Pricilla

TL;DR Patterns of arousal show men and women can feel genuine attraction to both genders

• According to [recent studies] (https://www.advocate.com/bisexual/2020/7/21/male-bisexuality-real-new-study-confirms-once-and-all), men who identify as bisexual demonstrate more sexual attraction to men than straight men and more sexual attraction to women than gay men. Bisexuality does not have to be (and often is not) an evenly split 50/50 attraction to both genders. Rather substantial attraction to both genders at any level.

• Bisexual women across a [10-year study] (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18194000/) demonstrate that their attraction to both genders does not serve as a transitional phase but identify with their labels longterm.

TL;DR Transracialism is inaccurate and reduces a race down to stereotypes

Transracialism is the idea that someone can identify themselves as belonging to a race different from their birth race. Some feel that they can ‘belong’ to another race because of how much they identify with or admire that race’s culture and traditions. However, in reality, one's racial identity cannot be determined by how much one admires the culture associated with any particular race. [Race is strictly determined by one's genetics] (https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Race#:~:text=Race%20is%20also%20used%20to,groups%20and%20not%20between%20them).

Race is much deeper than embracing others' foods, clothes, and traditions. Anyone can adopt the culture associated with a racial group, but they cannot adopt their struggles as well. Someone fascinated with a culture can indulge in as many traditions as they please, but will not fall victim to the same stereotypes and negative perceptions as those who genetically belong to said race. At the end of the day, claiming to belong to a group outside of your birth origins is not only inaccurate but also a direct way of diminishing the struggles of said race, reducing their culture and traditions down to stereotypes.

TL;DR Those who need trigger warnings should feel safe when picking up a book

• Those who would benefit from warnings should be able to open up a book without the worry off bring exposed to sensitive content. Because it is true that readers often experience the book with the characters, all the more reason for readers to be able to decide if they are in the right position to relive extremely painful memories themselves. They should be able to comfortably enjoy hobbies like reading without fear and instead be able to assess whether they want to experience potentially sensitive material.

• Being that many novels already feature a series of spoilers on the back of the book within their descriptions, trigger warnings could be placed in these locations without much hassle as well. Those who avoid reading through thorough detailed descriptions on the book jacket could skip over these areas as they usually do. Those who would prefer to check the warnings could have the opportunity to enjoy the book as well as a result.

• Trigger warnings wouldn’t likely take up too much room as they are usually in the form of keywords, and likely wouldn’t provide any context to the plot or characters themselves .

TL;DR: Conversations cause change

Though often protests do not immediately result in changes in the eyes of the law, a large gathering can bring attention to an issue that otherwise wouldn’t have been discussed. Regardless of whether the protesters reach ten or ten thousand people, a conversation is sparked. Upon being exposed to the topic at hand, people open themselves up to an inner dialogue with themselves to assess their position on the issue and often bring the conversation to those around them as well. Though not everyone will adopt the viewpoints of those protesting, getting the conversation started is the beginning of radical change.
For instance, protests by the Black Lives Matter movement resulted in public awareness for police brutality and racial discrimination. [Numerous pieces of legislation] (https://www.dosomething.org/us/articles/black-lives-matter-protests-whats-been-achieved-so-far) were passed in favor of reforming the police. It was the conversation formed by protests that spread the word and forced people to listen.

TL;DR: Money can act as a vessel by which evil acts are carried out but is not evil in and of itself

While it is undeniable that money may be a source of evil, it is the act of greed that is evil rather than money itself. As greed could be best explained as an act or trait stemming from selfishness, and while greed is in fact evil, it is still not the root to all that is. The root issue is selfishness, coming in many more forms than greed. Selfishness could take shape in any manner of prioritizing oneself, whether that be through greed, emotional manipulation, or any form of disregard for another.

TL;DR God tolerates evil so we can have freedom of choice

On the contrary, a God could not be good without a tolerance for all that is evil. In major religions, what makes God good despite tolerating evil is His hatred for it.

Tolerating evil and being evil are not one in the same. He tolerates what He despises for the sake of giving us free will. All evil is tolerated, but in exchange we are formed into people instead of puppets. In exchange we live without a predetermined will, without being born into the world preprogrammed to “choose” only what is good. To live as a puppet is what is truly evil. We can choose wrong because we were given the right to choose.

Moreover, there is evidence to supply that God does not enjoy that which is evil. For instance, He provides a set of religious instructions that actively guides humankind away from what is determined to be evil. For those who do wrong, He provides an avenue for unlimited forgiveness and guidance in the right direction featuring stories of people in similar situations. And as a just God, He does not leave evil unpunished. He does not enjoy the presence of evil being that He Himself carries out justice for evil acts in the afterlife. There is a natural balance that remains, while providing freedom simultaneously.

Tl;DR Commitments based on arrangements are more stable than those based on fleeting emotions

• Arranged marriages are more successful than marriages that are based in love according to [recent studies] (https://www.statisticbrain.com/arranged-marriage-statistics/)

• The sensation of love can only be defined loosely. Often it may only be physical attraction in disguise. Regardless of how love is defined, at its core, it is solely an emotion, a fleeting feeling. Basing a lifetime commitment on something as unstable as a feeling is bound to result in high rates of failure.
  Especially when people start to feel a decline in that feeling and try to recapture it in someone else.

• Moreover, even amongst marriages that initially are based in love, those that have a higher chance of continual success are those that admit that upon losing the feeling of “initial love”, stayed together and built upon something bigger anyways. Successful marriages are not based on temporary infatuation but on a joint agreement to stay committed to one another and work through obstacles as they appear.

TL;DR History can never be objective because history is nothing more than a set of events recalled from lived experiences

When the same event is explained from multiple perspectives, two sides can have versions that differ from one another completely and yet both can still be entirely true. Both sides will present a narrative that seeks to represents their own view of how a set of events played out.

• When two nations are at war with one another, both sides will paint the opposing country as the evildoers. Though both nations kill those belonging to the opposing side for their own personal gain, to them only their reasons for doing so are justified, and their history is recorded as such.

• In a hypothetical war between ”Nation A” and “Nation B”, the events of the conflict will be recorded as they unfold and be placed into their youth’s textbooks.
  Nation A’s textbooks may describe the event as a war fought well by their soldiers against an oppressive and threatening country. It may be recorded by Nation A as a war that ended victoriously, resulting in the successful acquisition of new land from a tyrannous nation. Textbooks in Nation B on the other hand might describe the conflict as an “attack on their land and innocent civilians” by a power hungry country. It’ll be recorded as an unfortunate day in history. Neither side would be falsifying the truth from their perspective, and yet the stories aren’t compatible with one another. When neither perspective is entirely false, telling the story in its entirety without some inherent bias is impossible.

However, just because history is subjective doesn’t make it any less true. Peoples lived experiences don't have to be compatible with one another from them to be real. Multiperspectivity and actively choosing to take all biases into account is what gives us a complete story. Even if each account cannot be retold objectively.

Though money can play a large role in attaining many of the qualities associated with happiness such as good health, a comfortable lifestyle, and material desires, it cannot buy happiness in and of itself. In other words, it is undeniable that money can provide a good foundation for what could ideally be considered a content person, but said person could face other obstacles in their life such as a lack of motivation, lack of purpose or identity, loneliness, or face struggle with a mental illness. A source of financial stability may not be directly adding onto any suffering but it also cannot guarantee happiness itself.

If Merriam-Webster’s dictionary definition of sexual harassment is an acceptable interpretation, “uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical behavior of a sexual nature”, then it is most definitely applicable to catcalling. By walking down the street, running errands, working out, or simply getting a breath of fresh air, someone isn’t showing any indication of welcoming sexual or romantic advances of any kind. As sexual advances of these kinds are unexpected and inappropriate, their recipients are left taken aback and often frightened. In fact according to Gallop’s Annual Crime Survey, “Nearly half of all women, 45%, say they do not feel safe walking alone at night, compared with 27% of men” (Dugan, 2021). If the advance was unwanted and ultimately undesired, then it is sexual harassment.

Dugan, A. (2021, April 03). In US, 37% Do Not Feel Safe Walking at Night Near Home.
Retrieved April 19, 2021, from https://news.gallup.com/poll/179558/not-feel-safe-walking-night-near-home.aspx

Sexual harassment. (n.d.). Retrieved April 19, 2021, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sexual%20harassment

TL;DR Cancel culture shuts down conversations that could otherwise lead to personal growth

“Cancel culture” is a term created to refer to the practice of throwing people out of social circles for opinions that are deemed harmful, wrong, or offensive. It is no secret that cancel culture has been heavily criticized in the past. Having been labelled as a form of modern day censorship to some people, its opposers claim its main function lies in silencing opinions that, though unpopular, may still prove to be true. However, these arguments miss cancel culture's biggest flaw yet: it provides no opportunity for growth or redemption.

Those who are canceled are rightfully called out for their mistakes, but are discouraged from learning from them afterwards. In other words, cancel culture provides absolutely no room for growth. Instead, we call people out, kick them out of our conversations, and then lament over why their behaviors don’t change. Instead, we should still be inviting people into these difficult conversations, even when we know they’re wrong. When someone has an opinion that is indisputably ignorant or immoral, the person should be invited to express their thoughts without hesitation or restraint. This is not because we condone or agree with them, but because the truth can only be revealed to them through open discussion. By having someone reiterate and reflect on their reasoning by means of open dialogue, they become more open to spotting inconsistencies and flaws within their own arguments. They may even begin to rationalize the opposing sides' claims as well.

In other words, the goal of these conversations should be less about shaming and more about educating the person in question. Some argue that the people we cancel aren't deserving of the time it would take to educate them or of a chance of redemption. However, whether they deserve it or not is beyond the point entirely. If our goal isn’t to rid people of their ignorance and harmful behaviors, then there will never be a long term societal benefit to bringing their actions to light in the first place. After all, after being shamed, people don’t abandon their opinions, they simply become more discreet about them. This is why conversation is necessary to have people find the faults within their own lines of reasoning. While it is a step in the right direction to stop sweeping others' actions under the rug, we cannot leave the root issues behind them unaddressed.

Age is a number that is always extremely important given the context it is in. This phrase is used most often when talking about relationships, where someone young finds themself in a romantic relationship with someone much older. If someone is underaged and not fully mentally developed, the age of their romantic partner could be a determining factor in whether or not the relationship is safe for the child. Someone who is fully mentally developed could easily take it upon themselves to manipulate the child for their own benefit. Even in situations where the relationship in question does not deal with underaged people, such as between a 30 year old and a 50 year old, age matters nonetheless. It is precisely that age did matter in this situation, the result being that these people were at ages that allowed them to be at a similar stage of mental development making the relationship safe. Age always matters, but whether or not that is beneficial or detrimental to the people it is referring to varies.

While it is true that group work can be frustrating when not all members of the team pull their weight, that is precisely why it is needed. Universities try to place students in situations where they will be prepared for their lives in the real world, more specifically in the workplace. Students who become frustrated with the performance or contributions of their teammates are likely to face the same trials at their jobs in the future. As a result, exposure to these kinds of situations provides good experience for all those involved.

Those who become frustrated with the lack of effort from another student gain valuable communicative experience in alerting the professor of the issue, successfully forcing the freeloader to be removed from the group. This type of conversation would undoubtedly take some courage when done in a real life workplace, making prior experience extremely vital.

If the professor chooses not to intervene, the student will gain experience in pushing through with the rest of the group despite the missing effort from another. As unfair as it may be, many bosses and supervisors in some jobs will force a group to push through a task anyways, not acting on any specific issues from other coworkers. Experience in readjusting would prove to be beneficial in this situation.

Those who leave all the work to their fellow group members may find themselves given a low grade or kicked out of the group entirely. While one bad grade may not be the end of the world, the student will learn the consequences of their actions in a safe environment. Instead of losing their future job, their grade has suffered as a result instead. This experience may serve as a lesson to not repeat their mistakes once more.

TL;DR: Anyone under 25 should not receive the death penalty. Their brains are not yet developed enough to make intelligent decisions.

In order to be eligible for capital punishment, the person in question should be required to be a minimum of twenty-five years of age. Though legally the age of a so-called ‘adult’ in many countries is set at eighteen, this number has no correlation in estimating the mental development of said person. Those who are of legal age are considered to be at the age of majority but not at the age of maturity. Though their brains are mostly developed by the time they’ve reached age eighteen, they don’t finish developing their prefrontal cortex for another seven years on average. The fact that most eighteen years olds have brains that are ‘mostly developed’ invites the argument that these adolescents are developed enough (and therefore rational enough) to understand the depth of the crimes that they are committing (or at least those heinous enough to warrant the death penalty). This argument is plausible, except for the fact that the primary function of the prefrontal cortex is for controlling rational judgement and regulating impulsivity, the two traits found to be most vital when evaluating criminal activity. Though the brains of 18 years olds are mostly developed, the functions they lack are the most crucial. To claim that developing children should be put to death for situations they may not be able to fully comprehend is an abuse of power on behalf of legislators. Though some crimes are severe enough to warrant longer sentences to ensure justice on behalf of affected parties, it would be unethical to take the life of someone who is still mentally developing and thus unable to make intelligent decisions on their own. Being unable to make their own rational judgements and recognize destructive patterns, these adolescents may be not acting on their own accord but instead imitating the influences around them. Furthermore, children born into less fortunate circumstances may be conditioned to view acts of violence not as criminal but instead as a method of survival. We cannot expect these children to break these habits and unlearn these patterns before the time they are mentally fully developed. It falls upon us as a society to educate our youth, not to take their lives after we failed to provide the resources and understanding needed to guide them in the right direction in the first place.