ellikara91

This is an interesting point, and so true. When Columbus Day is celebrated, Columbus's atrocities are swept under the rug, and we often forget that he had villainous qualities.

I recently read an article titled 'Christopher Columbus: Hero or Murderer?' by Whitney DeWitt, which actually dispels the myth of Columbus as hero and instead lays out the facts of his being more imperialistic than we think he was. There is an insightful incident DeWitt quotes from John Wilford:

Enslavement of the Indians was not the only violation they were forced to endure; Columbus also terrorized, tortured, and killed them. At one point in time, Columbus sent five hundred men into the hills to search for gold. Upon hearing that the Indians were planning to attack the men, Columbus sent four hundred soldiers to terrorize them in order to show how strong the Christians were (Wilford 173-4). Since Columbus was in charge, he felt he could do as he chose without repercussions. He believed that the Christians could do no wrong and therefore never punished them. One of the Spaniards went through the hills, terrorizing the Indians and stealing their food. Columbus punished the Indian victims instead of the Christian culprit (Wilford 175).

This clearly shows that Columbus serves imperialistic interests and his dark side is being overshadowed by his feat as America's discoverer. Sadly, there are many ways in which history is conditioned to mould the image of historical figures according to national interests. Facts remain to overturn such assumptions.

Works Cited

Whitney, DeWitt. “Christopher Columbus: Hero or Murderer?” Central Virginia Community College. Web. 9 March. 2017.
http://campuspages.cvcc.vccs.edu/polis/2003/nonfiction/whitney%20dewitt.amlit.htm.

I think it is really important to approach historical events with the eyes of modernity and re-evaluate some practices that people used to leave unjudged. Framing morality today is what we should care about because we live in the present and we definitely want to make the world a better place for the future, so evaluating the actions of historical characters could not be more prominent.

TL;DR - Religion is definitely a force for good when not poisoned with corruption and distortion of religious tenets based on religious malpractice. Religion brings people together, promotes good mental health, and drives people towards good deeds, love and respect.

The fact that religion has many times been a point of contention relies heavily on people's ideas on spiritualism and how these ideas are exhibited by representatives of religion within society. There are different kinds of religion around the world, and although there are divisions and a contemporary distrust towards religion and what it stands for, it is undeniable that people who are religious have well-rooted defence mechanisms that can help them cope with difficult times in their lives.

For example, one of the benefits of religion is ['inner strength and courage to do the right thing'] (https://www.biographyonline.net/spiritual/articles/benefits-religion.html). This helps people control their lives better and have a spiritual reference point by which to try to understand morality and their place in the world. Also, religion gives people a sense of belonging that brings people together through love and shared beliefs, which is also something that positively impacts a person's life and promotes wellbeing.

Living within a community and trying to do good for yourself and society are some of the benefits of religion. Of course, this is not to deny that there are many people who abuse religion and miss the point of specific religious principles by distorting them in word and action. When seen and followed with good intentions, religion can be a huge guide out of chaos, negative feelings and the feeling of hopelessness that we sometimes have when we lack control.

TL; DR - Listening to your favourite music is better than listening to new music because your favourite music is directly connected to personal memories and tastes.

While new music definitely has the ability to open up our minds and make us experience something different and say in touch with current times, listening to your favourite music is more beneficial because it leads to better wellbeing. It is something personally chosen and familiar, which can take to memories of different kinds, and this always resonates with finding inner peace in something that is yours.

Also, listening to your favourite music is good for your physical health. According to Christopher Bergland, '[r]esearchers in Europe have made a breakthrough discovery that listening to your favorite music triggers biological changes that improve the lining of your blood vessels (endothelial function) and reduces the risk of heart disease'. Listening to favourite songs has to do with both physical wellness and emotional connection.

TL; DR - Dairy can be good and bad for you depending on the level of consumption and the general diet.

On the one hand, dairy contains saturated fat and its excessive consumption can lead to heart diseases and many more. According to Ryan Andrews, dairy like 'milk has been seen as “good for us”. “Milk: It Does A Body Good” was even the tagline for a series of ads in the 1980s. Google “vintage milk ads” and you’ll see that promoting milk’s health benefits has a long history' ( Precision Nutrition ). However, according to Andrews, for many people milk can be 'full of “bad” fat, unhealthy chemicals, hormones, and impossible-to-digest proteins' which can be detrimental to the health. In some cases, careless dairy consumption can lead to cancer.

On the other hand, dairy products are a valuable source of nutrients like protein and calcium. According to Matthew Solan, calcium 'helps maintain bone density and reduces the risk of fractures. Adults up to age 50 need 1,000 milligrams (mg) of calcium per day. Women older than 50 and men older than 70 need 1,200 mg'. Solan continues to argue that [a]dditional dairy health benefits include the 'protein to protect against sarcopenia, the natural age-related loss of muscle mass and strength, and dairy can be a decent source' ( Harvard Health ). Dairy can be a valuable health food with huge benefits for body structure and general health habits.

It all depends on our intake of dairy products and the varied diet we choose to follow. Excessive dairy eating can lead to many health problems, but so will abstaining from dairy altogether.

TL;DR - Eating more gluten-free products can lead to a healthier way of life as it leads to a more balanced diet.

Although I am a huge fan of gluten-based food, I recognise the health benefits of leaning towards more gluten-free products. This kind of food is definitely prescribed for people with celiac disease who can be harmed by wheat-based products. However, it is also beneficial for gluten-sensitive people and for varying your diet with alternatives such as '[g]luten-free flours made from ingredients like quinoa, almonds, and beans', as Madeleine R. Vann says, which are rich in fibre, proteins, etc. and add extra health advantages to already tasty flour-based foods ( Everyday Health ).

Contrary to popular opinion, gluten-free choices are tasty too. I recently tried gluten-free biscuits as an experiment and I found out that they are very tasty, especially combined with other products like chocolate. It is true that flour-based products may have changes in taste, but, as Becky Excell argues, 'gluten-free food tastes exactly the same as regular food 97% of the time' ( Gluten-Free Cuppa Tea ).

Of course, this does not mean that we should replace gluten-based products. Gluten has many nutritious benefits, but being more inclusive in terms of gluten-free food can help us avoid over-consuming gluten and damage our health.

TL;DR - The American Dream is definitely a construct, and now more than ever people understand that it is over as a dream and a fantasy that drove people forward, because a person's situation is dependent on much more than hard work, choice and luck.

I would say that the American Dream failed because of the lack of proper education and vocational and community support, which did not receive proper attention and was replaced by a too great reliance on notions of individual initiative and potential. As Caroll Graham argues, '[t]here are high costs to being poor in America, where winners win big but losers fall hard'.

There's deep social, economic and racial inequality that prevents the optimistic reliance on meritocracy that the American Dream stands for. Graham goes on to say that 'the dream, with its focus on individual initiative in a meritocracy, has resulted in far less public support than there is in other countries for safety nets, vocational training, and community support for those with disadvantage or bad luck' ( The Guardian ).

Indeed, the lack of education and infrastructure combines with poverty among many Americans to make social inequality even more vivid, and the American Dream even more unattainable. As Deaqon James says, '[w]ould you believe that 3/4 of Americans between the ages 17 and 24 would not be eligible to join the military even if they wanted to? Either because of low physical health or a lack of education' ( Luxury Standard ). This is one of the many reasons why the American Dream is over.

TL; DR - It is true that the wellness industry is informed by preconceived ideas of a healthy body and sterilised fitness regimes that seem unattainable to many, but it has also helped a lot of people set a healthier daily routine that works for them.

On the one hand, the wellness industry has turned into a craze that uses carefully orchestrated language to influence the target audience and sell specific body types, lifestyles and products. As Sherri Smith says, the wellness regime is a 'carefully curated beast driven by the weight-loss industry, pseudo-science nutritionists and Instagram influencers whose only credentials are that they look the ideal of what we’re conditioned to admire (which is usually thin, young, wealthy, cis-hetero, able-bodied etc.)' ( CrimeReads ).

I completely agree with this and I think that the wellness industry is not inclusive and specifically aims to increase product sales and turn people's lives in a specific direction that automatically demonises whatever goes against the wellness philosophy, be it food, medicine, or general way of life.

On the other hand, I find that the wellness industry has also helped people regain control of their lives. We can't say that there's no such thing as unhealthy living, but we can say that unhealthy living varies. I speak from my experience when I say that wellness products, media posts and general wellness content I have been exposed to have helped me set a healthier daily routine by expanding my knowledge of what I can do to boost my energy, concentration and everyday functioning.

It is no coincidence that the wellness industry is booming. As Scott Nelson observes, 'people are prioritizing lifestyle, taking health into their own hands and spending money on their well-being', which is a big step to taking more control of their own lives and bodies ( Forbes ). There are two sides to how wellness can impact someone, and whatever we do we should always approach something using our critical thinking.

TL; DR - Men should not have to pay on the first date because this idea negates equality and reiterates stereotypes about the position of man and woman.

It is definitely surprising how many people think that men should pay on the first date as a courtesy to the woman and as a romantic gesture that would validate the woman. However, men and women should both be expected to pay on the date as women should be treated as equal to men and in no need of chivalric protection from men.

As Annabel Murphy argues, it is 'sometimes easier to label the man as the one who pays because that's how we see romance portrayed in the media, and that's how society functioned in the olden days: men earned the money and paid for his lady. Things have obviously changed. So let's get with the times' ( The Tab ). This is an important message because women are perfectly capable of doing any job and paying for meals and dates themselves.

It is also an important message because always paying on the first date lays an unnecessary burden on men as well since many of them think that this is something they are expected to do. Katie Timms gives the example of a 'woman on Channel 4's First Dates be very rude to a man she expected to pay for her date' ( Plymouth Herald ). This is something that we need to change and go with the ideas of choice and empowerment on both sides.

I am conflicted because there are a lot of advantages or disadvantages of being short or tall. As a short person, I feel that I can do many things, such as never having trouble on an aeroplane where my tall husband always has trouble with the legroom. Another advantage of being short is that I can more comfortably move around small and low-ceilinged spaces. It is also easier for me to clean as I can move around more easily than if I would do if I were taller. Plus, according to David Robson, shorter people are sometimes quicker on their feet ( BBC Future ).

On the other hand, taller people can reach for things more easily and they are also generally better at sports like basketball and running. Being short is a disadvantage in regard to these, especially because they find it difficult to reach higher places and complete when running. I have to say that I am mixed on this opinion.

Swearing should not always be allowed because it has to do with emotional language and directly affects individual and collective mental health. Despite the plethora of articles online supporting swearing as something that is actually a good and creative use of language, I believe that we should differentiate among different kinds of swearing and who it is directed to.

I find that people internalise language through communication and this is why swearing should not always be allowed. It is emotional and a product of hate or anger in many cases, so swearing can be really harmful, especially when directed towards others. Swearing can even turn to a form of abuse, so people should think about the consequences of freely allowing curse words in all contexts.

TL;DR - The AstraZeneca vaccine should be suspended until it is fully proven that it's not related to blood clot incidents.

Covid-19 vaccines are new and people are still trying to wrap their heads around the idea of trusting something so speedily manufactured that could potentially have long-term side-effects. A large number of vaccinations around the world is going really well and more and more people get vaccinated every day in the UK and elsewhere.

However, a lot of people who received the AstraZeneca jab have been reported developing blood clots. According to a France 4 article, many countries in the EU followed Norwegian authorities' who 'reported that four people under the age of 50 who had received the AstraZeneca vaccine had an unusually low number of blood platelets, which could lead to severe bleeding' ( France 24 ). Since there were some death cases, it is a good thing that European countries are suspending this vaccine until it is proven otherwise.

When it comes to human lives, it is definitely not a matter of ignoring side effects that can potentially affect a lot of people. Alice Park states that 'The World Health Organization (WHO) says the benefits outweigh any potential risks', ( Time ), but I believe that people should run multiple tests before more light is shed to these very serious and important side effects.

TL; DR - One of the things I love about books is how unpredictable they are and how immersed they can make me feel through delving into an unknown world and becoming part of that world. This is why books should not contain trigger warnings.

There are different reasons why people read books. Some read books to gain knowledge, others read books for pleasure and yet others read them to escape reality. However, an important mark of success for a good book is how effective it feels in addressing our emotions, and this happens by reflecting life's unpredictability.

Even though there are people who are bound to relive traumatic events through books, I don't believe that books should contain trigger warnings because this will steal a lot from a book's feel. According to Nori Horvitz, not warning readers of unsettling content is not happening 'out of malice':

... sometimes I might not warn you. Not out of malice, but because I care. Because the outside world is full of triggers. Because any number of things, at any point of any day – the first few notes of a pop song, or the smell of french fries, or looking into the eyes of the man behind you at the bank – can trigger you. And you need to be ready and strong. You need to be prepared. ( The Guardian ).

Books make us stronger and more prepared through different kinds of situations, and filtering these or warning about this is not as effective in making us face our desires and fears.

TL; DR - Children today do not spend nearly enough time outdoors focusing on play and activities, and this should be corrected because there are benefits to spending time outdoors, such as better physical health, more socially active and more respect for the environment.

I have recently read an article stating a thought-provoking fact: 'Did you know that, on average, children around the world spend less time outdoors than a maximum-security prisoner?' ( Muddy Puddles ). According to the article, some of the reasons for this are outdoor dangers and the advent of social media and technology. I grew up during a time when children used to play with each other outdoors for hours and I will always treasure these memories because of the fun and the benefits of it.

One such benefit is physical health. As Sumaiya Kabir says, by being outdoors, children will 'experience generations-old childhood favorites like climbing trees, collecting stones, building model houses with sticks, and so on. Such activities link to a healthy physical development. Thus, your children are physically fit, and have a smaller chance of obesity, heart problems, and diabetes' ( Lifehack ). Playing and exploring the outdoors is a very fruitful way for children to engage in physical activities and get in touch with nature while also boosting their creativity and motor skills.

Another benefit of being outdoors is socialization. Being in the outdoors with friends and family can help children further develop their social skills, bond over play and activities, and improve mental health by feeling part of a social group and/or community and spending time away from the digital world. While social media and phones can be beneficial for children's skills and education, spending time outdoors should be enhanced so that a balance is achieved.

TL; DR - While living in a surveillance world is highly controversial, crime prevention has been boosted by the use of technological innovations like cameras, drones, information data applications, and many more.

It is true that cybercrime has been promoted by the advancement of technology and there are serious crimes connected to technology emerging every day. However, we have to look at the bigger picture and understand how technology has really helped monitor crime.

One of the ways to do that is, for example, data mapping, which has extended to police use by 'providing police departments as well as federal agencies with a clear geographical look at the types of crime and the volume of crime that happens in an area' ( Best Value Schools ). This makes it so much easier to document crime and provide assistance in a timely manner when needed. CCTV cameras and social media promote crime prevention as well, as they enable remote access to crucial information and facilitate intervention.

Technology has even allowed remote crime scene access through '3D laser scanners' that 'enable accurate remote crime scene mapping' in case the investigators want to revisit crime scenes for accuracy and research ( Social Innovation ). Drones are also a way for some police departments to monitor crime, since drones expand vision. For example, 'Devon and Cornwall Police' in the UK 'are using the drones for everything from missing person investigations to tracking suspects in firearms incidents and counter-terrorism operations' ( Orange Business ). There are multiple ways that these technologies can backfire, but the benefits of tracking devices like these can help both prevent and solve criminality.

I believe there's a reason the themes that 1984 tackles have become so enmeshed in today's society and mindset that there's not even such great need for some to have read the book. Of course, ideas about surveillance and the Big Brother are connected with the panoptical dystopia of Orwell's novel and it is natural that people who undergo similar situations like the current lockdown measures and the constant surveillance on the streets and sometimes within the neighbourhoods refer to Orwell's thematology. Being watch is a basic characteristic of modern society and something that people live with everyday, even without realising it, so the associations with Orwell's novel is a testament to how relevant it is, even when people have not read it.

I agree with both viewpoints and I also believe that vaccines should not be mandatory, but people should be informed of their options and mindful that there are people who need to be protected as well. I believe that in cases of vaccination people should learn more about the vaccines and how they work, and I am saying this because I have heard a lot of people make assumptions about Covid vaccines without even researching what the vaccine does or how it works. I believe that knowledge is power and that with more information people should be able to make more informed decisions without vaccination being necessarily mandatory.

TL;DR - Just because something like drinking alcohol can lead to overindulgence and excessive use does not mean it should be banned. It just means that people should be aware not to overstep the limits.

Drinking alcohol in normal amounts is something that we all do. It is something that goes with meeting friends and family, social gatherings, social events, etc. Alcohol is part of our lives and ways of entertainment, and this does not mean that drinking alcohol equals alcoholism. The production and consumption of alcohol is part of our history, and, as says, 'the fermentation of alcoholic beverages is as old as civilization, dating all the way back to ancient China, Mesopotamia, and Egypt'. ( Forbes India ).It is part of our tradition and society.

Also, there is the matter of prohibition and its negative consequences. As Tom Head argues, alcohol 'prohibition has never worked':

Prohibition leads to an increase in risky alcohol consumption; instead of sitting down casually and having a beer, you sneak into a back alley, buy a quart of rum, knock it back and run home. That is risky drinking behaviour and does not lead to a decrease in alcohol consumption. ( ThoughtCo ).

Indeed, prohibiting alcohol is going to lead to even more excessive alcohol consumption and more breaking of the law. I think that people should be informed of the risks of excessive alcohol consumption and act accordingly. Many things are bad for health when overused, but this does not mean we should ban them.

TL; DR - I am against this opinion because I believe that Meghan Markle is an excellent influence on Harry because she was the driving force behind a revolutionary break from anachronistic ideas about royalty, expectations, marriage and entitlement.

Meeting Meghan has been a pivotal moment for Harry who was raised following the royal protocol and way of living in every aspect of his life. From a very early age, Meghan has evolved as a feminist and a 'politically vocal' person, as Katherine Hignett says, 'blasting President Donald Trump as "misogynistic" and "divisive" in an appearance on The Nightly Show with Larry Wilmore in 2016', as the The Independent noted' ( Newsweek ).

Her charity work continued after her marriage when, together with Harry, they have 'been involved in various philanthropic projects'. They make each other stronger and the fact that they are both active in important political issues of equality shows the multiple ways they prove to be a power couple.

The recent interview with Oprah revealed how Markle's position and experience within the royal family have urged Harry to take a step away from the royal life. Alexander Kacala, Maura Hohman and Amy Eley list 11 things we learned from the interview, as Meghan 'told Winfrey that there were "concerns and conversations" among the royal family ahead of her son Archie's birth about "how dark his skin might be"' ( Today ).

Indeed, race is a huge reason Meghan felt discriminated against and her mental health was badly affected. This was definitely one of the main reasons they took the decision to walk away and start a new life, something that gave Harry the opportunity to start afresh and reinvent himself as a person, a defender of equality, and a strong opposer of pressures that led to his mother's death.

I believe that Meghan is a great influence on Harry because she brought to the table opportunities for re-thinking identity and human values threatened within the royal family.

Interesting opinion! I am all for three-day weekends, but does this mean that the workdays will be busier? Or loaded with more work hours maybe? I believe there is a danger of this backlashing somehow, as mental health will be impaired if the other weekdays are more hectic. Will this create a routine of extremeties as a too-busy week is followed by a relaxing three-day weekend?

TL;DR - Easter is not the best holiday because this place rightfully belongs to Christmas. Christmas is more festive, atmospheric and cozier than Easter. It is no coincidence that it is called the most wonderful time of the year.

First of all, Christmas decorations are way better than Easter decorations. Christmas lights and Christmas trees pair with other kinds of festive decorations to make homes cozier and boost the Christmas spirit by creating a sense of magic and hope felt by the whole family.

Also, for those who say that Easter is a more religious holiday, Christmas is deeply religious too. William Chamblee agrees when he says that for 'a Christian, Christmas signifies the birth of Jesus Christ, my lord and savior, and serves as a wonderful time to celebrate that. But whether Christmas for you is a religious holiday or just a time to reconnect with family and friends, it stills holds an impact' ( Baylor Lariat ). Christmas is the season of hope and family, represented by what we traditionally celebrate.

Last but not least, Christmas is all about eating and drinking, which add to the feeling of family and community. It's the season of sweets and hot chocolate with a wide range of traditional food, and it surely cannot get any better than this.

TL;DR - Secondary schools should teach politics as a mandatory school subject so that students learn more about political impact.

In an Oxford University blog post, Elena Jones mentions that 'around one third of millennials did not vote in the EU referendum', and very few students opted for Politics at A level in 2013 ( OUP blog ). And while nowadays more and more young people are engaged with politics, learning about politics and political responsibility at an earlier age is really important for young people to know more about their power to change the world and make an impact on society.

Indeed, young people are the future and they should be informed about the importance of politics from as early as possible. According to Matteo Bergamini, '[g]iven the right direction and with the right information in hand, young people have the potential to shape a better world - Greta Thunberg, Jack Andraka, Emma González and Malala Yousafzai are just a handful of names that spring to mind'. ( Open Access Government ). This is why secondary schools should contribute in laying the groundwork for a better knowledge of politics and political process.

As Bergamini observes, if 'we want systemic engagement and change, we must bring Political Literacy into schools'. This will help young people become more engaged in the political process when they become adults.

TL;DR - Libraries are still important because they are depositories of knowledge for everyone. Reading shapes minds and societies, and libraries provide a communal space for accessing information and promoting change.

Although the internet offers an easily accessible, infinite number of information sources, libraries remain extremely relevant because they provide a space for a community of readers who come together through their love of books and inquisitiveness. Libraries are also spaces of interaction and communication.

According to Sue Wilkinson, libraries make reading fun: something people will do with family and friends. ( [reading agency] (https://readingagency.org.uk/news/blog/why-we-all-need-libraries.html) ). Wilkinson goes on to say that through libraries we can 'become more creative, more interested in the world around us, more tolerant of other ideas and more open to change'.

Libraries are also important because they help shape minds and educate individuals and communities. They make reading a hands-on, interactive activity which can be free to use in public libraries. In addition, libraries are centres of enquiry and dialogue, as well as a range of 'community programmes'. Indeed, Sadie Trombetta refers to these and ''direct librarian assistance', different classes, 'basic internet access', etc. as beneficial services offered by libraries ( [Bustle] (https://www.bustle.com/p/7-reasons-libraries-are-essential-now-more-than-ever-43901) ).

Libraries, especially public ones, are essential for a well-rounded and functional society.

Despite the benefits, I still think that teachers and students need a recreational break during the summer to be able to rest, reflect on the school year revise, and do something else rather than school which can be beneficial for their later development.

TL;DR - I believe that smartphones can be beneficial when used by children under adult supervision and for a few hours per week. There is a wide variety of educational apps and other materials accessible via the smartphone for the educational development of children.

It is really important that the use of smartphones is regulated and supervised by the adults, but now that technology has reached new directions we can say that today's children have the chance to be exposed to the infinite educational possibilities technology has to offer.

As Reese Jones says, 'they can access a lot of learning resources such as mobile dictionaries, encyclopedia, educational applications and augmented reality flash cards. These applications can be regularly updated online to add new information, unlike an actual published textbook that remains stagnant over time'. When I was teaching primary school students, I was amazed by the variety of educational apps they used to boost their learning.

Smartphones offer infinite possibilities of combining learning and play, and with the proper monitoring and supervision, smartphones can be a huge asset to the learning and fun activities children are exposed to.

Works Cited

Jones, Reese, '5 Benefits of Giving Your Kids a Smartphone' (2013) http://www.edupad.com/blog/2013/11/5-benefits-giving-kids-smartphone/ [accessed 3 March 2021].

TL;DR - A main objective of horror films is to instil horror in the viewer and make the viewer feel in danger, invaded, and shaken, especially when the events are based on real life, which will give an extra feeling of directness to the intense fear that the viewer feels.

In 'On the Supernatural in Poetry' (1826), Ann Radcliffe talks about terror and horror in poetry, but her definition of these degrees of fear can be applied to other media as well. Radcliffe distinguished between horror and terror, associating terror with the feeling of imminent danger, and terror with something that comes too close to us and makes us freeze. This is exactly what horror films based on real life trigger, and the brutal content cannot be handled sensitively because of its very nature.

For me, this is a significant different between the more subtle and mainly psychological thriller movies and the horror films. The content of the latter definitely creates this sense of aversion (take, for example, 'The Human Centipede', 2011-15), but this is the whole point, taking the viewer too close to the dark side of human nature and make one re-consider perception and identity. There films create a mixture of pleasure and pain which has to do with the intensity of experience, which causes horror but also pleasure, and there are people who find that these 'high levels of arousal like this are enjoyable' (CSP).

Horror films based on real events are not for everyone and should not be chosen as viewing material from people who may be traumatised. However, this is related to choice and not content.

Works Cited

Radcliffe, Ann, 'On the Supernatural in Poetry', The New Monthly Magazine and Literary Journal, 16.1 (1826), 145-52 http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/english/melani/gothic/radcliffe1.html [accessed 3 March 2021].

'The Psychology of Fear: Exploring the Science behind Horror Entertainment' (2016) https://online.csp.edu/blog/psychology/psychology-of-fear/ [accessed 3 March 2021].

TL;DR - While many kinds of clothes certainly perpetuate gender stereotypes, the fashion industry is increasingly moving towards a more genderless line for designing clothes, so it depends on the case.

We can certainly not remove clothing from its cultural and historical background and deny the fact that they are genderless altogether. Clothes have always reflected preconceived notions of who men and women are. According to Susan O. Michelman and Kimberly A. Miller-Spillman, clothes are 'culturally defined' and 'closely related to the meaning of being a man or a woman and are closely linked to appearance'.

The dress / skirt example is only one that shows how fashion is highly gendered. Another example is given by 'Sunderland'. As the article says, 'it has been suggested that shoes designed for girls are often less suitable for sports, and this may give girls the message that sports are for boys.'

On the other hand, we have to keep in mind that gender is not something that pre-exists, but a product of societal standards and beliefs. According to Michelman and Miller-Spillman, '[g]ender is a socially constructed phenomenon, and not all cultures aspire to the same physical ideal for men and women as those in Western societies'.

Clothes are socially constructed too, so they are not something that should inherently be gendered. This is why many people in the fashion industry have taken the gender-free direction, such as 'High Street retailer John Lewis', who 'recently introduced gender-neutral labels on their childrenswear collections and replaced gender-specific signage in stores, offering parents and children a wider choice in what they wear' ('Sunderland').

There should be genderless options for clothing, which will reflect diversity and suit different tastes and preferences. However, I believe that clothing as it is is considerably gendered, and it takes a significant revolution in societal beliefs to shift to a gender-free philosophy.

Works Cited

Michelman, Susan O., and Kimberly A. Miller-Spillman, 'Fashion Gender and Dress' https://fashion-history.lovetoknow.com/fashion-history-eras/fashion-gender-dress [accessed 3 March 2021].

'Is gendered clothing part of our evolution?' (2017) https://www.sunderland.ac.uk/more/news/story/Is-gendered-clothing-part-of-our-evolution-272 [accessed 3 March 2021].

TL; DR - Cinemas are not dead because going to the cinema is something more than going to a place where we can watch movies streaming. The cinema is a whole experience of being with friends and watching the movie together in a cinematic way that cannot be compared to watching a movie through the streaming services.

For me, watching a movie at the cinema brings back wonderful memories of being with my friends, eating cinema food and just being together for the big screening. I always feel more immersed in the movie when I am at the cinema, which has a lot to do with the grand audio-visual experience.

Terri White shares his own experience. 'For me', White says, cinemas are 'places in which I’ve laughed (When Harry Met Sally); shouted (Room); gasped (Planet Terror); screamed involuntarily (Saint Maud); fallen in love (True Romance) and wept until my face, clothes and seat were wet (God’s Own Country)'. The experience of watching a movie at the cinema is so immersive that it can significantly add to the emotional impact a movie makes.

The cinema is not just the place, but the whole process of watching a movie there, and it brings people together in their love of a particular movie. People view going to the cinema as a different pastime to staying in with Netflix, and the ongoing popularity of cinema (at least just before the pandemic struck) shows that people are still into this. For example, Jim Amos argues that 'Bad Boys For Life began 2020 by flying out of the gate to the tune of a $73 million domestic opening weekend and has now officially become the highest grossing non-expansion January release in history'. Cinema is still quite popular.

Works Cited

Amos, Jim, 'No, Cinema Isn’t Dying: 7 Reasons To Be Optimistic (Yes, Optimistic!) About Hollywood In 2020' (2020) https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamos/2020/02/05/no-cinema-isnt-dying-7-reasons-to-be-optimistic-yes-optimistic-about-hollywood-in-2020/?sh=7d2396a13b6c [accessed 2 March 2021].

White, Terri, 'Cinemas Aren’t Dead, They’re Hibernating' (2020) https://www.empireonline.com/movies/features/cinemas-arent-dead-theyre-hibernating/ [accessed 2 March 2021].

Do you think that this is the case because we have come to associate periods with certain kinda of meaning? I think that the kinds of punctuation we use when texting can convey intent, change meaning, and tell a lot about how you speak with people. This, however, can be misleading, especially if the person does not know you.

Some of them are, but others I guess depend on age, culture, intent, etc.

TL;DR - Learning about history at school is important for a better perception of the past and the present. History can teach us many things about who we are and help us more deeply understand the complexities of the past as a valuable tool for changing the world.

History as a school subject may be tedious to many students at schools around the world, but when the focus widens to include not only major historical events but also individual stories of suffering and achievement, history can be very inspiring in urging students to think about the past. This, in turn, promotes better understanding of who people are and what societies they live in. According to Peter N. Stearns, history 'offers the only extensive evidential base for the contemplation and analysis of how societies function, and people need to have some sense of how societies function simply to run their own lives'.

History also helps illuminate (in many cases, at least) past mistakes and false practices. Learning about these can help students better perceive events and people of the past, as well as re-configure their own identities when they are called to critically evaluate history. By exposing themselves to historical information, students will 'be able to reflect on the events that built up to them [mistakes], learn from mistakes made and resist and question if we see similar patterns emerging' ('Nord Anglia Education'). History offers plenty of examples, and students grow as people when critically analyse assess historical people and events.

Works Cited

Stearns, Peter N., 'Why Study History? (1998) https://www.historians.org/about-aha-and-membership/aha-history-and-archives/historical-archives/why-study-history-(1998) [accessed 2 March 2021].

'Why is it Important to Study History?' (2020) https://www.nordangliaeducation.com/article/2020/4/29/why-is-it-important-to-study-history [accessed 2 March 2021].

TL;DR - Fairy tales affect young minds in a negative way because they are promote unhealthy relationship expectations, especially when it comes to the role of women.

While it is undeniable that fairy tales help boost creativity and imagination in children, they are also dangerous when it comes to the beliefs they unconsciously help build, such as marriage as an endgame. We always associate fairy tale endings with the happily-ever-after, but what traditional fairy tale actually tells the story of what happens after the young prince marries the female protagonist?

Indeed, fairy tales convey unrealistic relationship expectations. As Vanessa Loder says, 'If everyone is living happily once they find their prince, what does that tell young women about how their relationships "should" be?'. These are concerns that make fairy tales as they are problematic. For women in the fairy tales, 'marriage is the ultimate reward', as Olivia Petter rightly observes. Snow White and Cinderella are only two examples of women who married their prince.

Fairy tales are also problematic when it comes to representing the role of women. Lauren Suval argues that fairy tales construct the “woman-needing-to-be-saved” fantasy, which of course ties with the marriage as a woman's goal. In fairy tales, we find a certain pattern of representing womanhood that focuses on the woman's relationship to the prince rather than her own self. Even Mulan, who unconventionally assumed a man's identity to go to war in the place of her father, gets married by the end of the narrative.

This calls for a need to rewrite many of the fairy tale narratives to make them more positively impactful for young minds.

Works Cited

Loder, Vanessa, 'Why Fairy Tales Are Bad For Our Kids' (2015) https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-fairy-tales-are-bad-for-our-kids_b_6736634 [accessed 2 March 2021].

Petter, Olivia, 'Five Reasons to Stop Reading your Children Fairy Tales Now' (2018) https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/fairy-tales-children-stop-reading-parents-body-image-gender-roles-women-girls-sexism-a8067641.html [accessed 2 March 2021].

Suval, Lauren, 'Pros and Cons of Exposing Kids to Fairytales' (2014) https://psychcentral.com/blog/pros-and-cons-of-exposing-kids-to-fairytales#1 [accessed 2 March 2021].

Instead of marking 'breasts' as directed to something that can potentially be sexualised and therefore tabooed, society should be directing the attention towards diffusing this stereotype. Renaming breast milk as human milk is an exercise in futility and feels like people are missing the point.

I think that the UK should indeed give Shamima the opportunity to be answerable for her actions here, as her case should be more closely investigated. However, I understand why people are cautious, and Shamima's timing and stance have not helped in this situation. I think people are afraid and try to be protective of their own because of her terrible and despicable past and I don't blame them since this can also create a dangerous precedent.

I agree, I believe it is too soon to allow for large gatherings of people crowded in one place, and festivals are dangerous in our Covid times. We are still on lockdown mode, and the fact that the government wants to reopen everything gradually does not mean that we will be ready for normality during the summer. Such a step can create a backlash and cause yet another heavy lockdown, which I am sure people and businesses are tired and frustrated with. I believe that patience and caution are needed, and if festivals are to be allowed, it should be with limited attendance and the appropriate distance and protection measures in place to allow the events to function safely for everyone.

TL;DR - In my view, classical music is not necessarily the best music for studying, although it definitely helps with concentration and boosts productivity in many studying situations. I believe there are different kinds of music that are suitable for different kinds of studying.

Studies have shown that classical music surely enhances brain power during studying. As Claudia Hammond writes in a BBC article, the idea of scientific phenomena like 'the Mozart effect' is all about improving intelligence. The term 'was coined in 1991, but it is a study described two years later in the journal Nature that sparked real media and public interest about the idea that listening to classical music somehow improves the brain'. Classical music definitely helps concentration on the task, but there are other kinds of music that also serve the purpose.

A lot of the influence has to do with the task and the preference. Laura Bridgestock argues that, according to psychologist Francis Rauscher (who is largely responsible for subsequent research on the 'Mozart effect'), 'the most effective music will vary depending on the person. In short: “If you hate Mozart you're not going to find a Mozart Effect. If you love Pearl Jam, you're going to find a Pearl Jam effect'. This means that the effect of music on studying also depends on the person's tastes and preferences. Also, as blogger Aliya says as quoted by Bridgestock, '[m]atch the tempo to the task', meaning that different tasks invite different kinds of music.

Works Cited

Bridgestock, Laura, 'What’s The Best Music For Studying?' (2021) https://www.topuniversities.com/blog/whats-best-music-studying [accessed 24 February 2021].

Hammond, Claudia, 'Does listening to Mozart really boost your brainpower?' (2013) https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20130107-can-mozart-boost-brainpower [accessed 24 February 2021].

I love listening to nature sounds, but most times they make me feel too relaxed, maybe even sleepy at times. Do you think this is the best mood for studying? Sounds that are too calm and relaxing may have the opposite effect than desired, and many people prefer something a little more upbeat (though definitely not with lyrics) to accompany their studying with. For other people nature sounds may work, so I guess what works depends on the person.

TL; DR - I think that it is more complex than this. On the one hand, true crime documentaries are unethical because they may mitigate the crime when seen as entertainment, but on the other they are more informative and affective as to how we perceive crime and social justice in these cases.

True crime as spectacle has existed since the time of public executions and subsequent representations of such influences in Victorian fiction, but it is also a spectacle today, which may make people lose perspective of the horror the crimes should evoke. As Alice Bolin says, '[p]eople love true stories about murder and other brands of brutality and grift, and they have gorged on them particularly since the beginning of modern journalism'. In the context of being streamed by media like Netflix, true crime documentaries are for many a strange mix of entertainment and horror, which may shift attention from awareness.

On the other hand, these documentaries may raise awareness as to the context of these crimes, as well as illuminate aspects that may change the way we view what has happened and the social justice response to the crimes. For example, Tanya Horeck argues that shows like 'the Netflix long-form series Making a Murderer and The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann' actually 'position listeners and viewers as citizen-detectives and profess to involve us in the civic minded processes of social justice', although this, as Horeck says, should be indulged in cautiously. Indeed, true crime documentaries may open spaces for exploring new levels of empathy and awareness.

These are two sides of the same coin, and watching true crime documentaries should be with reference to the dangers of watching crime as entertainment.

Works Cited

Bolin, Alice, 'The Ethical Dilemma of Highbrow True Crime' (2018) https://www.vulture.com/2018/08/true-crime-ethics.html [accessed 25 February 2021].

Horeck, Tanya, 'True crime: it’s time to start questioning the ethics of tuning in' (2019) https://theconversation.com/true-crime-its-time-to-start-questioning-the-ethics-of-tuning-in-125324 [accessed 25 February 2021].

TL;DR - Winter is actually the best season of the year because it is the season for cosiness and Christmas.

For me, while seasons like spring and summer have the warm weather, winter is best for the magic of the snow and the cosiness of the whole atmosphere. Winter is the season of snuggling, hot chocolate, and comfortable lazy Sundays wearing warm clothes that make you feel extra cosy because of the cold weather outside.

Christmas is a huge bonus. It is not called 'the most wonderful time of the year' for no reason, as it is a time of family gatherings, food, and a whole variety of traditions. Winter brings happy memories because of these traditions. As Madeline Diamond says, '[w]hether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, or none of the above, winter is the perfect time to gather together with family and celebrate the season'. Winter has something in for everyone.

Have I mentioned the hot chocolate? It is one of the main reasons winter is the best season of the year. As Roxii Hoare-Smith correctly observes, '[i]sn’t this an obvious reason?'.

Works Cited

Diamond, Madeline, '24 reasons why we're obsessed with winter — and why you should be too' (2017) https://www.insider.com/why-winter-is-best-season-2017-12 [accessed 24 February 2021].

Hoare-Smith, Roxii, '16 reasons winter is the best season of the year' (2016) https://metro.co.uk/2016/12/19/16-reasons-winter-is-the-best-season-of-the-year-6320809/ [accessed 24 February 2021].

TL;DR - While nostalgia can actually be a good thing as a coping mechanism, it can be very harmful too. There is always the danger of losing track of reality while romanticising the past.

Indeed, past memories that someone may feel nostalgic about are, as Mandi Moon says, 'selectively chosen and further tinged and modified by your own brain to seem far better than they truly were'. It is very dangerous to move from sweetly reminiscing past experiences to obsessively sticking to the past and not moving on to the present and future.

While nostalgia can make us cherish moments of the past and even escape the anxiety and depression of the present, Robert Yaniz Jr. notices that 'romanticizing the past' can come 'at the expense of the present'. There are times when immersion to nostalgia is so consistent and overpowering that the person loses focus on what is happening in the present and therefore losing the chance to make new memories and experience new situations.

These reasons are among some that can render nostalgia dangerous, especially when susceptibility is involved. Indulging our nostalgia is healthy but should not be overstepped.

Works Cited

Moon, Mandi, 'HINDSIGHT ISN'T ALWAYS 20/20: THE DARK SIDE OF NOSTALGIA' (2015) https://reporter.rit.edu/views/hindsight-isnt-always-2020-dark-side-nostalgia [accessed 24 February 2021].

Yaniz Jr., Robert, 'Is There a Dark Side to Nostalgia?' (2018) https://www.rewire.org/dark-side-nostalgia/ [accessed 24 February 2021].

TL;DR - Language is constantly evolving and is directly related to its use in social contexts, so slang should not be banned from the classroom as it is part of everyday language that students use.

According to Paige Neal-Holder writing for the BBC, there are schools which urge students to 'ditch slang words in lessons in order to teach them how to use formal English'. More than that, Neal-Holder says that 'some schools have even introduced anti-slang posters and stickers, grammar police badges and word jails, where slang is written on posters with jail images', wanting to show that it is a violation against the correct use of language to use slang. Actually, banning slang is against the correct evolution of language and respect to its many elements and uses by different people.

In fact, slang should be encouraged as an integral part of the effort to communicate. According to a 'The Conversation' article, 'banning slang in schools is a short-sighted and inefficient way of trying to produce young people who are confident and adaptable communicators'. Slang shows adaptability, creativity, and a sense of community among the generation of its users.

Standardisation should cease to exist, and this is the case with language. As it is possible to have an infinite variety of ways to pronounce words in English, so should slang be respected as a part of the language and accepted in classrooms. Rhea Gupta observes this when she says that '[e]ach person's idiolect is very personal- no two people will speak the same way. Restricing [sic] one's freedom to speak naturally would feel suppressing- especially to young children who are still developing and finding themselves'. Language is a powerful communication tool and shows a lot about identity and culture.

Works Cited

Gupta, Rhea, 'Should Slang in School be Banned?' (2015) https://www.newsshopper.co.uk/youngreporter/12901643.young-reporter-should-slang-in-school-be-banned/ [accessed 23 February 2021].

Neal-Holder, Paige, 'Should schools be allowed to ban slang words like 'peng'?' (2020) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-51064279 [accessed 23 February 2021].

'Slang shouldn’t be banned … it should be celebrated, innit' (2016) https://theconversation.com/slang-shouldnt-be-banned-it-should-be-celebrated-innit-58672 [accessed 23 February 2021].

I wouldn't equate slang with swear words. Offensive language can be formal too. Differentiating between 'slang' and 'formal' is actually what the problem is as we tend to think about standardised versions of English as superior to other versions of speaking a language. The opinion refers to 'slang' as not to be banned from schools and does not in any way exclude 'formal' language from being learned too.

TL;DR - Genetically modified organisms should be banned, because artificially engineered food can cause health problems and benefit the big companies over small businesses.

There are many reasons why people have developed the technology to modify their food, some of which are speed of production, durability, nutrition, and sales. However, there is evidence that GMOs may be a risk to public health, as there is the 'potential to 'provoke allergic reactions (“allergenicity”)' as well as 'outcrossing', which is the unintended release and mixing (...) of genes from GM plants into non-GM crops or wild plants'. ('debating Europe'). Tampering with nature in this way can cause unexpected damaging of natural products and cause allergies unaccounted for in the present or in the future.

While there is scientific and financial reasoning behind GMOs, the 'purpose' of GMOs has not been fulfilled. Bill Christison, president of the US National Family Farm Coalition, says that '[t]he promise was that you could use less chemicals and produce a greater yield. But let me tell you none of this is true'.

Instead, there is a huge role of 'multinational corporations in agriculture and GM-related research', Rachel A. Ankeny argues, which pressure farmers. One enormous disadvantage of GMOs is that they benefit 'big business over small farmers' ('debating Europe'). We should support small businesses that provide naturally grown food to the industry.

Works Cited

Ankeny, Rachel A., 'To ban or not to ban genetically modified crops? That's not the question' (2019) https://phys.org/news/2019-08-genetically-crops.html [accessed 23 February 2021].

Christison Bill, in '10 Reasons Why We Don't Need GM Foods' https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/10-reasons-why-we-dont-need-gm-foods [accessed 23 February 2021].

'Should GMOs be banned across Europe?' (2019) https://www.debatingeurope.eu/2019/09/06/gmos-banned-across-europe/#.YDTE3Gj7RPY [accessed 23 February 2021].

Great point! Also, reading classics can help us understand what constitute the literatures (plural) throughout history, as well as the way they have evolved. It can also help us understand what we has been omitted from the canon and how we can correct this in the future.

Such an interesting argument and so illuminating as to what braaing really is, I had no idea! I particularly liked the fact that braaing is part of a celebration that brings friends and family together. And I guess that the meat tastes better this way too!

TL;DR - E-cigarettes can have a positive impact in the life of a regular smoker when used with the aim of quitting smoking.

There are some preconceived notions about e-cigarettes, and one of these is that e-cigarettes do more harm than good in creating a culture of addiction due to nicotine. In fact, Martin Dockrell refers to a government review (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/e-cigarettes-and-heated-tobacco-products-evidence-review) that shows 'nicotine actually carries minimal risk of harm to health'. According to the review, 'it is the thousands of other chemicals contained in cigarette smoke that causes almost all of the harm', and not nicotine per se.

Therefore, although e-cigarettes contain nicotine, it is cigarettes that are more harmful. Switching to e-cigarettes can help minimise the risk of health problems that are related to the cigarette's harmful elements. It can also give the illusion of smoking without some of the higher risks of smoking, so for someone who is trying to quit, e-cigarettes offer a more viable solution than patches, etc..

I believe it is extremely tough to quit smoking, but e-cigarettes, 'when combined with expert face-to-face support', can help stop smoking addiction by giving you a 'smoking' experience while also helping you 'manage your nicotine cravings' (NHS). You can also control the nicotine levels in your e-cigarette, which also provides a helping hand for non-smoking.

According to NHS, a 'major UK clinical trial published in 2019' discovered that 'people who used e-cigarettes to quit smoking were twice as likely to succeed as people who used other nicotine replacement products'. I therefore conclude that e-cigarettes can do some good for people who want to stop smoking.

Works Cited

'E-cigarettes and heated tobacco products: evidence review' (2018) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/e-cigarettes-and-heated-tobacco-products-evidence-review [accessed 17 February 2021].

'Using e-cigarettes to stop smoking' (2019) https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/quit-smoking/using-e-cigarettes-to-stop-smoking/ [accessed 17 February 2021].

Dockrell, Martin, 'Clearing up some myths around e-cigarettes' (2018) https://publichealthmatters.blog.gov.uk/2018/02/20/clearing-up-some-myths-around-e-cigarettes/ [accessed 17 February 2021].

I am glad you enjoyed the argument, Lee-Ann! The truth is that sometimes, as you very correctly say, a bad habit something will always have to be replaced by something, so it is better if this something targets the problem more directly and include other support as well (psychological, medical, etc.). Thank you for your comment!

TL;DR - I agree with the fact that there is over-commercialisation when it comes to holidays, and I personally hate it when we are bombarded with products that make us forget what we celebrate in each occasion. However, I also believe that this commercialisation has a silver lining in that is has created certain holiday traditions we all enjoy.

I am going to focus on my favourite time of year, Christmas. While most people have a preconceived idea of how Santa looks like (the Coca Cola guy with the cute outfit) as well as a hazy notion of what we celebrate at Christmas, there are things that we do during that time that have shaped the holiday in a warm and inviting way.

A great example is the Christmas tree and the accompanying decorations, whose commercialization goes back to the Victorian times. As Nicole D'Angelo argues, 'the popularity of Christmas trees can be traced back to an image in Godey’s Lady’s Book, the most widely-read magazine at the time, of Queen Victoria and her family gathered around one'. In the US, the first Christmas tree, Shawn Hessinger writes, appeared in 1747. This, together with all the food that is marketed at Christmas, warms up the holiday and boosts the Christmas atmosphere.

We have no idea what the holidays would be like without commercialisation, and I imagine that we would be better off without some of the frivolities of over-commercialisation. But this has shaped the holidays as we know them to a great extent, and I cannot imagine spending Christmas without the tree, the food, and my all-time-favourite Home Alone movies.

Works Cited

D'Angelo, Nicole, 'How Holiday Marketing Built the Holidays: The Story of Our Commercial Christmas' (2017) https://www.skyword.com/contentstandard/how-holiday-marketing-built-the-holidays-the-story-of-our-commercial-christmas/ [accessed 17 February 2021].

Hessinger, Shawn, 'How Did Christmas Become Commercialized?' (2015) https://smallbiztrends.com/2015/12/christmas-become-commercialized.html [accessed 17 February 2021].

Actually, I've had trouble cutting pizza using pizza cutters, mainly because the crust is sometimes too thick for the cutter to be rolling through the pizza smoothly and effortlessly. I have found (weirdly enough) that kitchen shears (like scissors) are the best way to cut a pizza.

I recently read an article in Kitchn that suggested using kitchen shears to cut a pizza, and I have tried it at home and it actually works. According to the article, this way is totally easy and clean, leaving all the ingredients in their place.

I usually am too hungry to use any kind of utensil to cut pizza (I use my bare hands most of the time), but kitchen shears have proven an unexpected but viable solution to cutting pizza on the first go.

Works Cited

Foster, Kelli, 'The Simplest Way to Cut Your Pizza' (2015) https://www.thekitchn.com/the-simplest-way-to-cut-your-pizza-221302 [accessed 17 February 2021].

TL;DR - Despite being a natural 'attraction' and fun experience for children and adults, zoos are prisons for animals and violate animal rights. Therefore, zoos should be banned.

An article on National Geographic quotes director of international programmes at PETA Mimi Bekhechi, who says that '[a]nimals in zoos suffer tremendously, both physically and mentally. They often display neurotic behaviour, like repetitive pacing, swaying, and bar biting', which is a direct violation of animal rights in the name of conservation claims.

Animals are deprived of their freedom and natural environment in zoos due to being away from their natural habitat and confined to a space much more limited to what they would enjoy if they were free. James Nolan observes that 'the average lion or tiger has 18,000 times less space in captivity than it does in the wild; polar bears a million times less space', which is why animals exhibit problems in health and behaviour.

Conservation issues should not be directed to creating more 'comfortable' zoos for animals. Rather, zoos should be banned and conservation should turn towards protecting and preserving the natural environment of animals so that they can live healthy lives. Zoos are the animal's prison, however ornate, beautiful and 'open' the cages may seem to the zoo's visitors.

We have to be more sensitive towards animals. Alison Benjamin and Toby Moses from The Guardian invite us to think about this:

Even with those that look as though they might be having fun – the monkeys and penguins – just think how much more exciting it would be to see them swinging in the jungle, rather than in a cage, or hunting on the ice caps instead of being thrown fish at feeding time.

Animals should be free and zoos should be prohibited for acting against animal rights.

Works Cited

Benjamin Alison and Toby Moses, 'Should zoos be banned?' (2016) https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/01/should-zoos-be-banned-head-to-head [accessed 16 February 2021].

Draven, James, 'Hot topic: Is it time for zoos to be banned?' (2019) https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/travel/2017/05/hot-topic-it-time-zoos-be-banned [accessed 16 February 2021].

Nolan, James, 'All the Reasons Why Zoos Should Be Banned' (2015) https://www.vice.com/en/article/gqmvzx/why-we-should-close-all-zoos-778 [accessed 16 February 2021].

TL:DR - I think that many people confuse 'patriotism' with 'nationalism', and this is one of the most troubling problems today. Patriotism is related to the concept of devotion rather than precarious notions of superiority over other nations, so patriotism can be beneficial.

According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, patriotism comes from the Greek word for 'father', and while it precedes the idea of 'nationalism', it has always been confused with nationalism, which has negative connotations of aggressive militarism, superiority, and power.

Patriotism is defined by the Webster dictionary as 'love for or devotion to one’s country', and not the 'nation', which is the definition of nationalism. Patriotism means being proud of one's country (history, culture, people, tradition, etc.), which I believe can boost the sense of community and belonging, something that is severely lacking these days.

The fact that you are proud of your country does not mean that you automatically think other countries are inferior. It means that you feel the idea of country and home, and an inherent desire to be a devoted citizen and be there for the good of the country.

As Nikhil Sanjay Bhalekar says, patriotism 'is not about blindly following the beliefs and cultural values of the country', but be there for one's country. The idea of Brexit, for example, is not something that relies on the idea of 'patriotism', but the superiority of one's own nation over others and the need to assume more power.

Works Cited

'The Difference Between "Patriotism" and "Nationalism"', in Merriam-Webster Dictionary https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/patriotism-vs-nationalism [accessed 16 February 2021].

Bhalekar, Nikhil Sanjay, 'Why is it important to be patriotic to your own country?' (2016) https://www.quora.com/Why-is-it-important-to-be-patriotic-to-your-own-country [accessed 16 February 2021].

You are completely right, Anna! I am currently watching what is happening in Greece right now with the law suits against famous male actor who have been abusing fellow actors for ages. The change needs to be collective, and I am so happy that I see so many female and male actors come forward and speak about such inequalities and cases of verbal, physical and sexual violence. However, the problem starts with education, and people should be better educated as to the equality of everyone in the workplace and everywhere.

TL;DR - Everyone should learn a foreign language, because learning a foreign language (which could be any language of one's choice) means better opportunities for personal and professional advancement in a globalised world.

Rather than being just another part of your list of skills, learning a foreign language is vastly important because it increases the chances of communication with people who speak the language and enables one to better understand other people and other cultures. For example, Liz Reisberg claims that learning Spanish has helped her communicate with Spanish people and understand the way someone who is non-native learns a language and tries to fit in a second-language environment.

Personally, learning English as a second language has helped me travel more comfortably and even study and find a job abroad. However, even people whose mother tongue is English should aim to learn at least one foreign language for the reasons already mentioned. According to Richard Adams in The Guardian, a 'survey showed just 32% of young Britons can read or write in more than one language'.

There are also studies about the way learning a foreign language helps the development of your brain. As Kendall Dick observes, '[n]ot only do these advantages make it easier to learn yet more languages, they also make it easier to learn, well, anything. The ability to quickly switch between tasks is especially important in today’s busy multitasking world'. Learning a foreign language helps open up paths for personal and professional development.

Works Cited

Adams, Richard, 'Learning foreign languages should be compulsory, says report' (2020) https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/jan/09/learning-foreign-languages-should-be-compulsory-says-report [accessed 16 February 2021].

Dick, Kendall, 'Why is it Important to Learn a Foreign Language?' (2020) https://www.goabroad.com/articles/language-study-abroad/why-is-it-important-to-learn-a-foreign-language [accessed 16 February 2021].

Reisberg, Liz, 'Foreign Language Study Should Be Mandatory!' (2017) https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/world-view/foreign-language-study-should-be-mandatory [accessed 16 February 2021].

I strongly and completely disagree. Just because someone is caught up in difficult situations and confused as to what they want does not mean they are the worst. We are talking about a guy that is romantic, yes, but also makes stupid decisions when it comes to women. And also, just because he could not admit that he loved being single does not mean that he is a bad guy. He is confused about what he wants, but through all this and through all his mistakes with women, etc., there is one thing that Ted is, inherently nice. When it comes to friendship, he is the best friend in the show and he is always willing to sacrifice things for his friends even though he may be hurt by their decisions. He is not selfish and he always supports everyone.

As a fellow coffee lover, I completely agree! Great argument!

Interesting point! Why do you think this should be the case?

TL;DR - To all the chocolate lovers out there, I say that vanilla is so much better because it is a classic flavour in so many forms and can be combined with many other ingredients.

Vanilla is a simple yet delicious flavour in desserts like ice cream and cake that provides a better taste than the sweeter and more intense chocolate flavour. Chocolate has become the synonym of sweetness, yet vanilla is what so many people secretly prefer in sweets like ice cream, bakes like cookies, and even as a basic fragrance in body products, as Queen affirms.

Another interesting fact is that vanilla actually enhances the taste of chocolate. As Queen says, 'back in the 15th century, the Totonac Indians of the East Coast of Mexico, founders and keepers of vanilla, used ground vanilla beans to flavour “Chocolatl”, a drink made from water, ground roasted cocoa beans and honey'. Vanilla is so dynamic and stimulating that it brings forward flavours like chocolate and many more, making it a powerful ingredient and a favourite choice.

Vanilla is simple and light, which is one of the reason it is sometimes preferred to the many times overshadowing taste of chocolate. According to Jessie Blaeser, 'vanilla' is the perfect base for an ice cream sundae, where rivers of hot fudge, mountains of cookie crumbles, and a touch of sprinkles improve overall flavor, rather than overpower it'. Vanilla is a favourite ingredient because it can be combined with so many things and enhance their flavour. It takes the taste and the smell to another level.

Last but not least, vanilla-based food is something you can eat at all times. As Allison Shuster observes,

a vanilla latte is an essential part of many people’s morning routines. At lunch, a vanilla yogurt parfait is a healthy dose of calcium and digestive-aiding bacteria. And at dinner time, people can enjoy ice cream, cake, and pretty much any other dessert in the flavor of vanilla.

Personally, I believe chocolate is more intense and difficult to combine with other kinds of food. Also, I believe that chocolate can make a dessert too sweet. I choose vanilla all the way, and vanilla cake is one of my favourite things to eat at all times of day.

Works Cited

Blaeser, Jessie, 'Which is more delicious: chocolate or vanilla ice cream?' (2020) https://thetylt.com/culture/chocolate-or-vanilla-ice-cream [accessed 12 February 2021].

Schuster, Allison, 'Vanilla takes the cake: Vanilla flavoring is better, more versatile than chocolate' (2020) http://hillsdalecollegian.com/2020/04/54251/ [accessed 12 February 2021].

'Why Vanilla is Way Better than Chocolate' https://queen.com.au/why-vanilla-is-way-better-than-chocolate/ [accessed 12 February 2021].

Good argument. However, my argument does not rely on the fact that vanilla is an enhancement, there are so many reasons I mention that vanilla is better as a flavour on its own and nothing compared to the example of flour, which I think cannot be applied to this argument. As far as surveys are concerned, there are numerous surveys that show vanilla is the best ice cream flavour in the UK for example. Please see this: https://m.foodingredientsfirst.com/news/vanilla-queen-of-flavors-tops-best-selling-ice-cream-flavor-list-in-uk-survey.html

Could 'being proud of one's country' have anything to do with the history of the country and the country's long-term impact on world history, culture, progress, perhaps?

TL:DR - I believe students should be involved in the curriculum design process because this will give them more control over their own education.

Actively engaging students in creating their own syllabus can have a positive impact on how motivated they feel towards the learning process. A study conducted on a group of medical students at the University of Ioannina in Greece has concluded that 'the first key factor to optimize the students’ performance and their learning experience is the personalized curriculum, which seems to have been warmly welcomed by the majority of students, as the best way to correspond to the needs, interests and abilities of all students'.

A curriculum actively determined by students, whether at school or at the university, can help stimulate the interests and inclinations of the students, who will feel more fulfilled and productive attending a class that they actually care about. Plus, this is a way for students to optimise their own learning and become more conscious of what they have to do if attending subjects of their choice.

Of course, this should be achieved in collaboration with the teachers, and the communication between teacher and student when it comes to the syllabus can help re-shape the way education is viewed and experienced by both. The reality of demotivated students will change, and a tailored syllabus can show that students are, in fact, 'totally absorbed in what they are doing, studying areas they have chosen which clearly matter to them' ('The Conversation').

Works Cited

Zaimis, Tilemachos, and others, 'Students design their own curriculum: An experiment to maintain students' enthusiasm', MedEdPublish, 1 (2016) https://www.mededpublish.org/manuscripts/666#:~:text=Studying%20with%20a%20personalized%20curriculum%20was%20welcomed.&text=It's%20important%20to%20give%20students,match%20with%20their%20teachers'%20enthusiasm. [accessed 11 February 2021].

'What if young people designed their own learning?' (2016) https://theconversation.com/what-if-young-people-designed-their-own-learning-59153 [accessed 11 February 2021].

I would say school (I believe this would work better from secondary school and after) and university. Children are smarter than we think, and letting them be part of the process may help them also discover areas they actually enjoy and want to pursue. Also, this may promote better thinking about what they want to be in the future.

Healthcare is one of the most basic human rights and should be provided by every nation for free. Keeping people healthy has so many benefits for society, because this is a basic way a society prospers and moves forward. Good health is the most important factor for the functionality and productivity of a person's life, and this is why it should be a top priority for the whole world.

Now with the pandemic situation more than ever, we understand how crucial health is for the proper function of society, as rendering healthcare a privilege precludes many people from receiving it and has a negative impact in so many aspects of human life, from the fulfilment of everyday needs to human relationships and work performance.

Making healthcare a product of hard work (only people who earn it get to receive healthcare) is going to have as much backlash as there are different kinds of living situations. Basic healthcare should be provided for everyone because it is related to the respect for human life. This will enable the easier contribution of individuals to the community.

TL;DR - The drinking age in the US should not be lowered to 18 because drinking at that age can have serious consequences. Generally, 18-year-old adults have not yet acquired sufficient knowledge of adult life to be able to prevent over-drinking, car accidents, unwanted pregnancies, and so much more.

The main reason why 18-year-old young adults should not be drinking is their lack of awareness at this age of what this may cause to their lives and to others. Drinking at 18 is allowed in Greece and so many other countries, and it has not led to less drinking at 18 or any other age. If anything, according to Matt Nagin, drinking at this age can cause risks like 'drunk driving, alcohol poisoning, and violent and/or destructive behaviour', unwanted pregnancies.

Professor Tara Watson refers to her research with Angela Fertig, which looked 'back at the 1980s, when many states moved from a minimum of 18 to 21': the study 'found that a lower drinking age was associated with a statistically higher risk of unintended pregnancy and, largely as a result, worse infant health'. Drinking blurs judgement, and most young adults like 18-year-old people are not in a position to control or become aware of over-drinking.

18 is not the age to make any big life decisions, because 18 is the age when most people are just starting to experience and find out who they are as adults. Drinking in the US should remain legal from the age of 21, and this should be adopted by other countries as well.

Works Cited

Nagin, Matt, 'Top 3 Reasons Why the Drinking Age Should Not Be Lowered to 18' (2012) https://www.mic.com/articles/14574/top-3-reasons-why-the-drinking-age-should-not-be-lowered-to-18#:~:text=Proponents%20of%20lowering%20the%20drinking,have%20become%20all%20too%20familiar.&text=The%20drinking%20age%20shouldn't,violent%20and%2For%20destructive%20behavior. [accessed 10 February 2021].

Watson, Tara, 'Lowering the Drinking Age Has Serious Consequences' (2015) <https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/02/10/you-must-be-21-to-drink/lowering-the-drinking-age-has-serious-consequences. [accessed 10 February 2021].

Good point, but I think that voting should not be allowed at 18 for the same reasons I think it is a bad idea for 18-year-old adults should not be allowed to drink.

Measured drinking in the UK borders on fantasy :P

TL;DR - For me, scuba diving is the best water sport, because the feeling of diving in the water makes you experience the best sense of freedom by exploring something different and feeling the awe of being underwater.

Scuba diving is the way to go if you like to have the sense of total immersion into a unique experience. Under the water you feel free, as 'diving is the closest thing to flying' (see 'Blue season Bali'). This experience of flying is enhanced when you share it with your friends and family who can come scuba diving with you.

By being under the water we see something different from when we are above. We can explore unique waterscapes full of diversity and color. Scuba diving allows us to see 'marine life and biodiversity' that includes wonderful 'coral reefs, flashy invertebrates, curious marine mammals and an unbelievable array of colorful fish' (see 'AquaWorld').

If you are an adventurous person who wants to see and feel something unique, scuba diving offers the ultimate water immersion into a world completely different to our own. Under the water you feel exhilaration and you lose track of time as you come in contact with the fascinating world of sea life. It makes you feel closer to nature and at one with the waters you explore.

Works Cited

'5 Reasons Why We Love Scuba Diving' https://www.baliocean.com/blog/5-reasons-why-we-love-scuba-diving/#:~:text=Scuba%20diving%20allows%20you%20to,and%20flying%20into%20the%20blue [accessed 10 February 2021].

'7 reasons why being a scuba diver is the best thing ever' (2016) https://aquaworld.com.mx/en/blog/7-reasons-why-being-a-scuba-diver-is-the-best-thing-ever [accessed 10 February 2021].

TL;DR - I disagree with this opinion. I believe that the best stress relief is the communication with your human loved ones because the connection you have with them cannot be established to the same extent between you and an animal.

According to Hal Herzog, people seem to care more about animals (primarily their own, but also specific animal categories) than they care about humans. I believe this has largely to do with the disillusionment many people experience because of humans and the bad relationships that often add more stress than calmness.

Based on 'a survey by the American Animal Hospital Association', Herzog writes, '40 percent of married female dog owners reported they received more emotional support from their pet than from their husband or their kids'. I think it is because of dysfunctional relationships that we even compare the two.

I really love the fact that we have become much more sensitive towards establishing a relationship with animals. However, there is no way that the connection with family and friends can be compared to the connection with an animal.

Humans are social creatures and their interaction is primarily based on shared species, language, shared experiences and goals. In terms of deep and healthy relationships, I believe family and / or friends to be the best stress relief.

Works Cited

Herzog, Hal, 'Why People Care More About Pets Than Other Humans' (2015) https://www.wired.com/2015/04/people-care-pets-humans/ [accessed 9 February 2021].

TL;DR Greater Surveillance does not benefit society because it actually limits the sense of control individually and collectively instead of increasing control over what is happening in the world.

In my view, having a sense of control is extremely important for the harmonious function of people's lives and society. Being watched constantly may benefit the fight towards crime, but it also invades our most intimate and private moments / information.

It is scary how much this loss of control over own personal data has infiltrated our lives, so much so that we don't really feel violated. According to Jonathan Shaw (Harvard magazine), 'everyday threats to privacy are so commonplace that most people are numb to them', as we even 'allow companies such as Google to scan the content of their digital messages in order to deliver targeted ads'.

Indeed, according to political theorist Antonio Gramsci writing after being imprisoned by Benito Mussolini in the 20th century, this form of hegemony makes sure that 'force will appear to be based on the consent of the majority, expressed by the so-called organs of public opinion' (p. 248). Consent and the illusion of freedom is a prerequisite for the existence of surveillance and control.

Greater surveillance means being deprived of control over what we do and what we are exposed to. It means that we are not really free, but we just think that we are free, in a dystopia far worse than the world of George Orwell's 1984.

Works Cited

Gramsci, Antonio, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, ed. and trans. by Quentin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith (London: ElecBook, 1999)

Shaw, Jonathan, 'The Watchers' (2017) https://harvardmagazine.com/2017/01/the-watchers [accessed 9 February 2021].

Suggestions: Orwell, George, 1984 (New York: Harcourt, 1949)

I think that some people have certain fixed opinions that they stick to no matter what, and they don't allow room for discussion and listening to other views and opinions. I recently witnessed such a cancellation between two of my friends, and one of them was even surprised that we even discussed a topic that she thought did not allow room for dialogue. Listening and discussing are really important in productively resolving / effecting change in important aspects of society. Polarisation comes from exactly this inability to listen and communicate.

I agree, the term 'soulmates' does not necessarily mean that you only have one chance at finding someone compatible with you. I believe in the idea of a 'soulmate' and an intimate connection with another human being, and I am speaking from personal experience. Also, the idea of a soulmate gives people hope that there is the possibility of deeply connecting with another and sharing thoughts, ideas and experiences. Believing in soulmates does not mean you are a gooey romantic, and it certainly does not mean that a relationship has to be perfect. The whole idea of soulmates means accepting the other's graces and flaws at the same time.

I am mixed about this topic as well. On the one hand, it is true that working from home has opened up job opportunities in different places of the country and the world, giving people the chance to get a job and be part of a team from the comfort of their own home. It is also great that working from home provides comfort and decreases stress for some people who feel more productive in this setting.

However, I know many people who find working from home negatively affects their mental and physical health because they do not get out of the house and do not socialise as much as they did pre-Covid. I think that there should be a balance between working from home and working outside the house to cater for different needs and increase productivity at work.

TL;DR - While I am all in for a more plant-based diet, I believe that meat and dairy products should not be excluded from any diet for health reasons. A meat-free diet contains risks that can's be easily avoided.

First of all, meat is a primary source of nutrients like protein, vitamin B12, and iron, among others. Supplementing all these in a meat-free diet is certainly not easy and not as effective as when meat is included in a person's diet.

According to a Harvard Medical School article (see 'Becoming a vegetarian'), there are ways around eating meat, but I believe it is much harder. For example, the lack of Vitamin B12 can lead to 'neurological problems and pernicious anemia', and sources of B12 are more difficult to find (soy and rice), while supplements for all these nutrients mean a much more expensive lifestyle. Iron in meat is also much more easily absorbed, according to the article.

In my view, it is good that vegetarians and vegans have many more options now than they had a few decades ago, but there are still health problems that can be caused by a meat-free diet in the long term. Oxford University Research has shown that 'vegetarians and vegans have a 20 per cent higher risk of stroke than those who regularly tuck into a plate of bacon and sausages. The authors of the study, which tracked almost 50,000 Britons for 18 years, said this might be because vegies did not have enough cholesterol in their blood'. While plant-based eating can lead to a healthier lifestyle for many reasons, eating moderate amounts of meat can help prevent serious health problems.

Additionally, Luke Mintz says that a study in Science Direct has shown vegetarians to be '18 percent more likely to suffer from depression, 28 percent more prone to anxiety attacks and disorders, and 15 percent more likely to have depressive moods', which means that a diet lacking in meat can cause mental health problems more easily. This is another reason why meat consumption is good for health reason.

For me, we have to eat food from different sources so that we can create a healthier diet, and this applies much more urgently for people with health problems who benefit from meat eating. Diets based solely on plants and plant-based products can have many benefits, but they can also lead to deficiencies that are hard to supplement and much more costly.

Works Cited

Hibbeln, Joseph R., and others, 'Vegetarian diets and depressive symptoms among men', Journal of Affective Disorders, 225 (2018), 13-17, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2017.07.051.

Mintz, Luke, 'Why going meat-free could damage your health' (2019) https://www.goodfood.com.au/good-health/why-going-meatfree-could-damage-your-health-20190909-h1hupr [accessed 5 February 2021].

'Becoming a vegetarian' (2010-20) https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/becoming-a-vegetarian [accessed 5 February 2021].

'Going Vegetarian? Be Aware of Some Possible Side Effects' https://lifesum.com/health-education/going-vegetarian-be-aware-of-some-possible-side-effects/#:~:text=According%20to%20a%20study%20on,likely%20to%20have%20depressive%20moods. [accessed 5 February 2021].

Thank you Lee Ann for your comment about your personal experience, it's so interesting to read about different eating habits, I have a friend who is a vegetarian and eats fish. It makes sense because of the nutritious quality of fish. It's also very important to note that many people do not eat meat because it doesn't taste good to them, so I am really glad that people have many options to explore in terms of food. Can you tell me the most popular sources of nutrients for you?

As a PhD student, I am in constant need of buying books, and I have always tried to buy books from independent bookshops, especially during the pandemic when many businesses have suffered. I really like supported independent bookshops, and it has happened to me that I have found treasures there that I simply could not find on Amazon. However, as Turi said, there are many times that I couldn't find the book I wanted, or if I did, I needed to wait a long time, and sometimes months, for a book due to delayed shipping. This, in turn, has made my research process much more difficult, and it's a problem I never had with Amazon, so for me Amazon sometimes is the easier choice not because I am unethical but because I really need to get my job done effectively and on time.

I agree with this opinion and I believe that people should have the free college option. However, there should be criteria for the option of free college, because there are ways that all-the-way free college can actually do more harm in some cases. For example, if colleges were free, I imagine that tax-paying would be the first thing to be affected by this, because it would fall on people as tax payers to make education entirely free. Taxes would have to be higher, and many people would not be able to cope, so this can definitely backfire.

It is very true that some colleges have taken paying for tuition too far and ask for astronomical amounts of money for education. This prevents people who cannot financially afford quality education to miss the opportunity for career development. I am definitely against excluding people from education, but rendering college entirely free can also prevent colleges from providing quality education too in terms of resources, organisation, staff, etc. An example of this would be fewer teachers and more students, which can cause huge problems for classes and the quality of teaching in colleges.

All in all, I believe that people should have the option of a free college, and there are indeed countries like Greece which offer free college education. In my view, a balance between free education and tuition-based education (regulated to fit the average standard, of course) can solve many such problems.

Sorry, but I vote for Hercules (1997) all the way!

Technology has definitely created a space where creativity can bloom. For me, it all depends on the way you use technology and the infinite possibilities that technology provides. We wouldn't even be able to have so many creative media without the existence of technology, which has been part of people's lives for centuries.

One case in point is art. The development and existence of art would not be possible without technology. Paintings would not have been possible, and nor would the design relieves of artists like the Romantic William Blake, whose 'etching the copperplates of his illuminated books' startle even today, and constitute a point of constant enquiry by 'museums and publishers' alike, as Robert N. Essick and Joseph Viscomi observe.

Another example is painters like the Impressionists, whose creativity was enabled by technology itself. As Randy Rieland wonders, 'Where would the Impressionists have been without the invention of portable paint tubes that enabled them to paint outdoors? Who would have heard of Andy Warhol without silkscreen printing?'. It is very true that technology has changed our lives and shaped everything about the world that we live in, including the way we express ourselves.

In a fundamental way, technology also enhances creativity by the way it opens up the doors of knowledge. Google and other search engines like Google have made possible our access to unlimited resources and sites where we can expose ourselves to an enormous spectrum of thoughts, ideas and media.

Matt Stefl and Andrew Rohm claim that the '[w]e would hate to think of where we would be' without the internet', meaning 'without the millions of smart people and organizations freely sharing their insights, ideas, and solutions with the world', even though we must be mindful of how we use what we have got. Indeed, so many people use the internet and discover parts of their identities by working more on different skills and competencies. According to James Ingram, everyone has the chance to 'hone' their skills and share them around through platforms like YouTube, among many other choices. As a consequence, technology has led to the development of so many jobs, scientific disciplines, academic progress, entrepreneurship, traveling, tourism, and so much more.

All these have definitely supplies spaces for creativity and innovation, and have given us tools to think in different ways and for different purposes. Technology has also reduced distance and time in terms of research and creative endeavours, enabling people to share their creativity with the whole world.

Works Cited

Ingram, James, 'Information and imagination: why technology isn’t killing creativity' (2018) https://www.raconteur.net/creativity-technology/ [accessed 29 January 2021].

Essick, Robert N. and Joseph Viscomi, 'An Inquiry into William Blake’s Method of Color Printing' (2002) http://bq.blakearchive.org/35.3.essick [accessed 28 January 2021].

Rieland, Randy, '7 Ways Technology is Changing How Art is Made' (2014) https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/7-ways-technology-is-changing-how-art-is-made-180952472/ [accessed 28 January 2021].

Stefl, Matt and Andrew Rohm, 'Is the Internet killing your creative potential? Lessons from the Art of Paper Airplane Making' (2017)https://gbr.pepperdine.edu/2017/04/is-the-internet-killing-your-creative-potential/ [accessed 29 January 2021].

It is actually a fact that puzzles, painting, chess, etc. are a form of technology, created through technology and requiring technology as media of entertainment/creativity. Technology is not necessarily only related to the Internet or gadgets, but encompasses so many things in our daily lives.

tl;dr

Eating breakfast is good for you because it sets your body on eating schedule, it gives you energy when you most need it, it provides you with the necessary nutrients, and also helps you lower the risk of diabetes.

Breakfast does not necessarily need to be consumed first thing in the morning, but it is a healthy way to nutritiously fill your body with energy that will help you function when most needed in the right way, without the unhealthy habit of going long hours without eating, or maybe overeating at a later hour just because you missed breakfast.

Assistant professor of nutrition sciences Courtney Peterson comments on a study about whether skipping breakfast affects your metabolism, and she says that, while the study may have shown weight loss for people who skipped breakfast, this is something that can backfire because of the increased ‘inflammation’ later in the day, and the potentially excessive eating later.

Breakfast helps set a healthier schedule and way of life. Indeed, compared to ‘people who don’t have breakfast, those who regularly eat breakfast tend to have a lower risk of both obesity and type 2 diabetes’ (Better Health Channel). For me, skipping meals does not cut it as a dietary habit and it is not a viable way to stay healthy.

Everything should be consumed in moderation, but there is also the matter of metabolism. As Dr. Peterson adds, ‘[y]our metabolism and blood sugar control are better in the morning than they are in the evening and at night, so it makes sense to eat more food earlier in the day’. Eating breakfast is a necessary’. Eating a healthy breakfast can stabilise your metabolism.

Works Cited

‘Here's What Skipping Breakfast Does to Your Body’ https://time.com/4786181/skipping-breakfast-health-benefits/ [accessed 01 February 2021].

‘Breakfast’ https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/healthyliving/breakfast#:~:text=Many%20studies%20have%20shown%20the,disease%20in%20the%20long%20term. [accessed 01 February 2021].

Intermittent fasting can cause serious damage to your eating habits, since it may lead to the danger of overindulgence during the times that you actually eat, which can cause weight gain and lead to obesity. Rather than not eating for long hours or eating too much, I prefer eating regularly normal amounts of food. Also, intermittent fasting can cause hair loss, anxiety, mental problems. For more on the dangers of intermittent fasting, you can see https://www.businessinsider.com/signs-intermittent-fasting-unsafe-unhealthy-2019-7?r=US&IR=T.

Great point, I also read that studies are unsure about whether breakfast itself was the cause for people's loss of weight. However, a healthy lifestyle does not necessarily mean loss of weight, and eating breakfast helps you gain structure in your day and sets a normal amount of food to be consumed without having to overindulge during lunch just because of hunger. Also, studies have shown that eating breakfast reduces anxiety and stress, so there is also this advantage, even if it means that breakfast itself is not wholly responsible for a person's weight loss.

We often forget the socio-historical context in which a historical figure lived, as well as the complexity of a person's faith, and we use today's scientific facts to explain certain kinds of behaviour. I believe this makes us lose the point and dismiss Joan of Arc's faith as hallucination or a severe medical condition.

TL;DR - While there are many women that sexualise their breasts and promote the objectification of their own bodies, I believe that they incorporate centuries of female objectification and sexualisation, which has been ingrained and promoted in the form of self-sexualisation. Self-sexualisation can also be a matter of choice.

The argument that women 'go for it' by sexualising their selves and therefore provoking sexualisation and reaction is one that many people use when they talk about who is at fault. In my view, while women do have a choice, the fact that many women choose to sexualise their bodies (breasts, for example) shows how deep-seated patriarchal sexualisation really is.

It actually goes way back and becomes fully established during the Victorian times, but the effects of centuries of sexualisation is what defines how women's bodies are viewed today. According to Laura Bates in The Guardian, this is a 'classic chicken-and-egg situation':

We raise them [women] in a society that bombards them with images of thin, blonde, long-legged, smooth-skinned, tanned, large-breasted women, and implies at every turn that a woman’s value lies primarily in her looks. Then we deride them for buying magazines that promise to teach them how to lose weight, smooth their skin and perfect their looks.

In reality, it is a vicious circle that projects man-made images of sexualised women, which then condition how women project themselves in the outside world. You know where it started, but now it has become a classic case of oppression vs. empowerment, two sides of the same coin.

Indeed, for many women, self-sexualisation can be a source of empowerment, which is what Amber L. Horan studied in relation to women posting sexualised photos on social media. In order to conduct the study, Horan recognised that a possible reason behind women's self-sexualisation on social media relates to having control over how they represent their own bodies, which is really important in discussions of the motives behind the projection of the sexualised body by the woman herself.

Nevertheless, we cannot really tell the source, and we should recognise that objectification is harmful in any case. According to Dax J. Kellie, objectification 'becomes especially harmful if women internalize these judgements and self-objectify, or consider themselves first as bodies over other personal characteristics', which takes a lot from the fact that there is so much more to being a woman.

Works Cited

Bates, Laura, '10 myths that blame women for sexism' (2014) https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/womens-blog/2014/aug/07/10-myths-that-blame-women-for-sexism [accessed 03 February 2021].

Dax J. Kellie, 'What drives female objectification? An investigation of appearance-based interpersonal perceptions and the objectification of women', PloS One, 14.8 (2019) <doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0221388> [accessed 03 February 2021].

Horan, Amber L., 'Picture This! Objectification Versus Empowerment
in Women's Photos on Social Media', BSU Honors Program Theses and Projects, 155 (2016), pp. 1-29 https://vc.bridgew.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1155&context=honors_proj&httpsredir=1&referer= [accessed 02 February 2021].

I think the problem is not with 'homework' per se, but maybe what we associate homework with, and this is the fault of the education system. What I mean is that homework, as Alban Woods very correctly says, provides a link between what you learn at school and real life, contextualising learning, but this does not have to do with the fact that we do our homework 'at home'. Currently, the education system conveys the wrong idea of the proper function of 'homework' and what it should do for the students.

For homework to be effective in learning, it has to be reconfigured and changed into something more hands-on and relatable, not just a series of exercises / mundane tasks that do not motivate the student and do not relate to their everyday experience.

Students should have homework, but they should have homework that reflects how they can actually place what they learn in real life, and this I think will motivate them better. In this form, homework will be more engaging and not considered a mandatory boring task you have to complete daily.

I think being 'stuck' in definitions of discrimination and laying out the science is not going to help here because it prevents us from seeing the bigger picture. What Sanjana refers to here is an example of reverse discrimination, which has a legitimate definition as a phenomenon.

When we talk about examples of discrimination like Sanjana's, it is important to keep in mind that it is not a matter of which discrimination is 'bigger', but the impact of such comments (based on sexual orientation) on a person's psychology/life is considered significant harm, regardless of whether it is not widespread. Sanjana did not minimise the impact of discrimination towards LGBTQ+, she just stated an example of discrimination from her personal experience, which is not an isolated phenomenon I should say because it has happened to people I also know.

Indeed, people tend to discriminate against people, and it can happen to anyone. But we should be careful not to underestimate any kind of discrimination, especially when discrimination can have the tendency to grow, just as we should recognise the different kinds and amounts of discrimination that exist and affect people's lives.

That's so true, Anna. Breastfeeding is supposedly allowed in public spaces in the UK (not all, as you very correctly point out), but it is still a taboo and a woman may feel uncomfortable doing this in public. For all the reasons you mentioned, breastfeeding should be allowed everywhere, and should not be considered sexually provoking.

Apart from necessary and nourishing to the baby, breastfeeding can help us understand that the breast holds other functions, and breastfeeding in public can help make people think differently. If breastfeeding becomes a sight we see everyday done by any woman who needs it, then I think awareness can be raised.

Also, I believe it encourages women who breastfeed to be part of society and feel more inclusive rather than being isolated at home all the time or hiding in spaces away from people in order to breastfeed. Breastfeeding is a necessary part of life and should be viewed as such.

I have to disagree with the meaning of the word 'replace' as 'distorted' in this case, which is true in many ways but it is not really black and white.

For example, social media may have changed the way we see the world and the way we interact, but it has also provided some with many new ways of socialisation, which they would find difficult in 'real' life. I personally believe that reality should be a mixture of both, but I do believe that social media offer a platform of personal expression for many people, as well as an opportunity for connectivity that may extend to real life too.

It is true that social media can project only the 'happy' moments of a person's life and can also create unnecessary pressure on other viewers to evaluate their own lives. But there are benefits which include being able to feel good about oneself and sharing your happy moments with friends and family, wherever they are, which is the new reality for many people.

Indeed, it 'cannot be overlooked that being able to stay in touch with friends around the world is a benefit. In fact, we now have the ability to make friends from around the world', which is a privilege. Social media is truly 'media' in the literal sense of connecting and providing a way of expression, just as paper, photography, etc. The way we use it creates the problems that we now face, linked as we are to what we think of as 'real'.

We now live in a world of simulation, but it does not mean it is 'artificial' or less real. We have the power to find a balance and make social media a viable part of real life. As Thomas Sherry says, '[w]hat happens from here is up to us'.

Works Cited

Sherry, Thomas, 'A virtual life: How social media changes our perceptions' (2016) https://www.thechicagoschool.edu/insight/from-the-magazine/a-virtual-life/ [accessed 01 February 2021].

'How Does Social Media Alter Our Perception of Reality?' (2018) https://www.grace.edu/social-media-vs-reality/ [accessed 01 February 2021].

Actually there have been petitions going around at universities like King's College and Bristol, which all surpass 2,000 signatures, and the students that I have spoken to from the University widely support this view. There are Universities like the Russell Group Universities that have rejected the petitions for a no-detriment policy, frustrating students and redoubling the efforts for the implementation of the policy.

I loved the Goblet of Fire, it is one of the best Harry Potter movies. But I choose Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I as the best Harry Potter movie for me, and not only because it is part of the climax of the epic war with Voldemort's powers, but also because we witness how grown-up the characters actually are after everything, and the sacrifices they had to endure.

The movie starts with the characters preparing for war and setting off to fulfill Dumbledore's wish to destroy the Horcruxes. Hermione's spell 'Obliviate' on her parents is one of the most touching scenes ever, because it really shows the scale of Hermione's sacrifice and pain for what she has to do. All the pain that this movie unfolds is interspersed by beautiful moments of joy, as is Bill and Fleur's wedding, which brings the characters with their loved ones only to tear them apart a minute after that.

All three characters, cut out from their loved ones, go on a grim journey of pain, loss, frustration, chased by the Death-Eaters (Snatchers) and even captured and threatened by the Malfoy family. One of the moments that really shows how the movie takes the suffering of the characters to a whole new level is when Beatrix tortures Hermione for information. Luna is kidnapped, and Dobby dies, which is the most touching scene in the whole Harry Potter movie series, I believe.

It is a movie that is a true testament of how the whole storyline has been developed and moved from the relatively 'innocent' early movies (one and two, mostly), to how consolidated the relationship among the three characters is, and how other characters like Draco Malfoy become more complex and conflicted, shaped and moulded by background and expectations.

Also, the music is the best! Alexandre Desplat has created pieces for this movie that really set the atmosphere and captures the emotion and intensity of each moment in a movie that is turbulent and changes settings more than any other Harry Potter movie, as the war becomes an actuality. The music is beautiful, touching, suspenseful, and captivating. It is a huge part of the movie's effect on the viewer.

Last but not least, I really enjoyed the backstory of the Deathly Hallows and how the fairy tale has been integrated in the plot. The tale ties everything together smoothly and clarifies even further what Voldemort's really after. The introduction of the Deathly Hallows is key to how the story will go up to the end, and all the Hallows have a role to play. I keep re-watching all the Harry Potter movies, but this one in particular holds a special place for me.

While I am all the way in for any two people to get married, I do not agree with the statement that a baptised person should be married to a non-baptised person in the church.

First of all, there are fundamental problems with this proposition and one of them is how a non-baptised person can take part in the marital religious ceremony if the person is not baptised. The participation and taking of the sacrament in such a religious ceremony presupposes that the partner is also baptised, and therefore can further proceed with the process of holy matrimony.

The same goes for Christian Orthodox people, and this is a prerequisite of the Church. According to 'Canon Law Made Easy', the Catholic church indeed recognises baptisms from other religions and can sanctify a marriage between a baptised Catholic and a baptised non-Catholic.

Secondly, it is part of Catholic faith that marriage, according to Father Martin Pitstick, 'is a sacrament of service, namely, the service of helping your spouse and children get to Heaven. The purpose of marriage is thus both unitive (for the good of the spouses) and procreative (for the good of raising children). How will you be able to achieve these goals if your spouse does not share your most foundational value of faith?', a question asked in terms of the eyes of the Church. It is a valid question with regards to the process of the ceremony per se, which is established with the culture / ethics of the Church in mind.

I believe that if you are to choose the religious path of getting married, you should respect the philosophy behind the practices. If for any reason you do not agree with the law about marriage between baptised and non-baptised people, you should definitely follow the path of civil marriage, which is just as valid. There are options you can choose from, based on the kind of marriage you want for you and your partner.

Works Cited

Pitstick, Martin Fr., 'Marriage Between Baptized and Unbaptized' (2019) <https://dmsbcatholic.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Disparity-of-Cult-flier.pdf > [accessed 27 January 2021].

Canon Law Made Easy (2013) https://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2013/01/17/cath-marry-non-christian-sacrament/ [accessed 27 January 2021].

That's a very good point Lee-Ann! I think the problem lies with parents, institutions, coaches, etc., and not with the idea of engaging in elite sports activities per se. Sports can be hugely beneficial as they promote collaboration, skill boost, physical health, mental health, and the development of social skills through working in a team and a healthy competition spirit that is potentially really useful in society as well. There are people who are really talented at what they do and shouldn't be deprived of their chance to excel in something they are passionate about, provided that the whole development and involvement is carried out in a healthy way and without unnecessary pressure from family, school, etc.

I disagree with this opinion. Even though it is extremely difficult to wake up early sometimes even if you get a good 7 to 8-hour sleep, waking up early can have so many benefits, personal and professional. I really wish that I didn't have to disagree with this because I love getting up late; however, work and family make me an early riser.

First of all, getting up early is beneficial for you only if you sleep early and get a good night's sleep. Resting and filling your batteries can urge you to wake up earlier than usual and give you time to prepare yourself for a busy and potentially stressful day.

According to Jennifer Still from the Business Insider, 'sleep inertia — that slow-moving period between sleep-induced brain fog and full wakefulness — can last anywhere from between two to four hours', and waking up early helps you go through that period in a smoother way, giving 'your body a chance to reach peak wakefulness naturally'.

Indeed, reaching full 'wakefulness' before noon can boost productivity and concentration, as well as maximise the time you have in your hands to do things for you, for work, for your family. Personal trainer Ciaran Robinson correctly says that getting up early 'improves your concentration which means you can accomplish those goals and tasks that you set out the night before. It also means that by the time you get to work, you are fully awake and properly acclimatized to the day meaning you will be more alert during those peak hours'. All this, of course, after resting properly through the night.

Another good reason for waking up early is physical and mental health. As Still mentions, research in the Journal of Psychiatric Research 'revealed that women who get up earlier are far less likely to develop mental health conditions like depression, anxiety, and other mood disorders than those who sleep later'. Physical and mental relaxation accompanies early sleepers and risers and offers an opportunity to properly combat stress through improving physical health and allowing for better mental re-grouping.

Of course, waking up early just because other people say so while sleeping late is not going to work. We should listen to our bodies and rest when we get tired. Brian Lufkin also stresses this when he says that we should pay 'attention to when you feel most tired and most awake'. In the fast-paced world we live in this is not possible at all times, but health comes first and we will observe a difference in productivity throughout the day if we get the right amount of sleep and wake up early to seize the day.

Works Cited

Lufkin, Brian, 'Is waking up early good or bad?' (2019) https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20190213-is-waking-up-early-good-or-bad#:~:text=Sacrificing%20sleep%20means%20you%20may,%2C%20don't%20do%20it. [accessed 26 January 2021].

Robinson, Ciaran, '8 Health Benefits to Being an Early Riser' (2019) https://www.neurotrackerx.com/post/8-health-benefits-to-being-an-early-riser#:~:text=Starting%20the%20day%20early%20also,alert%20during%20those%20peak%20hours [assessed 26 January 2021].

Still, Jennifer, '5 reasons to wake up early, even if you hate it' (2019) https://www.businessinsider.com/reasons-to-wake-up-early-2019-5?r=US&IR=T [accessed 26 January 2021].

I have been much conflicted about the need for a ‘dislike’ button on Facebook and my curiosity was stirred by the 2015 controversy over the effects of such an option on expressing opinions, posting, and interacting with others on the social media platform. I am still conflicted as to the possibility for abusing the choice of ‘dislike’ on Facebook, but I have come to the conclusion that a ‘Dislike’ button can do more good than harm nowadays.

A lot has been happening around us, and 2020 has been a year of loss and radical change, not least because of the coronavirus pandemic, Brexit, and the turbulent presidential shift in the USA, among many others. 2021 is also proving to be ominous, and amidst all the chaos, social media is there to disseminate news and influence opinion. In my view, a ‘dislike’ button can offer Facebook users more options regarding their reaction to posts.

I feel that the current choice of ‘Angry’ and ‘sad’ does not really cut it. Facebook, as Andrew Hutchinson observes, experimented in 2018 with ‘an upvote / downvote option for comments’, which was removed after a few weeks, but the company’s continuous urge to develop more diversity in reactions clearly shows that for many years Facebook has considered including such an option as part of the platform, before dismissing it as viable in itself (see Felicity Morse, BBC).

As of now, there is no appropriate choice for disliking an argument on Facebook, whereas a choice like ‘dislike’ or, even better, ‘contest’, demonstrates a position of disagreement so much more effectively than the other options mentioned above. Rather than the more emotional ‘angry’, which can be a bit aggressive and limiting, a choice like ‘dislike’ or ‘contest’ can let Facebook users know how many people agree or disagree, like or dislike a post, and give users themselves more options.

There is a very solid argument against the ‘dislike’ button, which has to do with the dangers of ‘negativity’. Brian Barrett acknowledges this when he mentions Facebook’s year-long search for more diversified button choices, including a voting down option offered by such platforms as Reddit and Hacker News.

Barrett rightly says that a ‘dislike’ option can create ‘complications’, as it could be read as an indictment of the person posting, or of the article being shared, rather than its subject’. More importantly, it can be abused by users for ‘trolling’, as Felicity Morse correctly adds.

A ‘dislike’ button can promote insensitivity and can help in hurting people’s feelings. Barrett proposes a ‘neutral’ button as what Facebook needs, but, in my view, neutrality may encourage / represent passivity and not active engagement with the feed on Facebook.

However, the fact that an option can be abused by users does not mean that users should not be given the chance to express their disagreement / dislike for a post or a piece of news. The ‘dislike’ or ‘contest’ button does not by itself lead to misrepresentation as the once offered ‘feeling fat’ feelings option did. Morse refers to this choice of a ‘double-chinned emoji’ which misrepresented fatness as a feeling and which created a lot of stir and eventually had to be removed by July 2014.

A ‘dislike’ button, on the other hand, gives users the opportunity to react to something in a different way, thus more realistically expressing their own views. Hutchinson refers us to Reddit user Jamie Tallica who offers a very important real-life example:

"Imagine being a generally ignorant, racist, bigoted idiot and commenting something obscene online? You might post a comment that really offends 18,000 out of 20,000 people, but it shows 2k likes from like-minded idiots. This sends out the wrong message - this tells people who are just passing that the opinion is popular, there's a lack of balance without the effort of commenting and getting involved in a spat. Add a dislike function and suddenly the comment has 2k likes, but 18k dislikes, which tells people that this is an unpopular viewpoint and might make people think twice about what they say, or take a rain check on their attitudes."

The influence of social media is ginormous, so the perception of what is posted is hugely important and should be conditioned by a more holistic exposure to the reaction something elicits. This is the reason I believe that the advantages considerably outweigh the disadvantages, which are also a reality and should not be underestimated.

Works Cited
Barrett, Brian, ‘Facebook Doesn't Need (Or Even Want) a Dislike Button’ (2015) https://www.wired.com/2015/09/facebook-dislike-button/ [accessed 26 January 2021].

Hutchinson, Andrew, ‘Would a 'Dislike' Option Improve Facebook?’ (2019) https://www.socialmediatoday.com/news/would-a-dislike-option-improve-facebook/548052/ [accessed 26 January 2021].

Morse, Felicity, ‘Facebook dislike button: a short history’ (2015) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-34269663 [accessed 26 January 2021].

Good point. Do you think that Tolkien's inclusion of so many species and peoples in his trilogy is a statement against this? After all, good and evil in Tolkien's trilogy exists within the characters themselves, meaning characters like the Golum, Boromir, Gandalf, the White Lady, and even Frodo have both good and dark sides that the ring brings out. Also, the Orcs have another symbolic dimension in the story, as Tolkien uses the Orcs to talk about so many things like the demonic aftermath of industrialisation, science, the evil practices of colonialism itself. These creatures were created as Sauron's army in his attempt to create an Empire, so do you think trying to combat Orcs in actually Tolkien's take on colonialism?

Interesting argument. However, I disagree with this statement and I will refer to the example of Coleridge and Wordsworth to do so. It is true that Romantics like Coleridge and Wordsworth find Gothic horror fiction to be inviting readers towards a 'pleasurable' partaking of degrading fiction and spectacle. However, their own actions and writings say otherwise. From a very early age, both Coleridge and Wordsworth read a huge amount of thriller Gothic novels, and their own writing is influenced by them to a great extent. Most of their poems have Gothic elements and refer to Gothic scary tropes. Their kinds of Romanticism is hugely Gothic and they studied the feeling of fear in their writings. Medieval settings, Gothic castles, villains, supernatural beings, demons, etc. have been intellectually stimulating for them and for their readers and creep into their writing whether they like it or not. Also, some of the best poetry by Coleridge revolves around his experiences with opium and the turbulent dreams that they induced for Coleridge, and opium taking had both a narcotic and stimulating effect for Coleridge's poetic identity. They were actually challenged by this genre into making a discussion with dark fiction, which rendered their minds and their readers' minds not passive but vividly active. It is not random that Wordsworth's pedagogy was based on both beauty and fear as he mentions in his Prelude (1805).

I agree that adoption is worthy and a great way to give a home to children who need it. It is a noble thing to do and lots of people choose adoption as an option. However, I strongly disagree with the statement that procreation is 'a sign of ignorance and snobbishness', I cannot really comprehend from what perspective this would be true. The reasons to procreate are not limited to wanting to furthering genes. There are a million reasons one would want to procreate, such as making a family with the person you love, fostering connections with your children and helping contribute to raising up generations in a better way, among many others. Adoption is also a way to do this, but this does not mean that procreation is in any way lesser than adoption, and in no way connected to 'snobbishness'. Also, adoption costs a lot of money, which can prevent some families from choosing this option.

Yes this is a good point, but for me neither 16-year-olds nor 18-year-olds are really in an informed position to vote nowadays. Whether it is true in real world or not, knowledge and maturity (which does not 100% depend on age, but it is more commonly seen from the early 20s onwards when people are more exposed to the real world) should play an important role in questions of the voting age. Voting is a huge responsibility that requires a greater understanding of what is going on in the world and what benefits society than people have at 16 or 18. For me, the early twenties are a good age for someone to start to vote, because for me it is not about just giving the choice to people to determine their lives by voting, but also to make their votes matter more and make a bigger impact in the world they live in. Real change presupposes knowledge and maturity, and I think voting is pivotal to real change.

I don't think it is a matter of qualification, but a matter of experience, which does not put a 16-year-old and an 80-year-old person on the same spectrum. Ablism would be if the issue of maturity etc was based on qualifications, but as the world has shown time and again it is not based on qualifications. Experience means different things to different people, and I think starts to grow from the ages of adulthood and afterwards.

I believe school uniforms are not a good idea. Our clothes and the way we want to appear tells a lot about our personalities and who we are. School uniforms are kind of restricting in the sense that they do not really allow room for individuality, creativity, diversity. I understand that they make appearances more uniform, but they stifle expression and many students find them limiting.

I believe Britain should have stayed in the EU for many reasons that have to do with people, employment, trade, politics, funding, etc. First of all, since one of the main reasons behind Brexit was the 'regaining' of Britain's status and power, what the EU offered was power within the unity of nations, together with easier access to the benefits the EU had to offer, especially with regards to freer movement of workforce and trade.

I believe these are factors that strengthen the socio-political and economic status of a nation such as Britain. Also, being part of the EU power provides greater national strength in relation to the strength of other non-European nations.

Lesser tarrifs on trade and greater status is not the only reason. The freedom of movement that being part of the European Union offers equips nations like the UK with many competent professionals who come to the UK to fill in much-needed workforce like doctors, nurses, engineers, teachers, etc.

This also applies to unskilled workers needed in the UK, whose life in the UK was made possible by this freedom of movement. Now that the Brexit is a reality, the boosted economy that was enabled by the freedom of workforce is compromised. Brexit has created uncertainty about the future.

University admissions will also be affected. Previously, universities around the UK offered special financial aid for EU students applying to study there, but now the EU student status will not be the same. Cicely Oliver observes that 'England, Scotland and Wales have all confirmed that students from Europe who begin a course from the 2021–22 academic year will no longer have home fee status or access to the UK’s financial support', which will make it difficult to a great number of students to access education in the UK due to the more expensive admission fees and the financial support. The universities will inevitably become less international unless something drastic is decided to boost the incoming of students for study purposes.

Brexit is an ugly reality for me. They say that if you have pre-settled status you have nothing to fear and you retain the benefits you had enjoyed pre-Brexit, but so many people have in reality been affected (businesses, workers, etc.) with the things that are changing and the new restrictions. I hope that in the future the Brexit ethics will be reconsidered.

For more, see:

Cicely, Oliver, 'How will Brexit affect universities and students?' (2021) https://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/sector/news/how-will-brexit-affect-universities-and-students [accessed 22 January 2021].

'98 Reasons To Stay In The EU: Benefits Of Membership For The UK' https://smallbusinessprices.co.uk/remain-eu/ [accessed 22 January 2021].

I didn't know there were cultures who use pizza ad pie interchangeably! That's interesting! Can you give me an example?

I do not agree with this statement, and this applies to all aspects of life, from relationships to business. I consider the importance of being loved in relationships as a given. The alternative would only be acceptable in the old sense of the word 'fear', which is 'to respect someone', but fear in the contemporary sense is directly connected to distrust, and applies both to relationships and leadership. As Srinivasan Pillay argues, 'Love becomes fear when we question the flow state' and we lose this sense of unity and solidarity that comes from caring.

I am going to focus on leadership at work as an example. Even if to be feared means to be seen as powerful and worthy of respect because of this power, I still believe that a person gets a lot more out of being loved, because being loved actually strengthens your power and people's respect towards you.

According to Vanessa Edwards from the Business Insider magazine, leaders who like to be feared are 'goal-oriented and value orderliness and obedience', which has proven to be an effective way of running a business, but being loved as a leader and an employee in general has more long-term advantages. Being loved by your team means being trusted and cared, which leads to long-term respect and better motivation / performance.

People feel more eager to give and contribute if they feel the inspired love and encouragement. Edwards refers to researchers 'who discovered that when people feel respected by their leaders and are comfortable with them, they perform better on teams'. Fear can be an inhibiting factor, especially when it inspires uncertainty, distance, and competitiveness.

Trust and likeability are extremely important, not only because they define us as moral human beings functioning in a social context, but also because they can actually have more positive impact in the future. In the workplace, for example, there is evidence that people process 'warmth' more directly than 'competence', which is usually associated with fear and strength.

The two terms are used by a Business Harvard Review article, which lays down the research on love and fear in relation to business. According to the article, Princeton social psychologist Alex Todorov and his team have concluded that 'when making those judgements [meeting people for the first time], people consistently pick up on warmth faster than on competence'. The level of warmth determines long-term impressions and can make all the difference in the world for people's function at work. Even though both articles explore both ends, I still believe that being loved has more benefits.

So, when faced with this Machiavellian statement, I would say that it is infinitely better to be loved than feared. Love brings trust, comfort, and more empowerment than we think, because it speaks to our inherent need for support, respect, and belief in the self.

Works Cited

Pillay, Srinivasan, 'Relationships: When Love Turns To Fear' (2011) https://www.huffpost.com/entry/relationships-when-love-t_b_392254?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAANHhEFj1YFMruYqL86k0WEmFE7YL8TvDt8t6Ng1IPsfhWfM_uBBPtXUxqbSMneunfl6GVs2tgcRrMAJUard6hE_5nKxKCYpLl0Ax2fILK22Ok-CnexwRzcMH8aZjG4u2jcOlE1484VmMv0UXm0G1Pk-AzP-oXEZSxzAYWFh8SjE9 [accessed 21 January 2021].

Van Edwards, Vanessa, 'It's better to be loved than feared — but only if you know what you're doing' (2017) https://www.businessinsider.com/its-better-to-be-loved-than-feared-if-you-know-what-youre-doing-2017-10?r=US&IR=T [accessed 21 January 2021].

'Is it better to be feared or loved: What the research shows' (2013)https://www.smartcompany.com.au/people-human-resources/leadership/lead-through-warmth-not-strength-harvard-business-review-study/#:~:text=Is%20it%20better%20to%20be%20loved%20or%20feared%3F,to%20be%20feared%20than%20loved.%E2%80%9D [accessed 21 January 2021].

What really made a difference in my view of Barbie dolls is how inclusive they have become, especially because of and in service to women's empowerment. I would not have agreed with this statement a couple of decades ago when Barbie dolls promoted an unhealthy body image and restricted representation to skinny white females whose body types did not correspond to reality. There is a lot of room for improvement to overturn the way we conventionally think of Barbie dolls and what we associate them with, but the ethics have changed and this is good. Great argument!

I understand your point, and I agree that listening to audiobooks can have many advantages, especially for busy professionals or for people who find traditional reading distracting, impossible, or tiring. However, letting aside what we consider 'traditional' reading, there are certain elements that comprise the reading experience (print books) that audiobooks can simply not offer. People should not consider audiobooks as kind of 'tricking' the whole reading experience, but it does not involve the whole reading experience per se.

Associate professor Beth Rogowski confesses that she was always fond of audiobooks, but she considered them as 'cheating', which is why she conducted a study in 2016, where she tested reading effects on two groups; one group listened to the audio version of 'Unbroken', and the other group read the e-book. Rogowski concluded that there were no significant comprehension gaps between the two groups. However, according to Markham Heid, there is a difference between reading a physical book and an e-book, so if you compare print books and audiobooks there may be a difference.

There is also a difference in really 'understanding' a book when it is printed and when it is an e-book. I believe the reading experience is indeed about getting the feeling of the body of the book and understanding the story through structure and the way the physical book is organised. Listening to a book can make you lose sense of all this and affect the way the story is ingrained in your mind.

Also, there is the issue of narrative voice, which is a big issue when it comes to audiobooks. According to an article on Writer's Edit, your perception of a book may be influenced by the voice of the person who reads the audiobook to us. This considerably limits our freedom to make sense of the book by ourselves by adding narrative voices to the book. I think audiobooks can help us access stories we would otherwise not be able or not bother to read. However, I think that audiobooks limits to a certain extent the reading experience and is not considered 'reading' per se because of this.

Therefore, because I consider reading a multi-layered journey towards understanding, I believe audiobooks are not exactly this. They offer other advantages, which nevertheless pertain to listening and not reading as it should be. For example, Daniel T. Willingham from The New York Times argues that 'although one core process of comprehension serves both listening and reading, difficult texts demand additional mental strategies. Print makes those strategies easier to use'. For this and many other reasons, I believe reading books is reading, or we can say that a combination of reading and audio can help enhance the reading experience in some cases.

Works Cited

Heid, Markham, 'Are Audiobooks As Good For You As Reading? Here’s What Experts Say' (20180 https://time.com/5388681/audiobooks-reading-books/ [accessed 19 January 2021].

Willingham, Daniel T., 'Is Listening to a Book the Same Thing as Reading It?' (2018) https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/08/opinion/sunday/audiobooks-reading-cheating-listening.html [accessed 19 January 2021].

'Does Listening to an Audiobook Count As Reading?' https://writersedit.com/fiction-writing/listening-audiobook-count-reading/ [accessed 19 January 2021].

You posit a great argument Anna, and ghosts are a topic of great interest for me. I totally believe that ghosts (and the supernatural in general) exist, and this stems both from my belief that there is a world beyond death, and from my own research on ghosts and spirits. I do not think that ghosts are necessarily as they are represented in the movies, but maybe people that cannot really rest because of unsettling memories and trauma, this is why from the eighteenth century and forward ghosts have been directly linked to haunting a place where something terrible happened, or a person with whom trauma is associated. Many people have written books on the topic which can be called quasi-scientific because they try to explain certain phenomena or establish connections through the repetition of certain incidents, validated by personal accounts and historical facts. Catherine Crowe's 'The Night-Side of Nature' (1847) is but one example of the answer to people who try to cast ghosts away scientifically and dismiss them as figments of a diseased imagination. It is remarkable how many accounts of ghost sightings and hauntings there are, and I have recently read a book called 'Ghosts of Malta' which explored the haunted histories of certain places in Malta. I was astounded by the way the accounts of people who did not know each other matched, and how they also matched descriptions of hauntings recorded in eighteenth and nineteenth-century texts. Ghosts and haunting refer to something very personal and intimate, whether it is a person, place, memory, this is why it is so hard to validate scientifically, and should not be seen through the lens of science. Haunting is something that comes from within and is different for different people, and I like the way this is explored in series like 'The Haunting of Hill House' and 'The Haunting of Bry Manor', where you are almost not sure whether what people see are actual ghosts or their own trauma manifest in front of their eyes. Either way, haunting is something that is worth exploring from a psychological, social and political point of view (see Jacques Derrida's 'Specters of Marx' for a political interpretation of haunting) to see how people deal with their past and their own phantoms.

There has been a lot of contention and fear among people everywhere these days about the new Covid-19 vaccine that has recently started being given to vulnerable people around the world. Naturally, there are people who are suspicious of the vaccine mainly because of the rapidity of its production, but also because they find it impossible to be sure of its long-term effects, especially in the midst of a pandemic that has left everyone in doubt, suspicion, and never-ending fear about the future.

I have been one of these people from the moment of the announcement about the new Oxford -AstraZeneca and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines and I had a lot of questions about the safety of this kind of vaccination as well as the process by which it became available at such a short time. It takes research and an open mind, but after looking into it I realised that ‘the Covid vaccine trials’, as Health editor Michelle Roberts says, while having happened ‘at breakneck speed’, have not ‘skipped any steps’ (BBC).

There are questions that pop into mind about this, such as the effects of the vaccine, what is in the vaccine, the allergic reactions to the vaccine, the rates of protection the vaccine offers. Professors of Medicine Lisa Maragakis and Gabor Kelen at the John Hopkins University address some of these questions like the rapidity and effectiveness of the vaccine. As they argue, there are certain reasons for its fast development, which refer to the vaccination developed for the coronavirus by Pfizer ‘has been years in development for other infectious viruses’, and China, being the first country to encounter the virus, ‘shared genetic information about the Sars-CoV-2 coronavirus when it was available, which gave vaccine developers at early start’. Also, we have to consider the amount of resources and capital that went into building a vaccine for a worldwide pandemic that affects everyone. These types of scientific unity in research and resources have certainly helped speed up the process.

Some people even believe that the Covid-19 vaccine gives you the virus. This has been contested by scientists and research on how, like other vaccines, the Covid-19 jab does not spread the disease in your body and into your blood cells. Instead, as Roberts clarifies, vaccines ‘teach your body’s immune system to recognise and fight the infection they have been designed to protect against’. The potential (and mostly short-lived) effects of a virus vaccine, such as fever and muscle aches, are, in fact, ‘the body’s response to the vaccine’, and not the effects of the virus per se. The developers of the vaccine have already reported usual vaccine side-effects which include ‘pain at the injection site, fever, muscle aches, fatigue and headaches, mostly lasting about a day or two’, according to professors Maragakis and Kelen.

There have been concerns as to potential side-effects for certain population groups around the world such as high-risk people who are first in line to receive vaccination for Covid-19. Norman Swan and Olivia Willis report that in Norway, for example, ‘health officials have reported ‘a small number of deaths among older people on Sunday’ after they received the Pfizer vaccine. As of now, it has not been established that the vaccine is to blame for the deaths, but it has raised the question of whether doctors should vaccinate people with severe health problems ‘or at the end of life’. There was also the case of a doctor in the US who ‘developed an unusual blood disorder’ after being vaccinated with the Pfizer jab, but his death has yet to be linked to the vaccine.

In light of recent deaths, people have been wondering whether the vaccine does more harm than good, with some worries about the standards of efficacy by WHO (The World Health Organisation), which is directed to 50% efficacy, as researcher Els Torreele observes. Torreele believes that companies and other regulators are not going to follow the percentage, as representatives from ‘both the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency have already signalled that they would consider approving vaccines that only diminished severity of illness, rather than protected against infection’. This is a far cry from the ‘long-term’ immunity we had in mind, but even ameliorating infection can make a huge difference in how we operate in the world.

These are all very valid concerns, as is the effect of the vaccine on people with allergies, pregnant women, children, etc., and for now the vaccine (the Pfizer one) is strongly discouraged for people with severe allergies (see Roberts, BBC). But the process is still ongoing, and the fact that there is the ‘principle’ to start with small steps during the trials and then move on to the next stage, considering ‘there are no outstanding safety concerns’ is a hopeful one. The need is urgent, which means that there have been and will be continuous testing on volunteers. It is certainly a big positive that the Oxford-AstraZeneca Covid vaccine trial was halted at one point to make sure that the death of one participant was not related to the vaccine (see Roberts, BBC). Safety will be top priority, and of course we have to acknowledge that it is going to take time for the vaccine to be tested under various circumstances and in a wider range of groups.

The vaccine may still cause controversy and will continue to do so for a long time. It is something unknown and intimidating, but it is also a scientifically tested ray of hope that can be a way for all of us to go back to normal.

Works Cited

Maragakis, Lisa Lockerd, Gabor David Kelen, ‘Is the COVID-19 Vaccine Safe?’ https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/is-the-covid19-vaccine-safe?fbclid=IwAR1vGiHQd1D25IBq736xcAiaxxm5E4-az7gRe0wP5zhzRYIOmeoVDTMINAE [accessed 18 January 2021].

Roberts, Michelle, ‘Is the Covid vaccine safe?’ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55056016 [accessed 18 January 2021].

Swan, Normal, Olivia Willis, ‘Is the Pfizer vaccine the culprit in the elderly deaths in Norway? It's too soon to say’ (2021) https://www.abc.net.au/news/health/2021-01-18/cause-of-pfizer-covid-vaccine-norway-deaths-not-clear/13067588?fbclid=IwAR2G-YcqYvHOxrVYJFR0WpzfNhONKb8CREe4wuit15IccASuiquqrB-5mvs [accessed 19 January 2021].

Torreele, Els, ‘The rush to create a covid-19 vaccine may do more harm than good’ (2020) https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3209?fbclid=IwAR2W4p4MM_r7xJ9MrJq2ozz3eCfwX7I4FmAVRR7dDVLUvxul6xzkSKgu4oE [accessed 18 January 2021].

I absolutely adore both comedy series, and before I watched 'How I Met Your Mother', I strongly believed 'Friends' is the best comedy series that could possibly be. However, times changed, I changed, and what I wanted from a comedy show changed as well.

While I acknowledge that 'Friends' lines haunt every other sentence that comes out of our mouths, I believe in many ways 'How I Met Your Mother' has surpassed 'Friends' in the type of humour it conveys, the structure of the show, story-telling and character development.

According to Richard Briggs, 'Friends' was filmed 'in front of a live studio audience' which made the performance of the characters and the whole perception of the show seem very theatrical. Don't get me wrong, I love theatrical performances, but watching 'Friends' now makes me realise that it does not really appeal to the more 'memorable, thematic episodes' that we are used to when watching a series nowadays.

'How I Met Your Mother' offers this in a whirlwind of different scenes, flashbacks, and storylines that may not really appeal to every viewer (and may tire some too), but it is certainly interesting to watch structurally, and creates more suspense. Take, for example, the 'Gouda' episode where Lily throws a housewarming party gone awry. Everything is a mess, and the episode beautifully and hilariously unfolds through flashbacks and interconnections 'Friends' could not offer. This permeates the structure of the whole series, as illustrated in Barney's scheme to propose to Robin, Barney's bachelor party, and of course, the story of how Ted met Tracey.

Another point of contention between the fans of the two shows is character development. In the 'Friends' series, you cannot really feel that characters mature and develop throughout the seasons. Ben Sherlock also notices that Joey, Phoebe, Rachel, Monica and Ross fundamentally stay the same, and Chandler, even though he gets married and starts a family, is 'still Chandler'. We do not see any real change in the way the characters perceive things, and apart from the slow immersion of Rachel into the real world of work, sweat and tears, these loveable characters do not develop as prominently as the characters in 'How I met your Mother'.

Therefore, I agree with Sherlock when he says that the characters in 'How I Met your Mother' are 'constantly reassessing what they want in their lives and trying to be better people', including Barney who changes his womanizing the moment he has a baby. Lily sums it up saying ‘I have officially seen it all’ when Barney reprimands two girls in the bar who make a pass at him. This reflection of the viewer's thoughts is part of the well-established rapport we build with the characters throughout the seasons, both because they are so well-developed and because of the humour and the 'call-backs and in-jokes' that Marie Loveland correctly connects with the impression that we are indeed part of the gang. This is built through a beautiful combination of happy and sad moments that give the series an interesting, empathetic twist.

And to the fans who insist that the Ross and Rachel romance cannot be surpassed, I only have to stress the amiable closeness and development of Lily and Marshall as one of the most beautiful couples I have ever seen in a show.

Works Cited

Briggs, Richard, 'Couch Critic: 'Friends' vs. 'How I Met Your Mother' — it's time to settle this' https://eu.thespectrum.com/story/entertainment/2015/12/24/couch-critic-friends-vs-how-met-your-mother-s-time-settle/77761840/ [accessed 14 January 2021].

Loveland, Mariel, 'The Real Reasons Why 'How I Met Your Mother' Is Better Than 'Friends' (2019) https://www.ranker.com/list/why-himym-is-better-than-friends/mariel-loveland [accessed 14 January 2021].

Sherlock, Ben, '7 Things Friends Did Better Than How I Met Your Mother (And 8 HIMYM Did Better)' (2020) https://screenrant.com/friends-how-i-met-your-mother-compared-did-better/#:~:text=Both%20Friends%20and%20HIMYM%20have,HIMYM%20has%20Ted%20and%20Robin.&text=Every%20Ross%20and%20Rachel%20development,the%20end%20of%20the%20series. [accessed 14 January 2021].

Another reason why 'How I met your Mother' is better! Thank you, Hatty! I think this also fits to the wide variety of characters that the show displays and that allows for more chances for representation.

Great point, especially about Ross! One of the coolest guys in the series!

Romeo and Juliet is a play written in a specific context and during a specific time, which means that it reflects the socio-historical conditions of the time. It is a tragic love story that is all about tragic moments and miscommunication, which does not make it any less a love story just because things do not work out and Romeo and Juliet die at the end. For me, it is not one of Shakespeare's greatest tragedies (I prefer Hamlet and Macbeth), but I acknowledge that the play beautifully explores the issue of tragic irony in relation to what happens between the two lovers. The specifics of their relationship may not make sense to the modern-day reader, but there is empathy in the way the lovers strive to beat the chances despite their relationship being doomed by their families and their own choices. The play has so many levels, and being a tragic love story is one of them.

I completely agree, and there is also a political dimension to Plato's allegory that can very much be applied to today's society. As people, we are exposed to a variety of media that work as a lens through which we perceive certain things and events. The very meaning of the word 'medium' points to something that mediates perception. We, too, live in a world of shadows, but the question also acquires another relevant dimension that can have spiritual, political, social dimensions: if these are shadows that we see, does this mean that the real thing is out there? What are we seeing the shadows of? Very interesting discussion.

I think that amalgamating SEN schools with mainstream schools can definitely raise awareness as to what SEN students are going through and what they need. It can also boost socialisation with mixed groups and understanding as to how society can include SEN people as well. However, there are certain challenges that schools and teachers and parents may face because of the amalgamation, which would require a whole course of action with regards to training the teachers to deal with mixed groups and how the classroom can be structured in a way that all needs are catered for. As you mentioned, equipment is also important, and a whole new system of educating students as to how and why this amalgamation needs to work for the betterment of the education of SEN students and the issue of acceptance. If all these things are set in place, I think this would be a beneficial measure.

I agree with your point! However, digital photography offers an infinite range of ways to take a photo with thousands of filters and ways to edit a photo. I know that this may seem like digital photography can distort what you take a picture of, but it is also fun as it plays on perspective and boosts creativity too. I personally like digital photography because it gives you more control over how your photo will look like!

Not everyone is drawn to Gothic literature, but there is so much to say about the genre precisely because of its multifacetedness. Even though a piece of writing may not be deemed Gothic in its entirety (see Jane Austen and Charles Dickens, for example), we cannot deny that we can find Gothic elements here and there that gift texts with a dark side that makes them so interesting.

It is extremely difficult to define Gothic literature, mainly because of its many different expressions and kinds, but if there is something we can safely say about the genre is that is its political dimensions.

For the sake of clarity (which is deliberately blurred in discussions of the Gothic), we will follow Professor John Bowen in saying that the ‘genre of the Gothic is a particularly strange and perverse family of texts which themselves are full of strange families’ that contain poems, films, opera, video games, novels, and many more. According to Professor Bowen, Gothic texts exhibit traits like fear (terror, horror, etc.), mysterious places, tales of the past, the theme of power, darkness and ambiguity in meaning.

Darkness, fear and the supernatural are key elements of the Gothic and acquire political significance when they are used for representation. According to Joseph Crawford, ‘it was not that Gothic fiction was generated by the fears of its authors; it was that Gothic, as a form, provided a methodology for writing about a subject – any subject – in such a way as to make it seem fearful and threatening’.

More specifically, the Gothic ‘was a network of tropes, which collectively, served to either literally or metaphorically demonise its subject matter, whether that subject was a person, a house, a social group, or an entire civilization, by describing it as though it was an object of numinous dread’. This is evident in novels like Matthew Lewis’s The Monk (1818), Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1831), and Robert Louis Stevenson’s The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1886), all of which explore the demonisation of whatever is different from what is considered the ‘normal’ self.

The booming of Gothic fiction from the eighteenth century onwards is another factor for the political identity of the Gothic, since the Gothic underwent a radical transformation in meaning during the period of the French Revolution. A ‘byword’ for English heritage, Robert Miles argues, the Gothic represented an ancestral past that was variously seen as glorified (see Edmund Burke and his condemnation of the Revolution) or demonised as ‘the dead hand of the past’ (pp. 130-33) that haunts the living.

During the Revolution and the post-revolutionary years, the Gothic was a genre of contestation because, on the one hand, it allowed for the play of imagination in mysterious worlds, and on the other it was seen as highly dangerous as the ‘monsters’ that were let in the reader’s minds (and bodies, as the effects of fear are highly psychophysical) could shape lives and ideas. All in all, Gothic literature provides a space for the exploration of what lies underneath but nevertheless ‘haunts’ us in its fearful presence.

Works Cited

Bowen, John, 'Gothic Motifs' (2014) https://www.bl.uk/romantics-and-victorians/articles/gothic-motifs [accessed 12 January 2021].

Crawford, Joseph, Gothic Fiction and the Invention of Terrorism; The Politics and Aesthetics of Fear in the Age of the Reign of Terror (New York: Bloomsbury, 2013)

Miles, Robert, 'Political Gothic Fiction', in Romantic Gothic: an Edinburgh Companion, ed. by Angela Wright and Dale Townsend (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2015), pp. 129-46 (pp. 130-33).

Hi Sofia! Thank you for your question! Novels like 'Frankenstein' allude to what happened during the years of the French Revolution, when revolution started as something ambitious and radical and ended up being monstrous and horrific. Also, we can see in these novels a reflection of the contemporary revolutions in the perception of personal psychology and feeling and how the unconscious works as well. Within this framework, novels like 'Frankenstein', 'The Monk' and 'The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde' explore the dark side of human subjectivity and what this means to the self and to society, how darkness comes from our own selves and our own society and the consequences of this for our ways of life and the characters in the novels. Mary Shelley and Ann Radcliffe also explore the roles of women in society in their novels. There is a rich socio-historical background to these novels that we often do not perceive behind other worlds, medieval and other settings, strange creations. They are far from escapist if one has a closer look.

For me, listening to music is all about the expression of personal taste and identity, every person has different tastes in music which reflects the different personalities and thoughts of each individual. Listening to music is all about feelings and memories. I always associate songs with specific memories I have, as well as specific moods everyday. Listening to music also boosts your creativity and opens up your mind. You just have to find the kind of music and songs that best speak to you.

Good point - it is definitely true that pageant ethics are infused with dominant beauty standards that put a lot of pressure on individuals participating, and even more so when these participants are children. However, there are ways in which pageants can promote charities, friendships, connections, and a healthy feeling of competition without the necessary pressure of 'winning' or of fitting the beauty standards prescribed. Also, when a kid wants to participate of course, pageants can be fun and a way for them to get excited about something. I guess pageants have pros and cons and are different things to different people.

Yes, definitely, an age recommendation would be helpful. I think the pageants are aimed at girls because of the fundamental problems of our society which deems girls as more fit to take parts in pageants. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the idea of pageants per se, but the way they are conducted sometimes and the way they may become places of exploitation. I think this is society's problem basically, so a lot has to change before pageants become friendlier, more inclusive, and more encouraging.

Great points on this topic. For me, though, healing does not necessarily mean disappearing and forgetting. Just like a physical trauma or a wound that may leave a scar, mental trauma and/or a loss can heal over time, which means that in this case (of proper healing, and not something that leaves to deep-seated traumas by deterioration) pain would no longer have a devastating effect on a person's life. Pain from a trauma like this will not 'control' the life of a person in the way it does when it is fresh. The expression 'Time heals all wounds' pertains to the fact that the blood and pain of trauma leaves its place to a memory of it, and even some long-term effects on the mind and the body, just like a healed wound would. And even if the wound on the body disappears completely, it always leaves a trace in the subconscious of what happened and where the trauma was. So I think, in a sense, healing really is learning to go on with the memories that you have.

I understand that perception defines our way of life and how we see things. However, I strongly believe that perception is not reality per se. This debate goes way back to even before the eighteenth century and the Enlightenment, when this discussion was re-directed towards perception as a way to define what is around us. I believe that reality exists outside of perception and pertains to what is around us. Perception, on the other hand, is our way of perceiving and understanding reality.

We can also see this through the way Oxford dictionary defines reality and perception respectively. According to the Oxford dictionary, reality is 'Real existence; what is real rather than imagined or desired; the aggregate of real things or existences; that which underlies and is the truth of appearances or phenomena'. The same dictionary uses the words 'consciousness' and 'understanding' to define perception. It defines perception as 'The process of becoming aware or conscious of a thing or things in general; the state of being aware; consciousness; † (spiritual) understanding (obsolete)'. Understanding reality is what perception is all about, and of course defines our course of life.

The reason there are different ways of perceiving things and ideas proves this point, because the alternative (reality being non-existent in itself but only through perception) would mean the strong possibility of disconnection from the world. Perception definitely defines reality, but reality is the focal point that can create a sense of meaning and condition perception as well. According to psychologist Jim Taylor, the close connection between reality and perception is an 'alignment' that 'is essential for us to live in the real world, find consensus with others, and maintain the individual, governmental, and societal structures that are necessary for life as we know it to exist'. It is through the interaction between the two that we manage to function in society and coexist.

Works Cited

'Reality', in The Oxford English Dictionary [online] https://www-oed-com.sheffield.idm.oclc.org/view/Entry/158934?redirectedFrom=reality#eid [accessed 15 January 2021].

'Perception', in The Oxford English Dictionary [online] https://www-oed-com.sheffield.idm.oclc.org/view/Entry/140560?redirectedFrom=perception#eid [accessed 15 January 2021].

Taylor, Jim, 'Perception Is Not Reality' (2019) https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/the-power-prime/201908/perception-is-not-reality [accessed 15 January 2021].

Yes, of course, this is a great observation! They can of course become interchangeable in people's minds, and certainly reality can become highly subjective. They are different but they coexist, even though the line is very very thin.

I understand that religious symbols may and do create prejudice and reinforce bullying in many cases, which is one of the primary arguments for banning religious symbols in state schools. However, schools are places where people are in the process of developing their own identities, and for religious people religion is a big part of their identities. Banning religious symbols in state schools, therefore, can be a violation of a person's personal freedom.

Noshin Jannat acknowledges this by arguing that 'we become socialised and conditioned in these settings [schools], to believe what we are shown and what we are taught. Therefore, teaching young children that wearing religious emblems is wrong is dangerous, because they might internalise beliefs and values that religion has no truth, or that it is not ‘normal’ to follow one by marginalising those who wear such garments'. Stigmatising religious people (whatever religion this is) is a violation of human rights and as much a serious discrimination and bullying as other forms which can affect a person's perception of themselves and their lives. State schools are public places that should foster difference and respect personal beliefs.

A case in point is Sarika Singh from South Wales who 'was not allowed to wear a religious bangle to school' and made a case for discrimination, which she won. The school's argument was that her religious bangle was violating the school uniform policy, and therefore should be removed. However, the court ruled that wearing the religious symbol was 'an expression of her Sikh faith and that she was a victim of unlawful discrimination'. There are many cases like this in the UK, and they create real problems for a lot of people. Therefore, I believe that religious symbols should not be banned from state schools.

Works Cited

'School and religious symbol cases' (2008) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7530726.stm [accessed 15 January 2021].

Jannat, Noshin, 'Should the Display of Religious Symbols in Schools be Banned?' (2018) https://www.theylj.co.uk/should-the-display-of-religious-symbols-in-schools-be-banned/ [accessed 15 January 2021].

I definitely acknowledge the valid points of this argument. I complete agree with banning homework, but I mean homework in ita current form of heaping loads of work on students and stressing them every day. How about changing the type of homework offered by schools? Making homework more creative, for example, or given more selectively

I completely agree. Aren't ideologies directing political biases though?

That's a good point Anna! I believe there are many inaccuracies in the series, which deviate from what may truly have happened. However, reports of the lives of the royal family are also conditioned, and the statements of the royal family do not necessarily shed light to events in the family. There are a million factors that shape a statement, and the Crown is one of them, being a medium of art basically which allows room for 'poetic' licence. While the series is based on the lives of the royals to a great extent, there are parts of the series that have been fictionalised. All in all, I believe the Crown offers a very interesting insight into basic values / challenges within the royal family.

I agree. I believe creativity should be integrated in every school subject, since it enhances learning, initiative, focus, critical thinking, knowledge. Many people necessarily associate creativity with the arts, but this is not really the case: creativity should be applied to all learning and should not be separated from 'real knowledge'. In my view, creativity is knowledge as it triggers the student's active thinking and participation in the learning process, which is how knowledge is fundamentally acquired. Creativity gives people the ability to create, and the GCSE system / general education system in the UK and around the world should make creativity an integral factor for achievement and motivation. Creativity re-directs the mind to new and innovative ideas, which is what should drive society and the economy.

I agree that it is apparent Margaret Thatcher is homophobic because of her support and promotion of Section 28, despite her declared sympathy for gay people she was familiar with. The consequences of her actions reverberate today, and she was definitely expressive of how LGBTQ+ people were treated at that time, and the way they were associated with disease and decadence. Matthew Todd writes that the '1987 election saw Tory ad campaigns trying to portray Labour as actively trying to pervert children. One billboard showed a line of young men wearing badges such as "Gay pride" and "Gay sports day" with a slogan, "This is Labour's camp. Do you want to live in it?', spreading propaganda against a new way of celebrating difference. I believe that Thatcher's stance towards people of different sexual orientation is deeply affected by her traditional views on family, which she upheld on a personal and political level throughout her whole life. For more on Thatcher and LGBTQ+ rights, you can follow this link: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/10/margaret-thatcher-poster-girl-gay-rights

I completely agree with this view. I believe no one has the right to prescribe pronouns for people's identities, and sweeping everything under 'they' can be reductive. I believe in celebrating difference and personal choice, and therefore I firmly support each individual's decision to choose a pronoun for themselves. Identity is personal and political at the same time, so how we define ourselves in completely up to us and not anyone else. I understand the human need to categorise everything, and nowadays there is the anxiety (rightly directed) to eliminate discrimination. However, we should be careful with the way we represent certain identities, as our way of representation may not necessarily reflect the beautiful differences that exist in every society. Agency is what each social group is striving for and by giving them the choice to choose pronouns we will achieve exactly this.

Reply

There are people who believe that dedicating one’s energy to playing video games is a waste of time. I remember watching an Instagram video of a Greek entrepreneur called Damian Prosalendis (he built a million-dollar business in his early twenties) giving his ‘Tip of the day’ in reference to ‘Why I said that gamers are losers and how 1000+ of them went nuts’. In the video, Prosalendis insists that video gamers are dedicated to ‘having fun’, the result of which is being ‘broke’, unsuccessful, and failing in ‘real life’. This video got me thinking about the multiple ways video gaming is actually beneficial for you and should not be juxtaposed to ‘real life’ on any level.

First of all, video games are a source of personal learning and expression. Far from being separated from reality, video games actually help foster real-life skills in a pleasurable, entertaining way. According to Laura Alonso Diaz and others, ‘[g]ame-playing and learning are in fact two sides of the same coin, and video games are rife with new opportunities for adults to build new bridges of connection with each other’ while also building ‘hard and soft skills’ like communication, ‘social and civic competences’, ‘sense of initiative’, ‘cultural awareness and expression’, etc., all based on the ‘Recommendation of the European Council (2006 & 2017) on key competences for lifelong learning’. Diaz and others base their analysis on gamers varying in gender, education, technological competence, etc., and the results show the many ways these competencies can be boosted through video gaming. 


Indeed, video games can help you find your identity and your place in society by focusing on specific skills like communication and socialization. Through playing these games, you can socialize with other people from different places and different cultures, open your mind to different representations, ideas and conversations, and find yourself in a community that is fun, diverse and educational. For many, video gaming is not a hobby. For a lot of people, video gaming offers a viable career path and an opportunity to make a living and progress as a professional video gamer. There are many dynamic and fulfilling jobs created through the video gaming industry in programming, design, product management, to name just a few. 


Moreover, video games help you exercise your brain. There are studies showing that those who ‘played action-based video and computer games made decisions 25% faster than others without sacrificing accuracy’, and this means that ‘the most adept gamers can make choices and act on them up to six times a second—four times faster than most people’. This is an interesting counter argument to the long-held view that video games can damage your brain through too much exposure. Another positive effect of playing video games that I have also noticed as a gamer myself is how video games enhance multi-tasking. It is true that video games can have a positive impact on cognition, according to Michelle Trudeau, as well as the development of ‘attention, speed, accuracy, vision and multi-tasking, says [Dafne] Bavelier’, who is ‘a professor of brain and cognitive sciences at the University of Rochester’. Video games offer a diverse, fun, engaging and productive environment to develop life skills, and are directly connected to everyday life.

Works Cited

Laura Alonso-Díaz, Laura, Rocío Yuste-Tosina, Santiago Mendo-Lázaro, ‘Adults video gaming: Key competences for a globalised society’, Computers & Education, 141 (2019), 103616, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103616.

Michelle Trudeau, ‘Video Games Boost Brain Power, Multitasking Skills’ (2010) https://www.npr.org/2010/12/20/132077565/video-games-boost-brain-power-multitasking-skills?t=1610047212713 [accessed 07 January 2021].

Prosalendis, Damian, ‘Why You Shouldn’t “Have Fun” Until You Succeed’, Instagram, August 31, 2018, https://www.instagram.com/tv/BnI3NbQlkaG/?igshid=1a8m5p8e58zon&fbclid=IwAR1b6byl4ok220a-OmIC-WQc1-43s5GRWZLy_pppWhx7s_P5SS3AEbjO8HY.

Robert Lee Hotz, ‘When Gaming is Good for You’ (2012) < https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203458604577263273943183932> [accessed 07 January 2021].

I totally agree. While there are certainly risks when it comes to playing video games, it all comes down to how you are handling the experience and the limits you set for yourself. I guess this can also be considered a positive thing because giving the person the choice to regulate their experience of video gaming so that is can be rewarding can lead to emotional maturity, good time management skills, recognition of the multifarious nature of things, etc.

This is a very good point, and of course all these risks to playing video games are completely real. However, I believe all things in life have the 'potential' to become addictive and harmful if seen and handled in a very wrong way. Take eating for example, or working too hard. Eating and working are pleasurable experience with many benefits for life and health, but when overdone they can lead to obesity, anxiety, social isolation, lack of confidence, and so many more. So I guess it all depends on you and how you regulate the experience of playing video games so that it does not become a harmful and isolating way of life. Apart from all the above, video gaming gives you the opportunity to join communities of fellow gamers and acquire a sense of belonging.

I completely agree. There are definitely some lines that can't be crossed, and social media should definitely not condone any kind of behavior just because there is 'free speech'. For the sake of free speech, there may be other kinds of freedom violated, and comments that incite violence can cause serious incidents in life because they directly affect people's ideas and instill fanaticism / aggression. Social media platforms should definitely take a stand and contribute to tacking these issues and not be neutral about their consequences.

I believe in coincidences, and even though there are a lot of common occurrences in the lives of Lincoln and Kennedy, I still believe that something happening as a matter of either coincidence or choice (determined by a variety of factors and agents) is stronger, and the example mentioned, even though convincing to some extent, does not necessarily prove the theory of determinism. Even if determinism is stronger than we think, I think accepting it and embracing is would possibly have dire consequences in 'determining' the actions of individuals who would deny agency and free choice. I dread to imagine what would happen in a world like this!

Great points from all of you and I completely agree. I believe that the issue with social inequality and inequality in opportunities does not come from the idea of private schooling per se, but the idea that money is knowledge in today's society as money is thought to be able to buy everything. I think the problem is more fundamental than just the ideals that may be fostered by private schools, which, however, do reflect and facilitate social inequalities. I have seen many brilliant minds treated unfairly because they attended state schools, and I do believe that the whole educational system is based on wrongly categorising people according to income and whether they can access the best education that there is. As things are, state schooling can offer many of the advantages of private schooling (like qualified tutors), but there is also the issue of access to resources that private schooling provides and that inevitably puts attendees to an advantage. I finished my BA in a public University back home, but the resources I have available at the University of Sheffield have allowed for more quality research and helped with many of the struggles I used to face. State schools should receive the funds they need to alleviate struggling students, and opportunities in the future workplace should be based on true skill and quality of expertise.

I recently watched the Netflix mockumentary 'Death to 2020' and Hugh Grant (posing as the voice of academia in assessing the political milieu of 2020) very correctly said that today's problem is polarisation, and the struggle of people around the world and in individual countries to feel connected. As democratic ideals are all about placing power in the hands of the people and being inclusive, democracy in countries like the US and the UK is seriously failing. This is particularly evident in light of crises, such as the global pandemic we are now experiencing, and political decisions like Brexit (see Scotland's exclusion from any Brexit decisions/negotiations, for example), which, again, show how control / agency is snatched from the hands of many concerned social groups. Plutocracy and arbitrary decision-making seems the order of the day, and the idea of a functioning democracy seems just an idea for many people. We only have to take a look at the Conservative party in the UK and and the way it is sustained in funding and representation, as money is exchanged for power in a carefully orchestrated electoral context. However, as you very correctly point out, there are movements that want to see actual change in the world, and provide a source of hope that democracy can be revived. It is also interesting to ponder on what 'democracy' really is, and / or if it is a hybrid that changes forms under different contexts and circumstances. As it is, 'democracy' in its current ideological form does not really work. Maybe in the future we can reinvent in practice what democracy means for us and how it can actually change our lives.

I agree with most of the points of this argument, and I do believe that dieting is very culture-oriented and prescribed according to the dominant standards. However, there are cases when a healthy diet (a bit of everything on the menu, or customised on the individual's needs) is desired and required for health / medical reasons, and can be a very beneficial part of a person's quality of life. Also, a person may be drawn to a particular diet because it may be something appealing to them or fitting their lifestyle. I agree that there are many cases when someone is forced unto a diet because they think this is how they will change their bodies according to society's standards, which is wrong. Difference should be embraced and celebrated.

Great point - I agree with the fact that peaceful protest can be an effective force of change, and I also agree with Anna's point that non-violent protests can create more empathy for the cause, since these protests embrace and actualise the peaceful ethics they uphold. You are what you do, and this is a nice example! Protests have multiple ways of affecting and disseminating ideas, and knowledge is indeed power! By focusing on a more informed and unified effort for protest, change can more easily / lastingly be promoted.

Asynchronous online learning gives learners the opportunity to control the progress / conditions of their own learning experience in a self-paced, convenient and interactive way. More specifically, this type of online education is not time and space bound, which relieves some of the pressure hindering individuals from accessing and reflecting on their learning in a highly fast-paced world, the everyday effects of which are even more evident when the regular flow is disrupted by something as detrimental as a pandemic.

Donn Randy Garrison, a Canadian professor and an expert on remote education, studied this phenomenon in relation to what he calls ‘cognitive presence’, which is ‘the process of both reflection and discourse in the initiation, construction and confirmation of meaningful learning outcomes’. Even more so than face-to-face learning, asynchronous online learning provides the conditions for this cognitive function in terms of having the time, space and resources to actively reflect on and be ‘present’ for the learning process. This is a huge step for modern-day student-based teaching and learning, and educators should take into consideration that remote learners shape their learning more than ever with the multifarious possibilities offered by technology, especially when educators facilitate the individual’s learning and create the content for study. 

Moreover, while asynchronous online learning may understandably be challenging for some students with disabilities, the issue of controlling exposure to content and learning is arguably a positive aspect for students who may lose focus or feel uncomfortable in more immediate, synchronous social settings/interactions. Ibrahim Dahlstrom-Hakki and others, for example, collected data from college students with various ‘high-incidence disabilities’ (LD, ADHD, Autism, and more), and the findings confirmed diverse preferences, not least of which is the ‘preference for the synchronous discussions’, but also the high performance of students following asynchronous discussions (pp. 8-9). There were various and varying factors that contributed to different end-results, but the fact is that synchronicity ‘requires the processing of fast back and forth conversations’, which can be problematic for ‘students with learning disabilities (Dahlstrom-Hakki and others, p. 9). Asynchronous online learning can be a space for easier and more comfortable learning. 

It is true that there are many advantages to asynchronous remote education, and greater agency is one of them. Control and agency in this context are also structured by active interaction with the other participants in the online class, and this can enhance a healthy sharing of ideas and social interactions in a more self-paced environment, a ‘synergy’ (‘Strengths and Weaknesses of Online Learning’) that more effectively conditions learning. For many people, this kind of remote learning reveals a whole new world. 

Works Cited

Dahlstrom-Hakki, Ibrahim, Zachary Alstad and Manju Banerjee, ‘Comparing Synchronous and Asynchronous Online Discussions for Students with Disabilities: The Impact of Social Presence’, Computers and Education 150 (2020): 103842, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103842.

Garrison, D. Randy, ‘Cognitive presence for effective asynchronous online learning: The role of reflective inquiry, self-direction and metacognition’, Elements of quality online education: Practice and direction 4.1 (2003), < https://www.researchgate.net/profile/D-Garrison/publication/228585404_Cognitive_presence_for_effective_asynchronous_online_learning_The_role_of_reflective_inquiry_self-direction_and_metacognition/links/02bfe50db023b07263000000/Cognitive-presence-for-effective-asynchronous-online-learning-The-role-of-reflective-inquiry-self-direction-and-metacognition.pdf> [accessed 07 January 2020].

‘Strengths and Weaknesses of Online Learning’, University of Illinois Springfield < https://www.uis.edu/ion/resources/tutorials/online-education-overview/strengths-and-weaknesses/> [accessed 07 January 2020].