LeeAnn

I agree with this opinion.

Also, I found reading about Willow Smith's conversation with Rachel Cargle about the racist history of the feminist movement to be refreshing and honest.

Especially the part where she says: "I don't support the exclusion of African American women from the [feminist] movement, but I do support all movements that support women—all women."

Absolutely fascinating! You've blown my mind with this.

What a refreshing take on this opinion! You have definitely succeeded in changing the way I look at it - I no longer see it as only a privilege.

Everything that you've mentioned in your argument I know to be true since I saw this happen to many of my friends and other students, both at primary and secondary school.

Some parents (or guardians) did have difficulty with purchasing school uniforms, especially in financially disadvantaged households.

Also, those who were not able to afford purchasing a new school uniform for their children often resulted in the child wearing the same uniform (which was too small and worn in some places), until such a time they could afford to do so.

So yes, these are real concerns that I feel do need to be addressed if certain schools would like to continue keeping their dress code of school uniforms.

[Here is some comparative data indicating that social science is underfunded] (https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2013/07/31/we-need-more-mainstream-social-science-not-less/).

Regarding your question: "Is there any evidence that people are drawn to certain styles or colours?"

The answer is yes, there is. Research has revealed why people are drawn to certain colors.

What's more, according to color psychology, color also affects one's behavior, mood and impression on others.

Additional research has also indicated how the use of different colors influence other aspects of our daily lives. For example, when one is learning.

Interestingly, I also like how this article explores the negative aspects of color too.

Just to weigh in on part of what you said here: "...all children stop being children one day."

In part, this is true. However, I do feel that we are also still children at heart - even though we have to grow up. I mean, maybe some of us 'forget' but I believe it's still there because we never really outgrow being children.

I think Edna St. Vincent Millay said it better: "Childhood is not from birth to a certain age and at a certain age The child is grown, and puts away childish things. Childhood is the kingdom where nobody dies.”

What question Turi!

I find that in my opinion, it depends on what you mean by using the term abusive.

For me, abuse is when one person intentionally sets out to (and gets it right) to harm another person - physically, emotionally, etc.

That being said, sex can and cannot be abusive and consensual at the same time. I know this might sound strange or even confusing but remember, people have different tastes and tolerance levels for pain. This in turn, also adds to some people re-interpreting the meaning of abuse - further widening the gap for the different levels of abuse.

So I think, these are all factors that add to the controversial nature of your question and there's definitely not going to be a straightforward answer to this.

The following article indicates some social science research that has been conducted regarding fatalism. More specifically, it does so through using climate change as an example.

It basically suggests that scientists, environmentalists and political leaders might "unintentionally trigger, disbelief, skepticism, or decreased concern among audiences" if they continue to focus mostly on the risks of climate change - as opposed to solution-based approaches.

Truly thought-provoking.

I love your opening statement for your argument, if I can call it that: "Climate change is not man made; however, man has caused climate to change and we must recognise this."

The only thing that I would add somewhere in there is that: man is also responsible for being a catalyst climate change.

Nevertheless, thanks for a great and thoroughly informative article!

TL;DR – The terms deplatforming and censorship are so interchangeable that it has resulted in majority of people thinking it’s the same thing. However, while deplatforming is censorship, to be more specific, it is a form of censorship.

Wikipedia defines deplatforming – which is also known as no-platforming as an “attempt to boycott a group or individual through removing the platforms (such as speaking venues or websites) used to share information or ideas"[1] or "the action or practice of preventing someone holding views regarded as unacceptable or offensive from contributing to a forum or debate, especially by blocking them on a particular website."[2]

While on the other hand, Wikipedia defines censorship as “the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient."[2][3][4] Censorship can be conducted by governments,[5] private institutions, and other controlling bodies.”

So then, the term deplatforming refers to a more specific approach regarding censorship that specifically advocates for and involves the removal of an individual or a group from a platform – where information such as ideas, opinions, etc. are shared. While the term censorship, on the other hand, is more all-inclusive and refers to all forms of censorship (in any number of contexts), since it is involved with restricting speech, public communication or any other information.

A specific example of deplatforming can be seen in the case of former US President Donald Trump – when he was both suspended and in other instances permanently removed from websites such Big Tech, Reddit, YouTube, TikTok, Facebook and Twitter, as shortly after a far-right mob stormed the Capitol complex on January 6. Most importantly, these tech companies all argued that deplatforming Trump was accountability, not censorship. So then, they censored his content by deplatforming him.

And an example of a different form of censorship can be seen in the case of Beijing, where China prevented harmful information (that was meant for the Communist Party) from entering the country. Moreover, here is further evidence that deplatforming can be reframed as censorship.

So then, it’s important to note that deplatforming or no-platforming, or social media canceling are all various forms of censorship. Moreover, depending on which term is used is highly dependent on the context within which a particular type of censorship occurs.

While I really like the Forbes slogan you mentioned at the end of your argument, I think this phrase is even better: "Sometimes, the client is wrong. Dead wrong".

This provides a particularly interesting and unique context for this opinion. Especially, the article on AI. Wow!

Speaking from personal experience, this is so true!

I've always felt (more) positively influenced when I do make up my bed in the morning - and more negatively influenced when I don't.

And, the phrase that you use: ‘Tidy Home, Tidy Mind,' also reflects how I feel once I've made up my bed. It really does help me to clear my mind and enables me to be more focused for the rest of the day ahead.

Thank you for sharing a very interesting opinion.

Although your argument hasn't changed my stance on this (I prefer to have my bed made up and do feel that it's important), your last paragraph got to me a little.

I mean, I know about dust mites in general but reading your opinion and this specific article still had the opposite effect on me. Maybe it's because I'm a bit of a 'neat freak' in general.

TL;DR – Ice-cream is definitely better licked than bitten, as not only does it taste better but the overall experience is also more enjoyable.

The website phys.org informs us that according to Massey food technology senior lecturer, Kay McMath, this is indeed, true.

What’s more, while there might not be any specific scientific evidence to prove that licking one’s ice-cream is better than biting it, McMath says that “there are some physical and physiological reasons why there are likely to be differences in flavor.”

More specifically, the “Flavor in ice-cream is only released when the fat content – which carries the flavor – is warmed in the mouth to at least body temperature.”

So during licking, the tongue is covered with a thin layer of ice-cream which is more quickly warmed, enabling the flavor to be detected by the large surface area of the taste buds present on the tongue.

Additionally, McMath also very astutely points out that while employing the licking technique certainly does take longer, this also allows one to savor the flavor more – making it more enjoyable.

So while at some point there might be biting involved, for the most part ice-cream can and should be licked – if for no other reason than to draw out the pleasurable experience.

You made such a strong argument with really great points that you almost has me convinced. Almost. I'm sticking with licking ;-)

The way you've argued this is so interesting and true!

I mean, sometimes if we're exposed to something enough within a particular context it might start being seen as "normal or "okay".
Or conversely, "not normal" or "not okay".

Unfortunately, the latter was what happened in the case of mental illness. Because of the lack of understanding around it at the time, as well as, society's behavior towards it - it was mostly perceived in a negative light carrying around this stigma that it was not "something not to be spoken about openly".

Now, however, the definitions of mental illness have evolved and we are more open to learning and understanding it.

But I like the way you put it better: "Modern values in our society lean more towards curing or rehabilitating mentally ill people into more normal lives and having more compassion towards them. However, what we consider normal and rational changes..."

I loved your whole argument!

And for a person that doesn't do a lot of physical exercise that's saying something.

Don't get me wrong. I do take part in physical exercise (I especially like stretching exercises), just not as often as I should.

What's more, I particularly liked the part in your argument where you make mention of: "jogging keeps the heart rate in a low-end heart rate zone, which is considered the 'fat burning' zone'". Interestingly, a lot of people don't know that this is actually the key to losing weight (more healthily).

Although, for me this is more of a personal health interest, as I'm always more aware of my heart rate when doing any form of exercise - since I have a 'not too serious' heart condition.

Nevertheless, the varied benefits that jogging presents has been proven.

Coincidentally, me and my sister were speaking about this just yesterday!

More specifically, we were speaking about it within this context: how the fashion industry continues to treat laborers unfairly and exploit them in the workplace.

I mean, here we are buying clothes, shoes, etc. But how many people ever really stop to think what went into making that particular product (e.g. forced labor, forced child labor, sexual assault, etc.).

What's more, these types of situations are made even worse by the COVID pandemic.

As they say, variety is the spice of life.

So if you think about it, you're still getting to enjoy the spicier side of life - pun intended ;-)

Speaking from my perspective as a previous meat-lover and currently that of a pescatarian, I agree with you - "roast dinners are tasty and also brilliantly versatile, ensuring that the dish is never boring or repetitive".

I used to be a sucker for traditional roast dinners and I still am. Although, I do now have my own unique variations of it minus the meat.

Which in my opinion is just further proof that roast dinners are not overrated.

TL;DR – We need to note that age is not just a number. It's a concept that we have assigned within a specific context to help us keep track of how old we are in relation to other people - and things. As such, there is a deeper understanding and meaning to it that goes beyond the numerical value we have assigned to it.

Age serves as an important numerical tool in determining how old one is. And, while there is varied research to validate responses to popular age-old expressions such as age is just a number and you’re only as old as you feel, we need to note that the concept of age is about more than this.

In fact, the concept of ageing is so important and popular that it has its own name known as gerontology – which studies the social aspects of ageing. What's more, it explores the concept of ageing through these four dimensions, namely:

The first dimension is the one most of us think of and can relate to and is known as chronological age, which is defined as "the number of years since someone was born."

The second dimension is known as biological aging and refers to the physical changes that “slow us down” as we get into our middle and older years. For example, one's arteries might clog up or one might have difficulty breathing due to problems with one's lungs.

The third dimension is known as psychological aging and refers to the psychological changes that occur as we age (this includes mental functioning and personality). Also, gerontologists do emphasize that chronological age is not always the same thing as biological or psychological age. For instance, some people who are 65 can look and act much younger than some who are 50.

The fourth dimension of aging is social and can be called social ageing. It refers to changes in a person’s roles and relationships. This includes family and friends, as well as, formal organizations such as the workplace and houses of worship.

In addition to this, although social aging can differ from person to person, it is also deeply influenced by a person, as well as, society's perception of it. For example, if a society views aging positively, the social aging experienced by individuals in that society will be more positive and enjoyable than in a society that views aging negatively.

So while age might be perceived as just a measuring tool that is used to determine one's physical age, for example, at what point of your life you should be, when to get married, when to have a baby, how you should behave, how much you should know, etc., it's been proven that there's more to it.

Consequently, I believe that everything is connected and that we need to look beyond age as just a number in order to gain a better understanding of it. Otherwise, the concept of age and time being related to each other will never be adequately explained or understood by us – since we will always fall short by limiting ourselves this way.

TL;DR – The general problematic nature that group work is usually associated with at the university level should not affect the frequency with which these meetings happen. Instead, better and more effective ways of managing group work at the university level should be introduced.

While it might seem like a waste of time, group work is an essential skill at both the university level and for the workplace too. Particularly, since group work at the university level enables students to practice their team building skills, as well as, learn to be accountable to their group and themselves. But for groupwork to be successful, rewarding and beneficial at universities more attention needs to be directed towards facilitating this process.

Plus, we need to remember that at the end of the day people are emotionally and intellectually diverse. So getting them to work together – towards a common goal is going to be challenging.

Nevertheless, in order to make group work at the university level more effective – so that it can take place as frequently and successfully as it needs to, teamworking skills at the university level can be encouraged through structuring the following methods better: observation, communication, organization, adaptability and a willingness to learn.

Moreover, while the following specific recommendations for improving group work will also further contribute towards positively reinforcing the frequency of group work at the university level, it should be noted that some unique research into this has been conducted with the aim of the study being "to add to the current level of knowledge and understandings regarding the essence behind successful group work in higher education."

Furthermore, the study also explores various explanations from students as to why some group work ends up being a positive experience – resulting in successful learning, while in other cases, the result is the opposite.

So it’s evident that group work is an absolutely essential part of the learning process at university level, as not only does it help one to work and get along with others, it also prepares you for some 'real-world' experience.

And if an orchestra can work together in a group and compose music successfully, then university students can certainly make a success of group work too.

Great argument!

And as you say, in the end the frequency of the group work should (and probably does) depend on the course (or degree) one is taking.

Although, overall, I feel that any opportunity group work can be conducted should be encouraged as in the 'real world' how often is one going to have the luxury of saying no and not participating.

For example, this can be seen with you doing your MsC in Digital Media Production - since you said "...I fully expect to be graded on group work," I'm assuming that it's part of the course.

In the end it would seem that there's no 'getting away' so to speak from group work - in school or life.

I found a very brief article on what minimalism is not and thought it might be an interesting contribution to this conversation.

TL;DR – The debate over whether race is a social or biological construct is ongoing. Particularly, since it’s mostly examined within the context of the former. This is misleading and not entirely true.

It makes sense that race is viewed as a predominantly social construct, as it exists in a biased reality because race was born from racism. However, even though the American Anthropological Association clearly states that: “race’s primary importance is social rather than biological,” it’s important to note that race is not just about the differences in the color of one’s skin, hair, eyes, etc. Race also includes other factors.

Further evidence that race is not only to be viewed as a social construct can be found when looking at our DNA. I mean, if biology can be used to report on one’s ancestry, then that is already some proof that race exists and can be perceived at the biological level too – and not just as a social construct.

Additionally, when participants to a focus group in 2004 were asked what exactly race is, factors such as, for example, physical appearance – especially skin colour, was often mentioned. However, this was not a satisfactory result since when examining a definition of race we get: “a race is a group of people who are perceived as sharing biological features.” So since this type of feature (skin color) is different from culture to culture, it’s not a straightforward matter.

What’s more, if factors such as skin colour, hair colour, eye colour and other physical traits are all under the control of genes, doesn’t our DNA then have something to do, at least in part, with race as well? For example, Pakistanis and Indians are thought of as belonging to the Asian race (an idea perhaps more common in Britain than in North America). Although, according to the level of their DNA, they are more similar to Europeans than they are to East Asians. As a result, racial categories do not reflect our underlying biological reality.

From here then, we can conclude that race is predominantly a social construct and that racial categories can and do change over time – since evidence of this can be seen in how we as social beings use it to interact.

However, it should be noted that while there is no agreed upon consensus as to whether race is a biological construct (as well), biological ancestry (which is distinct from race) is real. So from here then, a new sort of biological reality can follow.

Consequently, since our perception and understanding of race is quite heavily influenced by our ideas (social constructs) of it, the concept itself depends on the context within which it occurs.

So ultimately, whether or not race is viewed as a social or biological construct is more of a semantic question, as it is based on conceptual categories the world calls to mind.

TL;DR – Populist movements fight over the meaning of representation in democracies. And while some people view it as a form of direct democracy and others see it is a symptom of important social problems, we would do well to note that both the positive and the negative aspects of populism play an important role in how democracy functions.

The academic debate on how to adequately define and categorize populism stems from how it has presented itself in so many different ways during different times. So to help us better understand how populism can serve as both a benefit and a 'threat' to democracy, the website blogs.lse.ac.uk provides use with five very different contexts that the following academics view populism in:

First is Zsolt Enyedi, a Professor in the Department of Political Science and Pro-Rector for Hungarian Affairs at the Central European University, who believes that “Populism is indeed a threat to democracy...” A key reason for this being that "...it holds the potential of providing the state with a moral status that it otherwise lacks." What he means by this is that once the freedom of the oppressed people have been achieved, populism will not just limit itself there – as it has no self-containment mechanism.

For example, in those situations which are more relevant in advanced democracies, populism undermines the civility of the relationships among citizens. More specifically, it breaks down the respect for the dignity of political opponents, as well as, minority groups and weakens the culture of reasoned debates. Evidence of this can be seen in the case of India, which revealed that populism can significantly affect civil society and civil liberties, such as freedom of religion. What's more, if taken to more radical forms, populism does in fact constitute a threat to liberal democracy.

In addition to this, Enyedi also informs us that the while “the rise of populism can have positive (side-)effects,” in the end it is quite weak and unconvincing and does not change the overall negative assessment that populism is the greatest threat to democracy.

Second is Chantal Mouffe Chantal Mouffe, a Professor of Political Theory at the University of Westminster, who talks about "progressive populism" and that this is the only way we can save democracy – "by promoting a progressive populism that, through the construction of another ‘people’ would be able to mobilise common affects towards equality and social justice." Further elaborating on this, she says that "It is necessary to conduct a serene analysis of the problems faced by our democracies..." This way, we can get a clearer picture of how to strengthen democratic institutions against the dangers that they are exposed to.

So establishing a sort of political boundary e between "us" and "them" without setting one dominant group against another – which is more common in right-wing populism is vital. What's more, Mouffe also points out to us that while populism is viewed as a "perversion of democracy," she believes that left-wing populism in Europe today makes up the most adequate political force to recover and expand democratic ideals.

Third is Yannis Stavrakakis, a Professor of Political Discourse Analysis at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, who informs us that anti-populism may be the real threat to democracy. More specifically, "an emerging consensus is slowly moving beyond anti-populist stereotypes in order to define populism in a more reflexive manner". As a result, populism is mainly understood "as a specific type of discourse or ideology that claims to express popular interests and demands (the ‘will of the people’) against an ‘establishment’ or elite, which is seen as undermining them and forestalling their satisfaction."

Consequently, this has resulted in polarization and marginalization of the various agents involved, further highlighting "the emancipatory potential of certain populist discourses in representing excluded groups and facilitating social incorporation and democratic representation against oppressive and increasingly unaccountable power structures."

Fouth is Ruth Wodak, an Emerita Distinguished Professor of Discourse Studies at Lancaster University, who says that right-wing populist parties pose clear short and long-term dangers to democracy, namely, exclusionary agendas and cases of elite corruption.

This can be seen in their behavior which has a tendency towards displaying a deeply authoritarian mindset maintaining "...that they and only they represent the ‘real people’ in a nativist and culturalist sense." Additionally, they tend to construct and reinforce threat and danger scenarios – a politics of fear, where for example, party leaders promise to solve problems and create hope by 'saving the people', if certain changes are not implemented. So in the end, right-wing populist parties present both short-term and long-term threats to democracy.

And last is John Fitzgibbon, a Manager at Boston College, who points out that populists are not anti-democratic, they are anti-liberal democracy. An extremely astute point when it comes to understanding the precise nature of the populist ‘threat’ to democracy. Populists (in contemporary populism) see liberal democracy and its core values of the rule of law, representative democracy and protection of minorities, as the main cause "...of their bête noir: perceived national degradation."

This can be seen in arguments that pay particular attention to how the centre-left – "mostly in Western Europe, has been co-opted by neoliberal economic ideas that have let the forces of global capitalism loose in the domestic sphere with resultant deindustrialisation and dramatic underfunding of the social welfare safety net." Furthermore, it should also be noted that "populists have carefully exploited the globalisation issue beyond the economy." So populists are taking these actions not only because they perceive them as a roadblock to their power, but also because they are hugely symbolic for their supporters.

From here then, it's apparent that the narrative of populism can be seen as both a threat and a benefit to democracy, depending on the context that it is viewed within – helping us to explore the various possibilities of how it can influence democracy overall.

TL;DR – The argument concerning human rights and animal rights has basically turned into an “us” versus “them” one. And although animals are lower down in the hierarchy in comparison to us, they still deserve to be treated with dignity and respect – the same as us. As such, animal rights are human rights.

With not many people understanding why animals need to have rights of their own (animal rights), the phrase "human rights are animal rights" is met with even more confusion. However, human rights are animal rights and the main way this is exhibited is through compassion. What’s more, the concept known as whataboutism – which “is a rhetorical strategy meant to paralyze, not persuade” also plays on a real fear that compassion is a zero-sum resource – and political capital is even more so.

Furthermore, new research does in fact indicate that there’s no conflict between human and animal rights. In a study conducted by Harvard’s Yon Soo Park and Dartmouth’s Benjamin Valentino, they tested this directly. In one half of the study they used General Social Survey data to see if people who supported animal rights were more likely to support a variety of human rights – to test whether abstract compassion is zero-sum. While in the other half of the study, they compared how strong animal treatment laws were in individual states, to how strong laws were protecting human beings – to test whether political activism is zero-sum.

The outcome (for both halves) of the study revealed that “compassion seems to beget compassion.” That is to say, that compassion leads to compassion. Also, it was found that people who strongly favored government help for the sick “were over 80 percent more likely to support animal rights than those who strongly opposed it.” Interestingly, even after introducing a factor like political ideology into the study, the outcome of the results remained the same.

Additionally, the support for animal rights was also compared – though the size of the effect was smaller – with support for LGBT individuals, racial and ethnic minorities, unauthorized immigrants, and low-income people. And from here too, it was evident that concern for human suffering appeared to encourage concern for animal suffering – and vice versa. More expressly, this displays that for many people it’s the suffering, not the species that matters..

Likewise, it was found that states that did the most to protect animal rights also did the most to protect and expand upon human rights. And states with strong laws protecting LGBT residents, strong protections against hate crimes, as well as, inclusive policies for undocumented immigrants were much more likely to have strong protections for animals.

These results proved true even after introducing factors such as “each state’s economic dependency on animal agriculture, state-level political ideology, state per capita wealth, the religiosity of state residents, and race.” Leading to the conclusion that “A political system that sees human suffering and takes action is more likely to be one that sees animal suffering and takes action, and vice versa."

So it’s evident that while animals are not humans, they deserve rights too. They deserve to have a life free of abuse, torture, exploitation and suffering. And through "widening the circle of compassion" – a phrase used by Australian philosopher Peter Singer, we can all come to understand just a little bit more why human rights are (at least in part) animal rights.

TL;DR – From Mario’s classic red hat and blue overalls to his brother Luigi’s classic green hat and blue overalls, Mario Bros is known as one of the most iconic games of all time. Even today, people from all over the world still relate to this game so much that the Mario franchise cannot possibly be considered boring or irrelevant.

Mario, a prolific plumber is one of the most recognizable video game characters of all-time. In fact, as of 2018 it’s estimated that the Mario franchise has grossed over $30 Billion in revenue – which is almost as much as Call of Duty, Halo, The Legend of Zelda, Minecraft and Fortnite have generated combined.

Furthermore, Mario owns the title for the best-selling video game franchise of all time – selling more than 620 million copies of games across the globe. One reference, to better understand this can be drawn in comparison to the Pokémon franchise – which has sold about half as many copies.

Another reference to better understand Mario’s success can be seen when comparing the top 20 most-successful home movie sales of all time. This includes classics like The Lion King, Titanic, Avatar and Jurassic Park, which all add up to an estimated 548 million copies sold. Revealing to us, that Mario alone is more successful than this entire list of movies from a home sales standpoint. Additionally, the Mario franchise has moved over 920 million titles altogether.

What's more, Matthew Adler, a freelance journalist reveals to us in a very candid statement why the Mario franchise cannot possibly be considered boring or irrelevant: “If Mario were a country, he’d be one of the Top 100 most-valuable countries in the world.”

It’s evident that the Mario franchise is not going anywhere anytime soon. The fact that he represents the average, everyday person is also, what most likely adds to the iconic nature of this character and game – making it more appealing and relatable on almost every level. Pun intended.

TL:DR – Often known as the 'my way or the high way' approach to situations and life in general, rigid thinking certainly presents some disadvantages to genuine thinking. However, it should be noted that there are also advantages, as this type of behavior can actually be rather beneficial in some instances.

While it’s true that rigid thinking – which is also known as inflexible thinking, can certainly hinder one from doing certain tasks, ​it can also offer structure and a sense of security which is an important aspect of life. Particularly, if one has the right tools in place.

Maude Leroux (2020), an expert trainer at A Total Approach confirms this when she informs us that while there are many children who exhibit inflexible thinking (rigid thinking), there are positive aspects to this behavior.

Here she shows us 3 ways in which occupational therapy assists children with their rigid thinking, ultimately providing them with the opportunity to positively experience this type of behavior.

The first positive aspect that she explores is how rigid thinking can reduce guess work in a give context or situation. For example, since the world is an unpredictable place and rigid thinkers – due to their inflexible nature, often don’t cope well in settings like this, it would be best to not impose your own inflexible way of thinking onto your child. Instead, focus on encouraging your child – incorporating his/her rigid thinking, as this will facilitate their adaptability to better handle (themselves) in certain situations – not limiting their potential while encouraging them to learn in their own way. Consequently, it's very important not to allow the fact that your child is a rigid thinker to limit him/her from their true potential.

The second positive aspect that she looks at is how a rigid thinker copes with an uncertain and chaotic world. So for example, some children might feel as though they need to assign certain labels to things – fitting them neatly into boxes in their mind, since they might become overwhelmed. This behavior should not be entirely discouraged as it is seen as a sort of coping mechanism (coping with uncertainty and gaining a sense of control). As a matter of fact, this is considered normal behavior since to some degree everyone does it.

The third and final positive aspect that Leroux addresses is rigid thinking within the context of schooling and therapeutic settings. For example, while children with autism, anxiety, and/or sensory processing disorders do experience school quite differently from those without these challenges, it does not mean that their rigid way of thinking need to restrict them. Moreover, their therapist can help them to learn techniques that will enable them to not just grow but flourish in other settings.

So as you can see, occupational therapy serves as an effective way to offer educational support to children with rigid thinking, thereby allowing them not to experience this behavior in a potentially hindering or even dangerous way.

Moreover, as long as tools such as therapy take a child-friendly approach, then the child is more in charge of their own process and their own progress - which is a win-win situation if you ask me.

While I am of the opinion that food shouldn't be gendered, the reality of the situation is that it is.

No doubt, two main reasons for this (still being relevant in today's society) is most likely due to a combination social conditioning - over the years and marketing purposes.

There might be some truth to this - that women are more often super-tasters than men:

1. In this study conducted on - Gender Differences in Food Choice: Effects of Superior Temporal Sulcus Stimulation

2. In this article on - 5 Surprising Ways Men and Women Sense Things Differently.

Interesting topic of choice :-)

While Wednesday is often considered the 'middle of the week' by quite a few people, other people know it as 'Little Saturday'.

TL;DR – While I do feel that it's a good idea to bring awareness of gender inclusive language and behavior into the classroom, I think we need to caution how this is done - especially with regards to age.

We need to be more conscious with regards to the subject matter of gender neutrality and pay particular attention to how it is broached in the different age groups, as it could have both long-term positive and negative consequences.

For example, in Scandinavia, in Stockholm's Nicolaigarden pre-school, a rather creative and clever way gender neutrality was introduced was through new and unconventional books. Apparently, the aim was to "ensure equality between genders."

So the way gender neutrality was introduced here resulted in a positive outcome as it was incorporated into the children's school work in a non-disruptive manner – which is an important part of the process so that it's not discriminated against or seen as separate.

Whereas, in this second contrasting example, the Priory School in Lewes, East Sussex introduced a new school uniform policy that stated all pupils, regardless of gender, must wear trousers. Apparently, the aim was to “address the current issues of inequality and decency.”

However, what started out with good intentions was then followed by a disastrously negative outcome as the whole situation just exploded into something nasty and ugly.

So the way in which gender neutrality was introduced here, resulted in a negative outcome as the whole situation – from the way it was introduced to the overall handling of the fallout afterwards, was handled irresponsibly.

Consequently, despite our best intentions and just wanting to do good, it's important that the way we approach an especially sensitive issue like this - especially with regards to age, be taken with the utmost care in mind.

I'm with you on this one . It's the combination of the iconic cheese with the intense crunch - as you put it that make it a really great snack!

In 2019, Singapore became the first country to ban ads on sugary drinks.

Also, I found this article talking about the labelling regime alongside the advertising ban for high-sugar drinks in Singapore particularly interesting.

According to this article that discusses the advertising ban and labeling regime in Singapore specifically, Mr. Kovac was quoted as saying: “Evidence has shown that advertising bans have little impact on the wider societal factors that drive non-communicable diseases like diabetes, which FIA believes is a complex and multifactorial issue that requires a more holistic approach to solve.”

So this is why I agree, at least in part, with your argument on this issue. If we, as individuals and a society begin looking at a more all-inclusive approach (not just banning mainly), then I think we stand a better chance of fighting this.

Putting it simply: while I understand the seriousness of this situation, I do feel that in this instance, a 'tit for tat' approach could be more beneficial.

TL;DR – While freedom of speech is important for encouraging discourse, preventing suppression and preserving individual freedoms, it should be noted that there have been instances where free speech does in fact impinge on other more basic freedoms.

Freedom of speech is important to individuals, institutions, governments and societies as a whole. However, what's also important is that it not be exploited or abused. And for this to be remembered, we need to understand that while one does have a right to speak out, it still needs to be done in a respectful and responsible manner in keeping with the law, of course.

The website connectusfund.org, lets us know that freedom of speech has been around since the time of the Greeks. What’s more, while many countries have adopted their own rules and regulations concerning freedom of speech, there have been limitations that have been put into place so that people don't just indiscriminately say and do what they want.

For instance, in the United States freedom of speech is guaranteed but specific limits have been placed on it – dictating what people can and cannot say legally. Which is as it should be, otherwise people would just end up exploiting and abusing this right to freedom of speech.

Some specific examples of how freedom of speech positively affect individuals, society, institutions and governments as whole are: freedom of speech protects each of us from the influence of special interests, freedom of speech eliminates compelled actions, freedom of speech promotes the free exchange of ideas, freedom of speech can expose immoral or unlawful activities, freedom of speech prevents the requirement to behave specific ways, freedom of speech advances knowledge for a society, freedom of speech allows for peaceful changes in society, Freedom of speech gives us an opportunity to challenge hate, and freedom of speech creates resiliency.

And some specific examples of how freedom of speech negatively affect individuals, society, institutions and governments as whole are: freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to have “all” speech, freedom of speech can spread false information, freedom of speech can incite violence against other people, freedom of speech creates a paradox, freedom of speech can create a mob mentality, freedom of speech can cause people to endure verbal abuse, freedom of speech will eventually polarize society and freedom of speech reduces the desire to compromise.

So based on this evidence, it’s quite obvious that while it’s important for us – as individuals, institutions, societies and governments to have freedom of speech, it’s equally as important for us to treat this right responsibly. And if this means having limits in place – to maintain a level of accountability and justice then so be it.

TL;DR – Religion as we have come to know and interpret it today is for the most part, not a force for good.

Most (religious) people associate morality with religion – and as coming directly from religion. However, this is not true, well at least, not entirely. While the concept of religion (or what religion is supposed to be) is a force for good, this is not the way religion today is (being understood and used). Adding to the complexity of this issue is that there is no “universal” consensus on what religion is since each person practices his/her own beliefs.

Even Jim Davies (2021) who writes for the website theconversation.com cautions on this matter when he points out to us that “The Bible is complex, with many beliefs, pieces of advice and moral implications. Nobody can believe in all of it.”

Furthermore, Davies goes on to inform us that there is more to religion than what scripture says. And while doing some research for his book Riveted: The Science of Why Jokes Make Us Laugh, Movie Make Us Cry, and Religion Makes Us Feel One with the Universe, he reveals to us that what we believe – the source of morality coming from religion is not as clear cut as we make it out to be. Perhaps, this is in large part what adds to the misguided belief that people base religious morality on some internal moral compass.

Most importantly, Davies also reveals to us that experimental evidence has in fact pointed out the following: “…people’s opinion of what God thinks is right and wrong tracks what they believe is right and wrong, not the other way around.” Furthermore, in a series of separate studies that was conducted, the overall conclusion was found to be that when one thinks about God’s beliefs one is (subconsciously) accessing one’s own beliefs.

So religion as a whole cannot really be interpreted as a force for good since this concept is quite fluid – what might be acceptable for one person within the context of religion, might not necessarily be acceptable (or even allowed) for the next person. Moreover, the concept of morality (good) where religion is concerned is interchangeable – moving between our own understanding of what we believe to be good and that of what we believe to be good where religion is concerned.

The bottom line, I think where religion is concerned and especially within this context one should approach it with caution, since religion and ultimately whether religion is interpreted as a force for good (or not), is obviously based on each person’s own belief.

TL;DR – Even though IQ tests were designed to measure one’s intelligence, it would seem that this instrument is actually being used to encourage biases such as racism.

According to Felix Klaassen (2020), this is indeed the case. IQ tests were created to more easily measure one’s intelligence. However, the issue of how to measure intelligence – for people in general, then became an issue. This then, is how the so-called “culture-friendly” IQ tests have been developed – that take cultural differences into account. Still, this also continued to present it’s own issues, the main one being racism.

Klaassen provides evidence of this when he informs us that, “The IQ-scores are not interpreted within the context of culture and socio-economic climate, so that differences can induce the racist idea that certain (often non-Western) populations are naturally less intelligent than other (e.g., Western) populations. But those differences in IQ-scores can be explained by the Western nature of the test.”

He also clarifies that as a result of this, IQ tests (alone) are not suitable “to measure pure intelligence independent of a country’s culture and history.”

Furthermore, he goes on to say that the problem does not only lie with IQ tests and IQ scores. More specifically, it’s the current use of IQ that creates this type of scientific research - where racism and unfair racist ideas are fueled.

From here then, it’s already abundantly clear that certain populations are unfairly typecasted as unintelligent due to the fact that common IQ tests are biased against people from some cultures.

Moreover, we would do well to remember that racism is not only about explicit behavior towards certain groups, cultures or populations. It is in fact, our actions that are mostly determined by inherent prejudices that is responsible for this type of behavior.

TL;DR – While technology and advances in technology have made significant positive contributions in the fight towards crime, there is significant evidence that specifically shows social media being used as a tool to contribute ​negatively towards crime prevention.

Technology and in particular social media is everywhere. This means that almost anyone can (who can afford it) has access to it, including criminals. The website theconversation.com, provides evidence of this when it informs us that while social media has created some positive opportunities where crime prevention is concerned, some new concerns have emerged in relation to crime itself. Most notably, it looks at victimization on social media platforms – which has become quite common, by addressing it via two aspects, namely the bad and the ugly.

The bad: in the first instance, when looking at young people in particular, social media has been used to facilitate “new” crimes such as revenge porn which has led to calls for harsher punishments. In the second instance, the Kim Kardashian robbery emphasized how criminals now have easier access via social media platforms to track their potential victims (and their possessions). Additionally, “old” crimes such as, for example, harassment and threats, as well as, fraud and identity theft, have also been conducted in new ways through social media.

Another interesting disadvantage in the way social media negatively presents itself in relation to crime prevention, can be seen in how it’s changing the nature of post-crime behavior. For example, so-called performance crimes – where offenders boast about their criminal behavior to their friends and followers online – have become increasingly common.

Then lastly, “couch detectives” who are eager to identify suspects and often weigh in on social media also pose a real risk, as they can at the very least be distracting for law enforcement, or at the very worst lead to innocent people being wrongly accused.

The ugly: the first aspect mentioned here is how trial by social media can pose a real threat to those working in the criminal justice system. For example, if photos are shared of the accused before an indictment, or hate groups are created, or if jurors share thoughts about a case online, these are all factors that can affect the outcome of the right to a fair trial.

The second aspect looked at here, is how social media can also be used as a tool for victim-blaming. For example, as in the case of the Kardashian robbery, when immediately after the incident some Facebook and Twitter users argued about it expressing their varied opinions online.

Furthermore, social media can also be used as a weapon by which the friends and families of victims of crime are exposed to secondary victimization.

Evidently, the popularity of social media platforms have transformed the way we understand and experience crime and victimization. And as these platforms continue to change, new issues will emerge (and it will continue to do so).

What we need to do to curb and ultimately put a stop to this negativity, is to somehow not just enforce transparent regulations and proper guidelines, but also enforce collaborative regulations that span across countries and continents.

TL;DR – Monopoly is popular, not overrated. This can be seen in how fun, educational and entertaining the game still is today. Is it any wonder then, that Monopoly still holds the title as one of the most classic board games of all time.

Despite the “inflammatory” nature that Monopoly inspires in (some) people, it is considered to be “…a classic and household staple” and is one of the greatest board games of all time.

Furthermore, what makes Monopoly so popular is that it’s not just a game but a learning tool that engages one on multiple levels. This can be seen in how the following elements have been worked into the game: it's designed to be unfair, it’s heavily dependent on random mechanics, it takes forever to play, the players have nothing to do when eliminated, and it takes forever for your turn to come up.

Additionally, from an educational perspective Monopoly promotes the following: family time, communication skills, learning to follow instructions, planning and strategizing, negotiation and trading skills, encourages healthy competition, helps one to understand how other people think, improves math and general literacy skills, good for brain development, encourages problem-solving, learning economic principles (this includes supply and demand, taxes, profit, working capital), and more.

So with a history that spans over more than 100 years, Monopoly is evidently still very much a well-loved board game. Moreover, what makes it unique is that it’s a real estate trading game that offers a lot of financial wisdom and lessons which can be applied to to real-life. What's more, this is all presented in a clever yet entertaining manner.

Consequently, these are just a few of the ways in which Monopoly provides learning opportunities. And making the mistake of thinking it's overrated, means you’re missing out on an excellent opportunity to enjoy all of these benefits that this game has to offer.

TL;DR – With the recent flaring up of student protests (and universities being forced to shutdown) across various provinces in South Africa due to NSFAS unfunding them, it's apparent that this bursary programme is becoming an instrument towards financial exclusion in South Africa – most likely as a result of financial misconduct .

The National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) is a South African government student financial aid scheme was established in 1996 to provide financial aid to poor undergraduate students – to help them pay for the cost of their tertiary education after finishing high school.

And while this might have been the objective initially, it’s evident that NSFAS has fallen pray to corruption and as such such has become misguided. This at least, in part, highlights that NSFAS is responsible for the current financial exclusion situation. However, this also contributes towards a certain misguided image, lending the public and all the rest of the people to believe that it is corrupt. This is in fact not case.

NSFAS as the institution itself, is not corrupt. Rather, the various individuals who are in charge of and responsible for the everyday duties and overall management of tasks are. [Further evidence] (https://www.timeslive.co.za/news/south-africa/2020-03-12-up-to-r2bn-paid-by-nsfas-to-wrong-students-could-be-irrecoverable/) of this can be seen in the maladministration of funds, which points to something more than just negligent and irresponsible behavior.

This has however, not stopped students from various institutions such as WITS and [UCT] (https://www.groundup.org.za/article/uct-students-join-protest-against-financial-exclusion/) once again taking to the streets and protesting what they (and the rest of the country) see as financial exclusion from NSFAS – since it’s made the decision to withdraw the funding of thousands of students.

Likewise, the EFF Students Command confirms that this is indeed, a very real possibility. What's more, they also hold NSFAS Administrator, Randall Carolissen – who supports the financial aid scheme's decision, responsible for this as well. Even going as far as calling him, “… a "spineless charlatan…" Who “continues to be a thorn in the lives of poor students.”

Most importantly, the EFF Students Command have pointed out that NSFAS is representing a "failing leadership that continues to terrorize the black and marginalized." So since it’s apparent that NSFAS’s decision to unfund thousands of students will most likely lead to more financial exclusions than financial inclusions, the government and even the Higher Education Department are to be held accountable – especially since it's funded by the Department of Higher Education and Training.

So while government's commitment to free education is admirable – establishing NSFAS to assist those who do not have the financial means to fund their studies and cannot access bank funding, study loans or other bursaries, it's clear that there are still many "kinks" that need to be worked out and addressed. Chief among them the issue of transparency and the overall unprofessional conduct of both the employers and employees that represent NSFAS.

TL;DR – While we might not be privy to all of the facts, I think it’s more that a little obvious that Meghan is in no way responsible for any of the issues that have arisen. Add to that the fact that there are similarities between this incident and that of the late Princess Diana’s and this whole situation speaks volumes.

I think that in a stunning sense of clarity, this whole issue is less about Meghan (and Harry) and more about perhaps, the somewhat old-fashioned views and rules concerning "royal protocol." Even the late Princess Diana was subject to this type of pressure.

Arianna Davis, digital director of OprahMag.com who has written about Meghan extensively, also notes out that we shouldn’t be so quick to point fingers at Meghan. Evidence of how particularly, unjust Meghan’s been treated (compared to other royals) can be found in how she’s been criticized on: having a baby shower; the way she held her baby bump – and now, the way she holds her son, Archie; the dark nail polish she wore to an event; putting her hands in her pockets; wearing wedged shoes; eating avocado toast, etc.

If any of these issues have even one shred of truth to it, this is alarming. While I admit to understanding little about royal life and royal protocol, what do dictating things such as this have to do with being a royal? Not much if you ask me. And Davis further backs this up by very astutely pointing out to us that, “It's no coincidence that the most harshly critiqued royal also happens to be the first Black family member since Queen Charlotte of the 19th century.” Also adding, that Meghan is an American who is divorced and that both of these labels have not been looked upon in a favorable light by the monarchy for a good many years.

Even British journalist and author, Afua Hirsch, confirms that there is obviously an issue with regards to race here when she says: “I think what Meghan Markle’s experience has shown me is that when you put a woman of color into that space, which has always been abusive, there are particular issues.” Also adding onto that, that, “She’s more vulnerable because she’s visibly different.”

What’s more, Harry has been very outspoken regarding the unfair treatment of Meghan from the media since the beginning of their relationship. It is in fact, because of the way his wife has been treated that he decided to protect both her and their son. Clearly, Harry is a man who knows his own mind. He was even quoted as saying that he did not want history to repeat itself – obviously referring to his mother.

It’s important to note that while Harry's well acquainted with following royal protocol, he's never been one to play by the rules and has been standing up for himself since long before Meghan arrived on the scene. In fact, on more than one occasion he's mentioned his disdain regarding some of the things (protocols, rules,) that come along with being a prince. So then, this has actually been a long time in the making – further evidence that while Meghan might have been the catalyst for this situation, she is indeed, not (responsible for) destroying Harry or the Monarchy.

So instead of pointing fingers at Meghan, what we should actually be doing is supporting both Harry and Meghan for protecting themselves and their family – a right every human being and parent has.

TL;DR – While the practical and ethical concerns surrounding the vaccine passports are legitimate, I do believe that it could benefit us globally to have such a type of system in place. As long as, of course, it’s being implemented in the correct manner – not for exploitation purposes.

Alex Ledsom (2021), senior contributor for Forbes addresses this very issue when she questions the fairness of these passports. According to her, most countries currently require a mandatory negative Covid-19 test result for all incoming passengers, which is to be taken no more than 72 hours before departure. Examples of such countries include the U.S. (President Biden mandated this from 26 January 2021 onwards), England (mandated this from 4am Friday 15 January), as well as, France (mandated this from midnight 24 January).

So, many people think that the with the combination of the vaccination efforts, reduction of social gatherings (when necessary), social distancing, plus adding in this new element – the vaccination or immunity passports, it would be the ideal way to reopening travelling for more people. More specifically, the idea is that this would provide a universal document showing proof that one has been vaccinated and as a result, would help to further curb and control the spread of the virus overall.

Certainly, in theory this sounds like a good and even ideal plan. However, people are more than a little concerned over the privacy and ethics of these passports. And rightfully so. Nathalie Thomas (2021), who writes for Reuters explores some of the same concerns Ledsom did.

For instance, Thomas looked at both the travelling and entertainment industries which have been struggling to operate at profitable levels –especially where the aspect of social distancing is concerned. Of particular importance, is also making sure that the process for this is implemented as efficiently as possible.

What’s more, while it should be noted that the development of these passports are already being tested at places such as Britain’s National Health Service – which is supported by UK government funding, the practical and ethical concerns have not gone unnoticed.

This can be seen when iProov founder and chief executive, Andrew Bud makes mention of a very important and astute point saying, “I don’t think we should be forcing people into the vaccine passports. It should be a choice. But on entry, if you don’t have that passport, then we will give you another option.” He went on to suggest that the use of rapid result coronavirus tests might be a possibility.

Furthermore, while Thomas does admit there are consequences that has to be thoroughly examined, it’s worth it to do some further research into this matter as it develops.

So as evidenced, we can see that the idea – at least in theory of these vaccine passports are not all bad. I mean, if it can be implemented, regulated and monitored transparently and properly, then this would be a good sort of system to have in place for managing and containing the current pandemic, as well as, potential future pandemics.

TL;DR – While I am a person who does not drink at all (for personal reasons), I do understand that enjoying alcohol is one of life's many social pleasures. So despite the damaging effects it can have, I do not believe that it is advisable or feasible in the long run to ban alcohol completely – as it is not a sustainable solution.

I believe that it’s not a smart decision to ban alcohol completely in the long run, especially in light of the fact that: people are responsible for their own actions (how much they choose to drink) and also, it’s taxed quite heavily in various numerous countries (economic consequences).

Consequently, I believe that the distribution and overall management of alcohol should be controlled and maybe even limited in some instances where necessary – not exploited.

The website jakartapost.com informs us that this is exactly what was proposed in West Jakarta, Indonesia by the House of Representatives – with the drafting of a bill that would become the legal basis to regulate the distribution and of alcoholic beverages in society. Apparently, if such a bill were passed into law, then it would allow regulators to control and monitor the distribution of alcohol and alcoholic beverages – as opposed to completely banning it.

So while this is a good idea in theory, in reality it might be perceived as impractical and unrealistic if not implemented and regulated properly. The website theconversation.com reveals how prohibiting alcohol without thinking of the long-term repercussions can have both unintended and permanent consequences, and has already been responsible for: increase in violence, bribery and corruption, cheaper more dangerous alcohol beverages, crippling of some economies – since it’s become such a lucrative commodity.

What's more, while the website thejoint.com very interestingly weighs up both the pros and cons of completely banning alcohol from one's life, it does finally conclude that: "It’s not necessary to abstain from all alcohol for the rest of your life in order to stay healthy. But it is necessary to consume it in moderation. Excessive alcohol consumption is never good and only brings bad consequences. With the right healthy approach, it’s possible to enjoy a drink from time to time without significantly harming your health. Be smart, use in moderation, and always ask your doctor for advice before making a plan of action for your health."

So simply put, it’s not the alcohol that’s a problem but the people. Perhaps, government should (re)consider the current laws already in place and adjust them to handle this issue better. Or maybe, the current laws need to be implemented properly.

TL;DR – According to the Bible, we are to practice what we preach. Why then, do so many people not do it. Is it because it's hard? Perhaps, in this instance the theory is harder to put into practice. Well, whatever the reason, there are people who are perfectly unaware and even comfortable that they've become hypocrites living this way .

This ever-popular expression (verse) which is more accurately quoted (within its given context) as, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice. For they preach, but do not practice," Matthew 23:1-3, might be the simplest, yet the most difficult imperative in our lives. Why? Because even when we don’t say it or consciously think it, sometimes we unintentionally embody this phrase.

A really profound and unique biblical example where practicing what you preach can be found, is revealed to us when read in the Bible about how God created the Heavens and the Earth. First, He put into words what He would put into practice. That is to say, proving his words by his deeds he did what he said he would do – practicing what he preached. Some more common everyday [examples] (https://www.studysmart.gr/blog/bite-size-thoughts/practice-what-you-preach-why-it-s-important-to-lead-manage-and-practice-what-you-preach-ethically) can be seen in when we ask or tell someone else to do something. Sometimes it’s with a higher expectation than we set for ourselves – not holding them to the same standard, or not something that we, ourselves would do.

Why do we do this? I believe that the main reason people don’t (make more of an effort to) practice what they preach is because often they are often not led by example. What I mean to say is, since there are so many people who are not practicing what they preach, it's sometimes simpler to just do what others do – even if it means acting like a hypocrite more often than not.

I’ve always (and still do) believe that it's hypocritical behavior for a person to advise, lecture or educate (preach to) others (good or bad) if that person is not willing to do the same. More specifically, do not ask others what you will not ask of yourself or that you are not prepared to do yourself. Because, in order for someone to follow your example, you need to lead by example.

So while we are not perfect and all make mistakes, it doesn’t mean that we cannot or shouldn’t practice what we preach. Especially, since practicing what you preach doesn’t just occur within a specific context or bubble. It’s not just just a conceptual or theoretical process only to be experienced at the “right time." Consequently, practicing what you preach is not a perfect process and neither are we perfect creatures.

Furthermore, what is essential to note here is that if one does indeed, practice what one preaches, then it has to be done with a pure heart. Because only then, will we start to realize that it’s not only about living a moral life. It’s about our [faith in God] (https://www.ministrymatters.com/preach/entry/1804/practice-what-you-preach) and how we are to emulate good behavioral practice in morality at every level of our lives – since we are not saved by our works but by our faith in God. We can learn to practice what we preach so much better if we approach it with an open mindset of not only wanting to live a perfect life free of mistakes.

Also, we need to ensure that we examine our motives and make sure our words are in line with our actions. We need to have a concept of awareness and hold ourselves (and others) accountable for each others actions.

So then, practicing what you preach is a simple concept. There is no deciphering of any hidden code or message. It is what it is and there is nothing more or nothing less that one has to do in order to understand it better. It’s just another way we’re always learning, growing and working toward being better people – and less like hypocrites.

The bottom line, it’s a process. A practice. A constant work in progress that’s never-ending. And since it’s such an integral part of our everyday lives, there is no on and off switch. Ultimately, practicing what you preach is all about leading by example – I am going to do what I say.

TL;DR – While the general nature of the interview between the Sussex's and Oprah certainly come as a surprise, especially with regards to the continued lack of mental health support for Meghan, and the overall lack of financial support to both her and Harry. The most shocking and damning of all was the claim of racism, specifically directed towards Archie. Clearly, this is history repeating itself within a different context.

It’s impossible to listen to this story and not think about the late Princess Diana – the people’s princess. And while there are people who have said yes, there are certainly similarities that can be drawn between Meghan and the late princess Diana, we would do well to remember that this is a different issue occurring under different circumstances.

Admittedly, there is some truth to this. However, I firmly believe that this issue is not so different from Diana’s. The most apparent evidence of this can be found when Harry and Meghan first announced that they would be leaving the Royal Family. Although, it should be noted that there were signs long before this that something was amiss, for example, the feud between Willian and Harry.

And then, the most apparent evidence of all was revealed in a very candid and explosive interview with Oprah in which both Harry and Meghan addressed a whole host of issues. Most significant of all, Harry, himself, drew comparisons between the treatment of his late mother and Meghan.

Furthermore, there has also been numerous other evidence leading one to the inevitable conclusion that Diana has indeed, played a role here and in a way encouraged Harry on his journey. Harry, himself, in fact confirms this in the interview when he says that without the inheritance his mum left him, he and Meghan would not have been able to make this breakaway. Even more revealing, Harry goes on to say, “Touching back on what you asked about what my mum would think of this, I think she saw it coming." And then adding, "I certainly felt her presence throughout this whole process."

What’s more, it's obvious from what the Sussex family have decided to share with us that there is some deeper underlying issue(s) at play here. Especially since, in response to Harry and Meghan's interview, the Queen released a different statement from the one that was initially prepared by officials.

Perhaps, these issues, as well as, the new issue (specifically race) that have arisen lies in the fact that the Royal Family is made up of the Royal Family, the Institution and the Firm. Meghan, herself mentions and even explains a bit of this in the interview.

So as one can see, while we might not be privy to all of the facts, there is definitely a more paramount issue at the heart of this matter. Moreover, this is a recurring issue as is evident in the parallels between this case and that of the late Princess Diana's. After all, if this issue were more different than similar, it would not have arisen the way it did again so many years later.

Nevertheless, we would all do well to remember that this is a very complex and sensitive issue. And while they are indeed, a Royal Family which definitely further adds to the complexity of dealing with family issues in general, in particular this situation, at what cost should putting duty and service above family be justified?

Well, if we look at Harry and Meghan's final actions, it cannot and shouldn't. Especially since, at the end of the day – in an almost eerily similar fashion, Harry did what Diana chose to do in the end. He chose a different life for himself, where he could prioritize the safety and happiness of his family.

TL;DR – We’ve often heard the expression, “Money is the root of all evil.” However, this is not true. So if money is not the root of all evil, why does the Bible say it is?

This is one of the most misquoted versus in the Bible. In fact, this expression (or verse) actually reads: “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs (1 Timothy 6:10).”

From here then, we can already determine that the love of money is a root of evil – because some people love money more than they love anything else, including God.

The website gospelrelevance.com provides further evidence of this when it urges us to look more closely at what Paul said to Timothy in his first letter concerning this matter.

So upon closer inspection of this verse one thing becomes apparent: the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. More specifically, the word love as it is used here makes all the difference in how one makes sense of – understands this expression (verse), as in the original language the word that Paul used could be interpreted as “an affection for money.” What’s more, words such as “covetousness” and “greed” can also be used as synonyms in this instance. Surprisingly, this is the only occurrence of this word in the entire Bible.

The website also goes on to say that seeking to make a lot of money for the" right" reasons is not a sin, but not living generously is. That is to say, material possessions are not the problem; greed, covetousness and pride are. For example, even if the system of money was abolished, theft would still occur because having money (or no money) would not stop a person from stealing if they wanted to.

So while money is an important aspect of our lives – one has to earn a living to survive, we would do well to remember the following: the difference in this commonly misinterpreted expression and the actual expression lies then, in one's desire and motivation. What is or will the money be used for? Only for pleasure or pride?

In this way, money is not good or bad. It's just simply a value to measure things. It is (and has) in fact become a tool of exchange based on the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must do so via trade and give value for value. So on the one hand, getting the balance right can lead to a happy, stress-free life and the ability to make the social changes we want to see. While on the other hand, getting the balance wrong can destroy us, our families, our communities and the planet.

As a result, money in itself is not the root of all evil or all kinds of evil. However, an unhealthy love and desire for it is – idolatry. This is why Paul said, "The love of money is a root of all kinds of evil."

Why Money is Not The Root of All Evil
https://www.gospelrelevance.com/2017/07/16/money-is-not-the-root-of-all-evil/ [accessed March 6, 2021].

Glad you liked it.

TL;DR – Few topics are more controversial than the cookies versus biscuits debate. Of course, it’s got nothing to do with the fact that the former is very much American and the latter is very much British. Well, not to me anyway. So while I do enjoy losing myself in a good biscuit, the truth is that cookies are way better. It really is and here’s why.

The website waterbridge.net confirms, to the amusement of some people that the difference between the English biscuit and the American cookie is indeed, “…a hotly debated topic."

What’s more, the website also goes on to explain that the word “cookie” originated from the Dutch word ‘Koekje’, which means "little cake." Here then, is our first clue as to what makes cookies better than biscuits. I mean, anything that has the word “cake” attached to it is a winner in my book.

Even the website foodbeast.com provides further evidence, namely, three key points that proves cookies do indeed, have more to offer in terms of taste than biscuits do and as such are better.

First, the texture of cookies are denser, rougher and crispier than that of biscuits. Moreover, one can also, more often than not find a cookie loaded with extra treats such as nuts, raisins, chocolate chips, and oats, to mention a few.

Second, when looking at the cooking technique for both, while there is no real difference between these two, cookies are sometimes baked for longer and biscuits are twice baked - since their is a difference with regards to ingredients.

Third and last, the sweetness and sugar content of cookies make it better than that of biscuits as the flavors are more complex.

So with cookies offering more versatility in terms of ingredients, texture and flavor, I would say that this is indeed, a no brainer. Cookies are definitely better than biscuits overall – since there's more variety as to whether one prefers decadence over plain and simple.

Besides, let’s not forget that the cookies and milk combo will forever stand the test of time. Moreover, cookies make everything better!

Sources:

1. English Biscuits vs. Cookies [What’s the Difference?]
   https://www.waterbridge.net/blog/english-biscuits-vs-cookies-what-s-the-difference.html [accessed March 7, 2021].

2. How To Tell The Difference Between Cookies And Biscuits. Foodbeast.com. https://www.foodbeast.com/news/cookies-versus-biscuits/ [accessed March 7, 2021].

See, this is exactly why this is such a debatable topic. Initially, I thought so too!

It turns out that while this is "true" to some extent, apparently there is a difference.

The main difference as to how we interpret what a cookie and what a biscuit is, depends largely on where we reside.

Examples of this can be seen in:

The US, a cookie could be known as both a cookie and a biscuit. While an American biscuit is a British scone.

British English, all cookies are biscuits, but not all biscuits are cookies - just as you've mentioned.

Interestingly, in South Africa, the perception of a cookie is associated mostly with the word "American" and for biscuit it's associated mostly with the word "British" or "English."

Culture and the way it allows us to view food is also really interesting.

Nevertheless, in spite of geographical location I love my cookies!

TL; DR – While there has been a considerable effort made towards highlighting period poverty, there is still more that can be done. Additionally, more can and should be done not only to ensure that sanitary products are made more affordable, but also that these products are in fact free and more accessible to girls and women worldwide.

It’s no secret that sanitary products are not afforded with the same accessibility as condoms. A specific example of this can be seen in the South African context where: number one, pads are not free – except with the exception of promotions, campaigns or initiatives. Number two, the “free” sanitary products that are available, girls and women have difficulty or issues accessing.

The website globalcitizen.org, verifies this when they inform us that although the South African government has gotten rid of the 15% VAT on menstrual products in 2019, there are many South Africans who still cannot afford sanitary products and to make sanitary products a priority.

What's more, a study conducted by Stellenbosch University revealed that 30% of girls in South Africa missed school as a result of not being able to purchase sanitary products while menstruating.

It's with this in mind, that Bongani Majola, chairperson of the South African Human Rights Commission's following two statements carry weight: First she says, “…that a lack of access to sanitary products can have a ripple effect on the entire population.” Following it up with, “It is not just the girls and women who benefit from having proper menstrual hygiene, the broader society and national economies can profit from better menstruation management.”

Moreover, in Jake New’s article (2016) from insidehighered.com, a student, Zoey Freedman confirmed this sentiment when she wrote: “Having these products in public facilities would also provide an easy way for women living on the streets to access these products.”

Further elaborating, she continued with saying: “Homeless women and women with extremely low income are disproportionately affected by the lack of access to feminine products. Tampons are pricey for any woman, but women who can hardly afford to buy food can’t afford to buy a $10 box of tampons, leaving them to choose between food or feeling comfortable when on their period.”

So with all of this in mind then, while I have observed that there is a growing awareness of this issue, unfortunately, not enough is being done around it. Particularly, as we can see that it’s not just girls or women who benefit from this. Society at large also benefits from it in the long run.

Consequently, since periods are not a luxury and can be considered as almost akin to a basic need, I believe that it’s not unreasonable to provide free sanitary products, including more and better accessibility to them.

Sources:

1. 3 Organisations Run by Young Women That Seek to End Period Poverty in South Africa
   https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/period-poverty-south-africa-ngos-young-women/ [accessed March 5, 2021].

2. Students demand free tampons on campus
   https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/03/11/students-demand-free-tampons-campus [accessed March 5, 2021].

TL;DR – Instagram is known as one of the biggest photo and video social networking applications out there. Yet, there's a misconception that interest in the app might actually be dying. Especially in light of other similar applications on the market and newer ones most likely to emerge in the future. Well, there’s no need to worry since Instagram is still widely popular and very much relevant.

According to Brent Barnhart (2021), a professional writer and content critic, Instagram, “…is perhaps the most rapidly-evolving across all of social media.”

Furthermore, Instagram is known for its devoted user base and this can be found in the following statistics Barnhart provides for us:

Towards the end of 2020, Instagram surpassed the 1 billion global user market with recent social media demographics indicating a mostly female user base (34.3%), under the age of 34.

And although older users can also be found making use of the app, Instagram is still mostly dominated by Gen Z and Millennials.

What’s more, in this same year data from Sensor Tower revealed that Instagram was amongst the top 5 most-downloaded apps, in both the App Store and via Google Play. Also, as of January 2020 the app is second to TikTok in the App Store in terms of downloads (occasionally competing with Facebook).

Also interesting, is that 63% of Americans say they check Instagram daily, while in Australia the average Instagram user spends at least 7 hours per week on the platform.

Evidently, Instagram’s user growth is steady and consistent. Particularly, among the youth, which is clearly as a result of its dedicated users – in terms of how frequently they log in.

So while recent Instagram statistics tell us that its organic engagement has fallen since 2020, the app still shows no signs of slowing down. And this, if nothing else, is in fact a testament to it’s staying power.

The most important Instagram statistics you need to know for 2021
https://sproutsocial.com/insights/instagram-stats/ [accessed March 4, 2021].

TL;DR – Since the popularity of True Crime documentaries have increased, there have been some serious issues regarding how morality's demands relate to the production of art – with some people even referring to it as voyeurism disguised as journalism. Well, while there's no doubt that there is an aspect of the unethical, I do not believe that True Crime documentaries in general are unethical.

While calling into question the ethical nature of this genre (some cases being more unique than others), it's important for us to remember that sharing these documentaries this way offers a powerful global platform for journalists (and even us upon reflection) to investigate and draw attention to unresolved crimes.

Jana G. Pruden (2019), a Globe and Mail feature writer provides evidence of this when she informs us that the genre of True Crime documentaries and its revival is not a sign of societal breakdown and decay – since it’s been around for about as long as humans have.

Furthermore, she goes on to say that in her 20-year experience as a reporter true crime and its reputation for “unethicalness” does in fact, in part, stem from the misguided perception and belief that people more often than not find enjoyment from other people’s misery and pain, particularly, on this type of platform. More specifically, that this genre is being exploited for marketing purposes.

Pruden provides further evidence of this in an interview that was conducted with director Joe Berlinger – who has been making true crime documentaries for close to 30 years.

Apparently, in the interview he was quoted as saying, “That phrase ‘true crime’ somehow conjures up an image of wallowing in other people’s misery for the sake of the entertainment of others, and I’m very sensitive to that criticism. There are certainly works in this category that fulfill that. My answer to how to honour the victims is to tell a responsible story.”

Here, Pruden very astutely points out and clarifies that while Berlinger acknowledges there is an unethical element to this genre, and that there is a fine line between ethical and entertaining, it's not all true crime that is created equal.

Also, it's important to remember that the ethical line is one which all journalists, filmmakers, writers, podcasters, or anyone involved in true crime needs to consider on their own terms, in relation to their own projects.

Moreover, any interest in True Crime documentaries or stories is a chance for us to do better. Because as long as it is done in a proper and respectful manner it will show the power of these stories, helping us to move past this genre's unethical stigma.

True crime is popular. But is it ethical?https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-true-crime-is-popular-but-is-it-ethical/ [accessed March 4, 2021].

TL;DR – Fairy tales have always been an integrated part of children's lives. They represent important ways of helping children express their agonies, and share their inner conflicts and desires. What's more, fairy tales and the storytelling thereof plays a crucial role in the normal development of children's lives. Overall, fairy tales have a more positive affect on young minds.

While there are some people, including parents who don’t believe in the importance of fairy tales, research shows that it does in fact bring significant positive results to the development of a young mind.

Katherine Wilde (2018) confirms this in her article What we can all learn from reading fairy tales. In it she provides us with evidence by psychologist Sally Goddard Blythe, director of The Institute for Neuro-Physiological Psychology and author of The Genius of Natural Childhood: Secrets of Thriving Children.

According to Blythe, fairy tales still have a lot to teach children about life, and definitely provides key imaginary experiences that shape us throughout our lives.

Additionally, she goes on to say that “Fairy tales are important not because they show children how life is, but because they give form to deep fears and dreams about life through fantasy.”

Elaborating on this further, Blythe also points out to us that it’s important for us to recognize that, “…children take on these stories at the developmental level they are capable of. In fairy tales, it’s always clear that this isn’t the real world. The characters might be unfamiliar to the child but the problems and the feelings that are dealt with are themselves often very true to life. Fairy tales give children a way, through stories that are safely set apart from themselves, to understand some of the really confusing and difficult feelings that they can’t yet articulate for themselves.”

From here then, we can see that fairy tales are essential stories for childhood and are about more than just happily ever after. They bring about many benefits such as portraying real moral lessons, enhancing creativity and reasoning skills to mention just a few. Moreover, fairy tales are fun. Especially when used as an instructive tool and not mainly for marketing purposes.

The bottom line, fairy tales are a compass for children’s healthy development. They bring children to a fantasy land but as they grow, the moral truths of these stories remain in their hearts and minds.

What we can all learn from reading fairy tales
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/family-time/benefits-of-reading-fairy-tales/ [accessed March 4, 2021].

TL;DR – While learning a dead language might seem pointless, this is most definitely not the case. We can find evidence of Latin in romance languages, law medical and literature professions, etc. Consequently, Latin cannot be considered pointless if it still has so many influences in various fields today.

N.S. Gill (2020), ancient History and Latin expert, provides us with five very good benefits to learning the Latin language.

The first benefit to learning Latin is that its grammar is the best when it comes to grounding education. That is to say, if one has learned Latin one will have prior knowledge (foundational knowledge) which can assist when learning other languages – enabling one to pick up on other languages more easily.

The second benefit is that Latin helps one to grasp the English language better. What’s more, while it’s true that English grammar and the overall language does not originate from the Latin language, many of the English grammatical rules that we have do.

The third benefit Gill mentions is that Latin makes one more careful in the English language. More specifically, when learning Latin one has to consider much more (grammatical) rules. As a result, this makes one more careful and even meticulous when it comes to the English language.

Notably, the traditional study of Latin also provides one with a grammatical framework – indirectly transferring of the “Latin grammar” system to one's work in English. Furthermore, this then affords one with a “grammatical awareness” – standard set of terms that can be used to describe words in relation to other words, which in turn leads to improved English writing.

The fourth benefit is that Latin helps one to maximize one’s SAT scores. Apparently, test takers can guess what the meanings of new words are because they already know the roots and prefixes. Remarkably, it was found that not only does Latin enhances one’s vocabulary but also one’s Math scores too.

The fifth and final benefit is that Latin increases one's accuracy. This could be due to the fact that when one studies Latin, it does foster precision when using words. Particularly, since one has to read it very closely and carefully – often word by word. This then, places more emphasis for the person to concentrate on (the) individual words and their usage.

Moreover, it’s been also been observed that people who have studied Latin usually write English prose which are quite good.

So its clear that while Latin is widely considered a dead language, just because it’s no longer actively spoken does not make it pointless.

5 Good Reasons to Study Latin
https://www.thoughtco.com/the-benefits-of-learning-latin-112914 [accessed February 28, 2021].

TL:DR – Although using gender neutral terms encourages individuals and enables the visibility of such an important issue, it’s unrealistic to expect that most things be communicated this way. Moreover, there is no guarantee that if this were implemented this way it would guarantee exclusivity and clarity.

While it's been noted that linguistic efforts have raised awareness where gender neutral terms are concerned (specifically the social impact), simply changing our language does not guarantee societal change, more specifically in this case, inclusivity and clarity.

Maria Almeida (2017), Head of Editorial at unbabel.com, provides evidence of just how challenging this can be particularly within the context of the French language.

According to her, on November 2017, France’s not so “gender-neutral” language was called into question in a heated debate that involved the release of a school textbook which promoted “a gender-neutral version of French.” Apparently, this was extremely upsetting to traditionalists.

What’s more, the Académie Française – France’s ultimate authority on the French language, issued a furious statement immediately after the book’s release. Curiously, the document containing this statement was signed by 40 of the academy’s members, only 5 of whom were women. In it they described gender-neutral text as an “aberration” that puts the French language in “mortal danger.” They concluded by saying that “inclusive writing” has no place in the country’s grammar books.

And while this might seem quite harsh it needs to be observed that changing the structure of a language is extremely difficult. What's more, Almeida further informs us that reinforcing a binary system and even looking at personalizing languages and messages are not actual "solutions" to this issue either.

Furthermore, she enlightens us that despite these good intentions, it would just result in a lot of complexity, specifically in the case of the French language. Also, it should be noted that there are some languages that have kept their neutral grammatical gender, e.g. Finland. Does this then mean that in Finland there is more gender equality than in France. Is this specifically related to language? Does the gendered nature of language really promote sexism?

The answer to all of these questions are no. The implementation of of gender-neutral terms is not the only possible "solution." Dr. Betty Birner, professor of linguistics and cognitive science at Northern Illinois University confirms this when she points out the following: the issue of gender-neutral terms is not just about language but it involves culture too. Most importantly, “…it’s not necessarily true that a gender marked language will promote sexism because there are many other factors involved.”

So ultimately, in my opinion, we should not push for most things to be communicated in gender-neutral terms, particularly with languages that are heavily gender marked. It’s just not practical.

Should Language Be More Gender-Neutral?
https://unbabel.com/blog/should-language-be-more-gender-neutral/ [accessed February 28, 2021].

TL;DR – Digital platforms are not a threat to illustration. In fact, digital platforms have been proven to boost and provide more exposure (advertising, publicity, etc.) where various forms of illustration is concerned. More specifically, this can be seen in digital illustration.

According to the website plat4m.medium.com, most of the information that people process are visual – as 50% of all nerve fibers connected to the brain are linked to the retina, i.e. they are directly or indirectly related to vision.

Based on this then, it should come as no surprise that the latest design trends show how popular illustrations are in creating user interfaces. Examples of this can be seen in Google, Slack, InVision, Dropbox, MailChimp, Asana and Salesforce – all using illustrations in user interfaces.

Even Dana Kachan (2020), a marketing strategist and author who implements digital marketing for businesses across various industries, confirms this in her article, 7 Ways Digital Illustrations Amplify User Experience Design. In it she discusses how digital illustration – illustration combined with digital platforms, can engage and intrigue the user, as well as, add more functionality to any application that one might have.

What's more, Kachan mentions the following seven ways in which digital illustrations can benefit us, particularly where mobile applications are concerned: it helps to transfer the main idea faster, it creates an illusion of real communication with a user, digital illustrations allow people to have fun, it adds elements of gamification into a Mobile App, it’s a perfect way for user onboarding, it emphasizes the main style concept, and it drives user loyalty and engagement.

In this instance then, it's evident that illustration is also being used as a way to enhance user interface design.

So while illustration that is represented through various digital platforms does differ from the more traditional and conventional art of illustration, it’s clear that digital platforms pose more of a benefit than a threat to illustration.

Moreover, I would even go as far as saying that digital platforms have led to the optimization and overall effectiveness of publicly sharing (digital) illustration.

Source(s):

1. 6 benefits of using illustrations in UI
   https://plat4m.medium.com/6-benefits-of-using-illustrations-in-ui-66286c74f010 [accessed February 28, 2021].

2. 7 Ways Digital Illustrations Amplify User Experience Design
   https://yourstory.com/mystory/digital-illustrations-amplify-user-experience-design [accessed February 28, 2021].

TL; DR – Building a “proper” burger (meat or vegetarian) so that it can be enjoyed to the fullest extent is important. This is especially true when it comes to the layering of the (individual) ingredients, in relation to the placement of cheese on your burger – particularly if you enjoy your cheese melted like I do.

Taylor Rock (2017) who writes for the thedailymeal.com, informs us that Chris Thompson is sure he knows the proper way for us to “cheese” our burgers – especially if we want the cheese melted just right.

Apparently, just before you are to place your warm patty (meat or veggie) on your already toasted bun, you put on as much cheese you want, "...onto the inside surface of the top bun.” Then, place your patty directly onto the cheese. Once this is done, you can start layering your condiments onto the bottom bun.

Once these two buns have been separately constructed it can just be sandwiched together and eaten.

Furthermore, Thompson also points out that the cheese stays in place – melted at the top part of the bun, and there is “…uniform cheese thickness across the entire burger.” This is great, since it ensures that there is an even distribution of cheese throughout the whole burger. Also, the whole burger experience is less messy this way which is a win-win situation.

So while there might not necessarily be a “right” way to place cheese on a burger, there is most definitely a better and more preferred way that one can choose to eat one’s burger.

Source(s):

1. The Internet Is Divided About When to Add Cheese to a Burger
   https://www.thedailymeal.com/eat/internet-divided-about-when-add-cheese-burger-vote/080717 [accessed February 28, 2021].

2. You Are Cheesing Your Cheeseburgers All Wrong And I Can't Stand It Anymore
   https://adequateman.deadspin.com/you-are-cheesing-your-cheeseburgers-all-wrong-and-i-can-1797580296 [accessed February 28, 2021].

TL;DR – Coined by Archbishop Desmond Tutu and championed by the late president Nelson Mandela, as well as, the people of South Africa, becoming a rainbow nation was the post-apartheid dream. However, the country has (now more than ever) been shaken by corruption. And while it should be noted that this corruption is more predominant within the government, it's only a matter of time before it spreads throughout the rest of the nation - and we become known mostly for our corruption scandals.

The dream of being (known as) a rainbow nation has lost some of its shine over the past two decades mostly due to corruption. The website dw.com confirms this when they report that South Africa currently ranks 73 out of 180 countries in Transparency International's annual Corruption Perception Index (CPI).

Nic Cheeseman, a professor of Democracy at the University of Birmingham, further confirms and elaborates on this, by informing us of the following: while the rainbow nation of South Africa was once seen as exceptional and having more in common with the developed states of Europe (in contrast with some of South Africa’s own countries), this is no longer the case.

A specific example that he uses to provide evidence of this can be seen in the case of former president Jacob Zuma in which there was a, “…a series of destabilising corruption scandals, financial mismanagement and the incompetent leadership.” What’s more, he also says that it’s important for us to realize that this problem of corruption is actually a crisis.

More specifically, it is a, “...crisis within the country’s ruling African National Congress (ANC)…” Interestingly, he mentions that one chief reason for this might be due to the fact that during the fight for freedom, the focus was on abolishing the apartheid regime. As a result, this is what kept, “....these patrimonial tendencies and criminal connections in check. But after the advent of democracy they started to become more pronounced.”

Furthermore, Cheeseman also provides a very informative notion of how South African political analyst Moeletsi Mbeki views corruption, namely, as “legalized corruption.” Evidence of this can be seen in, for example, schemes such as the well-known Black Economic Empowerment. Apparently, these types of schemes, “…were used not transform the underlying structure of the economy, but to generate opportunities for self-enrichment.”

The website dw.com agrees with this when it very clearly tells us that while this scheme was meant to offer the same economic opportunities to formerly disadvantaged South Africans, it has instead created new inequalities.

I think that the biggest mistake we have made both as individuals and as a nation is to naively (continue) believing that people, attitudes and behaviors would change overnight. We've overlooked the possibility that the making of a rainbow nation goes much deeper than just abolishing apartheid - as corruption was already present back then, but just not as prevalent.

Consequently, I feel that we need to have meaningful reforms in place so that the same patterns (of corruption) do not repeat itself and spread. Otherwise, South Africa will ultimately be known as a corrupt nation and not a rainbow nation.

Sources:

1. South Africa: From the ashes of apartheid
   https://www.dw.com/en/south-africa-from-the-ashes-of-apartheid/a-48462055 [accessed February 28, 2021].

2. How world sees SA: 'Another one-party African state, led by corrupt dictator and his friends'
   https://www.biznews.com/global-investing/2017/04/10/sa-african-state-corrupt-dictator [accessed February 28, 2021].

TL;DR – While there are quite a number of us who wish for immortality, there are a handful of us who don’t. Ridiculous, right? Who wouldn’t want endless youth? Well, as with most things in life, there are both advantages and disadvantages to living forever.

Some of the advantages of being immortal are: living forever – excellent health and no danger of contracting any disease or becoming ill, living through history – seeing the both the un(memorable) moments, eternal beauty – typically immortals are beautiful, wealth – accumulating money over time adds up, specializing in various fields of interests – eventually you could become accomplished in almost anything, e.g. musician, doctor, artist, etc.).

While some of the disadvantages of being immortal are: you get left behind – family, friends and loved ones would all pass on(unless you can grant them immortality in some way), have to hide your immortality from some people – it could be dangerous if the ‘wrong’ people found out about it.

Also, there are two unconventional and 'out of the box' reasons that people don't really think about (all that much) when weighing up the pros and cons of immortality, and these are: the ability that one has to grant someone else immortality and the change in one's diet - depending on what type of 'immortal creature' you are.

Ultimately, it really depends on the individual and how they view life in general. What are their goals? What do they want out of life? What do they want to achieve? What do they look forward to?

There are just too many pros, cons and unconventional aspects to consider. As a result of this – both the individual and life’s bittersweet moments, I remain undecided.

TL; DR – Should I eat my corn straight off from the cob or remove it first – and then eat it? This has been a hotly debated topic for quite some time. Well, it’s no secret that eating corn directly from the cob can be a rather demanding task. However, there are still people who swear that eating it this way is the only "truly authentic" way of eating it – by enjoying the "full" experience. So what is the better way?

Personally, I believe that the best way to eat corn is when it’s already been removed from the cob. My main reason for this this is because I find that getting corn stuck in between my teeth is one of the hardest things, when it comes to eating corn off the cob directly. My other reasons for removing corn from the cob before eating it also include, it’s more efficient, less messy and easier overall. The blog food52.com confirms this when writer Mayukh Sen (2017) points out that some people do indeed find eating corn directly from the cob, “a more painstaking than pleasurable experience.”

What’s more, there are even various ways that corn can be removed from the cob. The most common way a lot of people do it (including me) is by just cutting it straight off from the cob. Two other interesting ways to remove it have already been shared via the internet and various social media platforms, as they are both quite popular.

The first interesting way (which received over 39,000 retweets, 41,000 likes on Twitter) involves using only your hands by plucking individual-like columns of kernels from the cob. Of course, there is a specific way this has to be done but the bottom line it it works and people love it! The second interesting way is to use a toothpick or skewer to remove the kernels row by row. Simply stick the toothpick/skewer in the amount of kernels you would like to remove and lift and pull.

Furthermore, Sarah Jampel who also writes for the blog food52.com informs us that one can actually tell a lot about someone based on their corn-eating habits. She goes on to say that Kathleen Kelleher of the LA Times once asked readers to "think of the way you eat corn on the cob as a Rorschach test, a kind of toothy imprint of the psyche, a revealer of truth."

I find this is a very interesting way of putting it. So based on this then, what does my corn-eating habit(s) say about me? The website spoonuniversity.com says that if one removes corn from the cob by cutting, one is strong and free and doesn't take any nonsense from anybody - it symbolizes that one doesn't need the cob to support them and that they're cutting all the drama from their life and living the way they want. So there you have it!

Also, it should be noted that while I do prefer removing the corn from the cob before eating it, there is no “right” or “proper” way to eat corn.

Sources:

1. What Your Corn-Eating Habits Say About Your Personality
   https://food52.com/blog/20267-is-there-a-right-way-to-eat-corn [accessed February 10, 2021].

2. Sen M. The "Best" Way to Eat Corn on the Cob, According to the Internet
   https://food52.com/blog/20105-the-best-way-to-eat-corn-on-the-cob-according-to-the-internet [accessed February 10, 2021].

3. Tell Us How You Eat Your Corn, and We'll Tell You What Kind of Person You Are https://spoonuniversity.com/lifestyle/what-kind-of-person-you-are-based-on-how-you-eat-corn [accessed February 10, 2021].

You're right. Sometimes it's good to just let go and have fun :-)

TL;DR – Cohabitation, also known as pre-marital cohabitation has become increasingly popular for both young and old people. So much so, that it's become somewhat of a 'norm' in today's society. And while I do understand the importance of not imposing one’s own values onto other people, or judging them for their own choices, I do believe that living together before marriage is ultimately immoral.

My single and most meaningful reason for why I don't believe in pre-marital cohabitation stems directly from my Christian faith. Simply put, it's a sin to be living that way.

Father Joseph Krupp (2004) who wrote about this topic for faithmag.com agrees with this as well. According to him the most significant reason why any of us should avoid pre-marital cohabitation can be found in two sources, namely, “…in Scripture and sacred tradition.”

He elaborates more on this with the following religious instruction: “Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children. Moreover, it is a grave scandal when there is corruption of the young.”

From here then, it is evident that any type of sexual activity is to be reserved for marriage only.

Father Krupp also goes on to inform us that perhaps pre-marital cohabitation is viewed as a 'normal' and acceptable way to live (more so in today's society), since this was (and still is) how it's commonly portrayed on television shows and commercials.

Furthermore, he also informs us that living together before marriage does not lessen the incidence of divorce. In fact, pre-marital cohabitation can actually increase the likelihood of this. Father Krupp provides proof of this by notifying us that priests doing marriage counseling have first-hand experience in dealing with the rising amount of failed marriages as a result of pre-marital cohabitation.

So while I do understand that it’s not my place or anyone else’s for that matter, to condemn people who choose to cohabit, I do not believe in a living arrangement that is outside the context of marriage. Especially if it includes sexual relations, as this undermines the biblical meaning of marriage itself.

Consequently, I absolutely don’t agree with pre-marital cohabitation under any circumstances at all. I mean, what are dating and engagement for then?

Why is it wrong for a couple to live together and 'try out' marriage?
https://faithmag.com/why-it-wrong-couple-live-together-and-try-out-marriage [accessed February 23, 2021].

TL;DR – The pizza cutter has become a rather iconic kitchen utensil where cutting pizza into proper slices is concerned. And while it’s been designed to efficiently do so, it’s definitely not the best kitchen utensil for this. In fact, there are different utensils for cutting pizza properly and they each have the same end result – a properly sliced pizza.

The website expressdigest.com confirms this to be true when it provides us with a very informative list containing some interesting utensils that can be used to slice pizza with. What’s more, it even provides us with a utensil that’s proven to be better than the pizza cutter.

The four most conventional utensils on the list are as follows: the meat cleaver is a multi-functional kitchen utensil and can be used for pizza-related activities that don’t just involve the cutting of pizza.

The next “utensil” – if it can be called such, is bladeless cutting. This is possibly the safest way of cutting your pizza as it doesn’t involve anything sharp. All you have to do is break the pizza while it’s still frozen. Another utensil to be found on this list is a pizza knife and usually comes with a curved blade to make cutting (back-and-forth motion) easier.

The last conventional utensil on this list is the chef’s knife. When using this utensil, one has to consider choosing the “correct” chef’s knife. That is to say, the knife has to be relative to the pie’s diameter, as this will ensure that the cutting is done in one smooth motion – with not too much cheese getting pulled off.

And the three most unconventional utensils on the list are as follows: the Hybrid Ulu which has a curved blade and is typically used for cutting vegetables, has demonstrated that it is just at skilled at slicing pizza. Next is the kitchen scissors which works best when cutting ultra-thin crust pizzas – as opposed to regular pizzas.

The last unconventional utensil and the winning one on this list is the kitchen shears. While it is underrated, it’s also considered to be one of the most valuable and versatile tools in the kitchen. Faster and more convenient than almost anything else, the website expressdigest.com confirms that kitchen shears are in fact, “The Best Tool for Cutting Pizza’ as they are able “to cut the perfect slices of pizza with ease – cuts cleanly and easily across the pie while keeping cheese and toppings in place..."

So while a pizza cutter is handy to have around, it’s certainly does not qualify as the best utensil for cutting pizza. That honor goes to the kitchen shears. Particularly, since the kitchen shears is considered to be the cleanest and easiest utensil of them all.

What Can I Use Instead of a Pizza Cutter?
https://expressdigest.com/what-can-i-use-instead-of-a-pizza-cutter/ [accessed February 18, 2021].

This is a good point that you make here in the last paragraph: often (depending on the situation and the implement), a person is only as good as his/her tool(s) - which in this case is the pizza cutter.

Loved reading about your experience. Thank you for sharing :-)

By the way, are pizza cutters not a bit difficult to maintain in terms of cleaning the blade and also sharpening it when needed?

TL;DR – While barbecuing is considered an American tradition, braaing is considered a South African tradition. Yet, despite this, braaing and barbecuing are often still mistaken for the same thing. I can assure you that while the two might seem similar, they are definitely not the same. Especially, since braaing is not only a South African tradition but it's a part of the culture as well.

According to the website customfirepits.co.za the word braai – an abbreviation from the word braavleis, comes from the Dutch word “Braden” which means to grill, or more specifically to roast over open coals. While the word barbecue comes from the Caribbean word “barbacoa.” Initially, a barbacoa wasn’t a way of cooking food. It was in fact the name of a wooden structure used by Taino Indians to smoke their food.

Interestingly, the fact that braaing is also known as shishanyama further proves that it is part of the South African culture – since it is a Zulu word, literally meaning “burn meat”, referring to the way the meat is cooked over hot coals.

Another major difference that sets a braai apart from a barbecue, is that it’s traditionally made with wood fire or charcoal (no gas). Any South African worth his/her salt knows this is the only way to (do a) braai properly. This means it takes much longer to get a fire going and cook the food, but that’s the point. A braai revolves around the fire, the people (socializing), and the food and drink. It’s all about the whole experience. The atmosphere.

Typical foods that are served at a braai are: boerewors – a spicy sausage full of a beef and pork mix, lamb, spiced with cloves, coriander seed, pepper, nutmeg and allspice. Also served can be any combination of steaks, rack of lamb, chicken, pork rashers, sosaties (kebabs), seafood, fish, vegetables, etc.

Also, some side dishes include green salad, garlic bread, roosterkoek (braai rolls), braaibroodjies, potato salad or potato bake, and even the more traditional pap. As for desserts, you can find cheesecake, and traditional South African desserts like milk tart, malva pudding, koeksisters, peppermint crisp, and even fruit!

And of course, a braai wouldn’t be a braai without the alcohol. The website exploresideways.com confirms this when it provide us with the following list: white wine and rose, red wine, beer and cider. Alternatively, non-alcoholic drinks (such as soft drinks and juice) are also served at braais.

A particularly unique South African reason that braaing is considered different to barbecuing is that South Africans can literally braai anything in any weather. Proof of this can be seen on The Ultimate Braai Master, a popular South African television programme on all things braai.

And finally, the last unique reason that braaing is considered different to barbecuing is the fact that it is celebrated on Heritage Day – now also known as National Braai Day, on the 24th September every year.

So as you can see, a braai is not only something that South Africans both savor and take seriously, it is also something of a national obsession.

Sources:

1. The Ultimate South African Braai Guide - Explore Sideways
   https://exploresideways.com/blog/everything-you-need-to-know-about-a-south-african-braai/ [accessed February 21, 2021].

2. Braai VS Barbeque | The Fire Pit Company
   https://customfirepits.co.za/2019/08/12/the-braai-versus-the-barbeque/ [accessed February 21, 2021].

Yes, it definitely brings the family and friends together!

Often we spend the whole day and well into the night (and even the next morning) sitting around the fire, eating and just spending time together.

My favorite part is when we talk and share stories - the eating comes in at a close second for me ;-)

As for the meat (I can answer this question based on my previous experience from when I used to eat meat): Yes! a resounding and absolute yes! The meat does taste very good. It's got this flavor that the meat (or veggies, fish, chicken, etc.) gets directly from the fire. It's not exactly a smokey flavor. It's more complex than that. The closest I can get to explaining it is that the meat is charred - almost as if it burned but not.

If you ever get the chance to braai or get invited to one, I advise you to take the opportunity. Provided the person knows what they're doing, you should not be disappointed :-)

You're welcome!

TL;DR – Extrasensory perception (ESP), psi (the first letter of the Greek word, psyche) or sixth sense as it’s more commonly known has always been associated with being mysterious and even supernatural. Parapsychologists are sure ESP is real while scientists are skeptical. This is mainly due to the fact that most of the evidence provided is based on personal experience. Well, just because science cannot adequately prove the existence of ESP does not mean that it doesn’t exist.

Eric Haseltine (2015), a former intelligence officer and entertainment executive who was also formally trained as a neuroscientist, confirms that we do indeed have a sixth sense and that we should trust it – “There are scientifically valid reasons to trust your feelings and intuitions.” He makes use of the following statement as a basis, to prove that this is true: “Much of what you know, you know without knowing how you know it.” Furthermore, he uses some scientific explanation examples versus paranormal explanation examples to demonstrate this proof as a reality.

The first example he provides is: imagine you are sitting in a noisy restaurant with your eyes closed while someone walks by – close to your left side. You’d sense their presence, even if they made no sound. According to him this awareness is done automatically without one even having to think about the following, “Hmm. The restaurant noise in my left ear just got more quiet than the noise in my right ear, therefore a sound shadow must have passed by my left side and the most likely source of such a moving shadow would be a walking human.”

Another example of “knowing without knowing” is the way in which your brain locates sounds. Again, with your eyes closed, if someone were to snap their fingers above your head – on your right side, you’d be able to accurately point in the direction of the sound. You’d even be able to estimate how far away it was without consciously examining how you were able to do it.

According to Haseltine both of these examples are from a phenomenon known as “implicit learning.” What this means is that although we usually pay attention to events, it is possible to tap into memories formed by associations to which we do not pay explicit attention to – like a sort of unconscious awareness.

However, he does also point out that not all unconscious awareness is learned. For example, determining the location of where and how a sound is heard, is hardwired into our brains – we are born with this. Similarly, the responses that we have to chemical signals in body odor are possibly also wired into us at birth.

Nevertheless, he informs us that it is useful to be aware that one is aware of things, whether it is learned or innate – even though we aren't aware of why we are aware, as such awareness can decrease harmful self-doubts.

So while we might not have any concrete or absolute evidence that ESP exists, it’s evident (at least from a subjective point of view) that there is a place for mystical and paranormal experiences. Or as Haseltine puts it, “…there are scientifically valid reasons to trust your feelings, perceptions and intuitions, even when you can’t sense how you sense them.”

What's more, we need to remember to take into account that while our understanding and awareness of otherworldly things (ESP) on a certain level is by no means complete, this does not mean that it's not real. ESP very much exists but is just lacking some substantial and sufficient evidence – as proof.

Yes, You Have a Sixth Sense, and You Should Trust It
https://www.psychologytoday.com/za/blog/long-fuse-big-bang/201504/yes-you-have-sixth-sense-and-you-should-trust-it [accessed February 21, 2021].

TL;DR – While there have been numerous arguments as to which drink is more superior, coffee or tea, it should be noted that each of these have their own health benefits and health risks. Consequently, neither one is better than the other, they're just different and should be consumed in moderation.

Caroline Tien (2020) who is a freelance writer covering health and science issues, confirms this for us when she mentions that both tea and coffee are in fact beneficial to our health in a number of ways. Both contain and provide good sources of caffeine and antioxidants – chemical compounds that may reduce your risk of certain conditions like cancer or diabetes and which helps us in feeling energized.

According to Tien, coffee should be consumed when one needs a quick energy boost, especially since one receives an immediate and bigger buzz – as it contains about twice as much caffeine as tea.

Christopher Gardner who is the director of nutrition studies at the Stanford Prevention Research Center confirms this when he notifies us that one cup of coffee typically contains 80 to 100 mg of caffeine, while one cup of tea only contains 30 to 50 mg of caffeine.

Matthew Chow, an assistant clinical professor of neurology at the University of California Davis School of Medicine, further endorses this claim when he says, "Generally speaking, coffee has two to three times more caffeine compared to a similar-sized black tea."

Alternatively, Tien informs us that tea should be consumed if one wants more sustained energy (energy that is sustained over a longer more prolonged period of time) and attention levels. Especially since both green and black tea contain L-theanine – a chemical that metabolizes caffeine over a longer period of time.

Additionally, a small study conducted in 2008 found that participants who consumed a combination of L-theanine and caffeine did better on an attention test as opposed to those who consumed caffeine only. Importantly, this study concluded that a combination of coffee and tea improved both cognitive performance and attention.

In another study that was conducted in 2015, it was found that people who consumed a moderate amount of caffeine have a lower risk for type 2 diabetes – as opposed to people who do not consume any caffeine. Furthermore, these people were also less likely to develop certain cardiovascular and neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, as well as, cancers, e.g. colon cancer, uterine cancer, and liver cancer.

Moreover, since everyone's caffeine tolerance is different (different reactions), the FDA does caution against one consuming more than four to five cups of caffeine per day as this can lead to: nausea, diarrhea, insomnia, anxiety and elevated heart rate. In extreme cases, an excess amount of caffeine can even cause epileptic seizures. Evidently, both coffee and tea (whether alone or together) need to be consumed in moderation, since having more than four or five cups per day can provide health risks from the amount of caffeine.

So while we’ve seen both the similarities and the differences between these two drinks, it's clear that neither one is better than the other. Ultimately, it depends on the individual’s overall health (medical conditions) and personal preference. Or as Chow puts it, "There is no clear winner between tea and coffee." In terms of your health, the choice basically comes down to which effects you are looking for.

Should you drink tea or coffee? Why coffee can give you a quicker buzz, but tea may provide more sustained energy
https://www.insider.com/tea-vs-coffee [accessed February 21, 2021].

TL;DR - Nothing is more basic and real than time. Yet, here we are today still debating on whether or not it exists, is real, is an illusion, is relative, or is abstract. What is time really?

Despite all of the varied and plausible theories regarding time, I very strongly believe that time is (only) an abstract concept. However, time is (only) an abstract concept until an event or action has been realized. Once this happens, then it can be perceived as real.

The most well-known theory is that of German-born theoretical physicist, Albert Einstein, whose work is known for its influence on the philosophy of science. He developed the theory of relativity which incorporates two interrelated theories, namely, special relativity and general relativity.

According to Nola Taylor Redd (2017) who is a contributing writer for Space.com., special relativity applies to all physical phenomena in the absence of gravity. That is to say, that the laws of physics are the same for all non-accelerating observers and the speed of light in a vacuum is independent of the motion of all observers. Whereas, general relativity explains the law of gravitation and its relation to other forces of nature. That is to say, this theory determines that massive objects cause a distortion in space-time, which is felt as gravity. So basically, his theory of relativity as a whole states that the faster we go, the more the time is affected.

According to Natalie Wolchover, senior writer and editor for Quanta magazine (2020) Einstein wrote in 1955, weeks before his death, “the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.” So here we can already see that despite Einstein's theory/theories on time, he also believed that time was an illusion, at least within these three concepts mentioned here.

Well, according to Andrew Jaffe who is a cosmologist and head of astrophysics at Imperial College London, Carlo Rovelli, a theoretical physicist believed that time is an illusion. He theorized that reality is just a complex network of events onto which we project sequences of past, present and future. The whole Universe obeys the laws of quantum mechanics and thermodynamics, out of which time emerges. This is why our perception of where time comes from and how it ‘moves’ or changes does not (necessarily) agree with our physical reality.

Rovelli further goes on to explain that the apparent existence of time as based on our perceptions and physical descriptions, doesn’t come from knowing (something) but from not knowing (something). That is to say, time and the acquisition of information moves in the ‘forward’ direction.

Clearly then, time is a basic yet essential concept as it has been explored by scientists, mathematicians, philosophers, psychologists, etc., as well as, 'ordinary' people in order to make sense of the world around us. It is a concept that was realized from an abstract idea, constructed by multiple metaphors (symbols, images, comparisons, representations)as a consequence of literal everyday experiences. Interestingly enough, while these metaphors are abstract, they are also grounded in our specific experiences.

So while these physicists, mathematicians, philosophers, psychologists, etc. have theorized what they believe and perceive time to be – relative, illusion, real, imagined, uniform, etc., we realize that we still do not have a definition that is concrete enough to explain (exactly) what time is.

What we do have though is a very varied impression of what time is. That being, that we cannot theorize or assume time as an independent entity, especially since how we relate to time is usually with regard to something else. For example, time and space, time and motion, time and events (or a specific event), etc. Furthermore, time is directional – it flows, irreversible – it has one direction, segments – can be categorized into past, present and future, continuous – infinite, and measurable – able to make (certain) calculations.

Therefore, I believe that the concept of time is an abstract one, as we do have an experience of time but that experience is always in comparison with (our) real experiences of events. That is to say, our experience of time is grounded in other experiences.

Sources:

1. Why Time Is Relative, Explained in Under 3 Minutes
   https://www.sciencealert.com/watch-the-famous-twin-paradox-of-special-relativity-explained [accessed January 24, 2021].

2. The illusion of time
   https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-04558-7 [accessed January 24, 2021].

3. Einstein's Theory of General Relativity
   https://www.space.com/17661-theory-general-relativity.html [accessed January 24, 2021].

While I feel that you make a good point, I am still of the opinion that time is an abstract concept.

Let's take the really great example you presented of clapping hands and apply it to my way of thinking of time - abstract: "When I clap my hands, it happened."

As you, yourself say here: when you clap your hands, it happened. Meaning, what I said in my argument about time being abstract is true: "...I very strongly believe that time is (only) an abstract concept. However, time is (only) an abstract concept until an event or action has been realized. Once this happens, then it can be perceived as real."

So when your hands were clapped time was realized (came into existence for it) - when this act became an action time became real for it.

Loved the way you argued this!

I will admit that my overall reaction to e-cigarettes were predominantly negative, but after reading this there has been a shift in my thinking.

Ultimately, what won me over was this: "...positive impact in the life of a regular smoker when used with the aim of quitting smoking."

It's important for people to realize that whenever they decide to kick a bad habit, something will always replace or be in place of that habit - whether they consciously decide to do it or not.

So I feel that in this case, it's not necessarily the e-cigarettes that are bad but how people are using them. This is also why it's not just important to provide a tool (e-cigarette) for the problem but also an all-inclusive solution (offering and implementation of proper support structures).

I really enjoyed this read and you've officially won me over!

TL;DR – Today, illustration is one of the most versatile artforms spanning across various disciplines and multiple industries. Examples of this can be seen in advertising, packaging, branding and logo, book illustrations, etc. However, it seems as though it’s very strength – versatility, is also it’s greatest weakness. Calling into question whether or not illustration is truly an “authentic” artform.

According to the website illustrationhistory.org, although illustration only became recognized as a profession in the early 1800s, we have been using illustration since the early cave paintings – telling stories by depicting narrative images. Evidence of this can be seen in the earliest recorded illustrations that appeared in the cave paintings, which originated in Lascaux, France, ca.15,000 B.C.

Furthermore, both English and French artists independently earned a living as full-time illustrators with sales of etched or engraved prints through small gallery-like print shops and city street book stalls. This lead to illustration becoming more accessible and affordable. For example, books by Charles Dickens and other popular writers were illustrated.

Another example where we can see illustration's versatility in action, is in the entertainment industry, specifically filming. Walt Disney made it's first popular sound cartoon Steamboat Willie in 1928. Following this, they went on to create full-length animated feature films such as Snow White - which began production in 1934, and Pinocchio - which began production in 1936.

So from here, we can already see how this artform has evolved and adapted over time. Even the website aestheticamagazine.com agrees that illustration is an artform. It in fact views illustration as part of the contemporary visual culture. More specifically, it defines illustration as, “one of the most versatile art forms in today’s visual culture.” As a result of this the “label” illustration can be considered as ambiguous.

So because this definition of illustration is so “amorphous” and “indefinite,” it defies convention with regards to how typical art is usually perceived. Herein then, lies the confusion as to whether illustration is truly an artform or not.

However, this is put into perspective for us when the website aestheticamagazine.com informs us, “Today’s illustrators go beyond caricature and visual representation to observational statements about current trends and popular culture. Contemporary illustration is a new movement with illustrators drawing influences from graffiti, fashion, computer games and animation. There are fewer boundaries and more friction.”

So while illustration might not be seen as an artform in the standard sense, it is nevertheless still an artform – it’s just an artform in its own right.

Sources:

1. History - Illustration History
   https://www.illustrationhistory.org/history [accessed February 17, 2021].

2. Defining the Art of illustration
   https://aestheticamagazine.com/defining-the-art-of-illustration/ [accessed February 17, 2021].

While I am of the opinion that illustration is an artform, I agree with you when you say it's not a discipline.

However, it does involve other disciplines.

Also, maybe we can view it as more of a genre - since it is a style or category of art, literature, etc.

Particularly since it has evolved so much over the years.

TL;DR – In light of the current innovations where artificial intelligence is concerned, people believe more and more every day that the evolution of artificial consciousness will not only be possible but that it can be viewed in the same light as human consciousness. However, based on what criteria do we justify this?

While I can easily say that I don't believe artificial consciousness is worth the same as human consciousness, it is nevertheless still a highly controversial topic giving rise to several philosophical questions such as: Can computers think or do they just calculate? Is consciousness a human prerogative? Does consciousness depend on the material that makes up the human brain? Can computer hardware replicate consciousness?

Benn Dickson (2018) the founder of TechTalks and a software engineer helps us to understand some of these questions by addressing it with two very important aspects in mind, namely, data and abstract thinking.

Firstly, he mentions that artificial intelligence is good at processing data and bad at thinking in abstract. So while computers are extremely good at processing data, they fall short with regards to abstract concepts. The example he uses to prove this is that of Google's Duplex. While this AI is very good at reserving restaurant tables, setting up appointments and mimicking natural human behavior, it falls completely short when abstract concepts are introduced into a conversation – cannot continue this type of conversation in a meaningful way.

Secondly (and in contrast to the first), Dickson mentions that humans are bad at processing data and good at making abstract decisions. To demonstrate the former, he uses a very simple example of how easy it is for a computer to save a song, while a human would have to listen to a song several times before it can be memorized. This same process applies when it comes to unmemorizing (something). Computers can just delete a file, whereas humans find it hard to learn how to “forget.”

Furthermore, where making abstract decisions are concerned it’s already been proven that humans are far more superior than AI. This can be seen in our highly adaptable nature given our experience in various situations – this includes both positive and negative. Dickson confirms this when he says, “Humans can make abstract decisions based on instinct, common sense and scarce information.” The example he uses to demonstrate this can be observed in how a human child learns to handle objects at a very young age, whereas for AI it takes hundreds of years’ worth of training to perform such a task.

Dickson then follows up on these facts with the question: does this mean that artificial intelligence is better than the human mind? He answers with a straightforward and resounding no. That is to say, he is of the opinion that it’s wrong to compare artificial intelligence to the human mind as they are each different in their own right – even if their functions overlap at times.

From here then, it's easy to see that artificial intelligence systems make decisions primarily based on the data they're trained on and how they relate to a particular event. What's more, artificial intelligence machines cannot understand the concept of “cause and effect” dues to the simple fact that they lack common sense. Whereas humans on the other hand, possess the unique ability to learn and apply their acquired knowledge in combination with logic, reasoning, and understanding.

So while I do understand that artificial intelligence is viewed as an invaluable tool, I firmly believe that artificial consciousness is not worth the same as human consciousness. Particularly, since real-world scenarios require a holistic, logical, rational, and emotional approach that is specific to humans – and no artificial intelligence can or will ever be able to achieve that.

There’s a huge difference between AI and human intelligence—so let’s stop comparing them.
https://bdtechtalks.com/2018/08/21/artificial-intelligence-vs-human-mind-brain/ [accessed February 17, 2021].

TL; DR – Having kids is not a decision that it to be taken lightly in the least. In fact, it is both a tremendous and humbling responsibility. Particularly when taking into account factors such as the financial implications and overpopulation. However, kids represent more than just factors such as these and should in fact not be considered as overrated in any given scenario.

It's often the case, especially from family members, that one is expected to have kids at some point in life. One of the main reasons for this is because it (procreation) is considered to be natural – a natural way of life.

Interestingly, Candice Z. and Steve Watters (2009) points out that there has been a shift from the more “traditional” view of having kids – and what they are considered to represent today. Couples are exposed to and have access to more sources of information today (than before). Consequently, this "new" or "extra" information not only informs them but also now re-shapes and redefines their perception and decision-making when it comes to having kids. Leading them to asking questions such as: Why should we have children?

As a result of this, Candice and Steve provide us with four very good reasons of why I believe kids are not to be considered overrated – irrespective of whether one decides to start a family or not.

The first reason kids are not overrated is because they are ultimately our wealth. While there is no doubt about that fact that it’s extremely costly to be raising kids, no amount of money you put in can ever equate to what you get out – in terms of the amount of love, time and energy spent investing in one's kids over the years. Or has Candice and Steve put it, “Unlike many of the depreciating assets people take on, babies are a source of wealth, delivering a return on investment that is beyond measure. No cost/benefit analysis can capture the true value of a new little person. Children are truly priceless.”

The second reason kids are not overrated is because they add meaning and goodness to life. In having children, we are given the chance to view the world through their eyes and also in a way “relive” a part of our childhood. Candice and Steve point out something very profound when they say that, “…new life continues to offer the wonder and goodness that often eludes us. It gives us a chance to see the world through fresh eyes – restoring the magic and innocence that tend to fade with age. It teaches us more about the “life of love” that God calls us to as His “dearly loved children” (Ephesians 5:1-2). And it gives mere mortals an opportunity to touch the divine – to participate with God in making a new creation in His image.”

The third reason they are not overrated is because they shape our souls. As we make the decision and decide to embark on having children, both the child and the parent(s) mature – grows and changes. Candice and Steve confirm this when they point out that, “...it’s when committing to the needs of a new life that couples are stretched into greater maturity. Children shape our souls like few other things in life, conditioning us to be more other-centered and to take a longer view of life. The demands of children that frighten so many would-be parents are in fact a crucible that can bring out the person God designed them to be.”

And the fourth and final reason they are not overrated is because they are a continuous source of hope. While there are so many negative things happening in the world some people often worry if or when is it the "right time" to have kids. Although, it should be noted that just as there are negative elements out there in the world, there are also positive elements. Moreover, Candice and Steve make a very good point when they remind us that, “…fear and anxiety are natural emotions for would-be parents, the choice to be fruitful is an enduring and courageous encounter with hope.”

So you see, it's important to remember that we were all kids once upon a time. We were all kids before we became adults. Even now, as an adult we are all still kids – somebody is always someone's kid. Or as Edna St. Vincent Millay said: "Childhood is not from birth to a certain age and at a certain age. The child is grown, and puts away childish things. Childhood is the kingdom where nobody dies.”

Consequently, in my very personal opinion, no, kids are never to be considered as overrated.

I can see how one would have a mixed opinion on this.

I mean, while I am clearly against kids being being viewed as overrated in any given scenario, it doesn't stop me from understanding where you're coming from.

Especially since you mentioned that this can be viewed as a subjective experience. Certainly, for each individual there are both advantages and disadvantages to take into consideration where having kids are concerned.

However, it's good to be aware that the factors that we tend to mention in relation to considering kids as overrated are mostly external ones - not usually directly related to or coming from the child him or herself.

What I mean is, while we need to take into account the practical considerations of everyday life (e.g. cost of raising a child), we need to be careful not to let this way of thinking lead us to becoming jaded.

So while I can respect your mixed point of view (you've mentioned some good points here), I will never be able to think of any child as being overrated - no matter how difficult or annoying they can be at times.

You've convinced me!

Your argument is really well written and not just because I now agree with you.

After reading through all of the other arguments concerning this opinion, I went and did some of my own research - since I became more interested in this topic.

You're right. While we can look at the various presidents and list all of the things they've done (and not done), we can't very well say one is more influential than the other based solely on this. It really does depend on factors such as the time period, social, economic climates, etc. as well, as you have mentioned.

In the end though, I ultimately believe that each of the US presidents were great in their own way. That is to say, each one was (and still is) influential in their own right.

I agree with every single thing that you've said here.

The only thing that I would like to contribute, if I may, is to add the word responsible here: "...and teach them to make responsible decisions about drugs and alcohol..."

And the same thing here: "...to young adults we should teach them to make responsible decisions for themselves..."

Otherwise, I like your commentary.

Even though I no longer drink coffee at all - yes, sad I know, I can still recognize and appreciate the importance of a good cup of coffee.

This includes the whole coffee-making process as you have so beautifully explained.

I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who takes coffee seriously.

Great topic!

As an ex-coffee lover I agree too!

Unfortunately, I had to stop drinking coffee years ago since I realized that I was becoming addicted to it.

Of course, it was hard and I suffered withdrawal symptoms but in the long rung it's what was better for me.

While I am a reader myself and do use every opportunity that I can get to do it, I actually have mixed feelings where this opinion is concerned.

On the one hand I feel that I agree since I'll take reading over watching a movie any day - no matter how good the movie. I kid you not. While on the other hand, I know and understand that not everybody likes reading - especially in this context.

And it's with this contrasting aspect in mind, that I actually find myself agreeing (at least in part) with your argument. Especially, where you mention some interesting reasons why people may not find reading relaxing.

Very informative. Thank you!

TL; DR – While adoption and procreation are two different approaches each with their own pros and cons, the fact that they both involve raising a child or children – whether biologically your own or not, does not necessarily make one “better” than the other.

While adoption is indeed a very moral and principled cause, no person should be made to feel obligated to adopt a child – no matter the circumstances.

This is one of the very issues that Travis N. Rieder (2014), Director of the MBE Program, assistant director for education initiatives, core faculty, and research scholar discusses in his published paper – which appears in the Journal of Applied Philosophy called “Procreation, Adoption, and the Contours of Obligation.”

So while his paper explores the potential benefits and harms of the morality of human procreation as a whole, Rieder also specifically addresses if one has a moral obligation to adopt (instead of procreate), particularly if one is able to afford it.

Rieder does this by first informing us of two very important concepts that help us to understand and define adoption and procreation better, namely, pro-natalism and anti-natalism. Here pro-natalism is regarded as having a general view or attitude that procreating is a good thing – we should go ahead and procreate. While anti-natalism is regarded as a view or attitude that procreating is a bad thing – we should no procreate.

Furthermore, Rieder then tackles these two concepts head on by asking: Do prospective (potential) parents have a general obligation to adopt rather than procreate? While he does point out that we should not take much comfort from his answer, his short response is no. No, potential parents should not be made to feel obligated to adopt rather than procreate.

His main reason for feeling this way is because he considers such acts as, “ ‘first order intimacies’ – the kind of actions that it would be generally inappropriate to consider targets of obligation.” And while he does indicate that this objection is specific to obligation and also that many philosophers think one should to be held accountable (for something) if one is obligated to do something, he admits that “some acts just don’t seem appropriately demandable.”

So then, while we recognize that both approaches – adoption and procreation, have their advantages and disadvantages, not one of these can or should be viewed as better than the other. They are simply different, especially since both approaches have the same end goal in mind – taking care of and providing a child or children with a loving and stable environment.

Is It Right to Have a Baby When You Could Adopt? http://bioethicsbulletin.org/archive/is-it-right-to-conceive-a-child-when-you-could-adopt-instead [accessed February 12, 2021].

While I prefer good old-fashioned swimming, I must say that the way you wrote about scuba diving here certainly convinced me to give it a try.

Thanks!

TL; DR – While chivalry is not a word that we use often, it is firmly rooted in our everyday lives. This can be seen in the way both women and men interact with each other. Especially when men perform gestures for women such as as opening doors, holding their chairs, rising when they enter or leave a room, etc. However, chivalry is much more than this. It is in fact a subtle form of sexism known as benevolent sexism.

David Molloy (2011) who writes for the Irish Times informs us that a psychological study published in the Psychology of Women Quarterly journal confirmed that traditional chivalry is in fact a subtle form of sexism – despite its “seemingly positive” qualities.

Some examples which the study uses to validate that chivalry is indeed a type of sexism are: when using “he” while referring to a person of unknown gender, helping a woman carry her shopping bags, or offering to drive on long-distance journeys. Apparently, the report from the study argues that such acts suggest that a woman is unable to perform these duties without the help of a man.

Other examples where benevolent sexism can also be seen is when it comes to paying for dinner, seeing woman home safely, and paternalistic treatment (where women are cherished and protected by men).

Furthermore, the study specifically looked at both male and female students in Germany and the United States, respectively. They were each asked to keep a record of events of their lives using a diary. One group was specifically asked about sexist incidents, while the other group was asked about more general social interactions.

From here, it was revealed that women do, to some extent, support sexist beliefs because they do not properly focus on and apply themselves to these subtle forms of sexism in their everyday lives – they don't handle it in an appropriate manner when it happens.

Additionally, it was also revealed that men are unaware of such incidents and are less likely to see sexist incidents as being discriminatory and possibly harmful for women – they do not recognize it as biased or prejudiced because they don't really pay attention.

Consequently, what this study discovered is that despite “its negative implications and consequences,” benevolent sexism is not recognized as a problem.

I believe that the main reason for this is because it's not seen as such a blatant and in your face form of sexism. No doubt, due to the fact that chivalry has been romanticized, and both men and women have each been assigned their respective roles (in the home, workplace, etc.) in society already – which plays a part in this perception as well.

Molloy confirms this when he notifies us that the authors of this study highlight this as something we need to be aware of as it, “hides the harm benevolent sexism can promote and encourages its endorsement.”

Chivalry is 'benevolent sexism'
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/chivalry-is-benevolent-sexism-1.878280 [accessed February 9, 2021].

Point well made!

However, I do think that it is important for all of us, both men and women – no matter our traditions, to be aware of this (chivalry as a subtle form of sexism) so that we know this situation does exist and it is in fact very real.

Also, in recognizing that this type of sexism (benevolent) does exist, it does not necessarily mean that we (have to) agree with it.

More importantly, we need to be aware that it can be used as a negative influence, for example, maybe in the form of emotional manipulation by some people.

So while I don't view the overall concept of chivalry as "bad," I am very much aware of this "other" side of it – benevolent sexism.

What I mean by "no matter our traditions" is that even though we all have our own beliefs, it does not mean that we don't have to be aware of what is happening in other traditions or cultures (even if we might not understand) - we don't necessarily have to believe in or do what "others" are believing in or doing but being aware is always a good thing, I think.

By using the word aware this is not what I mean – that we should merely tolerate and accept things, since for me being aware of a particular subject matter or issue does not translate or equate to tolerance or acceptance.

I actually do agree with and understand what you are trying to say where this aspect of chivalry is concerned. However, the specific point that I have highlighted here with chivalry (and subsequently some other factors related to it) is just to make us aware of what I consider to be an important aspect of chivalry.

What I mean to say is, most people are "used to" the "standard version" of what chivalry is – not that there is anything wrong with this, as everyone is entitled to their opinion. But I thought that highlighting this particular aspect of chivalry would be especially informative since it's not something that a lot of people might consider or even know about. This is what I meant by what I said in my initial response to you, "So while I don't view the overall concept of chivalry as "bad," I am very much aware of this "other" side of it – benevolent sexism."

That being said, I once again also reiterate what I said in my previous response to you, "we don't necessarily have to believe in or do what "others" are believing in or doing but being aware is always a good thing, I think."

Also, thank you very much for pointing out to me the two aspects of tolerance and acceptance where such an issue is concerned. It had not occurred to me that some people might perceive being aware of something in this way.

While I love fruit and all things fruity, I feel the same way - where having pieces of fruit in my juice (or any other drink) is concerned.

I suspect it has something to do with how I feel about texture - both where drink and food are concerned. More specifically, I believe that drinks should be smooth (and not textured at all in any way), while eating certain types of textured foods are okay.

TL; DR – While there's been an increasing shift towards a more plant-based diet, the negative health effects where this is concerned cannot be denied. Particularly since researchers have brought to light and verified the many health risks that are associated with only eating a plant-based diet.

Luke Mintz (2019) who writes for goodfood.com informs us that going meat-free could in fact be more damaging to one's health. Apparently, early in the year of 2019 a consultancy firm, AT Kearney, anticipated that by the year 2040 animal products will become both socially and environmentally unpredictable. This means that most of our “meat” will start coming from labs – in the form of plant-based or lab-grown substitutes.

Furthermore, Mintz goes on to confirm that even though an analysis by Sainsbury's has anticipated that by the year 2025 both vegetarians and vegans are set to make up one quarter of the UK population by 2025, recent studies are showing increased health risks such as: brain fog, short-term memory loss, changes in mood, difficulty sleeping, agitation, and anxiety.

What’s more, researchers have also pointed out that there is an increased risk of stroke as well. According to an Oxford University study, published in the British Medical Journal, vegetarians (and vegans) have a 20% higher risk of a stroke – compared with people who eat meat regularly. This 18-year study which tracked almost 50 000 participants said that this could be due to vegetarians not having enough cholesterol in their blood.

Helen Bond, a registered dietitian, notes that while this 20% sample is quite a small amount it should still be taken seriously – it equates to three more cases of stroke per 1,000 people over 10 years. Another excellent point that she highlights is that people who cut out meat completely don't always understand the overall health implications of their lifestyle choice. This is true, especially since each individual is different. Bond further elaborates by advising, "I think people shouldn't just embark on a vegan diet because it's on trend, and they're following some Instagram guru. They should delve deeper and understand that there are nutrient shortfalls."

So while we do have to consider the full health (and environmental) implications, I think it’s a little unrealistic and restrictive to expect everyone to change to a completely plant-based diet. Especially based on the health risks that have been emphasized.

Yes, eating a more plant-based diet has become quite a popular trend and might seem like the ideal solution, but at the end of the day I also believe that we can and should be able to comprise. Try and find more of a balanced approach. After all, eating is a personal preference and there is no “right” or “wrong" way where this is concerned, just different.

Why going meat-free could damage your health https://www.goodfood.com.au/good-health/why-going-meatfree-could-damage-your-health-20190909-h1hupr [accessed February 8, 2021].

TL; DR – It is an undeniable fact recognized worldwide that scones are considered to be a classic English dessert. However, what has not been settled on is what goes first? The jam (Cornish approach) or the cream (Devon approach)?

So while food choices are based on various factors, I do believe that culture and personal preference are the main factors that influence one. Personally, I prefer to eat my scone with the jam added before the cream.

Well according to the website you.co.uk, a team at the Village Hotel Club conducted a survey with the following results: 52% out of 2 000 people who were quizzed about their preferred way of eating scones revealed that they prefer to add the jam first. While a further 25% said that they preferred the cream to be added first, and a remaining 19% were indifferent.

What’s more, even the website taste.com.au revealed this to be the case. In a vote conducted on Facebook, out of 18 000 votes in total, 17 000 people voted for the jam to be added first. While the remaining 1 000 voted for the cream to be added first.

So with this “jam-first philosophy” in mind, you.co.uk informs us that this debate should now be settled. The Cornish approach is the proven official winner whether one agrees or not. Well I do agree, since not only is it the most popular choice but even Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II prefers the Cornish approach! This definitely further endorses this approach or at the very least has one considering whether or not to give it a try.

Sources:

1. The correct order to put jam and cream on your scones has been confirmed https://www.you.co.uk/jam-on-scones-before-cream/ [accessed February 8, 2021].

2. The great scone debate is finally settled... (and apparently the Queen agrees)
   https://www.taste.com.au/articles/great-scone-debate-finally-settled-apparently-queen-agrees/mbqlz6at [accessed February 8, 2021].

Hi Georgie!

I love this opinion, especially since both the eating (method) of the scone and the name "scone" itself is influenced so much by the cultural aspect of the English.

Apparently, there has been no agreement reached on the pronunciation of this word since region and social class are two of the main factors that influence how people say the word.

More about this (and the favored Cornish method) is revealed here in this research study where people voted: https://www.indy100.com/discover/scone-pronounce-jam-cream-first-yougov-survey-8424571

Very well presented argument Elli.

Also, I love how even though you are firm in your opinion that meat is good for one, you also acknowledged some understanding towards vegetarians and vegans.

The reason this topic caught my attention is because I don't eat meat and I wanted to see what you had to say concerning this issue.

I stopped eating it years ago because it just didn't taste good to me - it wasn't a conscious decision on my part. The strange thing is when I did this, I had no idea that there was another category other than vegetarian or vegan, namely, pescatarian - even though I stopped eating meat I continued eating fish.

So while I do not eat meat, I agree with you that meat is definitely good for one to eat. Provided of course that it is eaten in moderation.

Great topic!

For me personally, while I do eat fish my diet is primarily plant-based. So, I'll eat almost all types of fruit and vegetables. I'm really not fussy where this is concerned since I grew up eating them on a daily basis. Although, mango and paw-paw are a hard line for me. I can't get it to stay down.

Also, I love a wide variety of whole grains since they are great sources of fiber and vitamins - I have to be aware of the fact that since I don't eat meat, I do need to make an extra effort to get the nutrients that I am missing out on from other sources.

So, some of the different types of whole grains I eat include whole-wheat bread, rolls and tortillas, brown rice, oats, quinoa, whole-wheat couscous, corn, and pasta.

Then, there are also the various salads that I love eating, as well as legumes such as beans, kidney beans, black beans, chickpeas, lentils, green beans and peanuts. What's important for me is also the freshness of the various ingredients. So anything that can be bought fresh is great - the fresher the better!

I know that a lot of people often wonder what vegan, vegetarian or pescatarian diets have to offer but there really is a wide variety of nutrients available. And one of the best things about these types of foods is that they are quite versatile - I love using some (or a combination) of these ingredients for making my own dishes from scratch. For example vegetarian patties, vegetable lasagna or pie.

Of course, this does not include everything that I eat but I hope it gives you some idea of which foods/food types I get some of my nutrients from.

TL; DR – Marmite is not universally liked mainly due to its pungent taste. As a result, it has gained an unfair reputation over the years also leading to the advertising slogan, “Marmite – Love it or Hate it.” In spite of this, science has proven unbelievable health benefits where Marmite is concerned.

According to the website goodto.com, one of the health benefits that are associated with Marmite include, boosting your brain power. In a 2017 study conducted at York University, researchers tested two different groups. One group ate a teaspoon of Marmite per day while the other group ate a teaspoon of peanut butter per day. It was found that the high concentration of Vitamin B12 in Marmite could help to improve healthy brain function and even potentially protect against neurological disorders.

Another health benefit that this same study found was that Marmite is full of vitamins. The extra amount of B12 found in it makes red blood cells and protects the nervous system. It’s also rich in B1, B2 and B3 – helps to convert food into fuel and stabilizes energy levels. In addition to this, it also provides 50% of one’s recommended daily allowance of folic acid (also known as vitamin B9), which helps the body to produce and maintain new cells. This is also another reason why it’s often recommended during pregnancy too.

More health benefits of Marmite include that it is low in calories, helps one sleep and apparently even cures hangovers – a key ingredient for a popular hangover remedy in Sri Lanka.

And last but not least, the most interesting benefit that Marmite is said to offer is with regards to dementia. The website dailymail.co.uk reported that eating a teaspoon of Marmite a day for a month was found to tone down the brain’s response to visual stimuli by 30 per cent – a sign of a healthy mind that is not hyperactive and overreacting.

Consequently, researchers at York University now believe that yeast extract could be used to prevent seizures in epilepsy – following evidence that vitamin B12 plays an important part in memory. This in turn could also prompt further research to see if Marmite and its effect on the brain’s GABA chemical might provide a treatment for dementia.

So despite the fact that Marmite was accidentally created as by-product of the beer brewing process, it seems as though the good (health benefits), outweigh the bad (the taste) in this instance. And the fact that it only contains 4 ingredients and is vegetarian approved doesn't hurt either!

Sources:

1. Is Marmite good for you? The surprising health benefits of the savoury spread
   https://www.goodto.com/wellbeing/is-marmite-good-for-you-health-benefits-6834 [accessed February 5, 2021].

2. How Marmite could help stop dementia
   https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4380968/How-Marmite-help-stop-dementia.html [accessed February 5, 2021].

I love this topic Hatty!

And I do of course agree with you. But then again, maybe it's because I am biased and have grown up eating it almost every other day. So I find no problem with the taste.

Also, while I do think that it's an acquired taste, maybe more people should give it a try, especially with regards to it's varied and proven health benefits.

Thanks for a great topic!

Yes, Melanie.

While I do agree with this opinion, I also feel that it can be interpreted further. Especially in the way you suggested and have done - technology is now a new and different tool that can and certainly has changed how people express themselves creatively.

More specifically, technology has changed the way people are now expressing themselves through art. I feel that this especially true since the COVID pandemic started. Artists from all over the world are finding different ways to express themselves and their art through various mediums of technology, which in turn gives way to some very innovative concepts and ideas.

Also, I'm not entirely sure that I agree with the first part of your statement, "The old ways atrophy..." I suppose it depends on the context in which an old idea/concept is considered "atrophy."

Agreed!

At the end of the day we need to remember that technology is a collection of various tools (such as goods or services) that have been invented by us - using our skills, to make our lives easier and more efficient in achieving our objectives.

In addition, today we get various types of technology such as communication, construction, product, medical, architecture, business, education and information.

So puzzles, painting, chess, etc. can definitely be considered as a form of technology.

TL;DR – The great “cake debate: spoons vs forks” is an ongoing one that many people feel quite passionate about. Apparently, there is a certain way that cake is supposed to be eaten.

I must admit, this had me very curious. Especially since I was under the impression (up until a good couple of years ago) that there was only one way of eating cake, with a spoon!

As surprising (and in some instances confusing) as this might be, there is no "correct" or "proper" way to eat cake. Particularly, in light of the fact that there are so many different types of cakes today, never mind the etiquette rules behind it all.

Rachel Atkinson (2017) confirms this by pointing out that there is indeed no “correct” or "proper" utensil to eat dessert with because it depends on the type of dessert your are eating. Furthermore, she also adds that texture plays an important role in helping one ultimately decide on the more appropriate eating utensil to use.

For example, when eating cake that is soft a spoon is required. While in contrast, when eating a layered cake a fork is usually is used. Although, it's not uncommon to see both a fork and spoon being used in this instance, as well as, in the instance of firmer and more dense cakes. I have to admit, this really surprised since I’ve never thought of eating any type of cake with both utensils.

Then that got me thinking, it shouldn’t really be that surprising at all. Especially since there are a wide variety of foods where people use both (or either one) utensils – fork and/or spoon to eat with. Examples of such foods include spaghetti, chili, Jell-O, peas, mac ‘n cheese, mashed potato, pie, rice, corn, crème brûlée, watermelon, ramen noodles, oatmeal, baked beans, coleslaw and lasagna. However, it should be noted that debates for these foods are also still ongoing.

Honestly though, while I had no idea there were so many different types of foods, never mind cakes that could be eaten with two utensils, what's wrong with just using your hands, where appropriate?

Sources:

1. Dessert Etiquette
   https://www.acsilver.co.uk/acsnews/2017/10/26/dessert-etiquette/ [accessed February 4, 2021].

2. Dessert Etiquette
   https://www.etiquettescholar.com/dining_etiquette/table_manners/dinner_etiquette/desserts/desserts.html [accessed February 4, 2021].

3. Do You Eat These Foods With A Fork Or Spoon?
   https://www.buzzfeed.com/francescaarea/fork-or-spoon [accessed February 4, 2021].

TL;DR - Although there might not be solid evidence and a lot of mixed reviews doing the rounds, it is clear that there are other 'elements' out there in the world. That is to say, ghosts do exist.

While Benjamin Radford a writer for livescience.com very astutely points out that there is as yet to be a universally agreed upon definition of what exactly a ghost is, the Merriam Webster dictionary defines the word ghost as a disembodied soul and the word spirit as a supernatural being or essence, for example, a soul. So these two words then can be used interchangeably.

According to the website The Psychology of Extraordinary Beliefs, stories of ghosts can be dated back to as far as Mesopotamia and ancient Greece. Apparently, the belief of whether or not ghosts/spirits do exist is based uniquely on one’s personal experience, as well as, influenced by one’s religious beliefs. This has to be true, otherwise we would not have such varied opinions on unexplainable phenomenon such as this.

Joshua J. Mark who is a freelance writer and co-founder, editor and direct of Ancient History Encyclopedia, mentions that these ancient civilizations believed in life after death. He goes on to say that while there are variations in details concerning ghosts/spirits and the afterlife in general, there is also a constant belief tied in to all of them. That being that the afterlife does exist which therefore means that ghosts/spirits do exist. I mean, what else would exist in the afterlife? It has to be something of the supernatural or 'other worldly' nature. And ghosts/spirits definitely qualify as something of the supernatural or 'other worldly' nature.

Another website, physicsworld.com explains the existence of ghosts from a scientific standpoint using Albert Einstein’s first laws of thermodynamics which states that, energy in the universe cannot be created or destroyed. It can only change from one form to another. Therefore, when someone dies their energy must (still) be present or “alive” in some way and this energy manifests itself into the ghosts/spirits that we’ve come to know and hear about.

Radford also makes mention of Albert Einstein’s theory suggesting a scientific basis for the existence of ghosts. What's more, he also agrees with physicalworld on the difficulty that science presents in accurately evaluating ghosts, in that there are such a wide variety of phenomena and so many theories that are linked to them.

The website countryliving.com also commented on this difficulty agreeing that while science cannot confirm or deny the existence of ghosts (as there is so much information and evidence floating around but nothing concrete to back it up), conversely it can pick up on psychological and physical factors one might experience during such an experience.

Overall, it has become clear to me that the very many theories and ideas that science has presented thus far regarding this phenomenon does not hold real merit. Especially as the world around us cannot be adequately explained yet and there is a spiritual aspect to life that we cannot at this point in time fully comprehend.

Therefore, just because one school of thought (and various other religious beliefs, cultures, etc.) cannot adequately explain the existence of ghosts/spirits does not mean that they do not exist.

Sources:

1. Definition of GHOSTS
   https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ghosts [accessed January 21, 2021].

2. Are Ghosts Real? — Evidence Has Not Materialized
   https://www.livescience.com/26697-are-ghosts-real.html [accessed January 21, 2021].

3. Mark J. Ghosts in the Ancient World
   https://www.ancient.eu/ghost/ [accessed January 21, 2021].

4. Are Ghosts Real? We Got to the Bottom of the Age-Old Question https://www.countryliving.com/life/entertainment/a34432856/are-ghosts-real/ [accessed January 21, 2021].

5. Ghosts: Fact or Fiction?
   https://u.osu.edu/vanzandt/2019/03/21/ghosts-fact-or-fiction/ [accessed January 21, 2021].

6. Is anybody there – science and the supernatural
   https://physicsworld.com/a/is-anybody-there/ [accessed January 21, 2021].

While I do understand what you mean, I have to say that I still do agree that ghosts/spirits exist.

I believe that the world (as we know it) is made up of more than just physical aspects. There are "other" unexplainable things that do happen and cannot be adequately explained.

Also, I think what a lot of people just fail to realize is in some instances we just need to experience things without trying to categorize, compartmentalize, or dissect it - not everything in life can or needs to be explained. Sometimes we just need to experience life as it happens because it is in these moments that true understanding and knowledge is revealed.

Moreover, in this particular context science maybe the reason why science has not been able to find solid/absolute evidence for the existence of ghosts/spirits is because it cannot be explained this way.

I mean, if everything or most aspects (experiences) in our lives and in the world were based on tangible experience only it would make for a very superficial and boring life. Don't you think so?

Well, I'm not sure about the wishing to see ghosts/spirits part you've mentioned here, since I believe that when people die they are dead.

Don't get me wrong, ghosts/spirits exist (and so does the "afterlife", "underworld" or whatever you want to call it). It's just that they have their place (where they belong) and we have our place (where we belong). What I mean by this is the living are not to interact or have direct contact with the "dead" this way.

So even if one does not (ever) get visited by a ghost/spirit in his/her lifetime, I do believe that one will at least experience something that is not on a tangible level - which cannot be explained.

Also, you've mentioned an absolutely fascinating point that has caught my attention: "...there has never been a corroborated case of two people seeing the same spirit/ghost at the same time..."

This only serves as further encouragement for me to prove that ghosts/spirits do exist.

While I have to admit I am not that adventurous where food is concerned, even I try out different types spicy food now and then.

Although, I should be honest. I have a low tolerance level - where spiciness is concerned. Oh, I've tried building it up by eating spicy food of various degrees (mild, strong, extra strong). Unfortunately, to no avail.

But that's okay. I like my level of spiciness right where it is. I even like trying achaar with different foods to spice it up that way.

By the way, this got me thinking: Do you know what achaar is? Have you tried it before?

TL;DR – Many people have a love-hate relationship with spicy food. Those who love it, feel incomplete without that “extra” something. Whereas, those who dislike it, prefer to be safe than sorry. So while food preferences are wide and varied, especially where spicy food is concerned, the burning question still remains: Is spicy food more beneficial (than not) for one’s health?

According to Linda Carroll (2016), there are both pros and cons to eating spicy foods. The first advantage is that it promotes longevity. This is based on a study conducted in 2015 where half a million Chinese people ate spicy food six times a week. Overall, it was found to reduce their risk of death. The second advantage is that it can lead to weight loss. For instance, studies have shown that hot peppers can help control appetite and speed up the metabolism. Additionally, in a 2011 study, researchers from Purdue University also found that people felt more satiated after eating spicy foods, while an earlier study found that people consumed less fat after eating high amounts of hot peppers. Other advantages include pain relief, anti-inflammatory, as well as, anti-microbial effects, which can all be attributed to the active component known as capsaicin – found in chili peppers.

Also, some of the disadvantages (for quite a few people) that Caroll mentions include the burning sensation in one’s mouth, the fact that capsaicin is a blood thinner, and lastly scorched hemorrhoids.

So as you can see, spicy food can be good (or bad) for you depending on you the individual.

Are spicy foods good for you? The health effects of heat in your meal
https://www.today.com/health/spicy-foods-health-effects-adding-heat-your-meal-t73591 [accessed February 3, 2021].

Hi Thomas! I love your whole counter argument. I especially love that you brought a world renowned chef such as Gordon Ramsey in on the action.

Sadly though, I still have to disagree with you - and Gordon. Pineapple tastes really, really great on pizza. Besides, the personal preference of food has been taken to a whole new level as time has gone by. I suspect this will continue to be the case as people become more innovative in the food industry - this includes advances made in the biotechnology field as well.

So it looks as though we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Well, there you go...

Well I'm not a pizza-holic but even I agree that pineapple is a definite "yes" on pizza.

I guess we'll just have to accept that some people's food preferences are different.

Oh well, that's okay. More for us!

TL;DR - It’s natural for our brains to categorize things we encounter in order to make sense of the complicated world around us. However, with gender bias it seems that the inherent biological physical differences between men and women, as well as, social constructs such as gender inequality have led to the situation being exacerbated.

Beatrice Alba (2018) who is a lecturer in the School of Psychology at Deakin University, informs us that there is extensive evidence of prejudice against women and girls based on psychological research. The scientific evidence that was found confirmed that people do in fact discriminate based on gender, regardless of denials that gender inequality persists in modern societies. Also, what this research further demonstrates is that even when all else is equal, women are still at a disadvantage to men in many fields.

One reason for this could be because men are perceived as being more capable in general. This might be true, especially since men have always played the more dominant role in society since as far back as the hunter-gatherer societies.

Furthermore, Alba raises another important point where this issue of gender bias and inequality is concerned when she highlights that equal does not necessarily mean identical. Here she is referring to the fact that while the physical differences between men and women can be seen as the basis of gender inequality, perhaps equal or equality is not the correct word to use. After all, males and females can’t truly be viewed as equal if they are physically different.

The example that Alba uses to demonstrate this, is to look at male firefighters versus female firefighters. According to her, even in the absence of discrimination there might always be less female firefighters then male firefighters simply because of the physical requirements – men are physically more superior in terms of muscle mass, strength, height, etc.

Another point that Alba raises, which is is even more crucial to recognize, is that gender equality is not the same as gender equity. What she means by this is that gender equality does not mean that males and females always have to be treated exactly the same, especially in light of our biological sex differences. For example, females require maternity leave for pregnancy and birth whereas males do not.

So in situations such as these, equal treatment is not required but equitable treatment is – identifying that differences in ability mean that fairness often requires treating people differently so that they can achieve the same outcome. Furthermore, it should also be noted that there are instances in which equity is necessary to achieve gender equality, but there are many instances where this is not the case.

The bottom line is, men and women are physically different and men will always be more superior in this regard. However, this does not have to be viewed in mostly a negative light just because of this. If looked at more closely, we actually complement each other in spite of our physical differences.

Nevertheless, this shouldn’t lead to us developing negative stereotypes such as gender bias and gender inequality, particularly within the context that it is being viewed now – where it leads men and especially women to feel the need to compete with each other.

What's more, I believe that the issue of gender bias can be resolved if gender equality can be achieved. But in order for this to happen, we need to extend the same respect, offer the same pay scale and the same status of both genders (men and women) in their respective fields.

To achieve gender equality, we must first tackle our unconscious biases
https://theconversation.com/to-achieve-gender-equality-we-must-first-tackle-our-unconscious-biases-92848 [accessed February 3, 2021].

Hi Olivia!

I really like your counter argument. However, don't you think that when women use having breasts to their advantage they are sexualizing it?

I mean, the Merriam Webster dictionary defines the term sexualize as, to make (something) sexual. The Oxford dictionary also defines it as such, while further elaborating that it also applies to sex - anything sex related.

What do you think?

TL;DR - All opinions do matter. They have to matter. Especially, since we form opinions all the time on a daily basis. Sometimes consciously, sometimes unconsciously. What’s more, an opinion is born from one's own experiences and beliefs lending proof to the fact that our perceptions greatly influence our opinions.

All opinions matter, in my opinion - at least on a certain level. Admittedly, to different people, in different situations and at different times. But they matter, as they are an integral part of our everyday language in our speaking, thinking, and in our relationships and dealings with each other.

The Merriam Webster dictionary defines the word opinion as, a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter. Additionally, it goes on to say that an opinion can also be defined as a generally held view or a belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge. The website, www.differencebetween.com confirms Merriam Webster’s definition of what an opinion is, while also explaining to us that perception is the way in which one thinks - how one looks at and understands things. As a result, the way in which one thinks about one’s opinion is influenced by one’s perception.

From here then, it's clear that opinions are not based on facts. It is influenced and based on our own perception(s) of what we believe to be true (on not) regarding a certain topic/subject matter. So opinions are subjective beliefs. And while some people are of the opinion that an opinion is just an opinion because it’s not based on facts (objective) - hard and solid evidence, opinions are often viewed as "less." Or they are not seen as accurate or truthful.

It’s important to remember that our subjective experiences also contribute, shape and influence our environment and the world around us. This includes all types of opinions, whether they are shared, not shared, impartial, etc.

So here then, is undeniable proof that no matter what the subject (person) or subject matter is that is under discussion, a person’s opinion will always matter and always carry value. Particularly, since a person’s opinion is their unique perception of a particular subject (person) or subject matter (topic under discussion).

Sources:

1. Definition of OPINION
   https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/opinion [accessed February 2, 2021].

2. Difference Between Opinion and Perception
   https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-opinion-and-vs-perception/ [accessed February 2, 2021].

Hi Megan!

Yes, I agree. I know that a lot of people (both women and men) think nothing of catcalling and some don't even consider this a form of harassment.

How wrong they are. I consider harassment to be any act that one person does to another by force. This act can be in the form of intimidating behavior, physically or sexual harming the person, etc. So basically something that is forced on you and makes you feel uncomfortable.

What's more, I think that the reason some people might have such a casual attitude towards harassment is because there is a misconception that harassment is either physical or sexual, for example. Not a lot of people might consider catcalling harassment as it usually consists of name-calling, suggestive remarks, etc. However, this is still harassment and can escalate to something more serious.

I think people need to be more aware that not only are there different types of harassment but there are different levels (in terms of seriousness) of harassment too.

TL;DR - Legalizing prostitution can cause more harm than good, particularly since it’s more than just about ensuring that women are protected or receive the best possible assistance possible. By legalizing prostitution, we run the risk of facing an even bigger issue for humanity in the future. That is, it will eventually become part of our culture and no one will see anything wrong with a “legalized prostitution industry.”

I am strongly opposed towards this opinion not only with regards to the negative stereotypes and stigma associated with it. No, my disagreement with this opinion goes far beyond this. I’m considering the possibility of whether or not legalizing prostitution (in more countries globally) can really be viewed as a viable solution? What are the overall implications for the future in the long run? And also, would legalizing it help towards alleviating some of the negative stereotypes and stigma associated with it?

While I know that the general consensus regarding prostitution is negative – this includes the ongoing debate surrounding its legalization, I do not believe that this is what makes it such a controversial topic. What makes this topic so significant, is what lies at the very heart of this subject matter. And that is, that there is an issue between the moral and ethical aspect versus the law(s) or rules of society. This is true, especially since issues regarding morality and ethics will always be relevant and highly debatable topics - they are a way of life and as such cannot be separated from everyday life.

Consequently, while we there always seems to be a solid divide between the pros and cons where this issue is concerned, I would like to take a unique approach by not only focusing on the cons. Oh, I’ll briefly mention the cons of course, but I believe that more attention should be paid to the pros. Especially as they are not as solution-orientated as people seem to think they are. That is to say, the risks are far, far greater than the benefits. And this is a very important part of why I believe the legalization of prostitution would not benefit any of us in the future.

According to theperspective.com, there are more than 40 million prostitutes worldwide and between one and two million prostitutes in the US alone today. Apparently, this is reason enough for countries around the world to have laws governing it. I disagree, as society (most especially its people) are not to be guided by just the laws/rules of society but by our moral compass too.

Furthermore, when looking at the cons this website provides for this argument, the “usual” sort of facts are mentioned. First, that the legalization of prostitution will not curb human trafficking. This is in fact true as even though the Netherlands legalized it in 1988, there are still illegal brothels and prostitutes are still suffering abuse at the hands of their pimps.

Second, that the act of prostitution reduces people to mere commodities in that this intimate act which goes beyond physical intimacy is being used as a tool for financial purposes.

And lastly, that prostitution promotes degrading attitudes toward women, and invites violence against them. While I do not support prostitution, no person has the right to harm or violate (especially physically) the next person. Also, one’s job does not define who one is – you are more than your job. You’re a whole person too and being a prostitute does not make you any less.

Now, when looking at the pros for this topic, perspective.com had the following to say:

First, legalizing prostitution would circumvent (avoid) the most dangerous aspects of prostitution. And while I will admit there are other positives, such as in Netherlands where prostitutes were granted access to social security and public health care. Or in India, where India’s union of sex workers improved prostitutes’ financial security by teaching them how to identify counterfeit bills. This is not enough in this instance. Furthermore, sexually transmitted infections were also shown to be statistically lower in areas where prostitution was legalized. For example, in rural Nevada where prostitution is legal (and condoms and regular HIV tests mandatory), there hasn’t been a single case of HIV/AIDS diagnosed for a registered sex worker since 1986. This might have been more admirable if it were under the “right” circumstances.

Second, legalizing prostitution can harness the sex industry’s potential to contribute to society. The example that it uses here, is to compare prostitution to marijuana. Providing evidence of how the legalization of marijuana (formerly an illicit trade) “has done wonders for economic and social rejuvenation in Colorado.” Especially, as it’s being used to do good by donating it to various systems, institutions, charities, etc. It goes on to say, “Imagine how different prostitution would seem if a portion of its proceeds went to providing child-care support for working parents, or to supplement medical research that helps to cure disease, or to help fund drug rehabilitation programs.” I will admit, this is a noble cause but risky too. However, as long as it’s done with the right intentions and there is transparency with the whole process, then I see no reason it should be seen in a negative light.

And lastly, if prostitution were to be legalized it would reflect the victimless nature of consensual prostitution. With regards to this, evidence has been provided via the internet of sex worker testimonials where it has been confirmed that some prostitutes/sex workers find satisfaction from a career in sex – taking into consideration those who were those who were forced into prostitution and those who were not.

Some practitioners and customers even ask the question: “Why isn’t prostitution simply viewed as a normal business transaction?” It cannot be viewed as a normal transaction in my opinion mainly because prostitution is exploitation on a very basic human level. This then leads me to asking, what's happening to our moral compass?

What’s more, the above mentioned “solutions” are not “real” or proper solutions to this prostitution problem. It’s not even a quick fix. It’s almost comparable to reinforcing bad behavior! Additionally, Ethics and morality might be abstract concepts but we see it being put into practice on a daily basis no matter how small or big a topic is – some of us just don’t realize it. Particularly, since ethics concerns and includes discussing human welfare and what we can do to maximize the good in people’s lives.

Put plainly, the legalizing of prostitution will do us more harm than good, and I am of the opinion that when the pros outweigh the cons in a situation (any situation), then it’s time to start looking for a better alternative. In this case the alternative would be to prohibit prostitution in any way, shape or form and to look towards better support structures so that people don’t turn to prostitution in the first place!

Should prostitution be legalized?
https://www.theperspective.com/debates/living/should-prostitution-be-legalized/ [accessed February 1, 2021].

TL;DR - Just because AAVE sounds different does not necessarily make it “wrong" or unprofessional. I actually think that this dialect is hugely misunderstood, especially when being compared alongside the standard English language.

According to Brandon Zang (2020), former Editorial Intern at Encyclopædia Britannica, African Vernacular English (previously known as Ebonics), specifically refers to the form of Black speech that distinguishes itself from standard English, which includes its unique grammatical structure, pronunciation, and vocabulary. So from here, we can already see that AAVE differs on a linguistic level from standard English.

And while academics do consider it to be a specific way of speaking within the larger categorization of AAVE, or Black English, it is clear that there are still stereotypes and a certain stigma associated with it. For example, AAVE has been and still is associated with lower socioeconomic status and lack of formal education by many parts of American society.

Another very important example can be seen in the Oakland resolution. In December 1996, national attention in the United States turned to a new resolution which was passed by the Oakland Unified School District (OUSD). This controversial resolution defined what it called “Ebonics” (now AAVE) as a language separate from English. The aim here was to familiarize educators with AAVE and to develop the district’s bilingual program for AAVE speakers. This way, the needs of the district’s African American student population would be better met.

Unfortunately, this decision was met with immediate backlash from politicians—such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson. He called the resolution “an unacceptable surrender” and “borderlining on disgrace.” However, within less than a month the Linguistic Society of America unanimously passed a statement that supported the decision of the OUSD, citing the systematic nature of Ebonics as a valid reason for it to be recognized as a distinct linguistic system.

Interestingly, while there are various theories surrounding the origins of AAVE, there is no concrete evidence to substantiate exactly where it comes from. Well, irrespective of AAVE’s origins, Zang makes a very clear point in that AAVE is usually negatively perceived, particularly in white-dominated professional spaces, such as politics and academia in the United States. This was and still is true, especially as today one can still find many black people in America facing discrimination for the way they speak. And as a result of this many AAVE speakers rely on code-switching to actively change the way they speak when, for example, they are in a certain social setting such as their workplace.

John. E McIntyre (2016) who writes for the Baltimore Sun, elaborates on this negativity that is associated with AAVE. He says that while it is clear English is the standard language that is most recognized in business and other professional settings, it doesn’t give the next person the right to criticize people who speak other dialects of English - seeing them as "uneducated," "lazy," "sloppy," or "ignorant", or seeing a particular dialect as, "merely a form of low-level bigotry that for some reason is still tolerated." This is true, as sometimes people tend to forget that speaking a certain way does not necessarily equate with being or sounding more educated or civilized.

He also adds that another mistake people make is to consider the written dialect of English as more important than that which is spoken. In other words, don’t make the mistake of thinking that the standard written form of English is the "correct" form of language and speech. Especially since speech is the place where language evolves.

What's more, the development of language and language systems (as a whole) have to come from somewhere. That is to say, it has to be based on something – another language that already exists. So here, with AAVE we see that happening. Literally a new “language”, if you will, has emerged.

I think the most important thing to observe and to sort of consciously be aware of (on a certain level) here is, as McIntyre puts it, “Don't ignore the learning." We are always learning new things everyday and this is especially true where communication, particularly, language is concerned.

So while it’s clear that there are academic influences and contributions from linguists in establishing AAVE as a historically and culturally significant linguistic system, according to Zang we still still have a long way to go. Especially as various institutions and individuals still regard AAVE as, "a broken and grammatically incorrect variation of standard English, negatively impacting the quality of education, livelihoods, and careers of Black people in America.”

Sources:

1. It's not bad grammar
   https://www.baltimoresun.com/opinion/columnists/mcintyre/bal-it-s-not-bad-grammar-20160627-story.html [accessed January 29, 2021].

2. Is African American Vernacular English a Language?
   https://www.britannica.com/story/is-african-american-vernacular-english-a-language [accessed January 29, 2021].

TL;DR - Despite the fact that white chocolate is loved by many people across the world, the truth is it's not a real chocolate in the genuine sense of the word.

The blog on tcho.com (2018) informs us that in order for a product to qualify as a chocolate it must contain cocoa solids. And while Wikipedia confirms that white chocolate does not contain cocoa solids, it still defines white chocolate as a chocolate confection that is pale ivory in color, made from cocoa butter, sugar, milk solids and sometimes vanilla. Furthermore, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) says that for something to be called a chocolate, it has to contain at least 10% of cocoa mass. This includes the nibs and the cocoa fat that is part of the bean. Although, it should be noted that they don’t mention any specifics for the cocoa butter content.

Well according to chocolatier Jason Vishnefske (2020) there is something strange in hearing the term “white chocolate” while so many people are disputing the fact that it is not a chocolate. In fact, he says it’s almost like when someone finds out a tomato is actually a fruit and not a vegetable.

Vishnefske also sheds some more light on this situation by informing us that while many say white chocolate is not a chocolate, it should still be noted that it is a cocoa base product – just without cocoa fiber. And this right here, is where the issue arises as to whether it is considered a “real” chocolate. Apparently, the cocoa butter that comes from the cocoa beans don't contain any of the cocoa fiber that is required in order for it to be named as chocolate (this is a paradoxical loop hole in FDA definition and what perception is with everyone).

Additionally, the website hedonisticchocolates.com (2018) says that determining whether white chocolate is “real” is more than just a matter of taste. Apparently, this is considered to be an actual legal issue with significant consequences for both chocolate and confectionery industries.

Until recently though, the FDA considered white chocolate to be “confectionery” and not actually chocolate. So here we can already see that there were certain criteria which determined what "real" chocolate is. For example, chocolate must contain cocoa solids in order to be marketed as chocolate.

However, this all changed in 2002 when the FDA established new criteria for white chocolate, which was in response to petitions from Hershey and the Chocolate Manufacturers Association of the United States. The new criteria currently dictates that for a product to be labeled and marketed as “white chocolate,” it must contain at least 20% cocoa butter, and least 14% milk solids, and 3.5% milkfat. Vishnefske verifies this and also adds that it doesn’t have to continue cocoa fiber.

And while some white chocolates do meet this criteria, it needs to be pointed out that there are quite a few others that are questionable. This then, is also another contributory factor which negatively impacts and brings into question the "authentic" image of white chocolate.

So while I agree that white chocolate is not a real chocolate in the true sense, especially based on the current evidence provided, I have to wonder what it should be classified as then? Should the word "chocolate" be removed and replaced?

Sources:

1. White chocolate
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_chocolate [accessed January 28, 2021].

2. Is White Chocolate Actually Chocolate?
   https://tcho.com/blogs/news/is-white-chocolate-actually-chocolate [accessed January 28, 2021].

3. Chocolate W. What is White Chocolate
   https://www.santabarbarachocolate.com/blog/what-is-white-chocolate/ [accessed January 28, 2021].

4. Is White Chocolate Actually Chocolate?
   https://hedonistchocolates.com/our-story/journal-of-a-hedonist/is-white-chocolate-actually-chocolate [accessed January 28, 2021].

TL;DR - Increasing the minimum wage would help, not hurt, the economy, especially in the long run.

Martha C. White (2020) reported that experts are of a similar opinion saying that, in not increasing the minimum wage it will only lead to more unsustainability for the people relying on it.

Now US President Joe Biden felt the same way since he campaigned (while he was still a democratic nominee) for the minimum wage to be raised from its current $7.25 to $15. Apparently, this has been a long-term goal union-backed advocacy groups, with the Democratic Party even making a $15 minimum wage part of its platform ahead of the 2016 election season.

And while a handful of states in America, as well as some cities, have adopted laws that will raise the minimum wage to $15 over time, people feel that enough is not being done to address this issue.

I mean, why does the issue of this being done bring up the same sort of generic response? Namely, that raising the minimum wage will have a negative impact on businesses and therefore as a whole on the economy, etc.

White does provide us with an example of this, where business groups have argued that raising the minimum wage will force business owners to fire workers. However, she also points out that the reality is more complex than this. Especially since proof has been found showing that evidence of job loss is inconsistent in comparison to this, and the benefits are accrued by some of the country’s most vulnerable populations.

Additionally, more proof has been brought to light by the Congressional Budget Office who conducted a report in 2019. They found that a $15 minimum wage would increase the income of 27 million workers, 17 million of whom currently earn below the $15 amount. While the remaining 10 million earn just over $15 an hour, all of whom would see their wages rise due to what economists call the “spillover effect.”

So while there are a host of other benefits that I can mention, the bottom line is, raising the minimum wage in the US will have so many benefits for not just the economy, but most importantly for the people. After all, the people are the very foundation upon which a country is built - sometimes this just tends to be overlooked, but not forgotten though.

Increasing the minimum wage would help, not hurt, the economy
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/increasing-minimum-wage-would-help-not-hurt-economy-n1244586 [accessed January 28, 2021].

For generations this age-old dilemma has been and still is an ongoing debate between men and women. And despite all of the scientific research and evidence that has been presented, there has been no mutual agreement reached as yet. Well, I am here to inform you that women are better listeners than men. Also, please do note that my opinion is objective and has no bearing on the fact that I myself am a woman.

So despite all of the research and evidence provided on gender differences in listening, it seems that there are still quite a few disagreements on this topic. Some even going so far as to say, there is no concrete or "proper" evidence suggesting that one gender is better at listening than the other. Also, that listening ability can be due to individual differences or circumstances. This might be true if you account for things such as hearing impairment, hearing loss, etc.

Well according to Corine Jansen (2020), director & chair (Health) of Global Listening Board, research indicates that women tend to understand emotional parts of messages more effectively than men. More specifically, scientific evidence has been found that shows women process messages on both sides of the brain – more than what men do. While men on the other hand, tend to process (general things) more on the left side of the brain, and emotional information on the right side of the brain.

Dr. Michael Phillips, a neuro-audiologist at the Indiana University School of Medicine verifies this in a study by confirming that brain imaging scans revealed that the left hemisphere of the brain for men was activated while listening. Whereas, in contrast both hemispheres of the brain were activated in women while listening. As a result, this data suggests that there is a physical difference in listening between men and women.

Vasudevan Mukunth (2013) who writes for thehindu.com also confirms this by referring us to a study that was conducted from the Perelman School of Medicine at University of Pennsylvania. Apparently, they found that women’s brains are very well-connected across hemispheres in the region of the cerebrum. This together with some previous research led them to the conclusion that women are typically better at using their intuitive right hemisphere in the brain, as well as, logical faculties in the left hemisphere of the brain at the same time.

While conversely, male brains have better connections within hemispheres, between the cerebellum, which involves perception, including the front of the brain, which involves action. What's more, on average, males were also found to have better connections between the cerebellum, and women between the cerebrum. Leading to the conclusion that this is in fact what makes women better listeners.

Furthermore, Dr. Audrey Nelson (2016), a gender communication specialist who also writes for Psychology Today, introduces an interesting term that describes women’s listening skills, namely, the “split ear phenomena.” Apparently, women listen with both ears which is each aimed in a different direction, while at the same time also paying attention to different levels of their surrounding activities. For example, on one level a woman might be focusing on the words that is being said (men do this too) but on a second level she might be reading between the lines, and interpreting the non-verbal messages (vocal sounds, facial expressions, plus body movement) in social and emotional situations (men don’t or tend not to do this).

From here then, it's clear to see that men tend to focus (more or mostly) on verbal messages, while women tend to collect more information overall. Which means that women listen and pay attention to the information being broadcast more than what men do, confirming that women are indeed better listeners than men.

Sources:

1. Sex Differences in Listening
   https://www.globallisteningcentre.org/sex-differences-in-listening/ [accessed January 27, 2021].

2. What makes women better listeners?
   https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/what-makes-women-better-listeners/article5422122.ece [accessed January 27, 2021].

3. Are Men Really Lousy Listeners?
   https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/he-speaks-she-speaks/201602/are-men-really-lousy-listeners [accessed January 27, 2021].

While I believe in freedom of speech and that everyone has a right to express themselves, I have to say that I don’t agree with this opinion. I feel that nipples should be banned from ever being shown anywhere – whether it be on social media or in the general public.

My main reason for feeling this way is because it’s become clear to me that we are living in a (highly) sexualized society. Or as Payton Saso (2019) puts it “women’s bodies have not just been sexualized but in fact have actually been hypersexualized…” What’s more, this can be seen in the deliberate way female breasts and more specifically the female nipple(s) are objectified today. It’s become a sex symbol, something to be associated with sex, indecent, crude and risqué behavior.

And while I agree with Saso that this is an uncalled for over-sexualization and should definitely not be the case, this is unfortunately the reality we are currently living in – at least with regards to this situation. It is the way society in general, the media, and even men and women have been socialized as time has gone by. Or as Saso puts it “… hardwired into society that has led to women's nipples being viewed as borderline pornographic and men's nipples being viewed as an everyday norm.”

As a result, it’s become abundantly clear that the main reason a woman’s nipples are considered private and a man’s isn’t is because a social construct has been created. I mean, there were and still are a few tribes in Africa (and South Africa) where women walk around topless and their breasts and nipples are openly displayed.

The arcane lost team (2020) confirms this by informing us that breasts weren’t always such a matter of concern like they are today. Exposed breasts were quite the norm for many indigenous societies. Also, toplessness was common in parts of India, Thailand, Indonesia, most regions of Africa and in pre-Islamic cultures in the Middle East.

Expanding on this they reveal that in countries like Laos, for example, virgin women used to be fully clothed, whereas married women with kids exposed their breasts in public because baring the breasts for breastfeeding was considered to be nonsexual. Covering of the breasts was considered a privilege, and only women of higher social and economic statuses covered their breasts.

Interestingly, they also reveal to us that western culture considered being topless in public indecent and this influenced the covering up of both breasts and nipples, promoting this as a sign of modesty.

So, my opinion stands. At this point in time (or until society and the world as a whole can achieve a level of respect where this is concerned) I do not believe that nipples are to be shown on social media or in public – it should be banned. Especially since as long as this new ‘culture’ of hyper or over sexualization of the female nipple is being cultivated, women will not be able to go topless with any sense of safety or security.

Sources:

1. Opinion: Freeing the nipple is more about freedom than nipples
   https://www.statepress.com/article/2019/02/spopinion-stop-sexualizing-the-female-nipple [accessed January 26, 2021].

2. Sexualization of Breasts - Arcane Lost
   https://arcanelost.com/sexualization-of-breasts/ [accessed January 26, 2021].

Oh, no! What have we gotten ourselves into?

I like this opinion though as I feel that it forces us to look at quite a few social constructs.

Wow. That is very creative. Wonder if I would have been able to think of that (before you did it, of course)...

No, definitely not – at least not with how nipples (and breasts) are currently being viewed.

Which is exactly what I’m trying to say. I feel that maybe if people, the rest of the world an especially western culture (as they are so influential) became more aware of this (perception and objectification) and put in more of an effort to discourage this type of behavior, then it would present a shift in terms of how this whole thing with nipple exposure and breasts are viewed.

I mean, women’s breasts in general are also a symbol of nurturing and life. Yet, I don’t see enough of this type of exposure happening.

Also, maybe we don’t have to take it as far as posting of nipple pics on social media, but a woman has the right to be able to feel (reasonably) safe. Especially when she, for example, wears a see-through top or if she quickly needs to breastfeed her child in a relatively private area.

P.S. I think that there is such a thing as people becoming so used to something that eventually it becomes "normal" or almost "normal." Maybe that is what has happened here and why there is such a shift in the way women's nipples are being perceived.

Hi Anna!

Absolutely love your opinion choice! And yes, I strongly agree with it.

I mean, the fact that they could actually keep his character relevant for this long and make a success of it, priceless - well maybe not since they are making money off from it.

Nevertheless, Batman and all of the characters (villains, sidekicks) truly are iconic as you mentioned. Also, since you covered really nicely how I feel about batman (and this franchise) overall, I only have one more thing to add.

I just wanted to point out that there is much debate around whether he is seen as a hero, superhero, vigilante, anti-hero, etc.

I think based on what he has been portrayed as over the years, depending on what context/background they put him in (different comics, various movie portrayals) he is a mixture of all of these.

What do you think?

TL;DR - Ask yourself, why does it (always) have to be dogs versus cats?

Well, according to theguardian.com there is a grain of truth in the cat versus dog question and this division can be dated back as far as around 43 million years ago. Both of these somewhat ‘domesticated’ animals share a common ancestry with animals such as badgers, seals, sea-lions, hyaenas, meerkats, weasels, skunks, bears, etc.

Moreover, while they do share various similarities and features, apparently the main feature that is shared among them is that of their teeth. It is blade-like carnassial teeth – their fourth upper premolar and first lower molar – which bite together to shear through food.

Additionally, they also belong to the Carnivora (order) which is split into two well-defined groups, namely, feliformia and caniformia.

The feliformia are largely cat-like and tend to be more specialised meat-eaters, have shorter faces and retractable claws and many of them ambush and pounce their predators (with animals like the cheetah being a notable exception, running and chasing after their prey).

While the caniformia are largely dog-like consisting of the usual wolves, jackals, hyaenas etc. Other animals that make up this diverse groups of caniformia include skunks, weasels, otters, racoons, etc., as well as, marine carnivoran such as seals and 'sea dogs'.

So as you can see, it doesn’t necessarily have to be dogs versus cats, especially since they are family in a way - albeit distantly related.

Cats vs dogs: in terms of evolution, are we barking up the wrong tree?
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jul/26/cats-vs-dogs-in-terms-of-evolution-are-we-barking-up-the-wrong-tree [accessed January 26, 2021].

Yes, Jen. It's the same with me.

I have one cat and she isn't as anti-social as I hear cats are made out to be.

I'll admit that she has a moments when she prefers her solitude and just wants to be left alone. But she also likes her cuddles, playtime, petting and being the center of attention.

Also, you are so right when you say that the way a cat behaves is dependent on the cat per se. Each cat has his/her own personality depending on the cat and the environment they grow up in - all of these things are influencers for cat (or any other animal) behavior.

Here, I would also like to add that all animals have their own personality and not just cats.

And while I suppose there will inevitably be this cats versus dogs debate going on, I think we should remember to appreciate both of these wonderful animals and their individual qualities. That is to say, no one is better than the other.

OMG! You're right. I forgot about that.

Oh well...

Hi Makena.

Oh, no! Did your cat really do that?

If so, there could be a host of reasons why. You don't necessarily have to go looking for a dog - not that there is anything wrong with having a dog. It's just that you already have your cat.

Maybe your cat is trying to get your attention - especially if this is the first time (s)he has done this.

I would have to disagree with this opinion, especially since sport and sport participation is not only seen as a leisure activity, but contributes towards the overall development of physical and mental wellbeing.

And while there admittedly are valid concerns involving the overall wellbeing of children participating in youth elite sports, it should also be noted that there are athletes (children) who choose to narrowly specialize in one sport because it is their passion, they enjoy it, and they choose to spend their time focusing on that sport.

I believe what needs to be addressed, at large, is the management of how things are done. For instance, the blog on us.humankinetics.com points out that with youth elite sport participation there is a risk of overspecification – which apparently is quite a common occurrence in sport. They define this as, when the exclusivity or intensity of specialization is so great that children suffer adverse mental and physical health effects. What's more, the danger of this occurring can be as a result of either pressure from parents, coaches, the sports industry, etc.

Nancy Justis (2018) who is a correspondent for the Gazette, confirms this when she points out to us that the main reason for this, as well as, children quitting sports early is as a result of adults. Furthermore, she goes on to say that according to Gordon MacLelland of “Working with Parents in Sports,” parents, coaches, the school, sports industry and private providers should all be held accountable to a certain degree.

MacLelland says, coaches are to blame because they’ve “put success ahead of smiles and excellence ahead of enjoyment." In other words, performance and being the best is all that counts. Parents are to take some of the blame, since they are the targets of the elite junior sports salespeople and not the athletes. Schools are at fault for the large number of junior elite sports academies and institutes, especially since secondary schools are establishing ‘sports-academies’ as a marketing (tool) to attract more families to the school.” The sport industry has to accept some responsibility as well because they’ve pushed and promoted the ‘pathway’ to healthier living and excellence in (certain) sporting activities. Also, private providers need to accept some of the responsibility as some of their practices are questionable with regards to morals and integrity.

Moreover, the world of sport has seen some great examples of youth elite sport, especially in the figure skating industry. Some of the top figure skaters that have been affected by this and that it has had a negative impact on are Julia Lipnitskaya and Gracie Gold - both were affected by eating disorders. Other skaters that have also been affected by this but in a more positive light are Michelle Kwan - overcoming criticism that she was too old and had nothing left to offer, Yuna Kim - struggling with a painful back injury, and Gordeeva and Grinkov - Gordeeva chose to become a single skater after her husband Sergei died of a heart attack .

Here then, is undeniable proof that youth elite sport specialization shouldn’t be discouraged as it’s not all bad. It’s plain to see that while external factors definitely influence and play a role in shaping an athlete's experience, it’s also important that they have a strong support system around them.

Possible solutions to address might be to look at the age category, which includes when or how early athletes (children) should specialize in a sport. To be more precise, the various sports federations/organizations can have a look at the age that is acceptable for the different sporting categories and perhaps make some adjustment. Also, more openness where psychological issues are concerned needs to be looked at. According to Sally Hilton (2021), a UKCP registered Psychotherapist who also owns her own developing practice working with sports people, in recent years there has been more acceptance and admission of the problem of mental health in elite sport.

MacLelland also offers some very doable solutions such as looking at changing the terminology that we use by not using the words ‘elite’ or ‘high performance’ or thinking about elite junior athletes. He also suggests changing the marketing strategy by not making exaggerated promises of success. And finally, the most important one yet, where he mentions that we need to stop trying to turn children into elite level performers and focus more on creating sporting experiences which provide the opportunity for them to “fall in love” with the sport or sports (they are interested in).

Youth elite sport will always have these vulnerabilities, as do other sport categories as well. However, I do not believe that truly talented children need to be deprived of the opportunity to explore and have fun, or to possibly be denied the opportunity of becoming the next Olympic swimming, gymnastics, etc. champion. Especially since there might very well be children who are exceptionally talented and do express their own interest (without being forced or coerced by parents, coaches, etc.)

Athletes should decide for themselves whether and how much to specialize in a particular sport or sports, with proper, honest, transparent guidance and support (not mandates) from parents, coaches and the various other organizations involved. After all, if they do what they love, they’ll love what they do.

Sources:

1. Mental health in elite sport: It's tough to talk
   https://believeperform.com/mental-health-in-elite-sport-its-tough-to-talk/ [accessed January 26, 2021].

2. Specialization in Youth Sport
   https://us.humankinetics.com/blogs/excerpt/specialization-in-youth-sport [accessed January 26, 2021].

3. Your young athlete is not 'elite'
   https://www.thegazette.com/subject/sports/iowa-prep-sports/your-young-athlete-is-not-elite-20181123 [accessed January 26, 2021].

4. Yulia Lipnitskaya
   https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Yulia_Lipnitskaya [accessed January 26, 2021].

5. Eating disorders: The dark side of figure skating
   https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2018/2/16/eating-disorders-the-dark-side-of-figure-skating [accessed January 26, 2021].

6. Michelle Kwan
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Kwan [accessed January 26, 2021].

7. Yuna Kim
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuna_Kim [accessed January 26, 2021].

8. Ekaterina Gordeeva
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekaterina_Gordeeva [accessed January 26, 2021].

Yes, Sofia. This is exactly what I mentioned in my argument against this topic.

I basically said that I feel if the proper support structures were in place, especially from parents, coaches, schools and the various other organizations involved, then youth Elite sports might not be seen in such a bad light.

In short, I agree with what you are saying.

The safety of the coronavirus cannot be guaranteed with a reasonable degree of assurance. So no, the COVID vaccine is not safe. This might sound harsh, especially in light of the current global pandemic we’re finding ourselves in but it’s true.

Shibo Jiang (2020) a professor of virology informs us of this by pointing out that proper procedures and guidelines still need to be adhered to, now more than ever as people’s lives are at risk. He goes on to say that testing of vaccines and medicines without taking the time to completely understand the safety risks could bring about unnecessary setbacks during the current pandemic, as well as, for the future.

Elizabeth Pratt (2021) a medical journalist with a degree in health communication mentions the following known facts concerning the safety of COVID-19: it is safe to take for the large majority of people, there are no known safety issues for pregnant woman, including those who are breastfeeding, or people who’ve tested positive for COVID-19 in the past, all of this according to the experts of course. Also, people who have autoimmune or other conditions have been advised to check with their doctor before getting any COVID vaccine.

Once again, there is no reasonable assurance, at least at this point in time that anyone can give, including the many researchers, experts, scientist, etc. concerning these side effects and the vaccine overall. Dr. Anne Liu, an infectious disease physician at Stanford Health Care in California, confirms this when she said that there’s no reason to worry about any potential long-term side effects from the vaccination. And that a vaccine is not a like a medication, in that it won’t stay in your body very long and does not accumulate in the body as medications do.

This is does not sound very reassuring. Especially when there are reports on television, social media and even from family and friends, of people that have died not long after taking the vaccine - granted of course, that we need to make sure any news source is credible.

According to Reuters this was the case when 28 people took the coronavirus vaccine developed by Pfizer Inc and Moderna Inc. And although the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have responded by saying that they were closely and carefully monitoring the situation, officials pointed out that the difference was mainly due to the fact that the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine was authorized earlier than the Moderna shot.

Also, in another instance, Asian International News has reported that according to the New York Post 23 people have died in Oslo Norway, days after receiving the first dose of the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine. Apparently, 13 of these deaths are being linked to the side effects of the vaccine.

And while, according to, Wayne C. Koff and Michelle A. Williams (2020) no vaccine or medical trial can be completely free from side effects - serious reactions to the vaccine are rare, those side effects or reactions should not have to be at the expense of lives lost.

What is glaringly obvious here is that there should be improved safety and security regulations in terms of how the vaccine is currently being administered. That is to say, there should be proper monitoring of who is to get the vaccine and detailed information needs to be taken and kept updated of persons that might present a risk to taking the vaccine. This way, people can see that a real effort is being made with regards to improving the overall management and distribution of the vaccine, while maintaining a standard of accountability.

For now though, the coronavirus is not safe to take, mainly due to mismanagement (on various levels) which has led to people not trusting the process as a whole - from the creation of the vaccine right through to the approval of it.

Sources:

1. Who Can and Can’t Safely Get the COVID-19 Vaccine
   https://www.healthline.com/health-news/who-can-and-cant-safely-get-the-covid-19-vaccine [accessed January 22, 2021].

2. Manas Mishra J. U.S. officials report more severe allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines
   https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-vaccines-allergy-idUSKBN29B2GS [accessed January 22, 2021].

3. Covid-19 vaccines are safe. That doesn't mean no side effects
   https://www.statnews.com/2020/12/23/covid-19-vaccines-safe-that-doesnt-mean-no-side-effect/ [accessed January 22, 2021].

4. Don’t rush to deploy COVID-19 vaccines and drugs without sufficient safety guarantees
   https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00751-9 [accessed January 22, 2021].

5. 23 die in Norway after receiving Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine https://www.iol.co.za/news/world/23-die-in-norway-after-receiving-pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-new-york-post-24ade13e-9458-5e7a-9922-2de807eab565 [accessed January 22, 2021].

TL;DR - Although the terms pizza and pie are words that have been (and still are) used interchangeably in various countries and cultures, it's obvious that they are not the same thing.

The Merriam Webster dictionary defines a pizza as a dish made typically of flattened bread dough and spread with a savory mixture usually including tomatoes, cheese, and often other toppings, all baked. Furthermore, it says that a pizza is also known as a pizza pie.

Interestingly enough, the vocabulary.com dictionary confirms this definition of a pizza pie saying that it is an Italian open pie made of thin bread dough spread with a spiced mixture of, for example, tomato sauce and cheese.

Additionally, the Webster dictionary defines a savory pie as a meat dish baked with biscuit or pastry crust.

Why then the difference in name, appearance, and taste? According to crustkingdom.com pizza was first called pie in the late 1800s when Italian immigrants arrived in the United States. Apparently, pizza and pie shared quite a few similarities, namely, the crust, sliced triangle portions and its circular shape. So it was the (now) Italian-Americans who sold and popularized the pizzas. Hereafter, it was first known by the English name “tomato pie” before becoming known as the famous pizza pie. Here then, we see how culture influenced our perception of pizza and pie.

Upon further confirmation that pizza and pie are not the same thing, crustkingdom.com provides proof of an article that can be found in the New-York Tribune. In it there is a phrase that states, “but apparently the Italian had invented a kind of pie…” Further proof that culture had an influence in the perception of how we view these two dishes.

As we can see, while pizza and pie share some very similar traits, there are also some very important differences that cannot be ignored. The main difference being that pie has more of pastry (texture in the dough) than a crust. Even wikidiff confirms this to be true. Therefore, we can conclude that these two dishes are synonymous of each other and that a pizza is in actual fact not a pie.

Sources:

1. Definition of PIZZA
   https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pizza [accessed January 21, 2021].

2. Definition of PIE
   https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pie [accessed January 21, 2021].

3. pizza pie - Dictionary Definition https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/pizza%20pie [accessed January 21, 2021].

4. Why Is Pizza Called Pie? All About The Other Name For Pizza
   https://www.crustkingdom.com/why-is-pizza-called-pie/ [accessed January 21, 2021].

5. What is the difference between pie and pizza?
   https://wikidiff.com/pie/pizza [accessed January 21, 2021].

Hi Elli!

Yes, in America there are apparently quite a few eating establishments that use these two terms interchangeably. Such as this one: http://italianpie.com/

Also, there are other cultures that have different variations based on the pizza - they don't even call it pie!

They have there own variations right here: https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/how-global-citizens-eat-pizza-around-the-world/

It's really interesting.

A hotdog is most definitely not a sandwich!

While the Merriam Webster dictionary defines a sandwich as, two or more slices of bread or a split roll with a filling in between. The British Sandwich Association goes on to define a sandwich as, any form of bread with a filling, generally assembled cold - this includes traditional wedge sandwiches, as well as filled rolls, baguettes, pitta, bloomers, wraps and bagels.

Additionally, the Merriam Webster dictionary defines a hotdog as a frankfurter with a typically mild flavor that is heated and usually served in a long, split roll.

So here already these definitions are providing evidence that a hotdog and a sandwich are not the same, besides the visible physical appearance that we can clearly see for ourselves. Also, another very important difference to note here between these two is that a sandwich in most instances has a cold filling and a hotdog in most instances has a hot or heated filling.

What’s more, the National Hot Dog and Sausage Council makes a good point in noting that we are limiting a hotdog’s significance by saying that it is just a sandwich – equaling it to calling the Dalai Lama ‘just a guy’. I mean, this is a really good point since there are specifically hotdog eating contests/challenges and then sandwich eating contests/challenges, respectively.

Here then, are actual findings based on evidence that a hotdog is most definitely not a sandwich. Especially with the British Sandwich Association confirming that around 57% of all commercially bought sandwiches are made with traditional square sandwich bread. They even go so far as clarifying that burgers and other associate products are not considered to be a sandwich or fall under the sandwich category.

Sources:

1. Definition of SANDWICH
   https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sandwich [accessed January 21, 2021].

2. Definition of HOTDOG
   https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hotdog [accessed January 21, 2021].

3. Is A Hot Dog A Sandwich?
   https://www.hot-dog.org/culture/hot-dog-sandwich [accessed January 21, 2021].

4. What is a sandwich?
   http://www.britishsandwichweek.com/index.php/facts-figures/2-what-is-a-sandwich [accessed January 21, 2021].

This is so true! Grilled cheese sandwiches are not good for so many reasons.

But the main reason I agree with this opinion is because I believe that a grilled cheese sandwich is not the same as a toasted cheese sandwich or toasties.

Apparently, grilled cheese sandwiches, toasted cheese sandwiches or toasties are the same but different, in that these different cheese sandwiches have all been culturally influenced. Essentially though, they are the same. The main difference is that a grilled cheese sandwich is buttered on the outside and a toasted cheese sandwich/toastie is buttered on the inside.

Also, if that is an accurate description of a grilled cheese sandwich then I don't want to taste one. I've grown up on toasted chees sandwiches and I love them! Maybe you can give those a try?

I've eaten and am still eating marmite and cheese sandwiches and it's great! I grew up eating this.

Although, there is no accounting for people's differences in taste.

Hi Andrew! I actually agreed with Melanie on her opinion here.

My main reason is that I don't believe a grilled cheese sandwich is as good as a toasted cheese sandwich - yes, I don't believe that these two are the same. You can read more about this in my response to her opinion.

What I actually wanted to say is that I agree with you on the ratio, type, quality of ingredients, etc. that you mentioned in your mixed opinion.

Once you get those right, you will nail making the 'perfect' toasted (or grilled for you) cheese sandwich every time.

I don't agree with your opinion, sorry! I mean, in your case specifically (after explaining your situation), I can actually understand why you feel the way you do and what led you to having this opinion.

However, don’t you think that the main reason you feel this way is because you are associating the playing/listening of music to that particular experience you had? That is to say, if the playing of the music never annoyed you, then you most likely would not have felt this way today.

Or let’s say for instance, you had this exact same experience but you enjoyed listening to it in the background. I have a strong feeling that if this were the case, your opinion might have been of a more positive nature and association concerning listening to music.

So just to let you know very briefly, psychology has taught (and provided evidence) over the years that emotions influence how we process memories. Basically, it reiterates what I said above.

By the way, I’d like to know if you had this opinion and felt this way toward music before you’re A-level exams. Of course, you don’t need to answer this question. I am just a naturally curious person and thought that knowing this might provide me with more insight and further understand your situation and opinion better.

Hi Mark! We are in the same boat. I had to disagree with Georgia too.

I mean, I actually personally know people who don't like and/or listen to music at all. I know, right. How dare they! Especially since I can see and understand how much you love music too. You speak so passionately about it.

Although, I just wanted to point out that Georgia feeling that music is overrated is as a result of a bad experience - if I understand what I read correctly.

And then, like I mentioned above, you get some people that just don't listen to music at all. They can literally survive without having listened to no music at all. True story.

But like that saying goes, "it takes all sorts to make a world."

Well, maybe the next time your friends make fun of your not so musically inclined tastes, you can tell them that not listening to music is also an acquired test.

Oh, so although you were never really a music lover before the whole incident, you didn't feel as strongly as you do now after the incident. This is good to know, including your dad's unique taste in Scottish Gaelic artists.

The only thing that I can think of is that the incident - as I keep calling it, was the catalyst then for you - eventually leading to this opinion (and feeling) that listening to music is overrated.

No biggie at all. FYI, I love music from different cultures and languages too, not just different genres and artists.

Wow, Andrew. Some pretty strong opinions here already.

And on that note, I have to say that I agree: Donald trump should just be impeached for inciting the Capitol Riot.

Also, while I do feel that he should be held accountable for so many other (unnecessary and in some instances unspeakable) acts, I will leave it at him just being impeached.

Maybe if it is determined that further action needs to be taken from here (after the impeachment) then that can be done separately. The punishment should fit the crime, right?

Lastly, I think one thing that we can all agree on, Donald trump encourages strong emotions (positive, negative, etc.) wherever he goes.

Hi Sanjana!

So, if we look have a look at all the very many definitions of the concept of evil and what they all say, you will see for yourself that there is one underlying message that comes through with all of them - evil in it's most basic can be defined as the lack or absence of good. Conversely, if we look at all the very many definitions of good there is one underlying message that comes through from all of them as well - that which is morally right.

Based on this then, this is how we generally know whether something feels right or not, is good, bad or just truly evil.

However, if we touch briefly on some on some of the other concepts that you've mentioned in relation to evil, namely, God and morality, we see that it's not just as simple as good vs evil. Or is it?

Well, we didn't create ourselves, clearly - because we don't have that kind of knowledge and power. Also, if we associate the concept of evil with experiences or actions that were not morally right, wouldn't we want to change it?

Therefore, there had and has to be a divine and higher power (even if you don't believe in God) that created us. And if this higher power created us then he must be all divine, completely holy and perfect - basically devoid of any evil. So, there's no evil there.

But we see evil or bad things/experiences in our lives constantly in some way or another. Why? Because the higher power created us with free will. Meaning, we have the ability to use our own freedom and free will in order to act against our creator (if we want). This we know because we make our own decisions/mistakes. So evil is introduced or brought into existence in this way. But this does not mean that evil exists. Although, evil can exist.

What do you think, Sanjana?

The first thing of note that I always think when I hear this is what is reality? Is it perception? Are these two concepts even the same thing? Is there a difference? After much thinking and analysis, it became clear to me that there is no straightforward, let alone, “right” or “wrong” answer due to various influences from philosophy, science and various other schools of thought that all overlap.

According to the Merriam Webster dictionary the word reality was first recognized and used in the year 1550 and can be defined as the quality or state of being real. Furthermore, it goes on to say that reality is something that is not unoriginal or dependent but does essentially exist. And for perception, the Merriam Webster dictionary tells us that that this word was first acknowledged in the 14th century and can be defined as consciousness, be it in the form or observation, conception or any school of thought.

Looking at both reality and perception from the aspect of philosophy, which has been debating topics such as this for longer than we can remember, much of the discussion centers on the contrast between these two elements. For instance, when we perceive something as it actually is (appears) and when we perceive something as we think it is (not appearing as it is). What is of interest to me though is how people can perceive and mis-perceive things, especially if they are looking at the same object or seeing, that is to say experiencing, the same thing (at the same time).

Let’s say, for example that I go to the beach with my friend and I see blue water and she sees blue-green water. We are both there seeing and experiencing the same thing at the same time, however, we are not seeing exactly the same thing. Some philosophers have responded to this by assuming that our perception of material objects is facilitated by our awareness of what they term sense-data, ideas or impressions, and that these supposedly act as a type of substitute for external objects.

So, just as we have people who believe differently in terms of religion, culture, ethics, etc., so too do we have people who see things differently in the world around us – states of being that appear to be “correct” or “incorrect.” This is why I think there is no reality only perception. I mean, how else can one account for the fact that we see things differently?

So in my opinion, it’s clear to me that the perception a person has is dependent on their worldview (s). And this then, creates a certain "real-life" experience which translates into “reality” for the person or persons experiencing what is happening. That is to say, reality is in actual fact perception. Therefore, I am of the opinion that there is no such thing as reality (only perception).

Sources:

1. Definition of REALITY
   https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reality [accessed January 14, 2021].

2. Definition of PERCEPTION
   https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perception [accessed January 14, 2021].

3. Perception - Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy
   https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/perception/v-1 [accessed January 14, 2021].

Elli! I love your argument. It's really solid in the fact department and you bring your point across beautifully concerning your opinion in that you don't agree with me on, there is no such thing as reality.

Although, I would like to add, do you think that since these two concepts are so closely linked together that they might have become interchangeable or synonymous with each other on a certain level?

Hi Andrew!

Brilliant! Your response. Now, I'm not saying that I agree with you of course. My original stance on this opinion still stands.

Also, I understand where you are coming from. Especially, with your very well presented argument.

However, let's take your scenario and question on, if humans never existed in Earth's history does this mean that Earth still exists? Well, I believe (again, this is in keeping with my opinion) that the Earth would exist for whoever or whatever is around to see it. That is to say, the way whoever or whatever is around to see and perceive it in their own way. Thus creating their own "reality, " which in my opinion is actually perception.

So let's suppose this: if you or me were not around or had not been born then Earth would not have existed for us and we would not have existed for (the) Earth. Right? Is that not a perception that could lead to a possible reality?

See, this is why I say there is no such thing as reality, only perception. Something or someone (a living organism) would have to be around to see or perceive. Therefore, I'm still of the opinion that reality or the concept of reality exists because of our perceptions (as humans).

I even suggested/asked Elli if she thought that these two concepts (reality and perception) might be interchangeable or synonymous. And she responded by saying that, that observation might have merit. I really think so too, especially after seeing that you chose 'mixed' for this opinion. They're closely linked (if not the same or similar), no doubt.

I guess that might explain similarities and parallels for a lot of other ideas, opinions and thoughts we have then too. Well, it's something to think about and possibly look forward to!

Don't forget to read what Elli said too (if you haven't already)!

Also can you refer back to paragraph 5 for the following: you just made me realize something in this response to you. What if perception is what helps/assists (I'm not sure what word to use here) us in realizing reality - whatever that reality might be for any of us at any given moment. What do you think?

My opinion on this would have to be against, as I do not agree that homework should be banned. And while you have made a very convincing argument, I don't think that entirely banning homework is the answer to the very real and concerning facts that you have presented.

If we look at why schools (or universities) were first erected or where the concept came from, it was so that there would be a place for a group of like-minded people to be able to share, discuss, debate and exchange their ideas, opinions and findings. This then evolved into what we have today. So, the concept of what schools are and do has definitely evolved through the ages. However, the main reason for having educational institutions essentially still seem to be the same - for learning purposes.

Additionally, while I feel that the concept of homework has sort of been lost, I feel that banning it completely might set a bad precedent for the future. I mean, I am of the opinion that the real reason why we should be going to school (or university) is to learn and engage with the teachers and students.

Also, I feel that maybe the reason homework has become such an issue, especially with regards to what you mentioned is because some of the current educational systems that we have in the various countries are either, too structured or not managed properly.

I mean, whatever happened to learning being fun? Remember, human beings learn all the time. So, just as they can learn in a more structured environment so too can they learn in a more relaxed (playful) environment. That is to say, we can learn through play too. Maybe if there was more of a balance between how learning (in general) is being done in terms of the above factors I've mentioned then this concept of "homework" would not be as stressful and problematic as it is.

So, while I feel that banning homework is not the answer, it also doesn't mean that I agree with how the various students are being treated, unfairly and suffering as a result of the fact that some schools feel it's mandatory for students to receive and complete (a certain amount of) homework.

TL;DR - It’s become increasingly evident, especially in recent times that technology is much more invasive with regards to our privacy. Particularly, where the sharing of our information is concerned.

I’m not talking about surveillance technology either here, no. Here, I’m talking about various companies, governments, organizations, and even individuals using technology to spy on us in our personal lives, as well as, sharing our data indiscriminately.

Take for example what’s been happening just recently with WhatsApp. I’ve been hearing and seeing lots of complaints regarding their recent privacy policy update in which they will be sharing our data with Facebook. Also, if consent is not given then of course, you will no longer be allowed to use the WhatsApp application, deleting your account with all of its information.

The issue here is, it’s not even really about the sharing of the data as much as it is about the type of data that is being shared, and how WhatsApp has gone about essentially forcing all current users to agree with this privacy policy if they want to continue making use of it.

I mean, we are living in a digital era and have become used to (to a certain degree) the fact that we have to share some data. However, I think it’s just ridiculous that certain companies and organizations think that’s it’s okay to practically force us to share more or our personal data with them, and other companies too in some instances. Additionally, online gaming (which is huge) is another place where data sharing happens. Is it then only a matter of time before more personal data starts being requested here or is it already being done (hopefully not without our permission)?

Other examples where we can also clearly see that technology has become invasive is with regards to basic digital products such as television and mobile phones. Everybody today knows, as I assume it’s an open secret, that these gadgets contain listening devices and can invade our privacy to a certain degree. I am totally against this, no matter what anyone's reason is for trying to reason with me why I need a listening device in any of my personal devices.

So, it’s clear that while the sharing of one’s information will continue to happen, we need to make sure that it’s happening in a respectful and responsible manner. This means we need to do everything that we can from our side and stand up to these companies, organizations and government organizations. Even if it means having them implement stricter policies, mandates, guidelines, rules/regulations with regards to the transparency issues concerning the sharing of data, especially one’s personal data.

Don’t get me wrong, technology itself is not necessarily bad and all doom and gloom. However, I think if the proper policies, mandates, guidelines, rules/regulations are implemented in an honest and transparent manner, then it will be a step in the right direction for us where these privacy and invasive issues are concerned.

So, in my opinion despite the fact that technology has changed our lives and will undoubtedly continue to change our lives, at the end of the day I do feel that technology has become too invasive.

Sources:

1. Best S. WhatsApp users DELETE app over fears data will be shared with Facebook.
   https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-9134309/WhatsApp-users-ABANDON-app-fears-data-shared-Facebook.html [accessed January 15, 2021].

2. Privacy violations – the dark side of social media... - BullGuard. https://www.bullguard.com/bullguard-security-center/internet-security/social-media-dangers/privacy-violations-in-social-media [accessed January 15, 2021].

Hi, Hatty! I agree with you in that time does not heal all wounds, especially within the context of losing a loved one. In fact, in a lot of ways this can be the most painful of all scars when it comes to healing, or as you put it coping.

What's more, we know and understand that healing is essentially when someone or something is made better, to put it simply. But when one loses a loved one that hurt or scar (on the inside) that you feel on the inside never really goes away. It's always there, but maybe not as strong as when the initial loss happened.

So no, time does not heal all wounds. It just helps us to better cope with that type of loss.

I have to say that for this one, I am with Elli. This is a good point that you have raised, especially since children are involved here and beauty pageants have been know to be highly controversial over the years.

However, I am sort of the same mind here as Elli. There are some really great advantages and benefits, some of which she already mentioned.

The only point that I will add is maybe there can be some better rules and regulations governing children's beauty pageants. I means, clearly there needs to be improvement if we are seeing more negative aspects and attitudes, for example with body image (shaming), eating disorders, etc.

Remember, It's not all negative, as long as, the child or children want to be there of their own free will. Like I said, enforcement of better rules and regulations with a more open and transparent policy - especially as these are children.

Well, if you look at what the definition of a diet is, the Merriam Webster dictionary defines it has habitual nourishment.

Meaning, that out bodies need to be constantly provided with nourishment, either in the form of food or drink at regular intervals.

Of course, a diet will not strictly be the same for any one individual. But the point that I am trying to make here is that based on my understanding of the definition of what diet is, everyone does it. That is to say everyone diets - provides nourishment to their body when necessary. I just find it strange that the only time people say they "diet" is when they are exercising and their meal plan has to change.

So, to answer your above question, yes, this is a diet in itself because we are providing nourishment to our bodies.

I agree with you that dieting is a waste of time. You provide some very real and convincing support for your arguments and I like this.

Also, if I might add though, my main reason that I see dieting as a waste of time is because of the (negative) perception that media, the fitness industry, etc., as you have mentioned, has created around what the concept or perception of "diet" or "dieting" is.

If you read the comment that I responded to on Turi's question, you will understand better. But basically, I said that I can't understand why people say they are only "dieting" when they exercise and change their meal plan for the better or to better their overall health.

We all diet everyday because dieting is just supplying our bodies with nutrients and nourishment when we need it.

TL;DR - It is perfectly okay to have a different opinion as that of the next person. But what is not okay is how intolerant some people are about it. Disagreeing with someone does not mean that’s it’s okay for you to disrespect them.

When looking at a typical example where someone has a difference of opinion in the workplace with a collogue, the following two scenarios are presented: the first scenario looks at a person having a difference of opinion with a work colleague, where the situation leads to animosity and is not resolved. While the second scenario looks at someone who has had a difference of opinion with a work colleague where the situation leads to no animosity. So clearly, the first scenario resulted in a negative consequence and the second scenario resulted in a positive consequence as a result of a difference in opinion.

However, it goes deeper than this because differences in opinion depend on a number of factors such as the context of the situation. That is to say, the topic that is being discussed or debated. Also, on the person or persons involved and what they are like, what their attitude is towards a particular situation or event. Therefore, it is important to remember that you will never please everyone with your opinions so don’t try. Just try to respect and value the right to differ and the differences in opinion as this can actually be beneficial to you, especially where growing as an individual is concerned.

So while opinions incite strong reactions, whether you agree with the next person or not, do note that it also allows people to engage with one another ensuring that communication is happening.

Hi Melanie and thank you for you comment and sharing your opinion. I do understand and agree with what you have mentioned here, especially in terms of the fact that the question is too vague. However, I was under the impression that we should be mindful of not creating any writing that is too verbose. Therefore, I kept it kind of brief and couldn't get into as much as I wanted in terms of my opinion and the rest of the argument. What I had to say on the rest of this question, would have really been too much. However, I feel that where this question is concerned I managed to get across the important points that I wanted to mention.

With regards to what we're agreeing/disagreeing on, it's just on whether having a different opinion as the next person really does matter (in the general sense). And as I mentioned in my original opinion, the short version is that is basically depends on context, personal preference and attitude, etc.

What's more, I do have to say that I understand where you are coming from in that this question is and I quote, " too vague to guide a specific conversation." Yes, I understand and even to a certain extent agree. Concerning your question on what does a 'for' opinion mean. It means that I am for the question that a difference in opinion really does matter. Also, on your next question, "What does the question mean by matter?" I hope that you will bear in mind what I have mentioned earlier about why I kept it this brief. I actually found that in this instance (with the way I phrased and asked this question) that I wanted to keep it general and not too specific. This way, people are not too boxed in by the question as the concept of opinions is wide and far ranging. Just as you mentioned in your first paragraph.

And finally, you are most definitely not offending me. And thank you again for your contribution. I really appreciate it. Looking forward to more of this!

Hi Catrin and thank you for your comment and opinion. It's really great to see so many people voicing their thoughts.

You're spot on in that every person is different and that is what makes us interesting as human beings. This then also accounts for some very interesting results, especially when we do not agree on something like a difference in opinion.

Also, I think that you have made a really great point and I like the way you put it that we all have difference opinions (as no two, three or four, etc. people can agree all of the time) and that we all need to learn to debate with one another without it turning personal and fierce. Although, I feel that this should or could include what you mentioned and I quote, "However, there are certain opinions that will naturally (and rightly so) cause division." Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that it's not natural for someone to get upset and maybe even lose respect for the way that the next person has perhaps brought their opinion across (especially if it was done in a disrespectful way to them). What I mean to say is, get upset by all means. But try and do it in a responsible manner that does not have a potentially negative impact on the next person and those around you. Does this make sense?

Thank you and I'm looking forward to sharing more of your opinions on various other opinions and topics!

Hi Rosalyn! I like your statement and think that it might be one of those age-old sayings that has been around for as long as I can remember.

As it is, I have to say that I believe that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and therefore, the person who is the observer has a choice in deciding what is beautiful. Why? Because if beauty is in the eye of the beholder then that means what the "beholder" considers to be beautiful might not be what you, me, he or she considers to be beautiful.

And so, for me it is clear that beauty is what each individual considers to be beautiful. Hence the saying, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Hi Emma! What a great topic. Music is an important part of our everyday lives and I don't think people realize just how much they take it for granted.

And while I do believe that we will be able to survive without music in our lives (very painful), I have to say that based on your current statement and some of my knowledge of having studied this in psychology, yes, music should be a mandatory part of all childhood.

It should also, potentially, be a part of adolescent education as it has tremendous positive effects on the individual. That's the short and very brief version of my answer.

TL;DR – The existence of an all-perfect God is one of the most fascinating and controversial arguments of all time and a big reason we grapple with it is because we are finite beings. What's more, there is indeed undeniable evidence to prove that God does exist and it has nothing to do with religion as we have come to know it today.

Questioning God's existence stems from this desire of us wanting to be sure that a spiritual being is real and that He actually exists. Even William Lane Craig who writes for the website www.reasonablefaith.org, confirms this when he informs us that asking this question is one of the most important questions any person can consider. Especially, since a person's belief in God’s existence hugely influences how they view life, humanity, morality and destiny.

Furthermore, Dr. Craig demonstrates the reasonableness of believing that God does exist through presenting five strong arguments for His existence, namely: God makes sense of the origin of the universe, God makes sense of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life, God makes sense of objective moral values in the world, God makes sense of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus and God can be immediately known and experienced – which represent but a few of the validations to God's existence. Alvin Plantinga, one of the world's leading philosophers, has also laid out some more arguments for God's existence.

In addition, ample evidence of God’s existence can also be found overlapping in the following two articles, with the first one discussing six straightforward reasons to his existence, namely: the complexity of our planet, the origin of the universe, the universe operates by uniform laws of nature, our DNA is divinely programmed, his pursuit of us and lastly that the revelation of Jesus is the clearest, most specific proof of God revealing himself to us. While the second article looks at the following arguments as proofs which confirm God’s existence, namely: the cause argument, the design argument and the moral argument (also mentioning Pascal’s wager as an added bonus).

Accordingly then, the most apparent evidence of God's existence is that: humans are not responsible for the creation of the universe (for obvious reasons) and God who is infinite and has limitless powers is the only one that is responsible for creating us – and everything else. As a result, it would seem as though the main reason this debate still (and will) continue for a lot of people is because of this – our difficulty in grappling with and fully trying to comprehend the existence of only one God and that He is so all powerful and all-consuming.

So throughout history, the various arguments regarding the existence of God have taken on different forms (for, against, mixed) and are based on different foundations. Yet, despite this there is one shared consensus among these arguments: that a higher power does indeed exist. Although, I do believe that the most obscure reason why we cannot find and produce direct tangible evidence that God exists is because society and us as human beings have grown away (apart) from Him. Consequently, very few of us understand what it means to be truly religious and spiritual.

Our biggest flaw then, concerning religion (and spirituality) is how we perceive it in relation to God because we in fact see both – especially religion, as a separate entity to God. That is to say, we actually don't see religion as (a) part of God. More specifically, when we talk about religion, we talk about it and then mention God in it. I mean, if we were truly talking about religion (as God taught it to us in the very beginning) then we would be talking about Him and not religion. What’s natural is first God and then everything else follows after that. So religion follows after God – because even though religion is part of God, religion is not God. God is religion.

Ultimately, I think that as much as Christian theism, as we have come to know it (over time) is an acceptable worldview which commits itself to the thoughtful consideration of every rational human being, we shouldn't try so hard to put God in a box when attempting to understand (or explain) Him – because as finite beings we won't be able to. He is what he is. He is God. Or in his own words, "I am that I am."