eleanorburleigh

While Emma Raducanu's US Open win was a great sporting achievement for British tennis, it may not be one of the greatest sporting achievements of all time - and this isn't necessarily a bad thing.

• When Emma Raducanu won the 2021 US Open, she became the first-ever qualifier to win a Grand Slam (meaning she wasn't automatically qualified because of her high ranking) & the first British woman since Virginia Wade won a Grand Slam at Wimbledon in 1977. It was also the first GS Final between two ['unseeded' players] (https://tennispredict.com/how-does-seeding-work-in-tennis/) - neither Emma nor her competitor, 19-year-old Leylah Fernandez was ranked among the top 16 players in the competition.

• She also managed to win the title without losing a single set in the ten matches leading up to it - for an 18-year-old, it was a hugely impressive victory. But was it one of the greatest sporting achievements of all time?

• In a way, its 'greatness' is defined by its impact and the reaction it provokes. Emma Raducanu's win very much felt like [an underdog triumph] (https://www.eurosport.co.uk/tennis/us-open/2021/us-open-tennis-2021-emma-raducanu-takes-british-baton-from-andy-murray-in-reaching-final-in-new-york_sto8535726/story.shtml) & while it was an undeniably skilful win, a fair amount of the explosive response to it was the result of shock.

• A similar thing happened last year when Polish player Iga Swiatek won the French Open at age 19. Like Emma, she was not high-ranked and didn't drop a single set before becoming Poland's first-ever Grand Slam winner. Swiatek has since [been open about the pressure] (https://www.indiatoday.in/sports/tennis/story/french-open-2021-iga-swiatek-maria-sakkari-draining-tokyo-olympics-1812944-2021-06-09) of her high-profile win & its draining effect.

• While Emma Racucanu has so far displayed an impressive amount of fortitude and coolness under pressure, she is only 18 & the fallout from kicking off her career with 'one of the greatest sporting achievements of all time' would be immense. Part of why she was such a surprise win was that rather than prioritising tennis & attending tournaments abroad, [she focused on her A-levels] (https://inews.co.uk/sport/tennis/emma-raducanu-coach-a-levels-us-open-2021-final-grounded-better-player-1192926). She obviously has tons of skill. And her US Open win is definitely one for the books - being the first-ever qualifier to win a Grand Slam is a big deal! But it doesn't make it one of the greatest sporting achievements in history. And it would be a lot of pressure on her if it did!

In terms of the effect they have on the individual on whom they're being imposed, racial/cultural stereotypes are never neutral.

What do we mean by 'neutral' in this context? I interpret it to mean not contributing to harm - basically, inoffensive.
Ok, so what is a stereotype? By definition, it's something that lacks nuance and depth. A stereotype is an assumption that is generally based on surface-level observation. It's often a belief that applies to an entire group or class of people - and it can be true to some degree, but it will always lack nuance.

• For example - you may have a stereotyped idea of a lawyer. This could be a negative stereotype - in that the associated qualities are ones that you dislike. In the lawyer example, this could be the quality of ruthlessness. Or it could be a positive stereotype - associated with qualities that you admire, like that of having a strong work ethic.

A stereotype we have about someone within a group might prove to be true - but it will never sum them up as an individual. Someone who is a lawyer may well have the qualities of being ruthless & hardworking. But, likely, there's also a lot more to them than that.

I suppose a neutral stereotype could be one associated with qualities that you don't have an opinion on. But even if we don't feel personally involved with the judgement associated with a stereotype, it can still be there. I think [neutrality in any context is tricky] (https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02476/full). A lot is going on in our brains & our unconscious minds that we are unaware of.

• Stereotypes can manifest in [implicit bias] (https://perception.org/research/implicit-bias/) - which is the automatic, unthinking categorisation of a person, potentially resulting in unthinking discrimination. Patterns of thought/behaviour [labelled in psychology as 'schemas'] (https://www.thoughtco.com/schema-definition-4691768) are cognitive frameworks that help us to process & organise information. They're helpful because they allow us to filter the masses of information available to us every day. However, they mean that we tend to focus only on the things that confirm our pre-existing beliefs and ideas. We might believe that an assumption/stereotype we have is neutral - but this could just be because it is so ingrained into our cognitive framework.

In terms of the individuals on whom stereotypes are imposed - even seemingly positive ones can be weighty. Because they are generalisations, they might hold the person/group being stereotyped to [an unrealistically high standard.] (https://depts.washington.edu/sibl/negative-effects-of-positive-stereotypes/)

• Two examples of supposedly positive stereotypes are that Asians are all good at maths or that gay men are all fashionable. People on whom these stereotypes are imposed could feel pressure to comply with them; they could partly relate but also feel restricted by them; they could even protect their vulnerabilities by role-playing as them. None of these things is ideal.

Whether you think complying with a stereotype will get you positive or negative reactions from others, you won't feel empowered:

• Studies have shown that when an individual is reminded of a supposedly positive stereotype about them, [they end up doing worse at whatever the stereotype calls of them] (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-9280.00277).
• With negative stereotypes, this is even worse. It can result in anxiety which affects cognitive performance and ability, creating a vicious circle of stereotype-enforcement and confirmation bias. Neuroscientists have even measured the effects of what is termed ['stereotype threat'] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype_threat) in the brain and found that it inhibits the regions responsible for task performance.

A lot depends on how you judge 'the best'. Cadbury easily has a place in the running, but it comes down to what you value about your chocolate.

Cadbury is definitely a [hugely popular chocolate brand] (https://www.confectioneryproduction.com/news/28317/cadbury-and-mars-emerge-as-global-top-of-the-chocs/). They're the face of the milk chocolate bar (in the UK, at least) & they've released [tons of other products] (https://www.statista.com/statistics/312031/cadbury-leading-products-in-the-uk/). On the one hand, you could rate their versatility, their longevity, and their pretty much universal appeal. On the other, you could criticise the brand for being [commercial-grade chocolate] (https://perfectdailygrind.com/2018/12/fine-commercial-chocolate-do-you-know-the-difference/) and for its high quantity of sugar. (In a Dairy Milk bar, there's a [higher amount] (https://www.cadbury.co.uk/products/cadbury-dairy-milk-11294) of sugar than there is chocolate.)

Maybe it's the best (from a UK perspective) in terms of its popular appeal. A lot depends on the criterion for judgement. You can find many other brands that source their ingredients more sustainably or produce chocolate in smaller batches. It also does greatly depend on personal preference. As someone whose favourite kind of chocolate is dark, I prefer brands like Lindt.

If you look at it through a historical lens, you might conclude that Cadbury is, if not the best, then one of the best chocolate brands because [they've been on the scene for so long] (https://theculturetrip.com/europe/united-kingdom/articles/a-brief-history-of-cadbury-chocolate/). They were one of the leading companies to produce edible chocolate bars during the 1800s when chocolate became popular in Europe.
However, you would also be within your rights to claim that Hershey's (which originated at a similar time in the US) is superior. You could also argue that Swiss chocolatiers were actually [the first to produce milk chocolate bars] (https://whatscookingamerica.net/history/milkchocolate.htm) using dried milk powder - an advancement on the original European recipe of sugar, chocolate liquor and cocoa butter.

Ultimately, though: it's down to personal preference. Whether it's a globe-spanning brand like Cadbury or a little-known artisan company, the best chocolate is the one that you enjoy the most.

Modern Monetary Theory basically speculates that countries that spend, tax and borrow government-issued funds are [not constrained when it comes to their spending] (https://www.businessinsider.com/modern-monetary-theory?r=US&IR=T). If a country has a fiat currency (money that is not backed by commodities but by government-issuing) then they'll never run out of money because they can always just create more. It only applies to countries that issue their own currency.

Government-issued debt, or a bond, is a debt issued by a government & sold to investors to fund government spending. This kind of debt is issued when a government wants to spend more than it has raised in tax revenue. It essentially needs to borrow money, which has to be paid back at some point. Often, a government will make interest payments to multiple creditors - it's [a system of trust] (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/government-bond.asp) based on the assurance that the debt will eventually be paid back.

Central banks can buy up these government-issued bonds by printing currency to pay for them. This means the money [goes back into economic circulation] (https://theconversation.com/explainer-why-the-government-cant-simply-cancel-its-pandemic-debt-by-printing-more-money-148514). Some people argue that this means the creditors have been paid off & the government should be able to write off this debt. However, the bonds are still in existence, they are just circulating as currency - which the banks (acting as independent entities) can claim interest on. The debt will still have to be honoured by the government.

Basically: MMT says that a country that has its own currency doesn't ever really need to worry about building up government debt. It can always just create/print more money to pay the interest. A country's central bank can always generate more money to effectively finance infinite government spending. - However, this contradicts [the independent nature of the banks] (https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/knowledgebank/how-is-the-bank-of-england-independent-of-the-government).

MMT also argues that since the government can create as much money as it wants to fuel the economy, taxes aren't used to fund government initiatives. Instead, taxation relieves the economy when government spending overrides the availability of resources, [resulting in inflation] (https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/111314/what-causes-inflation-and-does-anyone-gain-it.asp). According to MMT, the only thing the government needs to be wary of when spending is the availability of resources. Proponents of the theory argue that this means such a government could create full employment.
However, a major flaw of MMT is that it doesn't have a proven history of successful application. In the 1970s there was [a period of simultaneous high inflation & low employment] (https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/09/1970s-great-inflation.asp) - showing that the two don't necessarily correlate.

[Many economists oppose MMT] (https://www.businessinsider.com/paul-krugman-interview-inflation-mmt-government-stimulus-spending-economic-recovery-2021-5?r=US&IR=T) and criticise it for being too simplistic. They argue that if the government started spending according to MMT, [debt and inflation would skyrocket] (https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-weakness-of-modern-monetary-theory). [Hyperinflation] (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/h/hyperinflation.asp) is caused by an increase in the supply of money & upward pressure on prices following supply shortage - MMT strongly runs the risk of this.
As the US economist Milton Friedman once said, "The government doesn't have any money. The only power it has is to take from some and give to others."

George Bush first used the term ['war on terror'] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_terror) while speaking to the US Congress after the 9/11 attacks. In this speech, he described the enemy in this war as the "radical framework of terrorists and every government that supports them". He was essentially beginning an anti-terrorism campaign in response to the September 11th attacks, which were carried out by [militants associated with the group al-Qaeda] (https://www.history.com/topics/21st-century/9-11-attacks) - though the campaign claimed to be concerned not just with al-Qaeda but with all militant extremist organisations.

It is more of a campaign than war because of its [multidimensional nature] (https://www.history.com/topics/21st-century/war-on-terror-timeline). It centrally involved US military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as covert operations in other countries.

Did the West win the 'War on Terror'?
You could conceivably argue that they did:

• In one sense, there hasn't been an attack on US soil that matches the scope of 9/11 since 2001. And the first few years of Bush's campaign seemed successful - many of al-Qaeda's leaders were killed or captured, most famously [Osama bin Laden] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Osama_bin_Laden#:~:text=Osama%20bin%20Laden%2C%20the%20founder,DEVGRU%20or%20SEAL%20Team%20Six).), who was killed in 2011.

However:

• After the US initially invaded Afghanistan, the Taliban regrouped more quickly than anticipated. And by this time the US had become embroiled in an [invasion of Iraq] (https://www.britannica.com/event/Iraq-War) (supposedly to uncover stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction - which they failed to find). The US presence in Iraq both meant that their efforts were now divided between two countries & it also validated bin Laden's position - that the US was waging widescale war on Islam, ultimately allowing the Taliban to grow their ranks.

• The US involvement in both Afghanistan and Iraq as part of its 'war on terror' has proved [extremely damaging to both countries] (https://www.international.ucla.edu/apc/centralasia/article/153245). In Iraq, the US's removal of Saddam Hussein's oppressive regime meant the outbreak of an ongoing civil war. And America's [recent departure from Afghanistan] (https://www.ft.com/content/b2ba76a1-694b-47f9-b077-d48ad88a8cb5) has resulted in a very rapid Taliban takeover - which experts say [could become a breeding ground] (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/08/terrorism-to-increase-under-afghanistans-new-taliban-government.html) for new militant terrorist groups.

Despite the US's apparent victories in killing/imprisoning the leaders of terrorist organisations, the reality is that there are actually [more militant extremist groups in the world today] (https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/how-has-terrorism-threat-changed-twenty-years-after-911) than there were in 2001.
It's also worth noting that this was a 'war' started in response to the 9/11 attacks, where nearly 3,000 people were killed. And it has resulted in the deaths of not only thousands of terrorists but tens of thousands of innocent civilians.

Democracy seems pretty fragile in the US at the moment. Whether it is seriously at risk remains to be seen.

Maybe the biggest issue currently faced by the US is the extremity of its two-party divide. Both the Republican and Democratic sides [differ in how they perceive democracy to be under threat] (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/10/20/americans-who-see-democracy-most-risk-republicans/) - which makes proposing solutions very difficult.

• The Republican party are still heavily affiliated with Trump and have done little to combat in-party beliefs that the 2020 election was illegally won. From this perspective, US democracy is under grave threat because Biden's election was fraudulent (even though [tons of info] (https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-election-claims-explained-805dd3de1c5e8f1a6a97a13bfec39d97) shows that it wasn't.) An extremist Republican might think that democracy will be restored if Trump becomes president again in 2024.

• From a Democratic viewpoint, it is also under threat, though to a lesser extent. The January attack on the Capitol showed the danger of mob mentality alongside widespread misinformed beliefs. From this view, having Trump as president again would mean a leader who is unwilling to accept any election result as legitimate unless he wins it - which is the opposite of democracy.

This party polarisation is, in a way, the result of a more widely egalitarian society. The US has become increasingly more inclusive of marginalised groups like women and people of colour. - And this prompted a swing back of resentment, largely from [those who are used to having a sole seat at the table] (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/01/multiracial-democracy-55-years-old-will-it-survive/617585/).

• It's significant that the Republican party (and Trump in particular) seems to have very much played into this resentment. The resulting rhetoric is a strongly-felt 'us versus them' mindset.

As to the future of the US as a democratic nation, I think a lot [depends on the Republican party] (https://www.ft.com/content/a2e499d0-10f0-4fa2-8243-e23eedc4f9f4#comments-anchor). It doesn't look great - since the chaos surrounding last year's election, they have done [very little] (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/28/republicans-trying-rewrite-history-capitol-attack) to hold major players accountable.

So, democracy in the US is potentially at risk - especially if Trump does end up in office again in 2024. But I wouldn't say it's a done deal. It's worth noting that the majority of polled Americans are still [in support of democracy] (https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/01/07/US-capitol-trump-poll) & a large majority also oppose politically motivated violence.

In the 1970s, Stephen Darwell theorised about [two different kinds of respect] (https://www.jstor.org/stable/2379993):

Recognition respect = respect for an object as an authority, giving appropriate weight to some element of an object/institution/person. You might have 'recognition respect' of the law, someone's feelings, social bodies.

Appraisal respect = respect for a person based on their merits or the role they occupy. You might have 'appraisal respect' for a good teacher or a person you really admire.

When we think about 'respecting authority', this probably relates to recognition respect or to some intersection of the two. Does this make it an important criteria for judging right and wrong?

• If we take the recognition respect angle, I think it does provide relevant criteria for judging right and wrong - if not the ideal criteria, then the one that is most commonly used.
• Right and wrong are [social concepts] (https://medium.com/@shawn.cook/beyond-good-and-evil-a-moral-fiction-in-meta-physics-1cd3c0e06cf3) in that they don't exist outside of our human understanding of them. And when we exercise 'recognition respect' towards things like social institutions and the law, a basic moral framework for right and wrong emerges.

I think it's a complicated issue - because you can get into the nitty grittiness of it by looking at cases like Nazi Germany, where respect for authority [created a sense of right & wrong] (https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/how-did-hitler-happen) that we wholeheartedly condemn now.
But I think in human history, generally, the senses we have and have had of what is right and wrong have been formed against a framework of respect for authority. This can easily lead onto or intersect with arguments about whether there can be any objective judgements about what's right and what's wrong.

This phrase could apply to someone doing a perceivably wrong thing to achieve a positive end result.

• Its origins are in [Consequentialist theory] (https://ethics.org.au/ethics-explainer-consequentialism/#:~:text=Consequentialism%20is%20a%20theory%20that,of%20this%20theory%20is%20Utilitarianism.) - which basically says that the morality of an action is determined by its consequences. So a consequentialist would argue that the ends do always justify the means.

• It might be debated what exactly is meant by 'the ends'. This might mean the actual result - in which case the morality or rightness of an action can only be judged in hindsight. Or it might mean the intended/expected end. One example is lying on a resume to get a job - will this be vindicated only if you actually get a job, or is simply the expectation/intention of getting one enough?

• When we judge something purely by its consequence, we risk partaking in [outcome bias] (https://towardsdatascience.com/outcome-bias-versus-moral-philosophy-cb82f42c4437) - this is a psychological term for when we make the error of evaluating a decision based on things we couldn't possibly have known at the time of decision-making.

• Could you say that the morality/rightness of an act is never absolute until its consequences have been realised? Or should you judge it purely on intentions and the expected result?

• Philosophical theories have tried to solve this problem from many different angles - an example from Utilitarianism is [Jeremy Bentham's 'Hedonic Calculus'] (https://philosophy.lander.edu/ethics/calculus.html). This suggests that when we judge an action's rightness or wrongness, we should consider the amount of pleasure and/or pain that is likely to result from it. Bentham gave a series of criteria with which to judge this: intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity, purity & extent. You could then measure this against alternative courses of action - and go with the one that produces the most pleasure & the least pain.

Children need to learn respect for authority because it is important to learn at an early age that the world doesn't revolve around you & to develop consideration for other people.

• A [relevant definition] (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/respect) of 'respect' is: "a feeling or understanding that someone or something is important, serious, etc., and should be treated appropriately". I think 'understanding' is a keyword here - [respect shouldn't be forced] (https://medium.com/marleyisms/why-respect-should-be-earned-not-given-b99a16271306), like children being made submissive through threats, punishment or shaming, because this lays the ground for unhealthy relationships in the future.

• As children, we are formative, socially developing, still figuring out how to exist in the world and with other people. Both in schools and in family units, respect does need to be learned [for there to be social cohesion] (https://healthyliving.azcentral.com/should-children-play-competitive-sports-1145.html). As adults, people frequently have to coexist & sometimes put either the group interests or that of other people above their own. This isn't a matter of submitting entirely to others or of silencing yourself. Rather, it's about learning when it is appropriate to question authority & when it is appropriate to defer to the expectations or requests of those in authority positions.

Student loan debt is a contentious issue, especially in the US, where it makes up the [second-biggest] (https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackfriedman/2021/02/20/student-loan-debt-statistics-in-2021-a-record-17-trillion/?sh=3344814d1431) household debt. Unlike the UK, US graduates are expected to begin repayments of nearly $400 per month soon after they finish their degree, regardless of their financial situation.

The case against eliminating student debt:

• Some people argue that student debt forgiveness would be unfair to those who have already nearly or fully paid off their loans - potentially resulting in complicated reparation payments.
• Eliminating student debt is obviously beneficial to those who have completed a college education. But if the government makes them a priority, then those who have not been to college will receive no benefits - despite being, on average, [worse-off in the job market] (https://www.northeastern.edu/bachelors-completion/news/is-a-bachelors-degree-worth-it/).
• There are suggestions that rather than opt for complete elimination of student debt, the US should [alter the existing system] (https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/rising-student-debt-harming-us-economy). Maybe by adopting a tied-to-income strategy similar to the UK's or by focusing on making college educations more affordable. (In the States, there is no set price for either college courses or loan amounts).

The case for eliminating student debt:

• A common justification for eliminating student debt is that higher education is important and should therefore be a public service - if not free, then at least affordable to the majority. As it is, many borrowers are [behind] (https://www.theguardian.com/money/2021/may/30/us-student-loan-payments-pandemic) on their payments which holds them back financially.
• The ['economic injustice' argument] (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/18/learning/should-we-cancel-student-debt.html) makes the case that university educations have long been advertised as tickets to financial/job security. But in recent years, [tuition has rocketed] (https://www.businessinsider.com/why-is-college-so-expensive-2018-4?r=US&IR=T) while working wages have not - meaning people have to pay more to be qualified for jobs where they are not making enough to afford repayments.
• Two US professors recently [made the case] (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/17/opinion/letters/student-debt.html) that black Americans are more likely to take on student debt, and in higher quantities, in order to make the same amount as their white (less qualified) peers. This means that eliminating student debt could help to close the racial wealth gap.

Rather than coding and programming languages, students should be taught the creative ways of thinking that underlie coding.

• Teaching coding and programming to students on a language-based level would probably mean a focus on rules of programming syntax - so pretty technical stuff. For one thing - technology changes very quickly. [Some tech experts] (https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/computer-programmers.htm) believe that with the ever-growing development of advanced coding software, human coders will soon become obsolete. Kids could be being taught what will effectively be a dead language.

• Besides this - if someone does become a coder when they grow up, it might not be the most beneficial thing for them to have been learning programming languages since they were young. There's potential for rigidity and decreased ability to adjust to the changing tech climate. Compulsory education should be primarily about developing critical thinking skills - through basic subjects like Maths and English. It might be more useful for students to encounter and learn about coding at a graduate level, where they would not only be engaging with up-to-date software but where they could also apply a broader and more general skill set to new areas of study. Also - coding and programming are just not likely to appeal to some, if not most, young students. Making it a compulsory part of the curriculum seems unnecessary.

• [This article] (https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/12/against-teaching-kids-to-code-creativity-problem-solving.html) talks about how coding and programming materials aimed at
  young students generally present coding as "a set of problems with 'correct' solutions." Its writer argues that being a programmer is actually less about the syntax of code and more about the ability to creatively problem-solve. As they put it: "When we force kids to learn syntax, we reinforce the idea that if something is not a blatantly employable skill, it's not valuable. Adults can learn syntax. Only kids can learn to embrace curiosity." They also advocate for encouraging students to experiment, dive deep into problems, find interesting and unique solutions - skills that can be learnt in any number of ways that doesn't directly involve encountering codes.

An opinion like this will always be subjective. But insofar as we can speak objectively about this kind of thing, ABBA are definitely a strong contender for the 'greatest pop band' title.

Pop music is a genre that can encompass many different musical styles but is basically focused on what generates the most popularity and produces the most hits.

• ABBA have a ton of hits — they were pretty much at the commercial level of The Beatles at their height in the '70s. During the '80s and '90s they became 'uncool', but rather than fading out of the mass consciousness entirely, they became staples of [the gay bar scene] (https://www.out.com/music/2019/9/20/abba-credits-gays-their-return-music). Their music was celebrated for its declarations of freedom, joy and hedonism.

• Then they saw another mass revival and were introduced to a whole new generation with the Mamma Mia musical on Broadway in the late '90s before spawning into a film franchise. ABBA's [decade-spanning popularity] (https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20140415-why-are-abba-so-popular) is undeniable — only exemplified by all the hype around their recent comeback and upcoming tour.

• They tick all the pop band boxes — catchy dance tunes, breakup ballads, even behind the scenes drama and heartbreak. While they may not have had the industry impact of bands like The Beatles, in popularity terms they were a phenomenon. Their longevity is especially impressive considering their career was launched on Eurovision. If you can't possibly be convinced that they are 'the greatest pop band of all time', you can't deny that they at least deserve a place in the front-running.

Of course, goes without saying! 😂

Is it biologically ingrained within us to engage in war?

I don't think that inherent human aggression is to blame for war. In modern times where violence and killing are largely condemned, people need to be conscripted into fighting - suggesting that it's not an innate instinct. Wars between nation-states are [usually motivated] (https://owlcation.com/social-sciences/The-Main-Reasons-For-War#:~:text=Answer%3A%20There%20are%20many%20potential,or%20a%20perceived%20potential%20aggressor.) by political, religious, economic or ideological reasons. It was most likely the result of developing civilisations - where societies gained the abilities and motivations to enter into warfare.

As [this article] (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/war-is-not-part-of-human-nature/) (which is a really interesting read) says: "War is fostered by culturally specific systems of knowledge and values that generate powerful meanings of 'us versus them'. These social constructs have no primate analogies."

So when we think about living in a post-war world, we aren't battling against our instinctive natures - rather we are battling against the ways our collective identities & social structures [have developed] (https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/finding-new-home/201908/the-psychology-us-vs-them). It is, then, theoretically possible for a world without war to exist in the future. As has already been commented here, maybe one of the most viable ways of this happening would be that some opposing force might bring the whole of humanity together. This could even be the humanity-wide threat of [global warming] (https://www.un.org/en/un75/climate-crisis-race-we-can-win) or something similar.

What is the truth? When we 'genuinely believe or know' something to be 'true', what does this mean? One of the most convincing arguments to me comes from Nietzsche's writing on [the truth as it relates to morality] (https://philosophy.ucsc.edu/news-events/colloquia-conferences/GeneologyofMorals.pdf).

Nietzsche's quote "all things are subject to interpretation and whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth" can be interpreted as promoting meaninglessness. But I think it means that what we accept as 'truths' have in fact developed within humanity, often in order to serve particular ends.

This doesn't necessarily mean that the 'truth' is null and void - but it is a very difficult thing to accept. Humans want structure & to appeal to a greater sense of meaning. The idea of a complete lack of moral authority other than our own can be terrifying.

The idea of looking at truth as something to interrogate rather than automatically accept can be a good thing. If you concede that human truths have origin points, you can examine the [histories that underlie your beliefs] (https://www.powercube.net/other-forms-of-power/foucault-power-is-everywhere/), and the ends they might serve.

In other words - saying what you 'believe or know to be the truth', rather than lying, is essential, even if what you believe or know is controversial. Going along with the shoal consensus is not what has got humanity this far - and speaking your belief/knowledge of the truth is also important because it provokes discussion. Controversy isn't necessarily a bad thing - it can even be fruitful.

LCHF diets have proven to be more effective for weight loss than other nutrient-based diets. However, this doesn't mean they are healthy.

The [Low Carb High Fat diet] (https://lowcarbdownunder.com.au/faq/what-is-a-low-carb-high-fat-diet/) essentially consists of eating fewer carbohydrates and more fats.

• The basic premise of weight-loss dieting is pretty simple: if you eat more calories than you burn, you gain weight & vice versa. No macro-nutrient group (fat, carbs, protein) will necessarily make you lose or gain weight. Eating too much of anything can result in a caloric increase.
• However, fat is [the most energy-dense] (https://healthyeating.sfgate.com/energydense-macronutrients-7432.html) of these nutrients — with 9 calories per gram compared to 4 calories per gram in carbs and protein.

Because of this, multiple studies have shown that consuming more fats and fewer carbs can aid weight loss.

• And weight loss can often be a healthy thing! It lessens the risk for conditions like heart disease and diabetes. However, health is perhaps most important in the long-term sense. There isn't much research on the effects of an LCHF diet over long periods, and what little there is [doesn't look promising] (https://atlasbiomed.com/blog/explained-low-carb-diets-have-health-risks/).
• In addition to this — there are many different kinds of carbs and fats, some better for you and [some worse] (https://www.healthline.com/health/heart-disease/good-fats-vs-bad-fats). Vilifying entire nutrient groups can result in restrictive and potentially unhealthy eating.
• It can also take a mental toll. Physical health is important and the food you eat makes up a large part of that. But dieting and stressing about food/nutrients can be harmful to mental wellbeing, resulting in issues like [orthorexia] (https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/orthorexia-nervosa-101).

There is some weight to the theory of mafia involvement in JFK's murder — but with no absolutely concrete evidence, it's hard to know for sure.

JFK was shot dead from his motorcade in Dallas in November 1963. Harvey Lee Oswald was arrested 90 mins later — he denied the shooting, claiming to be a 'patsy'. The following day, Oswald was shot on national TV by [Jack Ruby] (https://crimereads.com/kennedy-assassination-theories-jack-ruby/). Ruby was a nightclub owner with links to organised crime who claimed to have loved JFK and to have been avenging his murder.
The theory goes that Oswald was the fall guy and that Ruby may have owed a debt to the mob which meant he got the job of making sure Oswald was silenced.

Why would the mafia want to get rid of JFK?

• Kennedy's bungling of the [Bay of Pigs operation] (https://www.historyextra.com/period/20th-century/bay-of-pigs-invasion-kennedys-cuban-catastrophe/) & failure to take down Fidel Castro meant that mafia-owned casinos in Cuba remained shut down & reaped no profits.
• JFK's brother [Robert Kennedy] (https://www.history.com/news/robert-kennedy-started-the-war-on-mafia-gangs) constantly campaigned against mafia influence and organised crime — murdering the president could have had the motivation of toppling a leadership that seemed bent against them.

The evidence for mafia involvement:

• Investigations into JFK's murder [were contradictory] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_conspiracy_theories). In 1964, a commission concluded that Oswald had acted alone. Then in 1979, the HSCA claimed that JFK's death had been part of a conspiracy, although they did not divulge more info.
• In 2017, [some classified files] (https://www.history.co.uk/article/did-the-mob-kill-jfk-new-evidence-suggests-they-did) were released by the US government which seemed to place Ruby at the scene of the shooting — despite previous evidence that he had been 5 blocks away at the time.
• The commission into JFK's death included an interview with Ruby in 1964, in which he claimed to be in danger — but with no more specificity. He died in 1967 of natural causes without revealing whatever he might have known.

Maybe one day, with the [eventual release] (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/23/us/politics/jfk-assassination-pandemic.html) of more highly classified government documents, we'll know for sure whether JFK's murder was part of a mafia plot. For now — there is ample evidence to support the theory, but nothing that proves it beyond doubt. Hence it is a conspiracy theory, not something to be taken as a verifiable fact.

As the international climate [changes in the coming decades] (https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20200322-five-superpowers-ruling-the-world-in-2050), the hybrid nature of the EU provides security for European countries.

• It's not controversial to say that the EU is [not in a great position] (https://www.dw.com/en/the-eus-4-persistent-problems-still-dogging-the-bloc/a-59154492) at the moment. There is the recent finalisation of Brexit and the many criticisms of the organisation's vaccine rollout program. It is also facing intra-organisational conflict concerning Hungary and Poland. But these problems are not necessarily detrimental and will not necessarily provoke the collapse of the EU. Despite the perhaps inevitable gradual wane of the organisation's economic power in the coming decades, forecasting a complete collapse underestimates the mutual benefits of EU membership.

• The US is becoming an increasingly unreliable international ally. Economic powers like China are threatening the global status quo. The countries holding EU membership must recognise the benefits of remaining in it. Alongside access to EU funds and the single market, European countries [are stronger and more secure together] (https://www.ft.com/content/4e5cf2d3-9978-400a-b62f-2266dc86ce41). It's relevant that [recent opinion polls] (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/brexit-eu-survey-italy-ireland-portugal-eurosceptic-poll-a8888126.html) are trending support for the organisation, especially among younger people who will make up the future voting population.

Extreme nationalism, where loyalty to your country overrides any other allegiance to right or wrong, is dangerous.

• Nationalistic beliefs can be harmless, but they can also descend into a kind of mob mentality. [George Orwell] (https://lithub.com/what-george-orwell-wrote-about-the-dangers-of-nationalism/) described this kind of nationalism as "the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognising no other duty than of advancing its interests."

• The instinct can be strong to [assimilate ourselves] (https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/why-does-nationalism-exude-a-seductive-appeal-1.3625641) into the realm of a collective national identity. However, nationalism risks encouraging deeply binary thinking: like viewing your country as such an extension of yourself that it is beyond any critical consideration. It also encourages seeing other countries as distinctly 'other', feeding into xenophobia and hostility.

• Overall: it is absolutely important to exercise critical thinking about the actions and choices of your country and those in powerful leadership positions.

Further resources:

• https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/notes-on-nationalism/
• https://www.libraryofsocialscience.com/essays/koenigsberg-nationalism/

Free Trade is the idea that countries should be able to trade with one another with minimal restrictions. As it is, international trade involves complicated taxes and limitations. When people argue for free trade, they are usually advocating for the easing of current regulations.

A central part of [the free trade model] (https://www.ecnmy.org/learn/your-world/globalization/what-is-free-trade/) is the concept of 'comparative advantage'. This means that different countries should specialise in the production of different goods — which can then be traded for the specialised goods of other countries. It's a model of commercial international inter reliance.

Pros of Free Trade:

• Sharing out production responsibilities makes sense. Free trade is a cooperative model that means everyone can trade what they have for what they want while increasing economic growth.
• According to ['Say's Law'] (https://www.economist.com/schools-brief/2017/08/12/says-law-supply-creates-its-own-demand) in economics, the worker essentially creates his own job by existing as a consumer. If some jobs are destroyed, then new opportunities will appear. The net amount of jobs [will not lessen] (https://fee.org/articles/free-trade-isnt-killing-jobs/).

Cons of Free Trade:

• Free Trade means that local economies can become [dominated by international corporations] (https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/139862/1/v18-i03-a06-BF02928572.pdf).
• Although country-specific specialisations look good on paper, in reality, it can result in [the degradation] (https://theconversation.com/why-you-cant-have-free-trade-and-save-the-planet-94128) of natural resources.
• Free trade does inescapably destroy jobs in the short term, at least. While it may be economically beneficial overall, this can come at the expense of the individual worker, especially if they are only trained in one field.

Jesus could be thought of as 'ahead of his time' in some respects — although it's significant that these were in pretty basic terms.

• The instances in the Bible where Jesus is 'ahead of his time' are where he [challenged cultural norms] (https://thepassion.com/2016/03/10/4-ways-jesus-challenged-the-status-quo/), rejected the prioritisation of material objects and fostered relationships with people in all walks of life. However, I would argue that these instances are not groundbreaking. The centre of 'radicality' in his teachings is the 'love thy neighbour' precept, which feels like a timeless human idea. It's significant that there are also instances in the Bible where Jesus does [acquiesce to the expectations of the time] (https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/those-who-call-jesus-christ-a-feminist-are-grasping-at-straws/).

• ['Cognitive bias'] (https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-a-cognitive-bias-2794963) means that we often have a tendency to interpret things in accordance with our current position or beliefs. We may even dismiss evidence that is contrary to our position. Believers of other religions could ([and have] (http://idealmuslimah.com/quraan/scientists-amazed-by-the-quraan/3069-tony-blair-praises-the-quran.html)) similarly claimed that aspects of their sacred texts were 'before their time', citing this as proof of their 'legitimacy'. It is all too easy to impose our modern ideas upon suggestible and malleable historical artefacts.

Because we are making a judgement of 'inferiority' from within another culture, it is by no means 'objective'. A lot depends on cultural priorities.

• Judging other cultures as 'inferior' to our own feels distinctly like a colonialist mindset — like early European colonisers who saw other cultures as uneducated and backward, and in need of 'help' from their 'superiors'. Of course, on the other end of the scale, it can be very difficult to embrace [cultural relativism] (https://courses.lumenlearning.com/culturalanthropology/chapter/cultural-relativism/), i.e. understanding and evaluating a culture through its own lens. Indeed, some practices which are obviously sexist or racist seem, to a Western mind, impossible to embrace. Sociologists [suggest] (https://opentextbc.ca/introductiontosociology/chapter/chapter3-culture/) that nearly everyone is 'ethnocentric', meaning they believe in the superiority of their own culture, to some extent. We just can't claim this to be an objective fact.

• I think it's important to note that we can judge another culture's norms and practices to be horrific or repulsive. But inferiority and superiority imply a neutral adjudicating third party, of which there is none. Within Western culture, we value freedom very highly — and we can absolutely condemn other cultures for prioritising capital, for example, over human rights. We just can't call them objectively inferior.

He may not be the 'best' rock'n'roll drummer in history — there's [some stiff competition] (https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-lists/100-greatest-drummers-of-all-time-77933/) — but he was an instrumental (pun intended) part of one of the most iconic rock'n'roll bands ever.

• The Rolling Stones are, almost indisputably, one of the greatest rock'n'roll bands in music history — they even inspired the name of the famous music magazine Rolling Stone in the '60s. And Watts' drum playing is [at the core] (https://apnews.com/article/rolling-stones-charlie-watts-died-c9551b21e2806b679bd0eeec0bb4ef2b) of many of the band's biggest hits. His jazz-influenced sensibilities are evident even in The Stones' experimentation with different genres — like the R'n'B-ish '(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction' and the samba-inspired 'Sympathy For The Devil'.

• Watts is all too often left out of debates about the best rock'n'roll drummer of all time — and while he may not beat out John Bonham, Keith Moon, Dave Grohl, etc., he definitely deserves a place in the running. He kept [a pretty low profile] (https://www.gq.com/story/charlie-watts-obituary) for a celebrity musician, especially compared to his bandmates, and maybe this is why he easily slips under the radar — but it was notably only Watts alongside Mick Jagger and Keith Richards who played on every one of The Stones' albums. Ronnie Wood even [called him] (https://drummagazine.com/19-reasons-to-love-charlie-watts-2/) "the engine" of the band.

• Patriarchy is a system of society in which men hold power and women are largely excluded. When we think about it being 'natural', a lot depends on how we define our 'nature'. The most obvious route is to think of something being 'natural' in terms of being conducive to evolution & [Darwin's theory of natural selection] (https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/natural-selection/#:~:text=Natural%20selection%20is%20the%20process%20through%20which%20populations%20of%20living,to%20the%20environment%20than%20others.) — the process by which organisms continue to survive and evolve. However, because of natural selection's interaction with environmental factors, what 'naturally' comes about during periods of human existence is not necessarily ingrained within us.

• The central characteristical difference between men and women which is often linked to patriarchy is [to do with sex and reproduction] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_humans). Males can mate with any fertile partner and then easily move onto another, while females need to be more selective and committed because they will grow & birth the offspring. A popular theory about why patriarchal societies were 'natural' as our ancestors became civilised [coincides with the rise of agriculture] (https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23831740-400-the-origins-of-sexism-how-men-came-to-rule-12000-years-ago/). The nature of family units within an agricultural society meant that women raised the children while the physically stronger males worked. The men then passed their property and resources down the male line, effectively excluding the women from power.

• Physical manual labour is not the centre of our production systems anymore. And modern family units mean that it's become increasingly normal for both male and female parents to play equal or exchangeable household roles. So just because a patriarchal arrangement was 'natural' at some point in the history of evolution doesn't indicate its inherency in human nature, nor its relevance to society as we know it today.

People should sometimes defer to their superiors, especially if it is because you respect their knowledge or experience. But always deferring stifles the development of critical thinking skills.

• To 'defer to' someone might be thought of as letting another person decide or to accept another person's opinion in the place of your own. This [can sometimes be a good thing!] (https://hbr.org/2019/01/how-to-debate-ideas-productively-at-work) People have different areas of speciality and it's egotistical to assume that we will always be able to have the definitive say on something.

• But people should absolutely not always defer to their 'superiors' — assumedly meaning those who are higher ranked/more skilled or qualified than you. When you defer to someone, you shouldn't just surrender all accountability, you seek their expertise so that you can learn & in future be more able to form your own opinions. In other cases, you could not defer but go to others to open up room for debate & refinement of ideas.

• What should be avoided is the skirting of issues by simply pushing them in the direction of someone else — not only is this disempowering but it also potentially creates room for misinformation that isn't contested/questioned. Even experts get it wrong or make mistakes sometimes!

'Mulan' (2020) suffers for many reasons in comparison to its 1998 predecessor. As a standalone film, it has both its own strengths and its own problems.

• Disney's 2020 release of 'Mulan' was advertised as a 'live-action' remake of the original animation — so it is surprising in a way that it was [changed so much] (https://eu.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/movies/2020/09/04/mulan-remake-disney-biggest-changes-original-animated-movie/3449748001/) and was essentially stripped of the 1998 movie's signature style and humour. It also changed some crucial elements of the original — leaving out characters like Mushu the dragon and Mulan's love interest, Li Shang. There are arguments for Disney [going too far with their live-action remakes] (https://epigram.org.uk/2020/01/17/disneys-obsession-with-the-live-action-remake-is-a-thoughtless-destruction-of-nostalgic-favourites/) so that they feel like cash-grabs rather than genuine creative efforts, and those looking to relive a childhood favourite with 'Mulan' (2020) will most likely be disappointed.

• The live-action movie also had issues that were all its own: although it was praised by some for its depiction of ancient Chinese culture, it was also criticised for the unrelatable portrayal of Mulan as someone with superhuman powers (as a result of the Chinese element 'Qi'). It was also overshadowed by its association with Hong Kong's [controversial extradition law] (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/10/world/asia/hong-kong-extradition-bill.html) — exemplified by the lead actress's support for it. Overall: it suffers by its inescapable comparison and link to the original. It could have worked as another movie (and one which does have its strengths — like its all-Asian cast and its striving for historical accuracy).

[Social Capital theory] (https://www.oecd.org/insights/37966934.pdf) talks about how in evolutionary terms, social relationships have developed because they yield reproductive benefits. Hierarchies are needed in some capacity for civilisation.

• This is a tricky one because social capital and structure are needed in society. And especially in terms of each individual's social 'capital', [there can never be total equality] (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/01/13/the-equality-conundrum). Some will always be better equipped/more privileged — in social, cultural, intellectual economic ways— than others.

• I think the key is that no one group should dominate via force and aggression. [Democratically elected groups] (https://www.carnegiecouncil.org/publications/articles_papers_reports/why-democracy-is-the-best-weve-got) who can serve as decision-making bodies are needed in some capacity, however. There will always need to be some kind of social hierarchy — it's [what civilisation is built upon] (https://hbr.org/2003/03/why-hierarchies-thrive). Intricate social networks need pre-placed structures.

• As nice as total equality in society sounds in theory, it would probably just result in anarchy. Our cultures rely to not an insignificant extent upon hierarchies of people with differing levels of social capital. But I do agree that 'one group' should not possess total societal domination/power. It's why democracy is the best system that we've got.

Self-expression & being a team player are not necessarily at opposite ends of the spectrum.

• This statement could mean that losing touch with your individuality in favour of the group consensus is the right thing to do. However, I think that a balance between self-expression and social cohesion is 'more important' than either thing in its extreme. You can express yourself in a way that takes consideration of other people into account. Being [a good 'team player'] (https://www.dummies.com/business/human-resources/employee-engagement/ten-qualities-of-an-effective-team-player/) = communicating effectively, which includes both expressing yourself & listening to others.

• Having a bull-headed sense of your own self-expression that overrides cooperation with others is selfish and non-communicative. And on the other end of the scale, studies have shown that stifling [the expression of your thoughts/feelings/ideas] (https://psychcentral.com/blog/a-mini-guide-for-expressing-yourself-effectively-with-anyone#what-is-self-expression) can alienate you not only from those around you but from your sense of self. Being a team player is important — but it shouldn't come at the cost of self-censorship, and it doesn't need to.

• Unlike our natural appearances, our clothes are more of a social presence. They can be influenced by anything from popular fashion to family members. There is an unmistakable element of crafting a social persona through the clothes we wear & also the clothes that we can afford.

• Clothes can also carry great weight in terms of the assumptions we make about others. [Evidence has shown] (https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/finding-new-home/202005/how-we-judge-others-their-clothes) that we are apt to make split-second judgements about people based on what they are wearing. This is especially true in the case of links between the quality of clothing & economic status.

• 'Self-expression' is a tricky term, though. People can manipulate the assumptions that come with certain clothing choices — could this be termed self-expression? And in the case of those who don't give a second thought to what they wear — is this really self-expression? Would they want some aspect of their identity tied up with what is essentially a non-choice?

Books can hold importance to someone simply by their accumulation and presence. But they are meant to be engaged with, not hoarded or used to project the illusion of being intelligent or well-read.

• The word 'important' is assumedly referring to the 'importance' of the book/s [to the individual] (https://impoff.com/importance-of-books/). As has already been commented here, there is something to be said for surrounding yourself with information and interesting ideas. But I don't think it's controversial to say that actually reading the books and engaging with their ideas will foster more of an 'importance'.

• Having lots of books that you haven't read is not as important (to you, in terms of your engagement with their ideas and information) as having a few that you have read & which hold great significance to you.

• Surrounding yourself with books can be a purely aesthetic choice, not one that necessarily indicates interest in their content — they can easily be mass-accumulated to be used as decor or to project images of self-importance.

Some activists within social justice movements can, no doubt, be racist. But the [topics at the heart of the movements] (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/social-justice.asp) relate to equality and are directly opposed to things like racism.

• It's important to note that social justice movements like BLM [originally sprung up] (https://library.law.howard.edu/civilrightshistory/BLM) from the observation of genuinely racist societal norms. They're not creating the categories of black/white. Are they overemphasized as identity markers by some people within the movements? Sure. But when we talk about social justice movements being racist, we're actually looking at subsets within them.

• One example of this is how social justice issues can become theoretical debate topics among people who aren't actually affected by them. Here, it's easy to generalise based on binaries like black/white and think of people in terms of 'what' rather than 'who' they are. However, movements contain many different kinds of people. There are plenty of prominent figures in modern movements who face issues like racism every day and do a great job at campaigning for equality. They can hardly be accused of being racist themselves.

• A quote from [this article] (https://forward.com/life/362499/be-careful-when-labeling-social-justice-concerns-bourgeois/), which is worth a read, is relevant here: "There are issues with how these topics are discussed, but the topics themselves count." Social justice movements are generally huge and varied and, undeniably, imperfect. But the issues at their core are important and decidedly not racist.

I would not class inherited wealth as 'morally wrong'. It is unfair, yes, but 'moral wrongs' are more like choices — while this seems more about life being a lottery, which it undeniably is.

• Our conceptions of morality are often [linked with conscious choice] (https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-a-moral-decision-definition-examples-quiz.html) — it's easy, for example, to argue that the choice to commit murder is morally wrong. In this case, however, such a choice is not made in the same way. You could say that extremely wealthy families should choose to donate their wealth to charity, etc. but you couldn't very well claim that a poor family would be morally wrong to give their kids what little they have. It would be incredibly hard to locate a kind of cutting off point for when it suddenly becomes immoral to help your children financially.

• There are a lot of privileges that you inherit upon birth that might make your life easier — you could be highly attractive, you could have inherited perfect health, you could benefit from being born male and white. Yes, these things are more innate than inherited wealth, but they are also similar in the sense that life is a lottery. You are within your rights to complain that others were automatically given a better shot at life, but you can't claim these things to be 'morally wrong'.

Ted Mosby isn't an inherently unlikeable character. But he does in many ways epitomise the 'nice guy who can get away with anything because he's a romantic' trope.

• As a character, Ted is pretty realistic in terms of his propensity to do both good and bad things. HIMYM was generally pretty good at depicting flawed people who were still likeable and relatable. Our acceptance of their mistakes and shortcomings owes something to the show's format: it's a continual recollection of the past, so there's always the implication that everything taking place is a lesson that the characters will later learn from.

• The fact that HIMYM's whole premise hinges on Ted recounting his life to his future kids means that his search for love is always going to be a core focus. However, as a result of this, his misadventures in romance and problematic choices are almost always glossed over as precursors to the fulfilling of his romantic fantasies. The show prioritises his search for love over any long-term growth, which means he generally manages to escape accountability.

• In the final episode, this culminates in Ted basically getting what he wanted at the start of the series — Robin. On paper, this should be a satisfactory ending, but it isn't. And that's because we've seen Ted depicted as this flawed, realistic-ish character who's not either completely good or bad, which feels true to life. But he is ultimately revealed to have not really grown or changed that much since the first episode — which does not feel true to life. It comes across more as a kind of of 'nice guy' wish fulfilment. The experiences he's had and the women he's dated throughout the series turn out not to be lessons but simply ways to bide his time until Robin finally decides she wants to be with him.

Alcohol and firearms can both be detrimental to society in different ways.

• The two are pretty different things: firearms are physical weapons, while alcohol is an ingredient that causes the condition of drunkenness. Both can be non-detrimental — firearms can be used for recreation and in self-defence. And it's been suggested that alcohol [can have health benefits] (https://www.webmd.com/diet/ss/slideshow-alcohol-health-benefits) when consumed in moderation.

• You can see the case for each being detrimental to society pretty clearly — I just struggle with placing them side by side for comparison. Alcohol [causes a lot of deaths] (https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/brochures-and-fact-sheets/alcohol-facts-and-statistics), both self-inflicted and homicidal on a yearly basis, but a large part of its detrimental nature is how deeply embedded it is in society. Firearms are detrimental in a more cut-and-dry way: they are essentially weapons and can be used to kill people.

• It's hard to compare the two statistically because so many more people drink or have been drinkers in their lifetime ([85% of Americans] (https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/brochures-and-fact-sheets/alcohol-facts-and-statistics#:~:text=Prevalence%20of%20Drinking%3A%20According%20to,in%20this%20age%20group%20and)) than are gun owners ([32% of Americans] (https://news.gallup.com/poll/264932/percentage-americans-own-guns.aspx)). You could use this to argue that alcohol is more of a problem — but this doesn't feel intuitively right to me.

• It's interesting that my initial response is: of course, guns are more dangerous than alcohol. I think this is because firearms are less normalised and woven into the fabric of society than alcohol is. I also think my hesitation is to do with how alcohol when consumed in moderation and non-dangerously, can be harmless and even beneficial. Whereas any use of guns — even as recreation or self-defence — is more discomforting to me because they are so obviously and inescapably weapons of harm.

Memories and new experiences feed into each other. They are pretty different things and are each important in their own way.

• Our memories, and specifically what it is that we [selectively remember] (https://www.e-counseling.com/mental-health/what-is-selective-memory/), shapes our experience of the world. Sometimes it can work the other way too, with a new experience [triggering or strengthening remembrance] (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-experiences-can-strengthen-old-memories/) of some past event/feeling that we had forgotten about.

• Memories as a mental tool equate to a way of recalling the past and potentially adapting our future behaviour/choices accordingly. In this way, they help us to continue living and having new experiences. Obviously, this isn't their only function — memory is [a really interesting area of research] (https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/human-memory); it can be a hub of imagination, it can elevate how we interact with the world, it can even [be fabricated] (https://www.healthline.com/health/false-memory) and misrepresent/warp the past.

• New experiences, in contrast, are external stimuli; they are things going on outside of ourselves. Memory and our perception of things will sort of filter how we react to external stimuli, but it would be easy to argue that the experiences themselves are the 'main event'.

Smooth peanut butter works best as an ingredient. Crunchy peanut butter is best when you are eating it by itself or on toast.

• The smoothness of smooth peanut butter complements other food types in my opinion. It works well when used in sauces or in smoothies, or even on toast with chopped banana or something similar.

• Meanwhile in my experience, the crunchiness of crunchy peanut butter makes for the best snack when eaten by itself — it's kind of both smooth and chunky, so it creates textual variation in itself.

• Both types of peanut butter — unless loaded with sugar, like in some brands — are pretty good for you, and there are [minor nutritional differences] (https://coach.nine.com.au/diet/smooth-crunchy-peanut-butter/d113867e-15f7-43ba-be72-18494c7f31d3#:~:text=Between%20smooth%20and%20crunchy%20there's,it's%20an%20indisputably%20healthier%20choice.) between the two. Personally, I don't peanut butter-discriminate, and both types are great options. But if I'm cooking with it, I'll generally opt for smooth, and if I'm just going to slather some on a piece of toast and run, I'll go for crunchy.

Celebrity life is very different from the life of a regular non-famous person. This makes it very [easy to forget] (https://www.thenationalnews.com/opinion/why-it-s-hard-to-see-celebrities-as-real-people-1.154420) that they are still people, they are just accustomed to a very different way of living.

• We are highly adaptable creatures, but once we've settled into a way of life, it's difficult for us to fully conceptualise anything different. Most celebrities are well-versed in a life of being recognised by everyone, having access to whatever they want, not being able to go out easily, etc. These are all alien things to most regular people.

• When we say that celebrities are 'out of touch', we usually mean that they have it incredibly easy & skate through life, unlike the rest of us. And this can be true! As was brought into sharp focus [during the pandemic] (https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20200724-how-the-world-turned-on-celebrities), when large parts of the world were living on a hand-to-mouth basis.

• But they aren't another species — they're just people who are accustomed to a very different mode of existence. It's a lifestyle that comes with its own problems, like issues of privacy, harassment, loneliness, etc. And the surface-level immense privilege can make it easy for us to disregard the [darker side] (https://people.com/celebrity/celeb-confessions-that-will-make-you-never-want-to-be-famous/?slide=6075425#6075425) of fame.

• It's also worth remembering that the 'out of touch' nature of celebrity lifestyle is part of what creates their appeal — there's a definite aspect of [escapism] (https://www.livescience.com/18649-oscar-psychology-celebrity-worship.html) in celebrity culture.

Your own interests should be your priority in the sense that your wellbeing shouldn't be jeopardised for the sake of those around you.

• My instinctive reaction to this is to disagree — your biological family can be abusive or harmful to you, in which case it's absolutely necessary to prioritise your own interests and safety over them.

• But we could expand an understanding of this to include ['found family'] (https://whatsyourgrief.com/found-family-in-grief/) as well as biological — in which case it is necessary, to some extent, to be attentive to the interests of those who you love. We're a hugely inter-reliant and connected species, and I do believe that we need other people. Chances are that everybody has at least one person, blood-related or not, with whom they share that 'familial' relationship of mutual love and understanding.

• In these kinds of relationships, [your self-interest and the interests of others coincide] (https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/compassion-matters/201708/the-unselfish-art-prioritizing-yourself). They want the best for you as you do for them. And being fulfilled in yourself and prioritising/pursuing your happiness & wellbeing will also be acting in the interests of those who love you.

Good and bad are relative terms. But in general, yes, it's better is follow what you consider to be the 'good' path, rather than the bad one.

• I don't believe that there are any objective senses of 'good'/'bad' or 'right'/'wrong' that exist [outside of human civilisation] (https://www.verywellmind.com/definition-of-social-construct-1448922). But within it, since we are a cooperative and inter-reliant species, we have developed communally beneficial concepts of what's good and what's bad. They generally align with the interests of the majority. And for most of us, they are concepts that have been instilled in us for most of our lives.

• Generally, it is better to do what we think is 'good' than what we think is 'bad'. Of course, there are exceptions to this. As Jen has already commented, there's the Robin Hood conundrum, where sometimes doing what is widely considered 'bad' is actually serving a greater sense of 'good'.

• 'Good'-ness and 'Bad'-ness are nearly always relative. Despite the weight these concepts have, they don't exist independently of human actions. And in real humans and real-life scenarios, [nothing is entirely black and white] (https://medium.com/the-partnered-pen/most-of-us-arent-good-or-bad-people-we-re-complicated-997d57983e2d). A lot exists in the grey area in between perfect 'goodness' and perfect 'badness'. It's hugely helpful (and relieving) to accept that 'good' and 'bad' aren't pure definitions or destinations.

• However, it will always be beneficial to ourselves and to others if we generally (though perhaps not exclusively) strive towards what is widely considered 'good' rather than what is considered 'bad'. It makes sense — we associate our positive emotions and fulfilling relationships with 'good'ness. In general, those who [view the world in a more optimistic way] (https://positivepsychlopedia.com/year-of-happy/the-benefits-of-optimism/) feel happier and have more meaningful relationships.

Although the exact definition of art can be subject to variation, one pretty solid description might be 'a visual object or experience consciously created through an expression of skill or imagination'.

• When we say that video games can't be art, we are in a way speaking from a kind of snobbery. There is a definite extent to which art as a form has been made elitist & moved to this transcendental realm, set apart from everyday reality and immortalised in galleries.

• A book I love that explores the nature of art is [Jeanette Winterson's 'Art Objects'] (http://www.olinda.com/Art/artobjects.htm). In her exploration of what distinguishes good and bad art, she writes: "The true artist is connected. They study the past, not as a copyist will study the past: those people are only interested in the final product, the art object, signed sealed and delivered to a public drugged on reproduction. The true artist is interested in the art object as a process, the thing in being, the being of the thing, the struggle, the excitement, the energy that has found expression in a particular way."

• She also writes, "If the true artist is connected, then he/she has much to give us because it is the connection that we seek. Connection to the past, to one another, to the physical world... A picture, a book, a piece of music, can remind me of feelings, thinkings, I did not even know I had forgot."

• Video games are a distinctly new form of creative expression — and they are, undoubtedly, an expression of skill and of imagination. Some are better than others because they aren't designed purely to appeal to "a public drugged on reproduction". And some are better than others because they create more of a reaction in us, more of a feeling of connection or recognition.

• But those arguments that resist the classification of any video games as 'art' are subscribing to a very limited idea of what art can be. By its very nature, this view doesn't allow for the much-touted [Ezra Pound declaration] (https://www.guernicamag.com/the-making-of-making-it-new/) to "make it new!" Video games are a kind of art that is unique to our modern position. 'Art' as a classifying term is necessarily adaptive and always shifting and expanding as we develop more modes of expression.

• In some sense, the 'best Christmas movie ever' is a matter of personal preference. Like much else about Christmas, the movies we watch at this time of year tend to hold sentimental value for us. But I think more so than other popular festive movies like 'Elf' or 'The Grinch', 'It's a Wonderful Life' is a Christmas movie for everyone, regardless of their situation or family traditions.

• Christmas as a season is often criticised for having [become too commercialised] (https://jagwire.augusta.edu/is-christmas-too-commercial-well-thats-the-reason-it-became-popular/), and its associated films can be accused of reflecting this. I think 'It's a Wonderful Life' is refreshing in this sense — it's sentimental, yes, but ultimately it's about this flawed, vulnerable individual overcoming adversity.

• It is a pretty [unconventional Christmas movie] (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0038650/plotsummary) in many senses — it begins with a character about to commit suicide, and from that point on, it doesn't follow that classic trajectory of a regular person working hard and reaching great heights. Instead, this man has an ordinary life, pretty bad luck, isn't very self-motivated — but what's emphasised as 'wonderful' is the relationships he has, and the impact he's had on the lives of those around him.

• The ending of 'It's A Wonderful Life' is much more to do with a shift in perception than in situation. Jimmy Stewart's character makes peace with his lot and the movie ultimately celebrates the power of human connectedness, rather than individual triumph. I can accept that there is room for criticism from the movie's detractors — it is a bit outdated in some respects, it has a pretty long running time, and it is in black and white. But in terms of its overall message, I think it really encapsulates the festive spirit of togetherness and warmth and hope, in a way that feels comforting and not overly commercialised. (It has also proven to have [an impressive staying power.] (https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/features/its-a-wonderful-life-christmas-classic-film-james-stewart-frank-capra-a8681486.html))

The view that someone is the 'greatest of all time' at something is a matter of perception.

• According to a study by [a maths professor] (https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/16074996/cristiano-ronaldo-all-time-messi-maradona/), Ronaldo is the greatest football player of all time, based on statistics. But statistics don't necessarily equal greatness. Especially when we're talking about 'of all time'.

• I think greatness has a lot more to do with personal perception & belief. Current football fans may believe/perceive Ronaldo to be the greatest of all time, but it's likely that older generations had their own GOATs who they grew up supporting.

Neither the election nor appointment of supreme justices is an ideal system. But as the [highest serving judicial body in the US] (https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/about), their independence and theoretical disentanglement from political bias are important.

• An elected US supreme court could result in popular public figures or those with name recognition gaining justice positions, rather than those best-qualified. It would also be near impossible for hopeful judges not to become entangled with political parties and the left/right divide if they had to fund & carry out election campaigns.

• In the current system, the President nominates a justice & they are then confirmed by the Senate. This isn't a perfect scenario by any means because it will likely be a political move. It is, however, in theory, combated by [the long tenure] (https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/1600/judicial-branch) of supreme court judges — which means they outlive whichever political party was in power when they were appointed. Making them (in theory) an independent judiciary branch.

• Whether elected or appointed, the supreme court judge selection system is never going to be without flaws. I understand arguments that support the shift to an electoral system since the supreme court should be vested in the interests of the wider population. But I also think that it's important to have qualified individuals in the judicial roles who possess significant legal expertise — and this is more likely to be a result of the Presidential appointment process.

• Tax cuts can stimulate growth — the idea is that if people are left with after-tax income, then they can spend it on more/other goods. It can also increase rates of saving and investment which has a positive effect on the economy.

• However, cutting taxes is often not as simple as it seems, because of how the cuts will differ depending on how high or low people's incomes are. There is [an argument] (https://www.investopedia.com/articles/07/tax_cuts.asp) for tax cuts being against the interest of those who are lower on the earning scale — because those who earn more benefit more from cuts (if there is a sales tax cut of 1%, someone buying an expensive product will see a higher reduction than someone buying a cheaper version). And because tax cuts reduce government revenue, the loss has to be made up by cutting spending — which can negatively affect those with lower income who rely on government resources.

• Studies have also shown that [tax cuts aimed at lower earners are more likely to be productive] (https://www.lse.ac.uk/News/Latest-news-from-LSE/2020/L-December/Tax-cuts-for-the-rich) than those aimed at higher earners — because they'll be more likely to spend the extra money and feed it back into the economy.

• So ultimately — tax cuts can stimulate growth. But generally, cuts that are aimed at lower-income consumers will be more likely to grow the economy. A lot depends on which sectors the cuts are made in.

This is a tricky quote because the four 'factors' supplied are pretty interlinked. But it could be interpreted as saying that your sense of self/personal security is more important in determining success than any social disadvantages are.

• I agree with this to an extent — it has been proven that people who are [born into socially disadvantageous circumstances] (https://entrepreneurshandbook.co/how-growing-up-poor-can-make-you-rich-and-successful-b46e792e49b3) can use their situations as fuel towards achieving success. Those with lower-income origins have also been shown to be more careful with their money, so more likely to enjoy long-term monetary success.

• So one way of agreeing with this statement would be to say that: if an individual has a strong sense of self as a result of their upbringing, this could be more telling of future success than if they had been born into a situation of high social advantage, but with little sense of self/internal security.

• There are a lot of definitions that make this statement difficult to easily agree/disagree with. 'Success' in the sense of purely financial security could be more closely linked with having things like financial stability on your side. But if you define 'success' as getting to a place in your life of personal achievement and accomplishment — then maybe this will be more acutely felt if you have had to overcome initial obstacles. And it may also be easier to self-motivate if your upbringing - which is very [important in terms of our brain development] (https://www.zerotothree.org/resources/2648-who-am-i-developing-a-sense-of-self-and-belonging#chapter-1702) - has fostered in you a strong sense of self.

There is evidence of men and women having skillsets in different areas, but no conclusive proof that these are the result of innate gender differences. It's very likely to do with the social expectations and norms enforced for each gender.

• When we think of men and women being good at different things, it can relate to everything from household chores to their capacity for empathy. But in both of these cases, systemically biased gender roles are probably to blame. Studies looking at [gender differences on a neurological level] (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/03/210325115316.htm) show that no species-wide brain features differ between the sexes.

• But our brains are highly plastic and it's natural that our skillset will develop based on what we view as being socially acceptable for ourselves. As [this study about gender differences in empathy] (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12144-020-01260-8) shows, the reputation of certain qualities as 'masculine' or 'feminine' can profoundly influence how willing we are to accept them.

• Overall — women and men are not two distinct enough categories that there can be any severe limitations placed on what either is good or bad at. Maybe the only way that men and women are different across the board is in terms of average physical differences.

Invading Afghanistan [initially had mass public support] (https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/09/02/two-decades-later-the-enduring-legacy-of-9-11/) as an act of retribution to pursue al-Qaeda after the 9/11 attacks. But it's clear that the US's military presence was not fully thought through & the lives lost and economic damage that ensued in Afghanistan ended up hugely outweighing that of 9/11.

• The 2002 invasion of Afghanistan was very much framed as a response to [al-Qaeda's involvement in the 9/11 attacks] (https://www.911memorial.org/911-faqs). While it's easy to say that the invasion 'shouldn't have happened', it's also easy to see why it did. But the fact is — the Afghans themselves weren't involved with the attacks, and they have [suffered immense casualties and economic losses] (https://apnews.com/article/middle-east-business-afghanistan-43d8f53b35e80ec18c130cd683e1a38f) as a result of the US presence.

• It's arguable that the US intervention in Afghanistan — which involved the killing of Osama bin Laden in 2011 — is what has prevented another terrorist attack like 9/11 from taking place in the West. But the self-interested motivations of the US in Afghanistan meant that once this post-9/11 fear and anger had died down, they always [had one foot out of the door] (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/08/plywood-army-afghanistan/619779/). This, in turn, failed to defeat or entirely eliminate support for the Taliban (from both Afghans and neighbouring Pakistan) because once the US withdrew, as they frequently planned to, Pakistanis and Afghans knew they would have to contend with these powerful Taliban forces.

• This is why — when Biden finally withdrew all US troops from the country this year, while many were shocked at [how quickly the Taliban were able to take control] (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-49192495), it is not surprising that the group have been able to do so so quickly. Once troops were stationed in Afghanistan, the US just didn't know how to remove them with what could be considered success — so, ultimately, they opted for a quick extrication, followed by what is widely viewed as a highly unacceptable outcome.

The phenomenon of a 'subminimum wage', supplemented by customer tips, is an outdated practice whose origins are [closely linked with slavery] (https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/12/16/fact-check-tipping-kept-wages-low-formerly-enslaved-black-workers/3896620001/).

• The 'subminimum wage' upheld in 43 US states is only $2.13 an hour. In theory, workers can make up the rest of their wage through tips, and if they don't, their employer is supposed to pay the difference. But the US Department of Labour found that nearly [84% of restaurants investigated weren't making up their worker's wages] (https://files.epi.org/2014/EPI-CWED-BP379.pdf).

• Tipping became popular in the US in the mid-1800s because it meant businesses could hire recently emancipated slaves and not pay them. This meant that many former slaves had to work for next to nothing. And racial/gender imbalances are also present in the modern-day tipping culture — studies have shown that Black and Latinx tipped workers [make significantly less] (https://www.marketplace.org/2021/02/09/how-end-slavery-two-minimum-wages/) from tips than their white counterparts. It has also been found that women who rely on tips for a large percentage of their income [report twice the amount of sexual harassment] (https://forwomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/The-Glass-Floor-Sexual-Harassment-in-the-Restaurant-Industry.pdf) from customers than those that don't, because they have no choice but to put up with it.

• So, ultimately: yes, a minimum wage — like [Biden's proposition] (https://www.wsj.com/articles/bidens-minimum-wage-proposal-when-would-it-reach-15-an-hour-11612550898) of an industry-wide $15 an hour — should be the standard for workers. Relying on customer satisfaction and, to an extent, their whim, to make a living is unsustainable. It's the case today more than ever, with many customers blaming front-of-house staff for the enforcement of COVID regulations, mask-wearing measures, etc.

The '5 stages of grief' model is a framework that can help people to process their emotions healthily. It is not a linear timeline, however, and it is not a set-in-stone description of how humans experience grief.

• In the '5 stages' model, we're basically naming the emotions that humans most commonly feel in the wake of loss — denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. But when the model was [created] (https://www.psycom.net/depression.central.grief.html) by Elisabeth Kübler-Ross in the late 1960s, it wasn't tested in any systematic way. She just observed, from her work with terminally ill patients, that certain emotional reactions to grief seemed to be common among them.

• Researchers at Yale did [carry out tests] (https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20130219-are-there-five-stages-of-grief) on the model in the early 2000s. They found that acceptance was the emotion most strongly experienced in the grieving process, while denial was very low. They also found that emotions rarely follow any kind of order — people could experience multiple feelings at once and at different degrees.

• Overall — the '5 stages of grief' framework is not verifiably descriptive of the human experience of grief. Sure, it can be helpful in getting people to accept their emotions, and be able to locate and recognise them on a scale that is greater than themselves. But it is also potentially dangerous — because it risks perpetuating the view that there is a 'right' way to grieve. When in reality, each experience of loss will be different, and dependent on many factors; the person experiencing grief, the magnitude of the loss, etc.

Knowledge, as 'the understanding of or information about something that you get through experience or study', always has value. If it 'can be used', it has social value. If not, then it has personal value.

• We can define value as 'an object's usefulness or importance'. But trying to differentiate between which knowledge is useful/important and which is not is very difficult. What we might ultimately class as 'useful knowledge' will likely differ person-to-person, and will have been filtered through [a cognitive bias] (https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-a-cognitive-bias-2794963).

• Humans are a naturally [curious] (https://particle.scitech.org.au/people/the-science-behind-curiosity/#:~:text=Researchers%20largely%20understand%20human%20curiosity,about%20the%20world%20around%20them.&text=%E2%80%9CCuriosity%20is%20the%20driving%20force,isn't%20limited%20to%20people.) and inquisitive species. From very young childhood, we are gathering 'valuable' information by observing and [mirroring] (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-12097-w) others — something that will contribute to our social cohesion.

• When I try to think of a type of knowledge that is not 'being used', I think of someone studying a subject in great depth but doing so in isolation, and not desiring to practically apply their learned knowledge in the social sphere. But even in this case - the knowledge acquired will contribute to the individual's world- and self-perception. Like the example of how we imitate/mirror others at a young age, any 'knowledge' we acquire, whether applied practically or not, will expand and make more lucid to us the world and our place in it.

QAnon is a [conspiracy theory] (https://www.apa.org/research/action/speaking-of-psychology/conspiracy-theories) in that it is a proposed secret plot carried out by a subset of the powerful elite — which has no grounding in reality.

• [QAnon] (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/53498434) is a popular theory that suggests that former President Trump is/was waging war on the secretly Satan-worshipping paedophiles who occupy high government positions. It was started by a user going by 'Q' who posted cryptic messages about the conspiracy theory on the server 4chan, starting in 2017. 'Q' claimed to have access to the highest possible level of US security clearance.

• The specifics of what QAnon supporters believe is complicated and often pretty contradictory. But they frequently target Democratic leaders like Obama and Hillary Clinton in their accusations. Some also incorporate pseudoscientific 'evidence' to back up the claims, like numerology.

• Followers of the QAnon conspiracy are very resolute in their beliefs. Whenever what 'Q' has said [has been disproved] (https://www.cnet.com/news/qanon-faq-who-is-q-and-what-you-should-know-about-this-pro-trump-conspiracy-theory/), they have tended to redirect their attention rather than discredit the movement's source. 'Q' was proven wrong when Biden's inauguration wasn't interrupted by a military takeover. And also when Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election didn't turn out to be a cover-up for an inquiry into paedophiles in government.

• But despite all of this — the conspiracy theory continues to boast huge popularity. An NYT poll in August found that nearly 1 in 5 Americans believes in it to some degree. This makes it ["as popular in the US as some major religions."] (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/27/us/politics/qanon-republicans-trump.html)

It's not realistic to completely ban trail hunting when there's clearly [a demand for it] (https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/trophy-hunting-africa-lions-biodiversity-habitat-endangered-animals-iucn-a9087366.html). All we can really do is introduce amendments to the 2005 law that banned traditional hunting, to regulate the trail hunting variation.

Traditional fox hunting was banned in 2005 - and trail hunting has since become the most popular adaptation of the sport. It's a hunt that follows a pre-laid animal-based scent, and in theory, doesn't harm any foxes or other animals.

However because the success of non-harmful trail hunting depends on the discretion of those who take part in it, this can easily not be the case. The main argument against this form of hunting is that it works as a smokescreen for people to go on following genuine fox scents and having dogs kill them.

From a legal perspective, all that can be done is to prosecute those cases where it's obvious that the simulative aspect of trail hunting has not been abided by. And many of these prosecutions have been successful.

Banning all kinds of hunts would most likely lead to hunters resorting to illicit/even less law-monitored expeditions. If we want to tackle those who don't act per the 2005 law, the best course of action is tightening the current legal framework. This is also the approach recommended by the [RSPCA] (https://www.itv.com/news/2020-11-24/what-is-trail-hunting-and-is-it-legal) - who have said that animal products should be banned when laying trails and that trail maps should be provided to local police in advance of the hunt.

In theory, this is a good idea because it ensures that people vote from being informed rather than influenced. But devising a 'test' that's not biased or exclusionary would be almost impossible in practice.

• It's [not necessarily true] (https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-effects-of-intelligence-on-vote-choice-and-political-attitudes-in-Study-2-Denmark_fig1_326683890) that having a higher IQ = a higher level of political awareness & making informed voting choices. Even people who are very 'basically' intelligent are [susceptible to influence] (https://www.theatlantic.com/membership/archive/2018/06/are-politics-hereditary/561863/) from the political views of their family/those within their formative environment, for example.

• Also, 'basic tests' have frequently met with criticism in educational settings for failing to consider different kinds of intelligence. It would be hard to determine a one-size-fits-all format. And many areas of research and academia - like, for example, [social psychology] (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103118300416) - have been accused of left or right-wing bias. In a test, especially one with political motivations, this could show itself through leading questions.

• Besides - this view is aimed at narrowing the voter pool, while the majority of democratic efforts work towards encouraging more people to vote. I would argue that that's [more of an issue] (https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/30/why-people-choose-not-to-vote.html) - you don't want to end up with a minority elite subset who determine the results of elections. It's heading in a distinctly non-democratic direction.

'Chastity' doesn't fit with my ideas of virtuousness. And I think it's a dangerous mentality to uphold that what we do with our bodies is indicative of our moral standards.

• In [Western Christianity] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chastity#:~:text=In%20Western%20Christian%20morality%2C%20chastity,to%20do%20what%20is%20good.), 'chastity' is one of the 'seven virtues', as opposed to the 'seven deadly sins' - it's directly opposite to 'lust'. It's a word that connotes more than just abstinence, it's more about lifestyle choice, the continued decision to be celibate.

• I'm not religious, so when I think of 'virtue' I'd probably agree with the [OED's definition,] (https://languages.oup.com/google-dictionary-en/) which is "behaviour showing high moral standards".

• I think that chastity can absolutely be a beneficial lifestyle - different things work for different people. But I don't think continued abstinence from sex is indicative of high moral standards & I think the decisions we make about our bodies should be rooted in individual circumstances.

I think that humans do have responsibility — it's just not innate, it's more of social responsibility, towards each other. There are laws we've created as a species that we communally agree to follow.

• ['The Universal Declaration of Human Rights'] (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Responsibilities) was issued by the UN after WW2. The declaration states, "Every person has a responsibility to behave with integrity, honesty and fairness," and also that, "All people have a responsibility to protect the air, water and soil of the earth for the sake of present inhabitants and future generations,"

• So aside from each other, humans might also be said to possess responsibility towards [the environment] (https://www.researchgate.net/post/Philosophy-and-Ethics-Do-humans-have-a-responsibility-towards-the-environment-and-why). This is also a fundamentally socially concern, though - for the sake of "present inhabitants and future generations."

• These responsibilities have become so ingrained in our communities that, in my opinion, they are as good as objective. We're an inter reliant species, and the refusal to accept responsibility for our behaviour & how it affects others will hinder us. Feeling like we owe something to each other & the planet contributes to a [functional society] (http://www.abouthumanrights.co.uk/human-rightsand-responsibilities.html).

[Traditions] (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tradition) definitely serve a purpose. There's the purpose of connectivity to others - those immediately around us and our ancestors. And there's also the ritualistic hole that traditions can fill - something we saw very acutely during the lockdown.

• Humans are [social creatures] (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-018-0389-1), and taking part in group traditions makes us feel a part of something bigger than ourselves. Looking beyond ourselves is also crucial in reminding us of all of our vulnerability and inter-reliance.

• Things like family traditions can also contribute to a feeling of routine and continuity in our lives. It was seen a lot over lockdown - when people felt overwhelmed by what was going on in the world, something as simple as a weekly dinner could instil a sense of control and agency.

• It's telling that [as long] (https://humanorigins.si.edu/human-characteristics/social-life#:~:text=Building%20Social%20Networks,-Beginning%20130%2C000%20years&text=Over%20time%2C%20humans%20began%20interacting,mi) as humans have lived in communities, traditions and customs have played a significant part in social life. And it's been [observed] (https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1525/aa.1941.43.2.02a00020) in anthropology that cross-culturally, stressful events like environmental threats and war are linked with increased ritualistic activity. Just the repetitious nature of traditions can [relieve anxiety] (https://theconversation.com/why-people-need-rituals-especially-in-times-of-uncertainty-134321) - regardless of whether the sense of meaning they give us is illusory or not.

Human conceptions of what is 'good' and what is 'bad' do not extend beyond our limited perception. Our ideas about morality are ['contingent'] (https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100226735#:~:text=A%20contingent%20truth%20is%20one,not%20have%20to%20be%20true.) truths that reflect and are dependent upon our development as a species.

• 'Objectivity' in the sense of having reality independent of the human mind doesn't hold concerning ideas of morality. For one thing - our basic senses of what's good and what's bad are tied to our emotions and our need for survival. It's no coincidence that all the explanations people have for why, for example, it's wrong to kill, boil down to being on the same side of the argument. A Utilitarian would say it's because it causes the least harm, a Christian would cite a passage from the Bible... but the basic sense is that it is 'wrong'.

• [This article] (https://medium.com/s/story/objective-subjective-and-contingent-708e6c9a5f09) puts it well - "Does steak taste better than chalk? Yes, it does, and yet this isn't objective. Steak tastes better than chalk to (most of) us because we're humans with particularly evolved tastes, but this isn't the same for many animals - so it's not an objectively true statement. 'Steak tastes better than chalk' is a contingent truth with respect to human beings. It makes sense to treat it as more or less objective with respect to humanity, but it breaks down when you try to go beyond that."

• Our morals & ideas of what's right and what's wrong can be thought of similarly. There are a million different human-based explanations for why it's wrong to kill - but if you try to go beyond humanity, and think of 'not killing each other' as an objective moral law originating from the universe - it breaks down. It feels objective to us, but there's no grounding for it being true outside of our collectively limited consciousness.

• Rather than being 'objectively' true, our morality is contingent upon how we have developed as a species. Both in the way that steak tastes good to us because it provides protein in our diets & how we don't kill each other, because we've found it more beneficial to live cooperatively.

In short - there is a reason. The reason is that women are willing to pay more for the products marketed to them. No, it's not really justifiable - but from a Capitalist stance, it makes sense to keep profiting off of outdated gender divisions.

• It's known as the ['pink tax'] (https://www.riftrefunds.co.uk/blogs/pink-tax-today-how-much-extra-do-women-and-girls-pay-for-everyday-essentials/) - an upcharge on products intended for women which really bear very minor differences to the less-expensive male alternatives. Profiting off of the expense of female hygiene products has always been an issue of contention - [up until January 2021] (https://mashable.com/article/tampon-tax-uk-finally-scrapped), the UK classed menstrual products as 'luxury items', as opposed to 'basic essentials' such as Jaffa cakes and roasted nuts.

• It does seem ridiculous when looked at objectively - [this 2019 article] (https://www.voanews.com/usa/all-about-america/does-pink-tax-force-women-pay-more-men) found that on average, women pay a yearly 'gender tax' of about $1,351 - for buying largely the same basic products as men do, but marketed to them as specifically 'feminine', i.e. pink and fancy looking.

• The problem is that women do buy the products geared towards them. If all women just started buying men's razors, for example, then the biased marketing & marked-up pricing of women's razors would become null. It is discriminatory - not least in that this 'gender tax' exacerbates [the gender earning gap] (https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/bulletins/genderpaygapintheuk/2020#:~:text=The%20gender%20pay%20gap%20among,10%25%20for%20older%20age%20groups.&text=The%20gender%20pay%20gap%20was,Wales%2C%20Scotland%20and%20Northern%20Ireland.). But it comes down to buyer's demand. It's very hard to overturn something which does have a significant market & which does generate a lot of revenue.

When a politician resigns, it isn't because of the objectively inappropriate nature of adultery. It all depends on the circumstances surrounding the affair, and the reaction of the constituency.

• [In the 1990s] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/24/newsid_2529000/2529115.stm), there were a whole string of political adultery scandals in the UK Conservative Party. It led to multiple MPs resigning - they resigned because of what the pattern inferred, which was the opposite of the Conservatives' pledge of 'a return to family values'.

• And obviously, the most recent UK adultery scandal has been [Matt Hancock] (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57625508) - for which the circumstances were particularly significant. Because he was Health Secretary, the backlash to an affair with his political aide was not so much outrage at his infidelity but at his flouting of the COVID rules that he had helped to put in place.

• Then there's the other end of the spectrum - if politicians are already known to have somewhat controversial private lives, then news of adultery will likely not affect their public standing - take [Boris Johnson] (https://www.nowtolove.com.au/news/international-news/boris-johnson-wife-girlfriend-57264), for example. [Political historian Matt Cole] (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-36468511) even thinks that if a politician is widely considered to be charismatic, then the revelation of an extramarital affair can cement this image in the public's mind.

• Overall; adultery is never a neutral/objective action, especially in politics. A lot will always depend on the individual involved, what their public reputation is, and, of course, the context of the affair.

In a word - yes. A gun itself can't commit murder, someone has to be behind the trigger. But the power of the weapon used is what determines the fatality of an attack.

• This statement poses opposition to the often-touted slogan, 'Guns don't kill people, people kill people'. And - yes, a person does have to pull the trigger, but if they didn't have access to such a potentially lethal weapon, they couldn't so easily carry out murders/suicides/sprees. Way back [in 1972] (https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3591&context=uclrev), a law professor carried out a study that revealed that "serious knife assaults are similar to shootings in many respects, including apparent determination to kill/injure, yet gun assaults have a much higher case fatality rate."

• A more recent [2018 study] (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2688536) had similar findings - and it also directly connected the fatality of attacks with the calibre of the weapon used. The [statistics] (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/16/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/) also support this conclusion - 3/4 of murders in the US in 2017 involved a firearm and so did about 1/2 of suicides in the same year.

• There's a helpful example of how guns do make the difference between life and death [in this article] (https://medium.com/@mshammas/its-time-to-retire-the-guns-don-t-kill-people-people-kill-people-argument-60d91889f806#id_token=eyJhbGciOiJSUzI1NiIsImtpZCI6Ijc0MjE3YjhkYWRiYjM2NTc4MzU4MGY5ZTkyNDg3ZDcwMWNkMzhmZTYiLCJ0eXAiOiJKV1QifQ.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.G77c0djouj2vO91WmjaNFGZ2edfrKIMMY0E2vWMzlxre38fv5ustoN-1v_dL5vfR9xcbHLUpAdrA5cqEF_S_mOr83S3ULotjExFIqW9dCr-x1c8BLkNAUig_CBJL6HiVcATqrBSwQxHgYVAdyXNnzutT_CSx6J_D897ic90lTrGr-ymJ-4IV1Al96c6a7qafG5aQEJG_xYvs--CHcgJVWLG4ulRymWT78ZLk-WMSjenR2EZbZvP9BonFHcjpgxOiI8kLILmuhI2t07IRCO3kaCZy31s7jKqBzzGYruLnvullV0m0yIdEmYbLgq9I83n6uBLCXNpPWN4ctrTfcPftew) - it compares the 2013 Sandy Hook school shooting to a knife attack that took place in a Chinese school just hours before. While the Sandy Hook shooter killed 20 children and 6 adults, the Chinese man stabbed 22 children, but none of them died.

Whether or not prostitution should be legalised is a very contentious issue. The bottom line is that it can't be stopped, and it has to be regulated.

• The main argument [against] (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/11/prostitution-legalised-sex-trade-pimps-women) making prostitution/sex work legal is that it is inherently abusive and exploitative and will never be safe, regardless of its legality. I don't disagree with this, but I think it fails to face the real issue at hand.

• Legal or not, prostitution is not an industry that's going to die. When it's illegal, sex workers [can't appeal] (https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/08/07/why-sex-work-should-be-decriminalized) to any protective health/safety measures & they can't unionise. But when it is made legal, it becomes seen as a culturally acceptable line of work.

• [The Nordic model] (https://nordicmodelnow.org/what-is-the-nordic-model/#:~:text=The%20Nordic%20Model%20approach%20to,reduce%20the%20demand%20that%20drives) tries to get around this - by condemning 'sex buyers' but not prostitutes themselves. However, as one sex worker said to an interviewer [in this article] (https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20190419-should-prostitution-be-a-normal-profession), illegalising even one side of the exchange means that its operations will go underground. This means putting sex workers in dangerous situations where the authorities and health services won't be readily accessible.

• Making all aspects of sex work/prostitution legal does run the risk of enabling and promoting the undeniably (in my opinion) exploitative nature of the trade. It's not ideal - but what should be at the forefront of our minds is the protection of the workers themselves.

I think yes, there is such a thing as love. It doesn't exist as an extractable or essential thing, though. It's a word we have assigned to the human experience of a particular feeling.

• As a term, the meaning of 'love' can be dulled slightly by over-use. It's become so central to our cultural lexicon that it can easily seem hollow and lacking in meaning.

• But I believe that feelings come first, and then we name them. We feel things, then [look to language] (https://nobaproject.com/modules/language-and-language-use) to recognise those feelings. There are certain [recognisable things] (https://www.mindbodygreen.com/articles/what-does-love-feel-like) that indicate when we are experiencing love - like empathy, wanting to take another person's pain for your own, feeling at peace around them, that cliché thing of it 'just feeling right', not wanting to live without them, etc.

• Saying 'there's no such thing' as love also avoids the fact that [love is a verb] (https://medium.com/personal-growth/love-is-a-verb-not-a-noun-f18163088e8f). It's something you do, something you engage in the act of sustaining. It's not an extractable thing that you can possess.

• To wrap it up: the mere fact that many, many people will claim to have experienced love means that there is such a thing. It's just not a 'thing' that we can take stock of in any simple sense.

New evidence does seem to suggest that the Princes were murdered - although it's something we'll never know for sure.

• King Richard III has long been rumoured to have murdered his nephews, King Edward V and Richard Duke of York when they were both young boys in order to gain the throne of England for himself. The [two princes] (https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/The-Princes-in-the-Tower/) were locked inside the Tower of London in 1483 and were never seen again, with Richard III taking the throne that same year in place of Edward.

• There was a lot of speculation in the wake of the supposed murders about Richard's role & it's a rumour that's stuck (it even prominently featured in [one of Shakespeare's plays] (http://shakespeare.mit.edu/richardiii/full.html)). The tricky thing is that not long after he took the throne, Richard was killed by Henry Tudor, and a new monarchy took over. So promotion of the idea that Richard III was a murderer might have functioned as Tudor propaganda - to promote the new monarch & make the former one look bad.

• One of the most famous documents that supports the theory of Richard as a murderer is Thomas More's ['The History of King Richard III',] (https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/thomas-mores-history-of-king-richard-iii) which was published under Henry VIII's reign. It is dismissed by some as being blatantly propagandist - but [a new study] (https://www.medievalists.net/2021/02/new-study-strengthens-claims-richard-iii-murdered-the-princes-in-the-tower/) has suggested that More actually had contacts in the Tudor court who were directly descended from the 2 men employed by King Richard to do his dirty work.

• This makes it possible that More was privy to genuine information about the prince's murders. It definitely lends weight to his account of the deaths in the tower - but there was also undoubtedly a strong element of anti-Richard propaganda to his writing. So how much is true and how much was perhaps fabricated or exaggerated, we will never know.

What's happening in your head creates the lens through which you observe and understand the world. Feelings like happiness are reactions, often to things going on in our lives. But nothing is interpreted neutrally, and it all begins with our mental state.

• [This report] (https://www.caba.org.uk/help-and-guides/information/happiness-depends-mental-health) looked at the best ways of achieving happiness and discovered that the things which have the greatest bearing on how happy we generally feel are "our social relationships and our mental and physical health." I think this is self-perpetuating - if you're coming from a place where you have a healthy, positive mindset, you are going to be much more likely to form meaningful relationships & make choices that will serve you in the future.

• In the same report, it was found that "having a partner is as good for you as being made unemployed is bad for you" and that "the strongest factor in predicting a happy adult life is not children's qualifications but their emotional health". In other words - if we are operating from a [good mental state] (https://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/your-mental-health/about-mental-health/what-good-mental-health), we will most likely be able to deal with setbacks in our lives without letting them significantly affect our overall happiness.

The study of history in schools isn't neutral. It feeds into student's perceptions of their country, themselves, and the place of both on a global scale. Wilfully ignoring the Western world's [history of colonisation] (https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/z7g66v4) is damaging.

• I can't speak for the experience of those who were educated in the US, but growing up in the UK, my history curriculum consisted almost exclusively of the Tudors and the Cold War. I think I learnt about both areas multiple times at different educational stages. The official [UK gov guidelines] (https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2019-09-02.284393.h&s=british+empire+section) say that it's optional for schools to teach about the British Empire and colonialism - but there's no penalty if they don't and no set period of focus. It can consist of just one lesson.

• Education is always political - it forms a bedrock for an understanding of the world. And there is an extent to which it will inevitably be propaganda. It's like that classic quote, "history is always written by the victors." But having whole periods of history pretty much written out of the curriculum seems crazy.

• Learning about things like colonialism and the empire helps to [foster inclusive ideas] (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/05/britain-colonial-history-curriculum-racism-migration) about citizenship. We can understand that people who came to the UK from former colonies, for example, did so as citizens, not immigrants. Being educated in-depth about these things feeds into less limited ideas of national identity.

• As it is - it's telling that in the UK (the perspective I'm speaking from), only [13.8%] (https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/workforce-and-business/workforce-diversity/school-teacher-workforce/latest#by-ethnicity) of teachers come from minority ethnic backgrounds, and [as of 2018] (https://wonkhe.com/blogs/why-is-history-in-the-uk-so-white/), a whopping 93.7% of historians are white.

• Overall - there will inevitably be a degree of victor's bias and willful suppression of that which makes a country look bad in the preservation of 'history'. But when it comes to the British Empire and colonialism, avoidance isn't the tack here - there should be room for debate and critique in educational settings.

Morgenthau was right in saying that all politics is a struggle for power. However - within these power struggles, for coexistence's sake there must also be an element of moral consideration, as he also acknowledged.

• Morgenthau's conception of power was that it is ["man's control over the minds and actions of other men".] (https://www.jstor.org/stable/24920100?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents) In the context in which he wrote, on the stage of post-WW2 international politics, it translates to the view that each state will act primarily in whichever way will further their national self-interest.

• This 'power-'centric position rose in opposition to the pre-WW2 idea of liberalism. In 1938, [E. H. Carr] (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0305829810368192?journalCode=mila) wrote that liberalism, the argument that humans are inherently inclined to peacefulness, fails as an idea in the wake of the outbreak of worldwide conflict.

• The resulting new position, 'realism' was laid out by Morgenthau in his 1948 text ['Politics Among Nations',] (https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/morg6.htm) where he provided the 6 Principles of Realism - which still underlie the theory as we understand it today.

• Although Morgenthau's ideas of realism have links to [Hobbes] (https://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/hobbes/themes/), and his classic view of humans as being inherently self-centred, his writings do not show an entirely ruthless view of international/domestic politics. Morgenthau also thought that the ["naked pursuit of power is politically untenable and personally undesirable"] (https://www.e-ir.info/2015/12/26/a-moral-vindication-of-morgenthaus-classical-realism/). And that strong foreign policy was the result of a combined interest in power & in morality. In other words - that ["it is possible to transcend the natural instincts that characterise human nature, thus attaining a basic moral code."] (https://www.e-ir.info/2015/12/26/a-moral-vindication-of-morgenthaus-classical-realism/)

Rape and sexual assault have been normalised within western society to the extent that the 'Me Too' movement gained huge traction as a widespread exposition of that which had gone unspoken and been normalised for too long.

• The definition of 'rape culture' is ["a society or environment whose prevailing social attitudes have the effect of normalising or trivialising sexual assault and abuse."] (https://www.lexico.com/definition/rape_culture)

• A relatively recent high profile case was the ['Stanford Rape Case',] (https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2016/06/stanford-sexual-assault-letters/485837/) where Brock Turner was accused of assaulting and raping an unconscious woman. It is doubly revealing that - firstly a number of reputable news sources [reported Turner as being "a star swimmer",] (https://theintercept.com/2016/09/02/media-continues-to-refer-to-brock-turner-as-a-stanford-swimmer-rather-than-a-rapist/) whose life was being derailed by the accusations. And secondly - the victim wrote in a letter to Turner that ["he has only apologised for drinking ... and has yet to define what he did to me as sexual assault."] (https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/katiejmbaker/heres-the-powerful-letter-the-stanford-victim-read-to-her-ra)

• It is easy for a 'rape culture' to take hold since as that saying goes, what consensual adults do on their own time in the bedroom is their business - and since they are often the only two there, consent is a very hard thing to measure in a court of law. An element of what makes Western society complicit in the perpetuation of rape culture is the persisting idea of the poor male victim who has been unjustly accused and the evil accusee, plotting to ruin his life. (Obviously, rape/sexual assault victims are also male - [1 out of every 10 victims] (https://www.rainn.org/statistics/victims-sexual-violence), in fact, but the stats for female assault are higher - [1 out of every 6 American women has been the victim of a completed or attempted rape in her lifetime] (https://www.rainn.org/statistics/victims-sexual-violence)).

• The scrutiny and disbelief to which victims of rape and sexual assault are subjected have encouraged a normalisation of not speaking up for fear of derailing the victim's own life. The weight and breadth of impact had by the ['Me Too'] (https://metoomvmt.org/) movement is indicative of rape culture's normalisation in the West. It revealed how easy it is to follow the group consensus - consequently showing how difficult it is to call out deeply embedded cultural norms when no one else is.

• Overall - criticisms of the 'Me Too' movement and of the idea that rape culture is something that is embedded into Western society often centre around [false accusations] (https://www.forbes.com/sites/karlynborysenko/2020/02/12/the-dark-side-of-metoo-what-happens-when-men-are-falsely-accused/?sh=3d7d89c1864d). And sadly, it is unavoidable that these will occur. But the more pressing issue is that rape and sexual assault do happen, even post-Me Too, at an alarming rate. [Every 68 seconds, an American is sexually assaulted] (https://www.rainn.org/statistics/victims-sexual-violence). Our collective focus should be on helping and believing those victims.

Equality between social groups - especially in terms of [human rights] (https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/human-rights/what-are-human-rights) and [equality of opportunity] (https://www.britannica.com/topic/equal-opportunity) - is important. Whether it can ever be fully achieved is another matter, but we should always strive for it.

• It is an inescapable part of human programming that [we find it harder to empathise] (https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/close-encounters/201812/why-do-we-people-who-are-similar-us) with people who are different from us. This means that it can be easy, especially from a socially privileged position, to accept inequality.

• But - divisions between social groups like race and gender does not affect [our basic common humanity] (https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbescoachescouncil/2020/06/15/the-power-of-common-humanity/?sh=3562f90f50d0). We are all the same in a vital sense. This is why equality of human rights is the most important interpretation of the effort to 'make all groups equal in society'.

• The other is in terms of opportunity - each individual is different. We can't enforce 'equality' in terms of a perfect balance between all social groups in all areas of society. But - rather than discrimination based purely on our identity within a social group, what should be worked towards is a consideration of the individual. Each person should, in theory, be given the room to succeed or fail based on their own capabilities.

• Western society is [skewed in favour of certain social groups] (http://www.scrippscollege.edu/xbk/wp-content/uploads/sites/35/files/Power-Privilege-and-Oppression.pdf) - and it's something that we as a whole should not be complacent about. An equalising of opportunity can be worked towards by [providing for those whose choices are limited] (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1525/ctx.2007.6.3.23). We might never fully achieve equality - but recognising the biases we have and attempting consciously to shift them, is an important step towards evening the playing field.

If Blackbeard did indeed bury any treasure, it could be hidden in North Carolina - it was there that his ship ran aground in 1718. But the area has been searched countless times over the last 300 years, and nothing has been found.

• Blackbeard is maybe the most infamous pirate in history - owing largely to [the legend of his hidden treasure] (https://www.thetravel.com/where-is-blackbeards-treasure/). The myth was intensified by the discovery of his ship, the 'Queen Anne's Revenge', off the coast of North Carolina [in 1996] (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/did-archaeologists-uncover-blackbeards-treasure-215890/) - with no treasure aboard. Blackboard was killed not long after his ship went down, and [he claimed before his death] (https://www.thetravel.com/where-is-blackbeards-treasure/#:~:text=However%2C%20according%20to%20the%20notes,') to have hidden his riches, but never disclosed their location.

• There are loads of theories about the location of this treasure - one of the most persistent is that [it is buried on Ocracoke Island] (https://www.wearethemighty.com/popular/blackbeards-still-buried-treasure/) in NC, where Blackbeard was beheaded and [where some still claim to see his ghost] (https://theculturetrip.com/europe/united-kingdom/england/articles/uncovering-the-truth-behind-the-legends-of-blackbeard/). However - it's a small island, and the fact that no treasure has been discovered in 300 years worth of hunting makes this explanation unlikely. Other potential spots include the Caribbean and the Cayman Islands - both regular haunts of Blackbeard according to records.

• However - other than Blackbeard's declaration before his death, there isn't really any evidence of such a treasure even existing. For one thing, our idea of pirates 'burying' their treasure in chests is more of a legend than anything else - one popularised by Robert Louis Stevenson's 1882 novel ['Treasure Island'] (http://robert-louis-stevenson.org/works/treasure-island-1883/). The only confirmed case of this actually happening was that of [William Kidd] (https://theculturetrip.com/europe/united-kingdom/england/articles/uncovering-the-truth-behind-the-legends-of-blackbeard/) in 1699 - and his treasure was soon found and used against him in a trial.

• [Some historians] (https://biography.yourdictionary.com/blackbeard) don't believe that there was ever any treasure, at least in the sense that we tend to think of it. It's possible that a pirate's plunder would have consisted entirely of materials like silk and cotton, tools, and sailing supplies.

If 'overrated' = the view that a celebrity's talent isn't proportional to their level of fame or exposure, then I would agree that James Corden is overrated.

• He has seemed to be pretty much everywhere over the past few years - hosting one of the most popular late-night shows in the US, seemingly appearing in every new movie musical that's released. Even, for some reason, hosting the recent highly anticipated 'Friends' reunion show.

• James Corden's [rise to fame] (https://www.independent.ie/entertainment/from-smithy-to-stateside-a-lister-james-cordens-rise-to-fame-38416451.html) wasn't always smooth - after 'Gavin & Stacy's national success in the UK, he made a few ill-advised career moves - with the sketch show 'Horne & Corden' and the film 'Lesbian Vampire Killers'. But he managed to weather these storms and made it over to The States as a TV host.

• And he does seem to have found his sweet spot with the Late Late Show hosting gig - especially the Carpool Karaoke segment, which was hugely popular when he introduced it. I guess because of how much the Late Late Show boosted his public profile, he is more associated with that than anything else now.

• Being a TV host implies a kind of cheapness of fame - in that he's reliant upon the appeal and interest-factor of the celebrities he's interviewing. It also doesn't help that the brand of comedy presented by the show is pretty formulaic and not very original.

• Despite [his history in theatre] (https://www.independent.ie/entertainment/from-smithy-to-stateside-a-lister-james-cordens-rise-to-fame-38416451.html), he hasn't really excelled in any of the movie musical roles afforded to him as a prominent figure in Hollywood, either. In 'The Prom', he was [slated] (https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/james-corden-the-prom-gay-straight-b1764965.html) for his exaggerated and offensive portrayal of a gay man (that was, nevertheless, nominated for a Golden Globe). His parts in 'Into The Woods' and 'Cats' were also not received well. And most recently, large portions of the internet expressed annoyance at the prospect of his role in [Amazon Prime's upcoming 'Cinderella' adaptation] (https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/cinderella-trailer-james-corden-fans-react-b1896327.html).

• It's kind of interesting that even though James Corden has frequently been accused of [rudeness] (https://www.mamamia.com.au/is-james-corden-nice/) and [career missteps] (https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/james-corden-racist-petition-b1873798.html), what most people seem to hold against him is a general annoyance at his presence in the mainstream. I think there's an element of resentment towards this white, male, cisgender celebrity being incessantly celebrated and promoted, despite not appearing to produce anything groundbreaking or overly original. It's pretty well-worn ground for Hollywood, but thankfully, public demand for diversity is on the increase.

On a neurological level, male and female brains are different to some extent. But it's hard to track the origins of these differences. Likely, they are more influenced by socialisation than they are innate or 'hardwired'.

• Our brains are [pretty plastic] (https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22530090-600-brain-boosting-its-not-just-grey-matter-that-matters/) and are capable of being moulded throughout our lives. Societal binaries in terms of gender mean that the brain development of men and women will most likely differ. We can't be 'hardwired' for anything, really, in the sense that [our neurology can constantly shift] (https://www.pri.org/stories/2020-01-29/myth-gendered-brain) based on our experiences.

• Where male and female brains do differ, [it is only on a minor scale] (https://www.greatschools.org/gk/articles/gender-differences-learning/). Research [generally shows] (https://slate.com/technology/2008/07/meet-the-believers.html) that the variance within each gender is often greater than between the two. And where scientists have found neurological differences between male/female brains - they have been thought to have relevance in relation to [the propensity for & treatment of different brain disorders] (https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/319592). There is no solid evidence of these differences being innate nor of them significantly affecting or dictating behaviour.

Intersectionality does not 'divide' us in terms of introducing anything that isn't already present. As a theoretical framework, it just draws attention to the nuances of identity politics.

• Intersectionality = ['a framework for understanding how aspects of a person's social and political identities combine to create different modes of discrimination and privilege'] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality#:~:text=Intersectionality%20is%20an%20analytical%20framework,Kimberl%C3%A9%20Williams%20Crenshaw%20in%201989.). It was [coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw] (https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/5/20/18542843/intersectionality-conservatism-law-race-gender-discrimination), whose aim was to ["demolish racial hierarchies"] (https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/5/20/18542843/intersectionality-conservatism-law-race-gender-discrimination) by calling out the nuances of intersecting discriminations. Crenshaw wanted to draw attention to the way these intersecting biases underlie entire socio-economic structures.

• In her [essay on the subject] (https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1052&context=uclf), she talked about the state of black womanhood - how, in ["treating black women as purely women or purely black,"] (https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/5/20/18542843/intersectionality-conservatism-law-race-gender-discrimination) we ["ignore specific challenges that face black women as a group"] (https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/5/20/18542843/intersectionality-conservatism-law-race-gender-discrimination). So intersectional feminism acknowledges that a black woman's experience of the world will be different from that of a white woman.

• Misconceptions of intersectionality can be - that it means minorities get some kind of special treatment, or that it is something like an oppression-olympics. But really, it just looks at the already-present nuances that overlap between different forms of social/political oppression. It also asks any attempt to address just one form of oppression - like racism, sexism, antisemitism, etc. - to take the others into account too.

• As a concept, intersectionality is something that is pretty much indisputable. The view that it is divisive feels like a movement towards inaction & to leaving the socio-economic hierarchy in its current state of inequality. Lack of acknowledgement = lack of having to take accountability.

I agree that we can't truly know anything with absolute certainty. Theories that have a scientific basis are the closest we can get to a sense of objective knowledge.

• 'Knowing things with absolute certainty' = having no doubts whatsoever about something. It is, in its pure sense, impossible because of [the extremely limited range of human perception] (https://cognitiontoday.com/psychophysics-sensory-and-perceptual-limits-the-human-umwelt/).

• Despite this - [science] (https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Does_objective_reality_exist%3F) does provide amazingly consistent evidence of objective knowledge. For example - we as good as 'know with absolute certainty' that evolution took place. This is because the theories that we've formulated around it [have stood the test of time] (http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20150803-how-do-we-know-evolution-is-real). But - as long as any idea of objective and absolute knowledge depends on human perception, it will to some extent be limited and not provide us with an 'absolute certainty'.

There are no proven health benefits to washing every day as opposed to a few times a week. It's not a health crisis either way and really comes down to personal preference and lifestyle.

• Of course, [everyone's skin is different] (https://www.nmkskin.com/journal/2020/10/7/everyones-skin-is-different), and the need for bathing will vary based on factors like how physical your lifestyle is, how sensitive your skin is, etc. But generally, [doctors suggest] (https://www.considerable.com/health/hygiene/shower-health/) that it doesn't harm the human immune system to be exposed to a certain amount of dirt, so it can create protective antibodies.

• There's [no real evidence] (https://www.wellandgood.com/how-often-should-you-shower/) that washing every day necessarily harms your skin - although it can exacerbate dry skin and some skin conditions. And obviously, personal hygiene is important - no one wants to smell. But if you're not frequently producing sweat, then bathing, for example, every other day will probably still combat this, and might make it easier on your skin.

• Daily bathing also [uses up a lot of water] (https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/showering-daily-is-it-necessary-2019062617193) - and the water we use to wash may contain chemicals like chlorine and fluoride that can irritate our skin. There are also the products that we use to wash - which usually contain perfumes and additives which too can be harmful in frequent application, on top of their being expensive.

There is such a thing as wisdom as an [abstract concept] (https://simplicable.com/new/abstract-concept). I don't think it's an extractable or essential thing.

• One potential definition of wisdom is ["the ability to contemplate and act using knowledge, experience, understanding, common sense, and insight."] (https://scholarblogs.emory.edu/basicproblems002/2015/01/21/the-inextricable-connection-between-knowledge-and-experience/) Wisdom can be observed to be manifest in many ways, though.

• Generally, wisdom is thought to be separate from knowledge/being knowledgeable. I think wisdom is more of a habituated way of thinking about things. If knowledge = the retainment of things/information/experiences, then wisdom is the accumulated result of all this knowledge.

• Overall - wisdom as an essential quality might not exist, but what we label as wisdom can be observable to us. It's an abstract concept that can shift and vary in its application - so it's something that's very hard to measure or compare.

If we understand 'inherent goodness' not to necessarily be a present-upon-birth thing, but rather ["the way we tend to act based on our intuitive and automatic impulses"] (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-probe-human-nature-and-discover-we-are-good-after-all/), then humans are generally more likely to act in a way that is socially 'good'/cooperative than its opposite.

• When we say 'inherently', this usually refers to our 'pre-socialisation' nature. Augustine's idea of original sin was that all people were born ["broken and selfish, saved only through the power of divine intervention."] (https://gacayaneduc.wordpress.com/2020/02/03/student-think-piece-14-16-different-takes-on-why-human-nature-is-innately-bad/) Hobbes argued that ["humans were savagely self-centred, and could be salvaged through the social contract of civil law"] (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-probe-human-nature-and-discover-we-are-good-after-all/).

• However - through the social world is the only way we can really see 'goodness' or 'badness' in people. And the way goodness-badness exists in our social world can be likened to the scale of cooperation-selfishness. [These studies] (https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11467.epdf?sharing_token=1bY8KUM_Z9jUOPkddiC4GtRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0OuWnzgZWIYIT6G8DCrDRW76b7kYf3RDJyFw_M1lGJ_CWxJEPz0SXdPQuFmlyicmGZzPGQebvZaSo5zWnlA-cvDmzphOhsTQJLZ0DlpE8Q_cVbIzwV53pWP1Ns6Q17prBLqJ4nzq3_of087DifQ8H4CDkmXlTMK0gJKVT7XOWrq8Scc3W5FcY_tPhMaWAFFdgaojefcZqEEXrpSq3A-H0BeX1VBLiDwvZCM6gfvZ4_lyeZnwfzuHBCoJ396WFlUyY8f0On3Ifcx3Nm_G3GHgN9d&tracking_referrer=www.scientificamerican.com) look at measuring human instincts in terms of 2 mechanisms - intuition and reflection. It is theorised that we can reduce the complexities of basic human nature to a single question: which behaviour - selfishness or cooperation - is intuitive, and which is the product of reflection?

• [These studies] (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-probe-human-nature-and-discover-we-are-good-after-all/) suggest that selfishness is not the immediate intuitive instinct of humans. But it's hard to tell if this is an 'inherent' thing that we are born with, or whether it [becomes our first instinct upon its being rewarded over time] (https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/moral-intuitions/202104/are-humans-intuitively-cooperative-or-intuitively-selfish). It's [suggested] (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-probe-human-nature-and-discover-we-are-good-after-all/) that people who regularly engage in positive social interactions are more likely to be cooperative rather than selfish because it will provide rewards. So - you could say that [how people's social worlds form] (https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/frank-flynn-are-we-intuitively-cooperative-or-selfish) determine, to an extent, where they will fall on the scale of cooperation-selfishness, or of goodness-badness.

• Overall - the way we define what 'human nature' is matters. We do not have to be born a ['blank slate'] (https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/empirical-science-for-the-spotless-mind#:~:text=The%20blank%20slate%2C%20the%20dominant,said%20Steven%20Pinker%2C%20Harvard%20University%2C) for us to be neutral, upon birth, to ideas of goodness and badness. They might be thought of as social constructs, based on varying degrees of cooperation-selfishness. On the grounds of 'human nature' as our intuitive and observable tendencies - ["it seems that we are an overwhelmingly cooperative species, willing to give for the good of the group"] (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-probe-human-nature-and-discover-we-are-good-after-all/), even when it comes at our own expense.

I don't know if online dating has fundamentally changed the nature of relationships. It has at least been part of a shift in how we initially meet potential partners.

• Online dating was [kind of inevitable] (https://futurism.com/heres-how-online-dating-has-transformed-the-fabric-of-society-itself) with the normalisation of technology in our everyday lives alongside changing ideas of marriage and partnership. However - when dating apps started becoming popular, people thought that they would reinvent the dating scene, turn it into ["a minimal-effort, transactional pursuit of on-demand hookups, like an Uber for sex."] (https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018/12/tinder-changed-dating/578698/) But the reality isn't like that. People are still generally looking either for a longer-term partnership or shorter-term sexual satisfaction. And online dating [might actually provide more longevity] (https://www.theknot.com/content/dating-apps-marriage) in relationships than traditional ways of meeting a partner.

• The process by which we date has definitely changed shape and adapted to our current internet-heavy culture. Maybe one of the main features of this is that we can now meet people who live further away from us, and generally have access to a wider range of potential mates.

• We might be more picky or critical in picking who to match with on the online interface, but [some experts suggest] (https://this.deakin.edu.au/self-improvement/has-online-dating-changed-the-nature-of-human-relationships) that once we meet someone in person, the traditional aspects of dating kick in. It may take longer to sift through potential matches to find a worthy connection, but once we have found it, the 'getting to know each other' process is probably not that far removed from the pre-app scene.

Scientific findings = possibly [the closest we can get to objective knowledge] (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-objectivity/) about the world. They should never be suppressed.

• Social equality is a very worthy cause. It should be a societal aim because it [feeds into] (https://cubegroup.com.au/why-equality-and-fairness-matters/?__cf_chl_jschl_tk__=pmd_uQOEvMGH4i7nfd5WYOqQNGeH2F61gS0NlEVe0Q7FFs0-1629365499-0-gqNtZGzNAjujcnBszQjl) many positive aspects of human development. However - it's not a state we have achieved; it's an ideal that we can continually work towards. Dismantling closed-minded beliefs that form because of a lack of understanding of people who are different from you (the current working towards social equality) is different from the nature of scientific findings.

• People even now will use cherry-picked elements of scientific findings to support their limited beliefs. That won't change. Social equality is more of a widespread societal endeavour. It's linked to [human rights] (https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/discrimination/); the idea that a governing system should have one set of laws for everyone, not different laws for different people.

• Theoretically, findings that may harm the cause of social equality (i.e. that imply the objective superiority of one social group) can still exist within a society whose laws champion equal rights for everyone. This is especially the case in modern-day Western society, where many different elements of the human skillset, which vary from individual to individual, work together to help society function.

As is often said, democracy is the least worst system of government, especially in terms of human rights. It has its flaws, but it ultimately strives towards a majority consensus and equality.

• The definition of democracy is ["a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation."] (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy) Or, as Abraham Lincoln famously defined it, a ["government of the people, by the people, for the people."] (https://web-archive-2017.ait.org.tw/infousa/zhtw/DOCS/whatsdem/whatdm2.htm) It has origins in [Ancient Greece] (https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/democracy-is-the-best-form-of-government-arguments-for-and-against.html). The opposite of a democracy is an autocracy, which is a government overseen by one individual. An example of a modern-day autocracy is [China] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_in_China).

• In the US and UK, we have a [liberal democracy] (https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/04/importance-democracy), so alongside having a say in government elections, we also have rights to freedom of speech and a free press. Democracy [became a more normalised system after World War 2] (https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/democracy-is-the-best-form-of-government-arguments-for-and-against.html), replacing governments ruled by monarchs or autocrats. Arguably, countries in the western world have only become true democracies relatively recently, in granting voting rights to women and minority groups.

• Democracy definitely seems like the best system in terms of [human rights] (https://www.ohchr.org/en/Issues/RuleOfLaw/Pages/Democracy.aspx). In an ideal democracy, the government always represents the general public interest. [In current democratic systems] (https://www.cfr.org/councilofcouncils/global-memos/state-democracy-2020-crisis-or-renewal), minority groups do often still retain power. However - making valued criticisms of our version of democracy should = re-evaluating and reforming aspects of it, not rejecting it as a system.

• As an ideal, democracy is often not fully realised. But any system will work differently and probably less cleanly in practice than in theory. Human beings are very complex and messy and often tend towards self-interest. But democracy, as a system does, strive towards a government that serves everyone.

The Simpsons isn't an overall racist show. It has perpetuated and, to an extent, endorsed racist beliefs in a harmful way, but this is more reflective of its longevity.

• Definition of racism: ['the belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race' & 'behaviour or attitudes that reflect and foster this belief'.] (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism)

• The Simpsons have come under fire for racism because of Apu, a character many view as [a caricatured Indian-American stereotype] (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/04/22/hank-azaria-apologized-playing-apu-i-accept-i-appreciate-it/). Until recently, Apu was voiced by Hank Azaria, a white man, potentially making the caricature [more harmful] (https://www.trtworld.com/americas/why-are-blackface-or-brownface-considered-so-offensive-29939).

• The show is meant to be a satire of the American family and family life, and to this end, it makes fun of all its characters. But Apu in particular was the only Indian-American representation on mainstream TV for a while. Hari Kondabolu went in-depth on this in his 2017 doc ['The Problem with Apu',] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Problem_with_Apu) where he talked generally about the harmfulness in media representations of Indian-Americans.

• So I don't believe that The Simpsons is inherently racist. But looked at objectively, the show has presented 'behaviour and attitudes that reflect and foster' racist belief in their one-dimensional portrayal of characters like Apu. Despite its satirical takes on popular culture, the show does also inform it. It doesn't always address and critique [the controversies it presents] (https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/inside-simpsons-biggest-controversies-michael-21745501) enough to come across as anti-racist. Sometimes it even seems like it endorses them.

• The thing is that The Simpsons has been going for 32 years. What was widely accepted then is not what is widely accepted now. While its showrunners haven't been too quick to [respond to this kind of criticism] (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-56024683), The Simpsons has shown that it's capable of continuing to change with the times. And having media that's something of a time capsule, reminding us of how cultural norms have shifted, isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Looking at the origins and evolution of the Illuminati as a movement, it's clear that it grew from a genuine secret society into the ultimate conspiracy theory.

• When the Illuminati began is sometimes debated about, but it's on record as [being formed in the 18th century by Adam Weishaupt] (https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/history-magazine/article/profile-adam-weishaupt-illuminati-secret-society), who modelled it on [the fraternal Freemasons society] (https://www.britannica.com/topic/order-of-Freemasons). It grew fairly rapidly, but then a law was passed making secret societies punishable by death, and it disassembled. The theory is that the Illuminati just went underground, and these rumours persist into the modern-day.

• Later, [in the 1960s] (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/22/what-is-illuminati-google-autocomplete), a resurgence of talk about the movement was linked to two writers, Robert Anton Wilson and Kerry Thornley, who are said to have sent contradictory letters about the Illuminati to papers. This was apparently in an effort to ["get people to view the news a little more sceptically,"] (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/22/what-is-illuminati-google-autocomplete) but instead it just ignited new interest in the secret society.

• In its current, internet-based understanding, [the Illuminati is often linked with pop culture figures] (https://www.theweek.co.uk/62399/what-is-the-illuminati-and-what-does-it-control) like Beyonce and Katy Perry, something that is fanned by their inclusion of symbols and references in their work. Rather than being actual evidence, though, it's likely that these references consciously feed into the public narrative as publicity tools.

• It's also interesting that celebrities like Beyonce, who is notably very private, become the main objects of these conspiracies. As figures who are constantly on our radar but who we know little about, they are the perfect models on which to impose our desire for a greater understanding of the world.

• And the Illuminati - as a powerful group of people conspiring to rule the world - is kind of the ultimate conspiracy theory. It's far more wide-reaching than other popular conspiracies like the Moon Landing hoax or 9/11. 'Signs' of Illuminati involvement can pop up almost anywhere.

• The ability to notice and read patterns onto the world has been hugely beneficial for human development: ["pattern-seeking is essential for our survival, and the penalties for seeing patterns where none exist are lighter than those for missing patterns that are really there."] (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/14/illuminati-running-world-not-mad-idea-questioning-hidden-power-elites-sane)

• However, it can be a slippery slope from noticing genuine systemic injustices, like the global financial elite, to believing in things like the Illuminati. We often see small and elitist groups exercising significant but limited power; the jump from this to a belief in such groups exercising total power is not impossible to conceive.

• Ultimately - when we can't understand such data-based disciplines through which to make the world seem less messy and more orderly, like economics, it is ["little wonder that we resort to quicker, dirtier ways of making the world comprehensible".] (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/14/illuminati-running-world-not-mad-idea-questioning-hidden-power-elites-sane) The Illuminati is very likely not real. But it is natural for us to be drawn in by it, and for it to have maintained its popularity.

There is no biological basis for the [gender gap] (https://www.pnas.org/content/117/9/4609) in science and other STEM fields. Because it's likely to do with cultural norms, it is something we should strive to shift.

• The number of men and women in the world is [roughly equal] (https://countrymeters.info/en/World). And there is [no such thing] (https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28582-scans-prove-theres-no-such-thing-as-a-male-or-female-brain/?utm_source=rakuten&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_campaign=2116208:Skimlinks.com&utm_content=10&ranMID=47192&ranEAID=TnL5HPStwNw&ranSiteID=TnL5HPStwNw-xgHP5afubJTWfw.12lIopg) as a distinctly male or female brain.

• Theories like [the E-S (empathising-systemising) model] (https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/are-men-just-better-at-science-than-women-1.3696662), which looks at the differences in men's and women's skillsets, largely defer to environmental factors. Gendered differences, especially cognitive, tend to be the result of an [interaction of biological and cultural factors] (https://www.apa.org/topics/neuropsychology/men-women-cognitive-skills). They're not innate.

• There is a problem if the lack of women in science stems from [culturally originating and upheld norms] (https://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/12/health/female-scientists-engineers-math-gender-gap/index.html). There might be women capable of great scientific discoveries who don't pursue these paths for cultural reasons.

• That being said - more than making men and women equally represented in scientific fields, we should aspire to make pursuing careers in science a gender-neutral ground. There doesn't need to be an exact gender balance, but there shouldn't be gender-based exclusion/discouragement.

I think that [childhood experiences are definitely influential] (https://srcd.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/cdev.12336) upon our adult behaviours, but not in a [deterministic sense] (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/determinism).

• During childhood and formative years, [our brains are highly susceptible to their environments] (https://learning.nspcc.org.uk/child-health-development/childhood-trauma-brain-development). They're wired from birth by [genetics] (https://www.mentalhelp.net/personality-disorders/early-life-experiences-and-development/), but environmental factors largely shape how they develop. [This article] (https://www.verywellmind.com/experience-and-development-2795113) talks about the psychological theories around how environmental influence on behaviour takes place.

• However, I think it's reductive to say that our behaviour in later life is 'determined' by childhood experiences. It hints at a lack of accountability for the way we act. Yes, behavioural patterns can become ingrained as a result of our experiences, but we are also free agents who are capable of self-reflection and change. [It's even been suggested that our personalities are still changeable beyond the age of 50] (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6063370/). Behaviour is not set in stone from childhood.

Toxic masculinity, in its promotion of unattainable standards of 'manliness', does seem to play a significant part in the higher rates of male suicide.

• The term 'toxic masculinity' originates from [the mythopoetic men's movement of the 1980s and '90s] (https://nymag.com/article/2016/06/how-poet-robert-bly-started-the-drum-thumping-mens-movement-of-the-90s.html). Here, it meant the wrongful feminisation of men and boys. Today, we think of it more as the outdated normalisation of male macho behaviour - like emotional suppression and physical aggression.

• Today, both masculinity and femininity are increasingly [thought of as the products of social relations and behaviours] (https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/02/toxic-masculinity-history/583411/) - not as fixed identities. But traits that are linked to an essential masculinity or femininity do still persist. This might even be in our [unconscious enforcement of them] (https://www.pacey.org.uk/news-and-views/pacey-blog/2019/august-2019/gender-stereotyping-in-early-years/).

• The traits linked to an essential idea of masculinity are usually to do with self-reliance and a lack of emotional expression, and they might well account for the higher rate of male suicides. There is an interesting gender paradox here - [men are more likely to die by suicide, but women are more likely to engage in non-fatal suicidal behaviours] (https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190313-why-more-men-kill-themselves-than-women). This is partly because male suicidal methods tend to be more violent - access to means plays a part in this, with [6 in 10 gun owners in the US being men] (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/29/how-male-and-female-gun-owners-in-the-u-s-compare/#:~:text=About%20six%2Din%2Dten%20gun,those%20of%20male%20gun%20owners.). But it's also probably because women, in general, feel more able to talk to friends/family and health professionals about how they're feeling.

• Mental health struggles are [linked very closely] (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6165520/) to suicide rates. And this (relatively old) study shows that in the year before they committed suicide, [only 35% of men saw a mental health professional, while 58% of women did] (https://bcmj.org/articles/silent-epidemic-male-suicide). A lack of normalisation around expressing their feelings might also manifest in the [higher rates of male alcohol dependence] (https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/mens-health.htm) - it's a known [risk factor] (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15166632/) for suicide and a common method of self-medication.

• Overall - gender binaries are in a constant process of dismantling. And there are a [growing number of resources] (https://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/our-work/campaigns/mens-mental-health-month/our-work-mens-mental-health) for men who struggle with mental health issues and feel unable to talk about them. But in order to make real change, it's also important to look beyond the catchall term of 'toxic masculinity' and think about the ways we might unknowingly still be enforcing these outdated gender stereotypes.

Although research still needs to be done to conclusively find out how dangerous smartphones are to our health, their necessity in modern life makes even a slight risk of danger very notable.

• Research generally comes to the consensus that [smartphones do not increase health risks for diseases like cancer] (https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-cancer/cancer-myths/do-mobile-phones-cause-cancer), but such studies also say that further research is needed.

• Smartphone usage and importance to modern life is something that has escalated very quickly since their invention in the 1990s. This has made studies into their effects on the development of severe health risks like cancer difficult to measure because conditions can take years to develop in users, and smartphones have not been around long enough for studies to be conclusive.

• Aside from directly health-related dangers, smartphones are also dangerous in other ways. Blue light emitted by these devices causes eye problems when used for long time periods, and according to a study by the National Cancer Institute, ["the most consistent health risk associated with cell phone use is distracted driving and vehicle accidents."] (https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/cell-phones-fact-sheet)

• Perhaps the real danger in our use of smartphones is how central they have become to modern existence. Advancements in technology mean that almost all aspects of our life can revolve around our phones; in social, academic, and career-related ways. It's definitely unsettling to think about how central smartphones are to modern-day life considering that there is still much we don't know about their effect on us.

Science can justify atheism. But it's not on atheism's 'side' in that it doesn't necessarily disprove theism.

• Science kind of justifies evidential atheism. Anthony Flew talked about this as being how the default position for any believer should be neutrality about God's existence. And this amounts to atheism: "[The onus of proof lies on the man who affirms, not the man who denies."] (https://iep.utm.edu/atheism/) It's atheism by default: which is naturally reversible if proof for God's existence arises.

• However - science also doesn't necessarily disprove a religious belief. It's a way of knowing that's different from other ways in that it's entirely dependent on empirical/material evidence. The atheist who takes this evidence as the only acceptable proof for something's existence can thus justify their lack of belief. But [supernatural beings like God can't be held to such an evidential standard] (https://www.national"academies.org/evolution/science-and-religion), so many religious groups accept scientific findings alongside their understandings of God.

I think that having a shared sense of humour is probably the most important quality that can be immediately observed in a partner.

• There are [so many benefits to having a good sense of humour] (https://bigthink.com/personal-growth/humor-life-skill?rebelltitem=4#rebelltitem4). It's widely believed that it improves our quality of life. So it seems natural that it would be a highly rated part of our relationships. [There's an obviousness] (https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/humor-sapiens/201110/why-jokes-are-seductive) to our wanting to be happy and able to laugh with someone.

• I do think that other qualities are more important in a partner further down the road - like similar values and goals, trust, patience, and kindness. But I don't think that these are so immediately obvious as being on the same level in terms of humour.

• So it's more of an important factor - potentially the most important - upon initial meeting (although I'd argue that physical attraction is also up there). [This study] (https://news.ku.edu/2015/08/27/first-comes-laughter-then-love-study-finds-out-why-humor-important-romantic-attraction) found that "when 2 strangers meet, the more times a man tries to be funny and the more a woman laughs at those attempts, the more likely it is for the woman to be interested in dating. However, an even better indicator of romantic attraction is if the two are spotted laughing together." Being on the same page in terms of what you find funny is something that is very quickly apparent.

• Also - the stats don't lie. [This study says that] (https://www.jstor.org/stable/348256?origin=crossref&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents) 90% of men and 81% of women said that a sense of humour is the most important quality in a partner. (Although, as I have argued, I believe this to be in more of a short term sense).

As someone in a position of significant power, a lack of action and commentary on racial issues does point to Boris Johnson being racist.

• A racist = someone who is ['prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalised.'] (https://www.lexico.com/definition/racist)

• I think that often the term 'racist' is distanced from everyday life by equating it only with someone who is literally Hitler level. But taken in a basic sense, being a 'racist' is quite easy, and can easily arise through non-action and prejudice born of ignorance. The bottom line is that [Boris Johnson has done and said things that are prejudiced against/antagonistic towards marginalised groups] (https://www.businessinsider.com/boris-johnson-record-sexist-homophobic-and-racist-comments-bumboys-piccaninnies-2019-6?r=US&IR=T).

• [This article] (https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/06/18/racism-isnt-about-ignorance-some-smartest-minds-have-upheld-systemic-inequality/) talks about the dangers of assuming that racism = a kind of innocence. Being in closed groups that lack diversity and having a certain degree of privilege (as Boris definitely has) can result in genuine ignorance of racial issues.

• But another kind of racism, more of a wilful ignorance, is more malevolent. This can equate to being aware of an unequal system and choosing to manipulate or take advantage of it. ["The problem of racial inequality is not just a lack of knowledge; it is the lack of willingness among many white people to commit to an equitable distribution of resources."] (https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/06/18/racism-isnt-about-ignorance-some-smartest-minds-have-upheld-systemic-inequality/) This is obviously amplified in the case of Boris Johnson because he occupies such a powerful position.

Lying, thought of as ['saying something that is not true in order to deceive'] (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/lie) should be avoided as much as possible.

• In a general sense, lying is not good. In almost all situations, honesty and not intending to deceive is the better choice.

• This is one of those things that sounds great as a statement but is hard to enforce in all scenarios. There's the classic example of if you're hiding a friend and a murderer comes to the door asking if they're in. In this situation, it seems obvious that the 'good' thing to do is lie and protect your friend.

• But, saying that you 'should' not lie makes this statement slightly more flexible. The reality is that people do lie on a daily basis. [Researchers estimate that the average person lies at least once or twice a day] (https://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_hancock_the_future_of_lying).

• The normalisation of lying is why we've developed to distinguish between malicious lies and ['white lies] (https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/lifetime-connections/201804/is-it-ever-okay-tell-lie)', those that are intended to minimise harm or hurt. But even well-intentioned lies can escalate and cause harm. I would argue that honesty and upfront-ness is generally the best approach.

• So I'd rephrase the statement and take out the 'never,' but the idea that you 'should' not lie turns honesty into something to strive towards. It's different than saying 'you will not' or 'can not'. Both of those are just untrue. Even though it's not always possible, honesty should always be something to aspire to.

I think that man probably needed the idea of God to develop the social and moral communities we have today.

• When I think of man 'needing' God, I'm thinking of God/religion as a human-made construct. It's something that appeals to our innate need for belonging and for meaning. In this sense, religion is something that provided humans with [a social and moral framework for existence] (https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20141219-will-religion-ever-disappear).

• The longevity of religions like Christianity shows the success of their provision of such frameworks. Seeing belief in God as something that plays [a vital role in societal evolution] (https://www.patheos.com/blogs/scienceonreligion/2013/05/why-the-templeton-foundation-is-a-darn-good-thing/) also accounts for [its popularity] (https://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/23/live-event-the-future-of-world-religions/) in parts of the world that are less economically or socially secure.

• But I think that in the [modern-day West] (https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190801-tomorrows-gods-what-is-the-future-of-religion), a lot of the values that arise from religious belief - like justice and compassion for others - have become central to secular society. [Religious practice is declining] (https://blog.oup.com/2020/12/why-is-religion-suddenly-declining/), but it is still prominent, and it may well never entirely go away. However, I would say that the human need for it has.

• Two interesting books on this topic are:

1. ['Dominion' by Tom Holland] (https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Dominion.html?id=CWyGDwAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y) - where he argues, as a non-believer, that Christianity is "the most influential framework for making sense of human existence that has ever existed."
2. ['Why We Need Religion' by Stephen Asma] (https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Why_We_Need_Religion/dIJZDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0) - he talks about the ways that religious belief functions as a "management system for our emotional lives."

No, [fasting] (https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/09/418611/time-restricted-eating-doesnt-work-weight-loss) is not better than [calorie counting] (https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/does-calorie-counting-work#how-your-body-uses-calories). Both are unsustainable. The key to healthy eating is through balance and listening to your body.

• [Multiple studies] (https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/when-dieting-doesnt-work-2020052519889) have found that [fasting and calorie restriction have similar effects on weight loss] (https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/intermittent-fasting-no-better-than-calorie-restriction-for-weight-loss). They can be effective in the short term, but neither is generally sustainable long term. Looking at a range of weight-loss diets and finding very similar results, this article suggests that [95% of dieters overall regain any lost weight within 1-5 years] (https://globalstudies.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/224/2013/11/Wilen-Cora-The-95.pdf).

• The enormous range of diets that exist and the entire [lucrative industry] (https://www.cnbc.com/video/2021/01/11/how-dieting-became-a-71-billion-industry-from-atkins-and-paleo-to-noom.html) that's sprung up around diet culture is an indication that none of them actually work.

• Yes, on a basic level, losing weight happens when you create and maintain [a calorie deficit] (https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/263028#:~:text=The%20United%20States%20government%20states,more%20active%20lifestyles%20than%20others.). But - the amount of calories that your body needs is dependent on many factors, and it's not something that any generalised diet advice can tell you. [Calories are what your body transforms into energy] (https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/does-calorie-counting-work#difficulty-losing-weight-when-counting-calories). And based on genetics, hormones, normalised eating habits, etc., [the amount needed to fuel one person's body daily will differ] (https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/263028#:~:text=The%20United%20States%20government%20states,more%20active%20lifestyles%20than%20others.).

• What works in the long term for weight loss and healthy eating? I think it's finding a source of physical exercise that you enjoy and will stick with and a balanced diet that consists of food you like. There are also so [many factors besides food] (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK221834/) that contribute to successful weight management.

• My overall point is - 'one-size-fits-all' dieting solutions like intermittent fasting and calorie counting have been proven [not to work in the long term] (https://www.nutritionist-resource.org.uk/blog/2020/10/02/why-diets-dont-work). You need to disconnect from generalised weight loss practices to find what works for you and you alone.

It's not as simple as just banning private jets. The most realistic way to tackle the industry's impact on the environment is through increased taxation.

• Flying private is unequivocally worse for the environment than flying commercially. Although private jets produce fewer carbon emissions than their commercial counterparts, [the carbon footprint of a private jet passenger is significantly higher] (https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/private-jets-environment-carbon-footprint-climate-change-harry-meghan-markle-a9071391.html).

• But is it as simple as just banning them? Modern globalisation means that travel is more important than ever. According to the World Travel & Tourism Council, [the tourism industry is responsible for 10% of jobs worldwide. This is in addition to its contributions of some $8.8 trillion dollars to many local economies] (https://www.forbes.com/sites/douggollan/2019/08/22/private-jet-travel-is-greener-than-you-think/?sh=7b1395ab6745). Private air crafts make air travel significantly easier for those who can afford it.

• Also, [there was a notable uptake in private jet travel during 2020] (https://www.elitetraveler.com/cars-jets-and-yachts/aviation/private-jet-trends-upwards-covid-19-pandemic). Because of COVID dangers, it proved a much safer and more flexible way of travelling. The reality is that this isn't an industry that's going to go away.

• So what are our options, then? The most logical suggestion is that the aviation sector could expand its [use of green fuels] (https://www.transportenvironment.org/news/could-super-rich-super-polluters-private-jets-clean-aviation) and impose a tax on those who don't use them. We could also look forward to a provisional future in which we have other, cleaner means of powering private jets, and [aim to ban fossil-fuelled air-crafts by 2030] (https://www.transportenvironment.org/publications/private-jets-can-super-rich-supercharge-zero-emission-aviation).

Therapy absolutely can work for some people. It doesn't, and shouldn't, work for everyone.

• [Talking therapy] (https://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/a-to-z/t/talking-therapies) works because a psychotherapist can recognise thoughts and behaviour patterns that are not apparent to the patient. A therapy session is, in theory, a neutral and non-judgemental space in which the patient can work through their issues.

• For this to 'work', the therapist-patient relationship has to be one of trust and safety, and the patient has to be in a receptive space, willing to make changes. So yes - therapy can be useful for people who are in this headspace. But it shouldn't necessarily be the obvious counter to [mental health issues] (https://www.who.int/health-topics/mental-health#tab=tab_1).

• The reality is that the success rates for common treatments like [CBT] (https://www.starlingminds.com/what-is-online-cognitive-behavioral-therapy-cbt-starling-minds/#:~:text=How%20Effective%20is%20CBT%3F,anxiety%20after%205%20%E2%80%93%2015%20modules.) are not 100%. It's important to remember that dealing with mental health is not a one-size-fits-all matter. If you have a great therapist who understands you and is willing to work through your specific problems, then that's great. There's just no guarantee that this will be everyone's experience of therapy.

• Some people need [medication] (https://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/a-to-z/m/medication-mental-health-problems) as a tool to help them navigate their mental health struggles. Some need [non-talking therapies] (https://www.bustle.com/p/7-mental-health-treatments-to-try-that-arent-talk-therapy-7793164) like art or dance. When people are cognisant of their issues and capable of taking steps towards developing healthy habits independently, [this has been shown] (https://qz.com/1057345/researchers-say-you-might-as-well-be-your-own-therapist/) to have a very similar success rate to traditional psychotherapy.

• The moral of the story is - therapy does work, sometimes. If you think you'll benefit from talking things through with a professional, and you can [afford the cost] (https://thervo.com/costs/how-much-does-therapy-cost), it's worth a shot. But it doesn't work for everyone, and there are many alternatives.

A 'good sense of humour' is linked to personality traits. These traits can evolve and fluctuate through someone's lifetime, making sense of humour something that can be developed.

• First, I'll define 'sense of humour' as someone's ability to perceive humour or appreciate a joke. And thinking of it as 'innate' means that it is there at birth, and easily feeds into the idea that it is something you either have or you don't.

• Having a sense of humour can be linked to certain personality traits - like [flexibility] (https://www.nbcnews.com/better/careers/how-be-funny-n755586), [intelligence] (https://www.vice.com/en/article/pgw4xz/the-science-of-being-funny), capacity for imagination, openness, etc. These tie into the classic ['Big 5'] (https://www.verywellmind.com/the-big-five-personality-dimensions-2795422) model.

• [Recent studies] (https://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug03/personality) have indicated that these traits - which include openness, agreeableness and conscientiousness - are, to a certain extent, malleable and shift over a lifetime. There are even suggestions that these traits can be [consciously shifted] (https://www.headspace.com/articles/stuck-personality). Therefore - a sense of humour is something you can develop.

[Polyamory] (https://www.healthline.com/health/relationships/polyamory-vs-polygamy) is the practice of having more than one intimate partner. Polygamy is the legal practice of having multiple spouses. The former should be perfectly acceptable; the latter creates more problems than it solves.

• Legalising polygamy as a marriage arrangement in the US or the UK would mean altering some of the central [features/benefits] (https://www.theknot.com/content/benefits-of-marriage) of marriage as we know it.

• We don't know what a widespread polygamous Western world would look like, but polygamy [doesn't promote stability] (https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2018/03/19/why-polygamy-breeds-civil-war). [Studies show] (https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/868370) that monogamous marriage is better for society - better child welfare, lowered neglect, abuse, accidental death, homicide and intra-household conflict.

• Polyamory [as a social practice] (https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2017/03/23/521199308/a-cultural-moment-for-polyamory?t=1627726355597) should absolutely be acceptable. Consenting adults should be able to do what they want. But Western society is [built around monogamous values] (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/05568641.2018.1450642?journalCode=rppa20). Polygamy does not sufficiently show benefits over monogamy to justify uprooting core elements of marriage/partnership as they currently stand.

This statement puts forward a pretty reductive view of sex and power and how human beings relate the two. It's a sociobiological idea; that everything boils down to [sexual selection.] (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982210015198)

• When we think that 'everything' is about sex, I'm assuming 1) that sex means the sexual act itself, and 2) that we're talking about the human instinct towards sex which = reproduction. It's the idea that everything we busy ourselves with in day-to-day life (work, exercise, dating etc.) is all to the end of mating.

• As the culmination of this effort, the act of sex might be 'about power', because of the [hierarchy] (https://themindsjournal.com/alpha-to-omega-socio-sexual-hierarchy/) it creates; those who are able to perform the reproductive act and those who aren't.

• Because of the implication of reproductive motivation, this idea only really works when applied to heterosexual ['sex'.] (https://www.bustle.com/p/whats-the-definition-of-sex-it-depends-on-your-sexual-orientation-study-finds-2981038)

• I would say that this is a reductive view of everyday human motivations and of sex. For one thing, it doesn't account for the role [love] (https://theconversation.com/what-is-love-139212) plays in both of these scenarios.

The natural conclusion in the 1800s would have been that the killer was a man. If you really look at the case, alongside recent forensic evidence, it's entirely possible that Jack the Ripper was a woman.

• In [2006] (https://www.smh.com.au/national/jack-the-ripper-may-have-been-female-20060517-gdnkai.html), swabs that were taken from letters widely believed to have been written by 'Jack' revealed that they had likely been sent by a woman (although the overall results were inconclusive).

• Police at the time [did actually suspect] (https://www.history.com/news/was-jack-the-ripper-a-woman) a female killer - although [their main suspects] (https://www.casebook.org/suspects/) were male - after one victim was 'spotted' hours after her death. Supposedly, a female killer could have stolen the victim's clothes.

• There is also [no evidence] (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/jip.22) that Jack the Ripper sexually assaulted any of his/her victims, giving some sway to the female killer theory. Although the police privileged the male killer theory (likely a result of the [Victorian attitudes] (https://www.bl.uk/romantics-and-victorians/articles/gender-roles-in-the-19th-century) to female capabilities) the idea of a female, midwife 'Ripper' was [floated at the time] (https://whitechapeljack.com/jill-the-ripper-was-jack-the-ripper-a-deranged-midwife/), which would account for the knowledge of female anatomy.

• The Jack the Ripper murders are one of the most famous unsolved cases in English crime history. There are [countless theories] (https://www.historyextra.com/period/victorian/jack-the-ripper-identity-theories-nightmares/) about the killer's identity, and we will most likely never know the whole truth. But the real possibility of it having been a woman adds an edge to a case that has long been the subject of public fascination.

Forced positivity is not healthy. But generalising anything as 'toxic' takes away from its nuance.

• 'Toxic' is a real buzzword, especially on internet platforms. It was even Oxford Dictionaries' [word of the year] (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/14/arts/toxic-oxford-word-of-the-year-2018.html) in 2018. [MW's definition] (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/toxic) of it is that which is 'extremely harsh, malicious or harmful'. [Psychologists] (https://www.scmp.com/yp/discover/entertainment/article/3132441/what-toxic-positivity-why-pretending-be-happy-can-be) describe 'toxic positivity' as 'the need to always be happy at any cost, even in adversity'.

• Yes - [the consensus] (https://time.com/5163576/ignoring-your-emotions-bad-for-your-health/) is that denying any emotional range and putting up a front of dauntless positivity is a bad thing. Negative emotions build up if they are not faced. However - labelling any expression of this phenomenon as 'toxic' is harmful itself. It skates over the nuances of the individual scenario.

• If someone is unable/unwilling to face the reality of a situation and instead reverts to a mask of positivity, there are complexities at work. [Labels] (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/alternative-truths/201005/why-its-dangerous-label-people) like 'toxic' sometimes make it easy to dismiss things rather than facing the reality - that every situation we face consists of many elements that transcend the simplicity of [the language] (https://medium.com/@say2sparsh/the-limited-world-of-language-f6ab94c54d04) we apply to them.

• For example - it's easy to say 'Oh, I'm forcing positivity rather than dealing with my feelings - that's toxic. So I'll [google] (https://www.talkspace.com/blog/symptom-checker-dangerous-mental-health/) toxic positivity and find lots of cliches and generalised advice on how to deal with it'. It's always easier to assimilate our experiences through generalising terms than it is to deal with the messiness of our unique situation.

Broadcasting institutions that serve public rather than private interests should be protected.

• The public funding for [the BBC] (https://www.politics.co.uk/reference/bbc-licence-fee/#:~:text=All%20revenue%20collected%20through%20'TV,(until%2031%20December%202027) works through charging a licensing fee to anyone in the UK who owns a television box. This fee (about [40p per day] (https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/bbc-tv-licence-fee-increase-ps159-b919024.html) per household) goes towards producing independent, unbiased content.

• The promise of independent and unbiased content [stems from] (https://www.britannica.com/topic/British-Broadcasting-Corporation) the BBC's publicly generated funds. Without the stimulus of public funding, the [privatisation] (https://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/me/meb/meb03a/meb03a02) of main media companies becomes easy.

• Because no system is perfect, the content produced and the lines taken by the BBC does not always fit within these content guidelines. Institutions should constantly reevaluate what's going out on their platforms. But the way to respond to these issues is through [considered reform] (https://www.redpepper.org.uk/bbc-reform/), not abolition.

Believing that there is a common truth to all religions implies that they are all essentially talking about the same thing. This doesn't hold, not only because rampant [religious conflicts] (https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/religion_and_conflict%20) throughout history show certain religious groups perceiving the others as heathens, but sacred texts and ideas held at the apex of some institutions completely contradict those of others.

• It's important to consider that the doctrines at the heart of many prominent religions are not considered to be merely adornments that mask any one essential truth. The things that are considered central religious tenets are hugely inconsistent between different groups.

• For example - [Christianity] (https://www.history.com/topics/religion/history-of-christianity), with its God as being present in the Holy Trinity, cannot logically be seen to boil down to the same thing as [Hinduism] (https://www.dummies.com/religion/hinduism/hindu-gods-and-goddesses/), which claims that there are 33 Gods. Even [what a 'God' consists of] (https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/phil_of_religion_text/CHAPTER_1_OVERVIEW/Attributes_of_God.htm) is something that varies among different groups.

• Perhaps more important than this - a central part of all religions is [absolutism] (https://www.britannica.com/topic/absolutism-political-system). The belief that their way is the only right way; again, this is not a decorative principle, but an essential component of the religion. And it's one that has led to horrific religious [violence] (https://cvir.st-andrews.ac.uk/articles/10.15664/jtr.1153/).

When we think of using sex 'to get ahead', we are not necessarily talking about the act of sex. Sexual attraction is a natural, [if not central] (http://www.csun.edu/~vcpsy00h/students/sexual.htm), element of human relationships. And we live in a culture that [thrives on personality and likeability] (https://www.jstor.org/stable/2393201?seq=3#metadata_info_tab_contents). Working your way up in a given industry often depends more on who you know, etc., than your skillset. In this context, capitalising upon opportunities that arise because of sexual attraction should be acceptable.

• 21st-century western culture has arguably [moved beyond] (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19729373/) the conception of sex as an activity with a purely reproductive end. As something that is deeply embedded in human relationships, sexual dynamics will inevitably also occur in professional environments.

• Think of how those who possess and demonstrate significant confidence and charisma are [more likely to do well] (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318029583_Leadership_and_Self-Confidence) in their chosen industry. These are both appealing characteristics that straddle the line between amiability and sexual attractiveness.

• Maybe the issue of the straightforward derision of 'sex to get ahead' is something of a sexist thought point. It brings to mind images of short skirts, red lipstick, provocative necklines, etc., and more than anything, a female subservience. It also [caricatures female sexuality] (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6707629/) as something lurid and base. The expression of sexuality that is 'confident and charismatic', meanwhile, is often [coded as male] (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4244004/).

• The reality is that for both men and women, capitalising on sexual appeal is not all that different from capitalising on likeability/friendships. Both the sexuality and personality of the individual are always going to be present.

In terms of physical aggression - yes, men are naturally more aggressive. Both nature and nurture play a part in the contemporary difference we see between male and female aggression.

• [Studies show that overall, men are more aggressive than women] (https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/inside-the-mind/emotions/men-more-violent.htm). This is partly to do with the evolutionary differences between men and women's bodies. On average, men are larger, [stronger] (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/02/200205132404.htm), and [faster] (https://www.irishtimes.com/news/why-men-can-run-faster-than-women-1.1165988).

• On a biological level - the male tendency toward aggression can be linked to [testosterone levels] (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3693622/). Testosterone is a hormone that's generated to prepare the body to respond to competition, and spikes of it are linked to acts of aggression. Both men and women have testosterone in their bodies, but [men generally have much higher levels] (https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/323085).

• From an evolutionary standpoint, higher testosterone levels in men makes sense. Men had to compete with each other for [reproductive purposes] (https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2016.0310).

• There's no doubt that [socialisation] (https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-sociology/chapter/gender-and-socialization/) also plays a part in the predominance of male aggression. Expectations create and reinforce behaviour. But if socialisation were entirely to blame, then aggression levels should increase from childhood onward. As it is, a difference in aggression between males and females is evident from very young ages. Boys are reported to be more physically aggressive than girls [over extensive cultural and geographical ranges] (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3736589/).

• It is not to say that women can't also be aggressive - [they definitely can] (https://www.scoopwhoop.com/The-Most-Dangerous-Female-Criminals-In-The-World-/). But in almost every [statistic] (https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus0702.pdf), they are trumped by men. The cliche of women being more [passively aggressive] (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15327957pspr0903_2) and men more physically does, on average, hold up as true.

Fate - thought of as the development of events in a way that is out of the individual's control - plays a part in our lives. But the human brain is an incredible and complex thing, and it is capable of overriding predisposition.

• Fate is sometimes thought of as being dictated by a supernatural power. But the way I'm thinking of it is as more [atheistic predeterminism] (https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/4888/do-we-have-free-will-the-atheist-case-for-determinism).

• From an atheist perspective, the [development of the human brain] (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK234146/) is a physical process, not imbued with any spiritual essence. [People will often act according to their needs/desires/instincts] (https://hbr.org/1998/07/how-hardwired-is-human-behavior), which are informed in large part by their biological natures. So in this sense, in a decision-making scenario, the individual's predisposed nature will make one outcome more likely than others.

• However - I wouldn't say that this idea of fate 'determines' our lives. For one thing, a completely fated existence puts any kind of human responsibility in a bind. We've developed civilisations and justice systems that counter what might be a biological predisposition to kill or hurt. It is still the responsibility of the individual within the social system to resist these instincts.

• The human brain and its rationality/mental functioning is an incredible and complex thing. That we believe we have free will makes possible the idea that humans are able to resist biologically 'fated' choices.

• In this case - our lives may be partially predetermined. Perhaps to the extent that our natural needs/desires/instincts adhere to [modern-day] (https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/the-human-beast/201509/are-humans-adapted-modern-life) civilisation and social cohesion.

Essentially - yes, love is biological. It is a feeling, produced by hormones in the body.

• Human beings are essentially social animals. The way we navigate social relationships is largely down to [cognitive and physiological processes in the body] (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3537144/).

• Scientists say that 'love' can be divided into [3 elements] (https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/love-actually-science-behind-lust-attraction-companionship/) that correspond to the release of different hormones.

1. Lust - testosterone and estrogen
2. Attraction - dopamine, norepinephrine and serotonin
3. Attachment - oxytocin and vasopressin

• As you might assume, the attachment reaction is the most central factor in a love connection/long term relationship. Unlike the other two factors, the release of attachment hormones also occurs in situations like [parent-child relationships] (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3230500/).

• The release of hormones like dopamine and their withdrawal also occurs in compulsive gambling or shopping. In this way, [love on a chemical level] (https://www.sapiens.org/biology/biological-anthropology-love/) is a kind of addiction to another human being.

• Of course, the [cultural context] (https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-02-12/does-west-have-monopoly-romantic-love) in which humans operate also has its impact. But that is more to do with how the 'love' experience is expressed. The actual feeling itself is purely biological.

There are coincidences, and they are only attributed meaning through human perception of them.

• A coincidence means a ["remarkable concurrence of events or circumstances that have no apparent causal connection with one another"] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coincidence). An example might be if you are thinking about someone and then immediately run into them.

• Statistically, the chance of a coincidence occurring is low, but [it is possible] (https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/connecting-coincidence/201512/the-promise-problems-probability-in-coincidence-studies).

• The idea that 'there are no coincidences' implies that such 'concurrent events' have some greater meaning. In fact, the 'meaningful coincidence' is more of an interesting human/psychological phenomenon than a supernatural/mystical one.

• Our brains can be [selective] (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.473.2890&rep=rep1&type=pdf) about what they choose to pick up on. This selectivity can be a result of whether some potential stimulus holds any personal meaning for us. Human brains possess a need to create order from chaos. The ability to perceive patterns in the world around us is a sign of [neural evolution] (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4141622/). The reading of meaning onto coincidental events is ["an inevitable consequence of the mind searching for causal structure in our reality"] (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0732118X15000343).

• It is also significant that those who believe in meaningful coincidences are [more likely to experience them] (https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/the-science-behind-coincidence). In the running into someone you have been thinking about scenario - the event of running into them is neutral. It is only given meaning if our neural networks connect it with our thinking about them beforehand.

• Perhaps what's most interesting is that studies have shown that seeing coincidences as meaningful actually [helps mental health] (https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/the-science-behind-coincidence). It provides a coherency and structure to our understanding of the world. So maybe the most helpful way to think about coincidences are as events that can possess meaning for us through our perception of them. Not innately or mystically.

Femininity and masculinity are socially constructed terms. In our age of growing gender non-conformity, their links to inherent male or female-ness are outdated.

• The important distinction between femininity/masculinity and female/male is that the latter are seen as biological identities, while the former are [socially constructed] (https://genderedinnovations.stanford.edu/terms/femininities.html).

• A lot of the traits that are associated with either masculinity or femininity arise from [socialisation] (https://www.child-encyclopedia.com/gender-early-socialization/synthesis) and how children are taught to behave. There is [no strong scientific basis] (https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00956/full) for the idea that things like emotional openness and sensitivity should be inherently feminine and therefore female.

• Understandings of the flexibility of gender and the impact of socio-cultural norms on how we think about it are widening every day. With [the expansion of gender identity] (https://time.com/magazine/us/4703292/march-27th-2017-vol-189-no-11-u-s/), the idea that personality traits can be neatly divided between these two terms seems illogical.

Claiming that feminism has gone 'too far' contradicts the fact that men and women are still not on equal footing.

• 'Feminism' means [the belief that men and women should be equal] (https://www.bustle.com/articles/129886-what-does-feminism-mean-a-brief-history-of-the-word-from-its-beginnings-all-the-way). A common misconception is that it means women should be superior to men.

• Working from this definition, saying that it has 'gone too far' doesn't make sense. As of the 21st century, men and women are not equal [in some key ways] (https://www.marieclaire.com/politics/news/a15652/gender-inequality-stats/). Just one example of this is the [gender pay gap] (https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomspiggle/2021/05/25/the-gender-pay-gap-why-its-still-here/?sh=2522e217baf6), which is unlikely to equalise until 2059.

TL;DR: Monogamy isn't 'natural' in the sense that our earliest primates didn't engage in it. And even now humans aren't fully monogamous like for example [most birds are] (https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/blog/2020/02/which-birds-mate-for-life/). Rather, we have evolved to be 'socially monogamous', meaning that we form couples but these are not necessarily exclusive or permanent.

• Monogamy is not an instinct [encoded into our DNA] (https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-xpm-2012-jun-01-la-le-0601-friday-monogamy-20120601-story.html). It has just become the social norm (in the west at least) because of its evolutionary benefits.

• [Among other things] (https://www.nature.com/articles/srep32472), this is because compared to other animals, [humans are born very incapable and helpless] (https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/why-humans-give-birth-to-helpless-babies/#:~:text=Although%20newborns%20of%20other%20primate,their%20brains%20are%20comparatively%20underdeveloped.&text=Human%20babies%20are%20thus%20born,fit%20through%20the%20narrow%20passageway.). We are very reliant on others during our early development. Because of this, we need a family/parental unit.

• It's less of a 'natural' instinct and more of something that has become normalised and habitual for us as a species.

• Psychologists have referred to a 'love-is-blind bias' that contributes towards monogamy in humans. This bias consists of couples who are in love overestimating each other's attractiveness and positive attributes. They believe that this is a ["necessary illusion ... that evolved as a special adaption to guarantee our reproductive success."] (https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/culture-mind-and-brain/201610/did-we-evolve-be-monogamous)

TL;DR: The current distinction between 'relationships education' in primary school and 'sex education' in secondary school is in line with childhood development. The focus shouldn't be on introducing sex ed to kids at a younger age. It should be on initially giving them an understanding of emotions and human relationships. They can then situate sex within this framework during secondary school.

• The average age for girls to start [going through puberty] (https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/sexual-health/stages-of-puberty-what-happens-to-boys-and-girls/) is 11, and 12 for boys. Secondary school begins when children are 11. [Sex education] (https://www.gov.uk/national-curriculum/other-compulsory-subjects), defined as ["teaching about reproduction, sexuality, and sexual health"] (https://www.gov.uk/national-curriculum/other-compulsory-subjects), should be taught as children are going through puberty. Not before.

• ['Relationships education'] (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/relationships-education-relationships-and-sex-education-rse-and-health-education/relationships-education-primary) was made compulsory to be taught in all primary schools in 2019. It covers ["relationships and health"] (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/relationships-education-relationships-and-sex-education-rse-and-health-education/relationships-education-primary). At the school's discretion, this can also include elements of what is considered sex education. This is the appropriate amount of education for primary school students.

• It is [more helpful] (https://www.sexualwellbeing.ie/for-professionals/research/research-summaries/research-on-teenage-sexuality-2012.pdf) to build a biological understanding of sex upon an established base of emotions and relationships. Children can then assess how sexuality factors into that.

TL;DR: There is plenty of evidence that the Moon landing did happen. But conspiracy theories have always thrived on the tiniest and most explainable 'inconsistencies'.

• A [2019 study] (https://yougov.co.uk/topics/science/articles-reports/2019/04/25/which-science-based-conspiracy-theories-do-britons) shows that one in six Brits believe that the 1969 Apollo 11 mission was faked. The reason conspiracy theorists give for the staging of this hoax is that the US were so desperate to beat Russia in the [space race] (https://www.arcadiapublishing.com/Navigation/Community/Arcadia-and-THP-Blog/July-2019/The-End-of-the-Space-Race-The-Moon-Landing) that they acted out the lunar expedition on a Hollywood set.

• One of the most touted pieces of 'evidence' used to back up claims that the Moon landing was fake is the [footage of Buzz Aldrin] (https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/hd/apollo11_hdpage.html) on the Moon in which the American flag he plants appears to be waving in a breeze. There is no wind on the Moon's surface. However, NASA has explained that [a horizontal rod at the top of the flagpole] (https://historycollection.jsc.nasa.gov/JSCHistoryPortal/history/flag/flag.htm), which holds it in place, only creates the illusion of its fluttering.

• Another piece of 'evidence' is that there are no stars visible in the [Moon landing photographs] (https://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippsphotos/apollo.html). However, this is also easily explained. The photographs were taken during what we would consider to be daytime on the Moon. Photographing a brightly lit atmosphere means a high exposure level, so [stars wouldn't show up] (https://www.planetary.org/articles/why-are-there-no-stars).

• There is plenty of scientifically verifiable evidence that backs up the reality of the mission. [Verified moon rocks] (https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/samples/) have been bought to Earth, there are full [transcripts] (https://www.rmg.co.uk/stories/topics/apollo-11-moon-landing-minute-minute) of the landing's air-to-earth conversations, and there are 8,400 publicly available photographs.

• The landing also gave the US the chance to plant a [lunar laser] (https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/experiments/lrr/) on the Moon's surface. It is still operational today and allows us to measure the distance between the Earth and the Moon by reflecting lasers off of it.

• Overall: an article in [The Guardian] ( https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jul/10/one-giant-lie-why-so-many-people-still-think-the-moon-landings-were-faked) calls Apollo 11 "an implausible event for which there is lots of evidence" and the hoax "a plausible event for which there is zero evidence." To conspiracy theorists, the latter is much easier to latch onto.

TL;DR: Capitalism has bad attributes - it causes inequality and prioritises the market over everything else. But so far, it has proven to be the least bad system.

• [Capitalism] (https://capitalism.columbia.edu/theory-capitalism) = when a country's economic resources are controlled by private owners. As a system, it relies on assisting bodies to step in and help those struggling under it because the Capitalist system itself doesn't provide any. Because of this, inequality is a side effect of a Capitalist regime. In the UK, [the income generated by the top 1%] (https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/scale-economic-inequality-uk) has been steadily rising since 1980, peaking at 13% in 2015.

• Alternatives to Capitalism have been [Socialism and Communism] (https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/100214/what-difference-between-communism-and-socialism.asp). In brief, Communism is when economic resources are under state control, and Socialism is when resources are shared equally by citizens as regulated by an elected government.

• In theory, these models seem better than Capitalism because they promote equality. But Communism and Socialism in practice have led to [some of the most infamous dictatorships in history] (https://fee.org/articles/why-socialism-often-leads-to-tyranny/). When applied in real life, their common [Marxist ideas] (https://www.britannica.com/topic/dictatorship-of-the-proletariat) are undermined by human corruption and greed. And it is impossible to separate the idea of a regime from how well it works in practice.

• Overall - Capitalism as a theoretical idea sounds 'bad' because it doesn't prioritise equality and humanity. It divides the control of economic resources between self-regulating bodies. This division puts the pressure to provide help to those who need it on the shoulders of such bodies. So far, however, it seems to be the model that, in practice, provides the least risk of widescale corruption.

TL;DR - Elements of 'savageness' and 'civilisation' can coexist within a culture. Labelling entire cultural groups as one of the two assumes an objective standard for human development. There is no such thing.

• 'Civilisation' is defined by OED as "a society, its culture, and its way of life during a particular time or in a particular part of the world." A civilisation can look different in different cultures. The idea of the 'savage' who is 'civilised' by a superior cultural saviour is the result of outdated perspectives that are too entrenched in their own worldview.

• Cultures that like to assume a position of superiority over less privileged nations have themselves engaged in what could be viewed as 'savage' customs - in the US, racism, sexism, public executions, etc.

Whenever we can, we should aim for rehabilitation and reintegration as an end to imprisonment.

Stewardship - which I interpret as just housing of prisoners - and punishment should not be the primary goal of incarceration. Obviously, some people are beyond rehabilitation, but the effort should be sufficiently made and closely assessed as much as is possible. This should definitely be the priority of the prison system.

Punishment as a central focus of the prison system also does not take into account mental health as a factor in criminal behaviour. A [2017 study] (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmpubacc/400/400.pdf) found that "rates of self-inflicted deaths and self-harm in prisons" had risen significantly in the previous five years.

Reinforcing a reject mentality in prisoners by isolating them and not providing communicative or rehabilitative tools is not conducive to what the end goal of prisons should be, which is for the reintegration of as many people into society as possible.

I don't necessarily think land 'should' be a commodity to be bought and sold, but I also think that it becoming one is an inevitability. Overpopulation is a growing issue, but as it currently stands the earth's landmass outweighs its human population. As long as there is more land than people who can own it, its status as a commodity for exchange seems natural.

However, I would say that I only fundamentally disagree with land ownership as it applies to land lordship. It's understandable that people want to buy and own land because of the security that provides. However, the problem arises when the wealthy elite owns the majority of land and use this ownership to profit off the needs of others.

In a study carried out by [The Guardian] (https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/apr/17/who-owns-england-thousand-secret-landowners-author) in 2019, they found that "half of the UK is owned by less than 1% of its population" and that "if land were distributed evenly across England's population, each person would have just over half an acre." This control and renting out of land resources to the majority feels exploitative.

TL;DR - It's easy to write off entire generational groups as 'lazy' or 'entitled' from an outside perspective.

• In Devon Prince's article ['Laziness does not exist'] (https://humanparts.medium.com/laziness-does-not-exist-3af27e312d01) he writes, "when you don't fully understand a person's context ... it's easy to impose abstract, rigid expectations on a person's behaviour."

• It's easy to observe someone being unproductive and project ideas of laziness and entitlement upon them. It is perhaps even more tempting to do this from an older generational perspective that assumes their youngers have it easier than they did. However, continual shifts in how young people navigate life mean that the struggles faced are simply different.

"People do not choose to fail or disappoint. No one wants to feel incapable, apathetic, or ineffective. If you look at a person's action (or inaction) and see only laziness, you are missing key details. There is always an explanation ... Just because you can't see them, or don't view them as legitimate, doesn't mean they're not there."

TL;DR: Looking at this issue from a market/stats based perspective leads to generalisation. Sexual attraction/desirability is too complex to be quantifiable.

• 'Sexual market value' is a term most commonly thrown around on platforms like Reddit. The context for the discussion is often straight men complaining about women who 'overvalue' themselves and think themselves superior to the men they 'should' be dating.

• From a statistical point of view, you might be tempted to agree with this. An [article in The Atlantic] (https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2020/02/modern-dating-odds-economy-apps-tinder-math/606982/) states that "men outnumber women dramatically on dating apps ... Their experience of not getting as many matches or messages, the numbers say, is real."

• However, it is not straightforward to apply such a market-based understanding to human relationships. Attraction and desirability can be highly subjective and difficult to measure. The rise of online dating and statistics gathered through app use has made it easier for groups of, say, heterosexual men who have all experienced rejection to band together against a single target for their sexual dissatisfaction, i.e., a 'marketplace' in which women have the upper hand.

• Actual attraction and the forming of relationships is not formulaic. It is down to the individual or individuals, not a system that is unfairly rigged against them.

"The (shaky) foundational idea of capitalism is that the market is unfailingly partial and correct ... It's a dangerous metaphor to apply to human relationships because introducing the idea that dating should be 'fair' subsequently introduces the idea that there is someone who must be responsible for it when it is unfair.
When the market's logic breaks down, it must mean someone is overriding the laws. And in online spaces populated by heterosexual men, heterosexual women have been charged with the bulk of these crimes."

(The Atlantic article)

TL;DR - The way nature and nurture interact with each other is difficult to judge on anything other than an individual level.

• In the context of this debate, nature means the genetic predispositions that are present at birth, and nurture means the influence of the individual's environment.

• It's very tricky to judge the balance between the effects of nature and nurture on a broad scale because the way they interact can be so varied.

• If you have a genetic predisposition towards being an alcoholic, for example, this will only be realised if you grow up and live in an environment where you are exposed to potential addictions. Not all genetically/biologically predisposed traits are realised.

• You could argue that nurture is more important in terms of the expression of personality traits - nature sets them up, nurture indicates whether they will be knocked down. Or you could argue the opposite, because the traits may have originated on a biological level.

TL;DR - Love should be the foundation of romantic relationships. However, other factors also have to be in place for the relationship to be successful.

• Let's think of love as the sense that someone else's wellbeing is more important to you than your own. With this in mind, human relationships are highly susceptible to outside pressures like cultural, familial, or geographical differences. Whether two people are able to sustain a relationship despite such things also depends on their previous experiences and how their personalities might have been shaped by factors like their upbringing.

• There's that classic idea of 'meeting the right person at the wrong time', which I think means that the love is there, but that outwards pressures are working against it. In this situation, love alone is not enough.

• I would argue that love itself is not very practical - it can even be irrational, like how wanting the best for someone contradicts the fact that you might not be what's best for them. Practical elements - having similar values, being at similar points in your life - also need to be in place.

TL;DR: The cornerstone of free speech is the idea that you can have an open conversation with someone else about their views, whether they are personally offensive to you or not.

• The result of a society in which nobody had the right to offend anyone else would be the stifling of individual thought and opinion.

• Even if someone offends you and you believe that what they have said is completely unfounded, you can't deny them the right to have said it. Fundamentally disagreeing with what someone has said is not the same thing as suggesting they did not have the right to say it in the first place.

• This can even be a fertile ground for educating others on issues they don't fully understand. Whether an offensive comment does lead to such a conversation, or whether both people remain set in their ways, the possibility of communication is completely removed when the right of expressing your opinion is suppressed.

It depends on how you see friendship! I would say that a friendship should be based on the sharing of common values, seeing the world in a similar or complementary way, and enjoying each other's company.

Friendships based on the mutual dislike of a third party might develop and last, but in such cases, the sharing of a common enemy would not be the reason for the friendship, only for the introduction to one another.

Adultery is wrong because it's an act of deception and a violation of trust. The only situation in which it is acceptable is when both partners are aware of a mutually agreed-upon arrangement.

In my experience, the act of committing adultery is tied up in cowardice. Every case is different, but the decision to cheat is often a symptom of unhappiness within a relationship. This unhappiness is realised not by communicating how the individual feels with their partner, but by moving forward and pursuing others without letting their partner know.

Honesty is one of, if not the most, important things in a relationship. Especially in a romantic one, in which two individuals become a singular unit, navigating the world together. If two people have agreed upon an exclusive, monogamous relationship and one party then breaks this agreement, that is a serious violation of trust.

I also think that being in a relationship means seeing the other person for who they are and choosing to go through life with them. The ability to betray someone's trust through the act of adultery permanently alters who a person is, and consequently how their partner might see them.

This is interesting! Because I would definitely contend that the distinction between information and entertainment is increasingly blurred, but I'm not absolutely sure I agree with it being a 'worrying fusion'.

The reality is that we live in a hugely media-entrenched culture. Virtual or media-based entertainment takes up a vast cultural space. Is it so terrible if the content we are so voraciously consuming is also used as an informative tool? A fusion of information and entertainment could consist of diverse representation or the normalisation of marginalised issues in the media.

I suppose that the difficulty arises when the two are inextricable from one another. Or - when information is inextricable from entertainment. Here there is a risk of losing the objectivity of factual information, and appealing instead to the immediacy of emotional stimulation associated with entertainment.

News and factual information should not need to be sensationalised in order to gain traction. Yet surely it is beneficial, and indeed natural to diffuse that which entertains us with that which is informative.

The idea of it as a 'fusion' is troubling, as it suggests a conjoined existence in which neither concept is separable from the other. In this case, it becomes easy to correlate the two and dismiss one as being the other. However, I would not agree that such a fusion accurately describes the current landscape.

There is a risk of escalation into such a fusion, certainly. You need only look at the recent launch of the GB News Channel, founded upon the premise of divergence from traditional news reporting in favour of opinion and controversy based content. When news and entertainment are assimilated together it becomes increasingly easy to only consume that which confirms our preconceived views.