even if he was dead. But I believe that once the race was over, and Qui-Gon had obtained the parts for the ship under the arrangement he and Watto made, Qui-Gon should have freed Shmi Skywalker using any means necessary.
Change my view.
Watto was a good master - Yes, but she's still a slave. Being a slave sucks bantha balls.
Anakin was the only one who needed to be freed - Yes, but Shmi shouldn't have to be a slave forever because she's not important enough to the story.
Qui-Gon couldn't free all the slaves - Yes, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't free the ones he can.
Anakin needed to sever his emotional connections - Yes, but it seems like he would be more attached to his mother if she was still a slave billions of miles away than if she was living somewhere safe and comfortable.
The Force wouldn't work on Watto - Toydarians are immune to mind tricks, not being hurled around the room with the Force like a ragdoll.
| 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 way the GOP can win the 2016 Presidential election. +
+
The GOP has too many candidates, and while the majority of them will fall off before the nominations, one or two additionally popular candidates has the possibility to pull enough votes to cost an election.
I believe that the GOP has become increasingly divided, with groups like the Tea Party pulling many members, and having their own candidates like Rand Paul. While these groups identify under the Republican umbrella, their views vary quite a bit.
This type of division in the party has cost the Republicans elections in the past, recently with the Clinton v. Bush election in 1992[^1](http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showelection.php?year=1992) where Independent Ross Perot pulled 19 Million primarily Conservative votes. Historically one could look at the Election of 1912[^2](http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showelection.php?year=1912) where the Republican party was torn between TR and Taft.
I could see where one could argue this could happen with the Democratic party as well because of Hilary Clinton's popularity, but also Bernie Sander's increasing popularity when Clinton is pretty much assumed to get the Dem nomination, but I don't believe the Democratic party is as divided as the GOP.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Anyone who actively opposes same-sex marriage based on religious reasons cannot justify it without admitting hypocricy, and in doing so, are likely damning themselves in the eyes of their lord. +
+ CMV: There is no way someone can say they disagree with same-sex marriage, based on religious reasons, without being a hypocrite. Nobody can live their life to the word of the Bible. At least nobody in Western culture in this day and age. To live by the Bible to the letter would land whoever did in prison and on death row.
So, with the way that humanity has grown and laws have evolved, people must pick and choose what to follow verbatim and what to shrug off as no longer relevant or possible to follow. With same-sex marriage (something that is not even mentioned anywhere in the bible), people tend to take a few phrases from the Old Testament and interpret them to say that we should not allow gay people to be able to marry each other.
Now, it is of my opinion that in fighting against gay marriage, unless you're also fighting for every other thing in the Bible that nobody adheres to, you are a hypocrite. Not only that, but you've chosen a part of the Bible that keeps others from a basic civil right. If your concern is about the sanctity of marriage, why is there no outcry about the divorce rate or how many people remarry without stoning their previous wife (who they must have divorced because she was unfaithful)?
I see no other possibility than these people dislike gay people for personal reasons, be it that they think it's icky or it just makes them uncomfortable, etc. and have found a means to combat it. To me, this is exploitation. Exploitation of the religion they claim to love in order to make their lives a little bit better for themselves. I do not know if this is considered a sin or not, but as everyone who is against SSM seems to assume that is a sin, I would have to assume that this is as well..... and in all likelihood a greater one.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV:The media are fulfilling ISIS' requirements by producing endless amounts of "terror porn" for them. It would be helpful if they didn't do it +
+ Terrorists by nature are trying to cause the maximum amount of shock in order to achieve their goals. Be it for religious or geopolitical reasons the end goal is the same, scare as many people as possible.
The media are responsible for going above and beyond factual reporting with lurid fear-inducing headlines like "More attacks to come???" The media's only motivation is to increase viewing figures for shareholders. Their methods manipulate our basic human nature for profit, we are not easily able to resist gawking, and should be outlawed.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: r/cmv top replies are not usually disagreeing points of view +
+ Hey, I have been using this subreddit for around 2 years now, and I have some qualms about the community.
Most of the top replies (the ones that are expected to change the view of the OP) usually disregard and ignore the original view.
Right now there is a thread about bikers being assholes. The top reply is someone saying, "not all bikers, there are some exceptions"
while that's true, I'd imagine that the vast majority of people still feel that bikers in general are assholes. [Even south park made an episode about them](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGyKBFCd_u4).
The top replies don't address the view of bikers being assholes in general. the response is "not all" but it doesn't change the view, and the exception is not the rule.
I keep finding this issue, people find one little exception and then suddenly that's the most popular post. I rarely find a top post that addresses the whole of the OP, but rather takes one part out, nit picks it and that's what rises to the top.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Red lights should be treated like stop signs when no one is around. +
+ You cannot prove that deterring this behavior would protect people. At least until an experiment is ran.
Where I live it is legal to turn right at a red light after fully stopping and looking out for traffic. There are some intersections where it doesn't work well and I concede my idea would primarily only work well at small intersections or late at night.
Red lights should be improved to minimize waiting but behavior like I suggest would prioritize this technology. Traffic circles would also solve this problem and I believe my idea would only promote more traffic circles to be built in large intersections where my idea would work poorly.
| resistant | 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 think tipping is moral. +
+ I'll probably get downvoted for this, but here we go. The idea of supporting the business model, "that we can get away with paying you dirt, as long as people pay extra to fill in the gap"... is bull shit. I do not support that, and you should pay your employees accordingly. Also, why the fuck does poor service deserve a tip? I pay your establishment, why should I have to pay more for good service, and if I don't, are you going to screw with my food?, because not only is that immoral, but it is illegal. So good or bad I have to pay tip. Why should I support that business model, it is absurd. Other countries, Japan for instance, consider it an insult to pay a tip, because they pride themselves in their job, and they do a good job because it is their job to do a good job. Why should I, or you, continue to tip to support this? If everyone stopped tipping, then restaurant owners would have to stop being greedy, or hire qualified people who deserve tips, and pay them as qualified people deserve.
| resistant | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: There is something inherently wrong with individuals who like pineapple on their pizza. +
+ I have always hated pineapple pizza. I have tried it regularly for years to make sure I wasn't misunderstanding the appeal but it has never worked. Pineapple is a relatively sweet fruit on it's own and a combination of sweet and salty flavors is not that uncommon, however no amount of pepperoni or any other topping can mask the vile taste and dissappointment that is a mouthful of delicious pizza ruined by the fruit. This has led me to the conclusion that there is either something psychologically or potentially physiologically wrong with people who like pineapple pizza.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: I feel like the rest of the country looks down upon the United States South +
+ My city is really pretty normal for America. I don't know that many rednecks and everyone is pretty well educated. However I live in Alabama and our governor George Wallace literally stood in the schoolhouse door to prevent integration of the University of Alabama. Our current Chief Justice Roy Moore fought marriage equality so hard that my state's ban on same sex marriage had to be struck down *twice*. So even though I live in the city that designed and developed the rockets that put human beings on the moon, I am constantly exposed to the bad reputation that my state earns for itself.
Though I am a left-wing progressive and used to being an outspoken critic of the right-wing establishment here, I consider the South my home. I love it here and I love the people (mostly). Like a family they get on my nerves, but I wouldn't have it any other way.
My accent is lighter so it's kinda hard to exactly place where I'm from and when I say I am from Alabama I get a typical "oh that's nice" response and I assume they're just being polite. With the picture that the media paints of the South, I cannot help but feel that people stereotype me in advance. On reddit I know that we don't get much love, and I have seen threads and comments before that have received a lot of upvotes talking about how much better America would be without us.
I know that there are awesome people everywhere and there are douchebags everywhere but this whole ordeal this week with confederate flag drama (which I do not support the use of the confederate flag) has made me seriously question my idea of my regional pride and how everyone else in the country thinks of us.
So in short I believe that the country as a whole has a very negative view of the South and I would like you to change my view. Thanks!
| 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 any published lies should be illegal +
+ I realize the OP is a bit vague, so let me clarify. Similar to false advertising, I believe that people who release lies (in a publishable, marketable format). This includes magazines, (information based) books, etc.
Now, dont get me wrong. I fully agree with freedom of speech. But when the speech is being purposely distributed to the public to spread lies, my agreement tends to disappear.
I'll just clarify a little bit more. if a book is saying something, claiming facts that are not true, (for the sake of argument) that the US faked the moonlanding but there is massive evidence against it, this book should not be allowed. same with "documentary" books that base arguments against fake studies etc.
| 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 "wrong time" to break up with someone +
+ You often hear complaints that a person is a bastard/bitch for breaking up with his/her girlfriend/boyfriend just before/after X event (be it a graduation, Christmas, death in the family etc.). I think that this is entirely unreasonable. If one has made up his/her mind to break it off with a romantic partner, there is no need to delay the inevitable. There will invariably be some reason why "now is not the best time." Further, it is dishonest to stay with a person for any length of time after deciding conclusively that "this person is not right for me and never will be." Staying in the face of certain relationship termination just to get past X event is unfair to both individuals involved.
Obviously this train of thought only applies to long-term committed relationships rather than casual or non-exclusive ones.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |
CMV: Evolution (or at least the concept of natural and artificial selection) should be taken out of schools for the same reasons that the Confederate battle flag should be taken down. +
+ It is pretty well known that the colombine shooters believed in natural selection, a key point of evolution. Just from their [wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Harris_and_Dylan_Klebold) they talk about natural selection in their journals, Eric Harris wore a shirt with the words "natural selection" written on it. It is clear that they believed strongly in this idea.
The thug who shot up the church in SC believed strongly in white supremacy, he believed in racism and the confederate flag.
I think that artificial selection was used as a justification for such crimes like eugenics, the holocaust ect. Believing that the weak die off is one of Darwins core concepts (Survival of the fittest, the most adapted live, the least adapted die). I think it is much more vile than the confederate flag, (which also used artificial selection, breeding slaves to fill labor shortages was most likely [a thing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_breeding_in_the_United_States) and breeding artificially is a form of artificial selection.
Please, CMV. I feel a tad silly about even holding it, as I know there are differences but I just can't think of any.
| malleable | You're a semantic analyst. Judging from the opinion statement, do you think he/she is resistant or malleable to persuasion? |