Jameshodges2003

No! go into any shop, cafe, bar etc... in the UK around Christmas time and there is plenty of evidence of Christmas cheer and spirit. It doesn't exist, and making it an issue will open the door for people who can use it an excuse to get offended.

it shouldn't be a teachers role to censor their own political opinion in the classroom. They should have the freedom to express their views onto their students, so as long as they link it to the topic at hand, and allow for ambiguity.

Children hearing a biased argument is important, as It is an integral part of life, in the workplace, high education and in the general conversation, where bias is essential to having an argument or debate worth having.

And for those on the right scared about a left-wing bias, let children learn WHY there is a left-wing bias. Explain to them the public-sector, and the impact of left-right-wing policies on the education system.

Inevitably, children will not follow their teachers opinions, unless they have literally no connection to other sources of political thinking, which is an assumption that would be naive and overly-pessimistic to make. Let children feel, and enjoy, the passion that comes with a biased argument, to will build character, and keep soul in the education system.

It leads to people who may or may not be objectively more worthy getting ahead of the game, due to their egotistical or charming nature or simple nepotism.

However this isn't necessarily a bad thing, a complete reliance on planned objectivity to dictate who does and doesn't go far in life fails to consider the real-life social conventions and doctrines that underpin our society. If we relied on this, we would live in a sterile and overtly sensitive to offence world that benefits nobody in the long run.

So while capitalism could be deemed unethical due to its freedom to appoint people based on overly subjective grounds to certain positions, it ultimately allows the real social doctrines of society to prevail, and many of these are sound and appreciated by most.

Republicans (and some Bernie-esque Democrats) found Biden's speech impediment to be a good device to portray Biden as Trumps equialvent, whereby the 2020 election was viewed by many as a referendum on Trump and his general disposition as a power-hungry right-winger, it became necessary for people against Biden to come up with a similar notion to apply to Biden.

It would be politicly naive to cast Biden as anything worth calling a referendum over, due to his mild political temperament that works in tandem with a mild manner, so therefore his stutter became a good attack line in an attempt to make voters think, "Vote Trump as to avoid Biden", rather than vice versa.

TL;DR - Using it is essential to separate genuine inequality from social engineering tactics.

"Woke" is used mainly as a slang term to highlight the lack of logic many on the left use when discussing a range of people considered minorities.

It is used when the English language is tampered with in the fight for ruthless progressivism. This was seen when Justin Treadeu, Canada's PM, corrected a woman who used the word "Mankind", noting that "we prefer people kind".

In him saying "we" he is enacting a ruthless progressive idea by insinuating that everybody should be on his side. If this was the case, then it would be naive to think that this wouldn't go any further. If any word with "man" in it was corrected to "people", then a large amount of the English language would need to be changed.

What for, and at what cost? Nobody really cares about these forms of language, even, it could be implied, do the "woke" left. Their main political aim by altering language is to make everybody think differently, anybody who's read 1984 could link it to Thought speak, they want you to think differently.

Hence, saying "woke" isn't a derogatory term against minorities, it is an important word that is necessary to separate out real inequalities, such as women and girls being assaulted or BAME people being unfairly targeted by police officers, with fictional inequalities, such as language, that aim to control the masses under the false pretence of equality.

Yes, for society, for the individual and for the family unit, immortality would be a disaster.

Nothing would get done. Productivity relies on targets and goal dates. Infinite time could lead to infinite procrastination, while the population rate would rise exponentially with no sign of a decrease.

Already scarce resources would be depleted, people would suffer under the need to sacrifice themselves for the good of "the many", when the reality would be everybody would be forced to suffer, even those at the top, who would eventually be ousted and lead to their own life of misery.

There could be more time to pursue the arts, however in a world of an infinite number of people, food production as a means to survive would be everything, leading to nothing, as life merges from living to existing in an eternal abyss.

Hence, in a potential technocracy where science finds the answer for eternal life, the phrase, "you only have one life" would be confined to the history books, mans only goal would be to survive, and the population would be confined to a robotic mirage of people destined to live forever.

Ayn Rand's theory of objectivism tells us that humans will always make decisions that fulfil the desires of individualism and productive possibilities. This is of course not a definite assumption to make of the general public, however if we assume that the average person will strive to fulfil this objective, then love at first sight must exist.

The brain produces dopamine and serotonin, according to neuroscientist Dr. Trisha Stratford [1]. upon first sight of one's potential partner. However with a divorce rate In the UK of 20.1 percent after 10 years of marriage, the theory of objectivism can be implied as the answer as to why this is the case.

As the chemicals fade away and the objective principals of marriage become daily life, the reasons for staying with someone if this theory is correct don't hold up. Hence, love at first sight must exist, or why would so many people divorce in light of an objective life that doesn't fulfil one's personal desires?

https://www.insider.com/is-love-at-first-sight-real-2018-6

It’s a tricky one. They should be allowed, subjective to whether they can provide for the child.

Simply put, Government should not dictate who can and cannot have children. If the disabled person, with the consent of their partner, wants to bear children, then they should. There is a chance that the child may not end up inheriting the disability, so all would be fine.

However if they did, The parents should be held accountable for their actions as they knew the risks. In the UK, we have a benefits system that accounts for those who need it. Despite this, if the parents appreciate the possibility of their child being disabled, then they should not expect state support. This is because the taxpayer should not bear the cost of individual decisions if there are clear risks involved.

Essentially, People, regardless of whether they are disabled, should be allowed to reproduce. Private healthcare should, however, be their only Option (regarding illness as a result of disability) for treatment. It sounds harsh, but individual Liberty must be coupled to individual responsibility.

This is absolutely not the case. What is good for all of us Is for the spirit of capitalism to flourish in our villages and town centres. Such places have become, or are becoming, places full of pizza, charity and coffee shops, seldom visited and seldom centrally lived in places devoid of all character. Major corporations that produce large amounts of profit to employ people who would otherwise be employed by, or be the owner of, small and local inner-town businesses, are destroying the fabric of British society. By pandering to the interests of large corporations, all character is being drained from our society, and towns and villages become robotic institutions where all people are forced into conformity as wage slaves to overbearing corporations.

TLDR; Calorie control is essential to living the best quality of life - for some.

The whole point of life is to live it. As
somebody who has lost 3 stone at 11, regained it plus a serious amount of interest to the point where I weighed 23 stone, and am currently in the process of getting back down to 15-16 stone, dieting is something I have a lot of experience with.

I know how it feels to be category 3, or morbidity obese. It isn’t a nice feeling. Of course this may be subjective, however I doubt many people would feel able to convey their best side or hold a degree of allure or confidence when fitting in a car is a pain, waking up stairs nearly winds you and you’re constantly terrified about breaking exam hall chairs.

Then there is the issue of feeling childish and, from an outsiders point of view, difficult to respect. I say this with personal experience, people don’t respect you, notice you, or take you seriously when you’re 23 stone. I appreciate that my case and somebody else’s cases will be totally different.

The point is, that my weight spiralled as a result of poor, almost nonexistent control when it comes to not only what I eat, or how much I eat, but the mindset attributed to overeating. A rut begins to form, and as on gets bigger and bigger, they eat more to comfort themselves, and worse, use food as a reason to wake up in the morning.

Hence, dieting isn’t about losing weight, it is about controlling calories. I know I regret getting myself into this position, and I know many others are in it too. It is a noble strength to be able to control calories in a healthy way, and so dieting is far from a waste of time.

Ultimately, the society we live in has a natural allure towards those who appear sorted. Outward appearances are a quintessentially important aspect to making oneself look like they have it sorted out.

So to conclude, dieting leads to control, control leads to fitness and health, which enables the individual to function and present as their best, their true selves.

There are many people on the right of the political spectrum who believe that those on benefits are unmotivated and unwilling to make a better life for themselves, however this, coming from a right-winger, simply isn't a strong enough argument to deny these people money, from the state, to provide for their children, themselves and any investment money they need to get on their feet.

If Aggregate demand falls in an economy, it is a commonly understood notion that a recession could loom around the corner, due to fins not being able to make sustained profits as a result of a fall in consumer spending. Therefore, by denying people who don't work benefit payouts, the state is effectively digging itself a hold where many middle-class business owners, or workers within businesses that rely on the spending of lower-class people, are going to be placed in a position where they face wage cuts, job losses or redundancy in a job market where, as I said, due to low aggregate demand, they are unlikely to find any decent job fast.

And how is that an echo of the conservative mantra? I support lower taxation, however we need to invest in putting money into peoples profits. If we really want a market-led economy, then we should look at slashing taxes on the middle-upper middle classes, and privatise many social care organisations, including parts of the NHS, in order to revitalise the UK economy.

There is also the moral message, if we say to those worse-off that we don't care about them, throw a few quid at them a month and let them get on with it, what are we saying to those on the verge of becoming middle-class? We are, by doing this, digging ourselves deeper and deeper into the rabbit hole of inequality and elitism, and in turn, effectively burying the prospective middle-class into a pit of inadequacy and hopelessness.

I am all for low state spending, however spend the little we have on boosting AD, business investment and morale lifting.

TLDR: It should be a responsibility of the more wealthy consumer to purchase small-scale items, such as books, from independent retailers rather than large corporations such as Amazon.

I appreciate that many smaller book stores seldom stock a large variety of books that may be in demand by consumers, however if someone has a household income above a certain threshold, it should be made necessary for them to fill a quota of purchases from businesses that operate independently.

It only takes a look at the near-deserted high streets and retail parks to appreciate the importance of consumer responsibility to shop within their means. Ultimately, the current direction we are going in is going to lead us to a pool of unemployment that governments will need to pay out for, while high-earning consumers are saving their money in hilariously low-interest saving accounts, and for what, another holiday or new car?

There is no question that the UK government should be standing up for the spirit of capitalism, a monopoly situation with everybody buying low-quality goods as low prices isn't what Mrs Thatcher embodied when she came to power in the 1970s. I am all for individual interests, and would consider myself on the right of British politics, but ultimately it is down to consumers looking at their bank balances and giving amazon a really long second thought.

While it may be difficult sometimes to find That book that you want, What I'd say to that is to try another independent store, or encourage them to expand their stock by giving them a chance and buying an alternative, they can't be expected to succeed if they receive zero support from an able but unwilling consumer pool.