epalmer

It is in everyone's best interest to protect whistleblowers

• Whistleblowing is a form of checks and balances within an organisation.
• Without checks and balances, safety breaches can occur unchallenged.
• Most large businesses have whistleblowing policies that protect whistleblowers from retribution.
• Companies sign up to the idea that nothing can be completely controlled, so acknowledge that things within a business can go wrong (rogue employees, safety issues etc)
• Thus they somewhat rely on whistleblowing as a form of checks and balances.
• Without protection individuals can be prevented from taking the ethical, moral high ground and standing up for what is right.
• Without protection people will not blow the whistle because they will fear for their job security and personal safety, of not only themselves but their colleagues, family, and the general public.
• Whistleblowing exposes issues that can be of concern or even illegal and dangerous to the public.
• So it is in everyone's best interest to protect those who blow the whistle.

Commentary

• The Empire Strikes Back was not the most financially successful movie, not just outside of the original trilogy, and ranks 11th in terms of lifetime gross compared to A New Hope in 7th position.
• However, current reviews give Empire Strikes Back scores of 8.7/10 on IMDb, 94% on Rotten Tomatoes and 5/5 in Empire, higher on all platforms than any other Star Wars movie.
• It is still considered the best movie by so many people as a result of multiple factors.
• Empire Strikes Back contains some of the greatest and most defining cinematic moments of Star Wars, and of cinema in general, including the introduction of Yoda, the loss of Luke’s hand, and some of the most recognizable quotes such as “I am your father”.
• It had a bigger budget than A New Hope, so its visuals were more impressive as well as funding the input of co-writer Lawrence Kasdan.
• It is considered the most thoughtful in terms of character development.
• The narration is also considered superior, with a clear protagonist and antagonist, allowing watchers to feel more emotionally invested in the characters.
• It is the only film in the trilogy with plot twists and true shocks, which many appreciate.

Analysis of Pret's Treatment of Workers

Positives

• Pret's apprenticeship scheme offers employees with fully funded, even paid, training and qualifications all the way up to a bachelors degree in business management.
• With the announcement of JAB Holding’s £1.5bn takeover of Pret, 12,000 employees worldwide will receive a £1,000 payment once the deal goes through.
• Their hired staff are very diverse, with only an estimated one in 50 of its job applicants being from British job seekers, and as many as 65% of its staff from the EU.
• After Pret struggled to recruit workers after Brexit and the pandemic, they recently followed Costa in giving staff a 5% pay rise.

Negatives

• However, this 5% pay rise follows what was essentially a 6% pay cut in the decision to scrap paid breaks.
• They are not accredited living wage employers (however, neither are Costa, Nero or Starbucks).
• Pret attempted to exploit young workers by having them work unpaid shifts.

Whilst many regulations cannot ensure total fairness in trade, they can promote fairer trade

Dumping

• Regulations on trade prevents dumping: when a country or company exports a product at a price that is lower in the foreign importing market than the price in the exporter's domestic market.
• This allows them to flood the market with product prices that are not equivalent to the fair market value.
• Countries can protect their domestic producers from dumping by using regulations such as tariffs and quotas against imported goods.
• Without this, trade at the fair market value is threatened and thus is fair trade in general.

Anti-discrimination Measures

• WTO law creates anti-discrimination measures, which make it illegal for countries to discriminate against each other in trade.
• This means they cannot accept the same product from one country and refuse it from another without a satisfactory basis, preventing the unfair politicization of trade.

Labour Rights

• Countries can set certain requirements when trading with another.
• They set labour clauses that list the minimum commitments for the protection of human rights at work in order to sign free trade agreements.
• A growing number of FTAs, particularly those signed by Canada, the United States and the European Union, contain social and labour provisions according to such regulations.
• This incentivises countries to protect labour rights in order to continue trading with countries that require that of their trading partners.
• This can ensure fair working conditions and promotes labour rights by protecting against exploitation such as wage slavery.

Safety

• Countries can also ban the trade of harmful/dangerous materials due to safety regulations in place.
• One example of this is the ban of asbestos trade in Canada, which has been declared a human carcinogen by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer.
• These regulations ensure trade is ethical.

Nobody should individually be able to own land, yet this does not mutually exclude the opinion that everyone should own land

• Firstly it must be noted that no one can actually “own land” in our legal system, rather one only owns the rights to land. No one can directly own (that is, have complete claim to) the land itself.
• However this is how I will continue to refer to land ownership for the sake of conversation.
• It is important to distinguish between public and private land ownership.

Private Ownership

• Property or land is privately owned by individuals or private companies.
• It caters to the needs of the few (the owner) and disregards or even violates the needs of the many.
• Enhances the personal freedom of the owners, but at the expense of the freedom of the many.
• Much of privately owned land or institutions is publically funded but neither publically owned nor publically beneficial.
• It leads to unaffordability in land, products, services and ammenities as well as being a substantial factor in homelessness and the housing crisis.

Public Ownership

• Public ownership is also sometimes known as nationalisation.
• Land or establishments are communally owned by a government-run organisation for the benefit of all members of society.
• Resources can be distributed fairly, and more effectively based on need.
• This includes workers wages which are distributed more equitably without the hierarchy of an individual ownership of the company.
• Land can be used more productively according to the needs of the many in society, and property is not hoarded by the wealthy with no need for such extensive estate.
• Decisions about the use of land are made collectively and democratically.
• The rich are often detached and disenfranchised from the needs and workings of the industries they own, so collective ownership eradicated the problems associated with this.

This is a really interesting question, thank you for raising it.
The first thing I would mention is that I don't believe commons need necessarily, or even should equal the unregulation of such resources.
Regardless, even with some level of regulation, many of the issues which arise in actual and potential tragedies of commons are not issues with the fact that there are common resources but the fact that they are still able to be exploited by privatization. Thus the problem still lies with privately owned property, and those with disproportionate power.
Additionally, in present society, often those who have the power to set these regulations on commons, or lack of such regulations, are also those with the power to able to selfishly exploit the resources themselves (and intend to do so). Hence those in power will not likely set regulations on commons which are there to serve common good, rather they set them to serve themselves. This is one cause for such tragedies that needs addressing.
I'd love to have a proper debate on this issue alone, so perhaps you would consider submitting it as a stand-alone opinion on Parlia?

Essential to what end?

• This statement is ambiguous for one is left wondering the ends to which it can be deemed essential.
• The opinion might better be stated as 'it is morally essential...' .
• If one places high value, or even prioritises truth against all else such that their ultimate desired end is absolute honesty then of course to state the truth at all times may be seen as essential.
• However, if one primarily values what is right, then an argument must be made in an attempt to show that to always tell the truth or be brutally honest is always morally correct in order to demonstrate that always telling the truth is essential to acting morally.
• If one's aim is something else, such as to convince someone of something, there may be times it is essential not to tell the truth.
• Commonly, people prioritise feelings over truth and telling white lies avoids hurt and conflict in everyday scenarios. Lying or withholding truth can be seen as essential in avoiding these scenarios.
• There are also situations where truth is essential, for example in science with its primary aim of objectivity and discovering facts.
• Ultimately the way in which people form opinions on this statement depends heavily on the imagined scenario and their objectives in that scenario.

Commentary

• As of January 2021, Armin Laschet is the leader of Germany's Christian Democratic Union, the same party ex-chancellor Angela Merkel led until 2018.
• The CDU is the [second largest](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Democratic_Union_of_Germany#Post-Merkel_(2018%E2%80%93present) party in the Bundestag, or Parliament of Germany.
• They are a centre-right party that encompass a range of political stances.
• They won 18.9% of votes in the September 2021 general election, but with their Barvarian sister party the CSU gained a combined 24.1% of seats.
• This was their worst result ever.
• The centre-left party Social Democratic Party came first with 25.7% of the votes.
• Following these results, the two main rivals to succeed Merkel as Germany's next chancellor are the SPD's Olaf Scholz and CDU leader Armin Laschet.

Olaf Scholtz

• Olaf Scholtz has had a succession of senior posts in German politics.
• He is currently German finance minister and Chancellor Merkel's deputy.
• He previously served as an MP from 1998 to 2011.
• Prior to that, he entered politics as a Socialist Youth leader, having studied labour law.
• Whilst Laschet and the CDU's popularity fell during the leadership campaign, Scholtz and the SDP experienced the opposite and gained huge popularity.
• One of the reasons for this is his successful overseeing of the emergency funding package imposed as a result of the pandemic. He is generally seen to have performed well throughout the pandemic.
• Whilst he is a member of a left-wing party, in SPD ranks he is seen as a conservative.
• He is currently in a strong position as the SDP are in pole position to lead the next government.
• However, unlike the CDU, the SDP are in a weaker position to form a coalition.

Armin Laschet

• Armin Laschet was the premier of Germany's most populous state, North Rhine-Westphalia.
• He has strong international ties coming from a town bordering France, as well as forging rapport with the large Turkish community of Germany and being passionately pro-EU.
• He too is a trained lawyer, and as the son of a miner has consistently defended the coal industry.
• However, his decision not to support the notion to end coal usage by 2038 was not popular with environmental activists.
• He only narrowly secured the nomination to be the candidate for chancellor, defeating his Bavarian rival, Markus Söder, after the party leadership rallied behind him.
• However, following this, he may have the support of both the CDU and CSU.
• On the other hand, some party members blame him for the CDU/CSU's worst result in history.
• Support for both parties fell due to the pandemic, where Laschet himself was accused of inconsistencies and poor management of Covid-19.
• His reputation was further damaged when Laschet was videoed laughing as the president of Germany made a speech in a town which had been largely destroyed by catastrophic flooding.

The Enlightenment may have helped initiate revolution, but it was the tension caused by oppression of the lower classes which was the true 'cause'

• Growing social tensions in France led up to the French Revolution as a result of multiple factors.
• The Enlightenment caused a dramatic shift in thought in French society which did contribute to these tensions in that people were waking up to their oppression and coming to prioritise liberty and religious tolerance in opposition to absolute monarchy and the church.
• The Enlightenment provided hope and inspiration for better, alternative structuring of society.
• Thus they became less tolerant of their poor treatment, however it was this treatment itself that can be ruled as the 'cause' of the revolution in that it is the reason revolution was deemed necessary.

The Estates System

• The Estates System implemented in the 1780s is seen as a huge contributor of class tensions.
• French society was divided into three hierarchical 'estates' or classes, with 98% of all citizens including merchants, lawyers, labourers and peasants belonging to the lowest class, known as the Third Estate.
• The Third Estate was excluded from positions of honour and political power and was looked down upon by the other estates.
• Despite being the poorest estate, the Third Estate was forced to pay heavy taxes while the other two were exempted.
• The Third Estate's anger and resentment towards this treatment united them in revolution by 1789.

The ineffective leadership of King Louis XV and XVI

• The poor economic condition of the nation angered the masses and they became critical of their king as Louis XV failed to overcome the financial problems facing France.
• Their attempts to solve the food crisis were poor. Louis XVI implemented deregulation of the grain market but it resulted in further increasing the bread prices, which was the staple food of the masses.
• This lead to widespread starvation across the nation.
• Whilst the nation was deep in a financial crisis, the extravagant expenditure on luxuries by both kings outraged the lower classes whilst they suffered.

There are many different forms of authority - too many to be able to claim that children should universally respect all authoritative figures

• Children should learn how to act respectfully towards authority when it is required so that they will not struggle in life and employment.
• However, authority does not automatically deserve the respect of anyone - many forms of authority are unjust and to teach children to submit to that is wrong.
• I think it is more important to teach children to question authority, and how to do so rationally and productively so that they do not lose the respect of others.
• Children should be encouraged to stand up for their beliefs rather than submit to those they believe are wrong.
• Authority figures are not always right, morally or factually, so it benefits all when they are questioned.
• This does not mean society will become lawless and that children will not follow societal rules and norms: rather it can result in the opposite.
• It is better and more sustainable for a society that a child or any person decides to follow these rules and norms because they have determined they are right, rather than simply because they were told to by authority.
• To teach new generations to automatically respect authority also prevents authoritative figures from acting with the best intentions in order to earn and maintain the respect of others.
• It can deter them from making the correct choices if they do not risk losing support and respect.
• There are authoritative figures, or potential authoritative figures, who may greatly contradict one another - children should learn how to determine which to respect and offer support to, especially as an essential skill to prepare for involvement in the political sphere.
• This does not mean we should tell children not to respect those with alternative beliefs, but the opposite. We should encourage them to foster critical thinking and respectful open dialogues to discourage the monopoly of certain ideas.

The Paradox of Tolerance

”Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.“ - Karl Popper

• Something that should be central to the discussion of setting the boundaries of free speech should be what Karl Popper calls the Paradox of Tolerance.
• If there were no limits to freedom of speech, it would reduce other’s freedom of speech thus going against the very principle of free speech.
• To allow freedom of speech to those who would use it to eliminate the very principle upon which that freedom relies is therefore paradoxical.
• That is to say, in order to sustain the values of free speech it is necessary to be intolerant to certain expressions.
• For example, we should not tolerate those who use hate speech to suppress the speech of those they disagree with.
• Whilst some interpret that Popper argued against the tolerance of a more physically violent intolerance, I argue that speech alone can be violent in suppressing freedom when it is not “on the level of rational argument” as described by Popper as the condition for avoiding suppression.

British history contains too many atrocities for me to feel proud of it

• Whilst perhaps not all of British history is bad, enough of it is.
• Even if there was a part I thought was particularly positive, ‘proud’ of any of it is never something I have felt as this history is not something I feel that strongly personally connected to.
• However, I feel connected enough to have certainly felt guilt and shame of its history.
• We learn about our history through a very biased, rose-tinted perspective so that it may be understandable so many are proud of it.
• However, colonialism and the remnants of the British Empire is not something to be proud of, and is still causing harm across the world to this day.
• In my eyes, too many times has Britain has been the villain throughout history.
• I am unable to separate the bad from my history, as in this ‘opinion’ it seems history must been seen in its totality, thus ‘proud’ has never been an appropriate feeling.

Of course it’s not so black-and-white, but whilst there are good things that I can appreciate in Britain’s history I personally have not felt ‘proud’ of it. ‘Proud’ feels too personal of a word and I am not someone who feels particularly connected to my ancestors. This is just my experience. And as I said, there are too many negative instances of Britain throughout history for me to say I feel anything positive about it overall when viewing history as a whole. The good doesn’t make up for the bad.

I also don’t think it’s right at all to say any other culture would have more to be ashamed of in their history than Britain.

Video Games Developers often have inhumane working conditions - but regardless, EVERYONE should unionise.

• There are many examples of video games developers being treated particularly poorly in regards to their work conditions.
• However, even if this did not occur, they should still unionise - as should every worker.

Benefits of unionising

• Unionised workers earn on average 11.2% more in wages than nonunionised peers (workers in the same industry and occupation with similar education and experience).
• There is greater power of a collective voice to communicate to management dissatisfaction and frustrations.
• Trade unions can negotiate much better terms and conditions on behalf of their members including more paid leave and more humane hours as well as ensuring safer workplaces.
• There are 50% fewer accidents in unionised workplaces.
• Unionised workers have more job security and stability. Trade union members are more likely to stay in their jobs longer, on average five years more than non-unionised workers.
• This stability is particularly important to ensure in the games development industry with the high levels of fire and rehiring.

Nature would benefit from eradicating the effects of industrialisation, however without indigenous conservation nature would struggle

• I shall interpret this question as whether nature can reclaim itself from the damage/influence of humans.

• The impacts the modern industrial era have been overwhelmingly damaging to nature, and in areas where humans have left their mark before abandoning infrastructure, there are multiple examples of nature reclaiming itself.

• That is, plants have taken over ruins and wildlife has returned to an extent.

• However, I do not believe nature can fully reclaim itself.

• Firstly, whilst some argue extinction is a natural phenomenon which does not always need preventing, conservation work is helping to prevent the extinction of multiple species which are not always threatened due to human interference.

• Secondly, some human damage is essentially irreparable by nature such as radioactive waste, long lasting plastics and the hole in the ozone layer.

• Finally, indigenous people’s practices of the conservation of nature have worked alongside nature to prevent natural fires, invasive species and overgrowth for thousands of years before industrialisation.

• The idea that nature can only be reclaimed by the eradication of human interference is false, and even racist.

• Such practices by indigenous people are a part of nature.

• The idea of natural, wild spaces untouched by humans is a myth.

Having a good supply of books can be beneficial, but not essential.

• Being surrounded by books in your living space can encourage a person to eventually read them, however it can also be overwhelming to hoard more than one can realistically expect to read.
• Books can be very expensive and purchasing them is not an option for everyone.
• There are other cheaper and more sustainable means to read books such as loaning them from a library.
• Supporting the library industry is important in my opinion, however so is supporting authors by purchasing their work.
• I agree that books are there to be read, not hoarded with no intention of reading them.
• Such hoards could be donated to those who need them.
• However, for some where books are a huge part of their daily life or career, being surrounded by the thing they love and are passionate about can be in some sense as important as reading them.
• I appreciate that many people don’t feel the need to read books more than once but see value in holding onto them.

For some people it already is. However it will never be for everyone.

• Some countries, particularly Japan where AI advancements are world leading, already see AI as a part of their daily lives - for some this includes love robots.
• The term ‘digi-sexual’ is a term coined in recent years which refers to those who prefer intimate, and even sexual, relationships with advanced computer software and lifelike robots. 
• In Japan, one man is married to who he considers the woman of his dreams - a hologram of Hatsune Miku.
• There are also love robots in less extreme forms, such as AI chatbots which are used to replicate the intimacy of a relationship.
• Whilst some claim to have been able to fall in love with some form of ‘love robot’, this relationship is unlikely to be so successful for everyone.
• Although internet relationships with other humans is in increasing popularity, and virtual love with forms of AI doesn’t seem so far removed from that, it would likely not replace every persons desire for a more human love.

Being at the beach has many physical and mental health benefits

• Time spent in the sun, with SPF protection of course, allows you to soak up Vitamin D which helps boost your immune system, and is important for the growth and development of bones and teeth.
• Many residents in countries including the UK lack Vitamin D due to the lack of sun, so taking a beach holiday abroad during the winter could be especially beneficial.
• Being in sun and nature also releases serotonin, improving mental health.
• The fresh air and salty sea water also have many health benefits.
• Beach holidays can be as active or relaxing as you like, with many sport opportunities such as walking, sea swimming and volleyball as well as lounging on the sand.
• They can even be educational, and a great place for children (or any age) to learn about coastal ecosystems first hand.
• Not all beaches have sand! There are pebble and slate beaches too.
• It is a low cost or even free activity that can occupy families for several days.

It is not just those on the right who are critical of AOC's stunt: it was not radical, but detracted from the actual issue of wealth tax and undermined her condemnation of the rich.

"“Tax the Rich”……But first I’m gonna go have the time of my life partying with them all at the most extravagant over the top party of the year that is essentially a celebration of richness." (Twitter)

• The slogan on the dress was a problem not because it was too radical but because it was too anodyne; according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll from 2020 the majority of Americans support a tax on the wealthy.
• “If she had chosen to highlight a message that wasn’t already so broadly well received, then her act would have been seen as more subversive, as opposed to pageantry" New York Times
• AOC’s ‘Tax the Rich’ dress designer was accused of owing thousands in unpaid taxes and refusing to pay interns.
• She made a big deal about supporting a “sustainably focused, Black woman immigrant designer.” but didn't pay for her dress. It was 'borrowed'. She thought this made her less of a hypocrite but I feel it does the opposite.
• Her aim was “to break the fourth wall and challenge some of the institutions.” and “bring all classes in the discussion”. It is the working classes who are left out of the political discourse, not those who are the ruling class elites.
• AOC is the rich. She drives a $59,000 Tesla. She enjoyed the attention and glamour, drinking champagne and gallavanting with the elites she supposedly condemns.
• It is unclear how much this performative stunt achieved, when she is a politician with more individual power than most people to actually make a pro-active change in policy.
• The controversy ultimately took away from discussion around the issue of wealth taxation and instead became about AOC.

5 years old is not necessarily too young, but the schooling system needs amending for all ages

• Previous arguments made against this opinion seem to have more criticism of the general mainstream schooling system and how it can be harmful to children.
• However, if this system was amended to include more learn-through-play techniques and less testing - for all ages - I do not feel 5 years old is too young to begin schooling.
• In the UK where I was educated, mainstream education begins earlier than in many countries - for me it begin less than a month after I turned 4.
• Some of the main benefits of this were exposure to social skills and developing social behaviour skills.
• From a very early age children in school are able to socialise with other children, both their own age and across other year groups, and with those of other backgrounds which many children would not have the chance to do outside of a school setting.
• This improves communication and language skills in a way that perhaps could not be developed at home, particularly with an only child.
• Another major benefit is that mainstream schooling provides what is essentially free child-care for parents, which is especially beneficial to parents who need to get back to work or are less wealthy.
• It is a safe place they can send their child where the child will be looked after as well as learning at the same time.
• In countries where mainstream education does not start until later ages, parents still choose to, or due to work commitments have to send their children to some form of crèche or pre-school which often is not easy to find or affordable.
• Even in the UK where most children enter mainstream education at the early age of 4, 89% of 3-4 year olds and 43% of 0-2 year olds make use of formal childcare such as pre-schools or crèches.
• From birth to age 5, a child's brain develops more than at any other time in life, so I feel experiences like education and socialisation in this period are vital.
• However, at this age children's abilities and needs differ greatly and parents may feel their child is not ready for mainstream education for a variety of factors.
• To say 5 years is a good age to enter mainstream education does not account for this therefore ultimately I feel children should be assessed individually - some children may be ready for school as early as 2 years old and others not until later.

Clean eating is a class issue that cannot be solved by banning adverts for processed food.

• The advertisement of processed meat is not the biggest issue if one wants to argue from a point of health.
• Thus removing adverts promoting processed meat but not the product itself would not solve anything.
• Rather than a blanket censor on the promotion of processed foods, efforts could be more beneficial with a focus on education of the impacts of processed foods, and how to determine a food is in fact processed - which surveys show is a major reason why they are consumed.
• Banning adverts will not stop people from buying and consuming processed meat, most notably in circumstances where processed meat is the only kind they can afford.
• The biggest threat to health - obesity and healthy eating specifically - is poverty.
• There are a huge volume of studies documenting this.
• Even when in some circumstances processed options are not necessarily cheaper, issues lie in the stress of poverty and the alleviation of that stress by the convenience and accessibility of processed food.
• ProfessorJudy Swift, a researcher in behaviour and nutrition, writes: “How can you expect people to be planning long-term health initiatives when they have highly stressful, short-term problems and are more concerned about how they’re going to last day-to-day?”
• Anti-obesity measures such as those proposed by Boris Johnson, like banning the advertisement of processed foods, fall short for they focus on personal responsibility rather than attacking the root causes of obesity—poverty and inequality.

Who are our heroes and how are we really honouring them?

• I feel the people which society determines as heroes are difficult to outline.
• There are people society may generally regard as a hero but which many may disagree with and not want to honour, such as Winston Churchill. (My previous arguments for this can be found here)
• Whether someone is a hero seems much more of a personal, subjective opinion that also can be acted upon an individual level - the way we may honour family members who we perceive as our heroes whereas society would not see them the same way.
• Additionally, what is meant by how we honour heroes seems very vague.
• One has seen issues with this in recent times with the appreciation of 'NHS Heroes' in the UK.
• I strongly believe more should be done for NHS workers, who throughout the pandemic were frequently referred to as 'heroes' by society.
• Many believed we were honouring them by acts such as clapping at a certain time every Thursday and that this was sufficient.
• However, I argue to honour them properly we should show this gratitude and respect through increased wages, better working conditions, free parking etc.
• A similar point can be made for veterans.
• Society generally views Veterans and those currently deployed as heroes.
• Whilst I do not necessarily agree that these people are all automatically heroes, I think more can be done to properly honour them.
• The way in which people argue they are currently 'honoured' is through talking about military service in a certain respectful and admirable way, thanking veterans for their service, and even glamorising their experiences.
• Yet people do not show symmetry between their words and actions, by voting against policies that will provide Veterans with adequate mental health treatment and reduce homelessness rates.
• There is a substantial disconnect between how we believe we are showing respect to those we admire, and the actions which would genuinely benefit them.
• It is not up to society to decide who is a hero and worthy of honour, rather there is more society should do to properly honour each other in general.

Commentary

• Tariffs are a tax or duty to be paid on a particular class of imports or exports.
• Tariffs on international trade is a form of protectionism.
• Protectionism refers to intervention in the form of government policies that restrict and regulate international trade in order to help domestic industries.
• One of the reasons it is implemented is with the aim of improving economic activity within a domestic setting - specifically to support local economies.

Tariffs on international trade are important to support local economies because:

• It protects certain industries, safeguarding and creating more jobs. One example of this is Trump imposing a tariff on steel imports to protect jobs in the US steel industry.
• Protects against international competition
• Money stays within the local economy as consumers are encouraged to buy local produce as opposed to its more expensive imported alternative.

Adverse effects

• Lack of competition often leads to industries being able to hike up their prices - this may benefit the company economically but have the opposite effect on the local community who may struggle to afford their products and services.
• Higher prices may lead to lower overall demand, thus causing job losses and increased unemployment, then even fewer customers who can afford the prices, leading to a spiral of economic downfall.
• Other nations may retaliate with trade bans or tariffs of their own, and revenue gained from exporting from the local community may decrease.

Commentary

• VAR stands for video assistant referee.
• It has been used in Major League Soccer (MLS) in the US since 2016, and gradually introduced to most major football matches around the world.
• VAR was eventually written into the Laws of the Game by the International Football Association Board (IFAB) in 2018.
• VAR uses video footage to assess the decisions made by the head referee to evaluate incidents in a more precise way.
• Its purpose is to minimize or eliminate human error and referee bias which can substantially impact the match results.
• It enables incidents to be replayed and reviewed in slow motion meaning.
• Incidents it addresses are categorised as: goals, penalty decisions, direct red card incidents and mistaken identity.
• It is used only for "clear and obvious errors", and "serious missed incidents".
• The technology allows us a greater chance of applying the correct outcomes - in scenarios where there is such a thing as a correct outcome.
• This is where the issue lies.
• It can be interpreted that it is not VAR that is the issue, but that it illuminates issues of ambiguity in the Laws of the Game relating to a disconnect between observation and application.
• Because of this, the Laws of the Game have and are being changed to account for this new level of observation provided by VAR.
• For example, the previous conditions for a handball included vague statements such as 'It is an offence if a player deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm', where the deliberateness requires a degree of interpretation that cannot be determined through VAR.
• Following the ammended, more specific rules for handball in 2019, a record number of penalties for handball were awarded.
• Many found this unfair and protested, leading the rules to be eased once again.
• However, this back and forth caused more negative feelings towards the effects of VAR where certain penalties may or may not have been awarded based on the rules at the time of the match, which would have seen a different outcome had the match been a week earlier for example.
• This highlights the key danger of VAR, where the fundamental rules of the game are being constantly changed to improve the efficiency of VAR.
• Instead of solving the problem of subjectivity in the game, it can be argued VAR caused further controversy and rather lead to an increasing black-and-white lens of elements of the game that were never intended to be so objective.
• On the other hand, arguments can be made that the game rules have always been an evolutionary process, and it is not too late to implement changes that increase clarity and objectivity is now that it is possible.

Commentary

• Gold which was stolen from the victims of Nazi Germany to fund the war effort was transferred under-the-radar to banks overseas in exchange for currency during World War II, but particularly in the year 1945.
• Because these gold depositories were often privately owned, the parties involved and the present whereabouts of the Nazi gold that disappeared during this time remains unclear.
• However, there have been reports leaked accusing several institutions of being involved in helping the Nazi's to either sell their gold, or of still hoarding it.
• The accusees include Swiss banks, The Bank of England, and The Vatican.
• On October 21, 1946, the U.S. State Department received a Top Secret report known as the 'Bigelow Report' which asserted that in 1945, the Vatican had 'confiscated' 350 million Swiss francs ($1.5b 2020) in Nazi gold for "safekeeping".
• The report stated that the gold was held in a Swiss bank account owned by the Vatican.
• Of this sum, 150 million Swiss francs had reportedly been impounded by British authorities at the Austro-Swiss border.
• Consistent with this, intelligence later suggested that around 200 million Swiss francs, largely of gold coins, were eventually transferred to the Institute for Works of Religion (aka the Vatican Bank) in Vatican City with the assistance of the Franciscan order.
• As a result of this, a civil suit was brought in January 2000 by Holocaust victims in California against the Vatican Bank, the Franciscan Order and other defendants.
• However, the case was dismissed on the basis that the suit did not claim the gold was presently in the possession of the Vatican, only that it had been at some stage, with the [closing remarks]((https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2010/02/10/08-16060.pdf) stating that the plaintiff "makes no allegation as to the current location of the expropriated property." so it cannot be recovered by law.
• The looted gold may have been in the possession of the Vatican, either in their Swiss-owned bank account or in the city itself, however there is no report indicating it remains there to this day.
• Swiss banks admit their involvement with profiting from and holding Nazi gold, yet have not revealed the account owners.
• The Vatican denies that it ever had involvement with the gold.

"There are very few cases where you can definitely identify sanctions as having had a success, except sometimes in combination with other factors"

• The above quotation is from Professor Adam Roberts, a research fellow at Oxford University and one of the greatest British figures in the study of international relations.

• Through analysis of various previously employed economic sanctions, it can be seen that there are many adverse effects.

• Many countries have ignored economic sanctions where they believe the consequences of not following them is unlikely to lead to anything extreme such as war.

• Other countries also become involved to 'undercut' imposed sanctions, for example China has become the largest trading partner with Iran since UN sanctions on Iran have come into effect.

• Sanctions cause massively disproportionate damage to the lives of ordinary, innocent civilians of a country rather than against the rulers who are often the real target for pressure.

• For example, during the Kuwait liberation attempt by the US, economic sanctions devastated the country's infrastructure as they could not rebuild after US drone strikes.

• It also caused a nation wide health crisis and child mortality rates skyrocketed: economic sanctions lead to the death of 670,000-880,000 children under the age of 5 in Iraq during the '90s.

• In rare cases of 'success', sanctions were only one factor among many so it is difficult to identify the role in which the sanction itself played, but it is unlikely the sanction itself was the decisive factor or would have worked on its own.

• For example, in South Africa it is considered that economic sanctions played some positive role in the change of white minority rule in Rhodisia to a rule by the black majority.

• However, many other factors were at play during the Guerilla Bush War.

• In addition, despite the effect of economic and diplomatic sanctions, Rhodesia developed and maintained a powerful and professional military.

What is Universal Basic Income?

• Universal Basic Income (UBI) refers to a government implemented policy wherein every adult citizen receives a certain fixed amount of payment on a regular basis.
• It is proposed with the aim of a guaranteed payment to all serving as much needed assurance to those in or at risk of total poverty
• The amount decided upon by the government to give to every citizen could vary.
• Schemes vary in size but can include providing each citizen with a living wage, or a smaller amount to top up their income and ensure they have at least enough money for the most essential items like food.
• It is universal in that every citizen would be eligible to receive payment, regardless of ability, employment, living circumstances etc. unlike many current social security benefits.
• The idea of UBI is not new - schemes have dated back to the 16th Century
• Advocates come from the left and right of the political spectrum, ranging from tech billionaire Mark Zuckerberg to libertarian economist Milton Friedman to former labour leader Jeremy Corbyn to Pope Francis who have all endorsed it.

Pros

• Eradicates problems with determining eligibility for the current benefits system.
• Payment is automatic and citizens do not have to apply or prove anything, a process which has been described as 'dehumanising' in today's system.
• In addition to the removal of stress caused by means-tests, it eradicates stress about the conditionality and uncertainty about whether support will be withdrawn.
• Destigmatization of social security support.
• Security and stability for all.
• [Pope Francis](would ensure and concretely achieve the ideal, at once so human and so Christian, of no worker without rights.”) states it "would ensure and concretely achieve the ideal [...] of no worker without rights.”
• More equal method of providing financial aid.

Cons

• Many historically criticized schemes such as the Speenhamland System for allowing employers to get away with paying their workers lower wages since the UBI payment would make up for the difference.
• Concerns that it will incentivise people not to work.
• Could cost a large proportion of the governmental budget.

Past and Proposed Schemes

• Former presidential candidate Andrew Yang proposed that every American adult could receive $1,000 per month from the federal government.
• Libertarian philosopher Charles Murray proposed a $10,000-per-year UBI, as well as basic health insurance, which he says would allow the government to cut Social Security and other redistribution programs.
• Martin Luther King, Jr., proposed “guaranteed income” in his book Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community? published in 1967.
• In 2011, Iran rolled out a nationwide unconditional cash transfer program equal to roughly 29% of the median household income of the country. Despite the aforementioned concerns about the effect on work incentive, economists found that “the program did not affect labor supply in any appreciable way.”
• A complete map of recent UBI schemes can be found here

You are absolutely right, however some still consider this a form of UBI since it is guaranteed income.

I assumed it meant neutrality in a sense of a stereotype which has neither positive nor negative associations

Commentary

The British House of Lords select committee on medical ethics defines euthanasia as "a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending a life, to relieve intractable suffering".

There are two key ways in which a doctor could help a patient to end their life: active and passive euthanasia. Often people feel strongly about allowing one type but not the other, so it is important to understand their differences.

Passive euthanasia:
-Passive euthanasia occurs when doctors (or other individuals) help people end their lives by allowing them to pass by stopping an action that was keeping them alive, such as:

• switching off life-support machines
• disconnecting feeding tubes
• not carrying out a life-extending operation
• not administering life-extending drugs.

-Passive euthanasia is currently legal under specific circumstances in many countries including the UK whereas active euthanasia is not.
-This is because there is considered to be a moral difference between letting someone die by withholding treatment and actively 'killing' them.

• There are also voluntary and non-voluntary forms of passive euthanasia, with voluntary meaning the patient has given consent, and non-voluntary referring to times where the patient is not in a position to consent such as in a coma.

Active euthanasia:

• Active euthanasia is only legal in a small handful of countries such as the Netherlands, Belgium and Canada.
• Examples of active euthanasia can include administering lethal substances with the intention of ending a patients life.
• Assisted suicide comes under the umbrella of active euthanasia.
• In the UK and others, it is considered a criminal offence even with consent.

Pros of allowing both:

• Dying with dignity, in the company of loved ones and without further suffering.
• Allowing control over one's life and decisions - individuals should be given freedom and a right to die how they wish.
• Patients may have to travel to countries where it is legal in order to die on their own terms, spending thousands.
• Healthcare costs can be reduced.

Cons:

• Laws like this without good-quality universal healthcare can lead to less wealthy people resorting to euthanasia because they cannot afford comfortable end of life care.
• Permanent, non-reversible decision.
• Individuals are desperate and suicidal intent may be transient.
• Mental illnesses, particularly those unrecognised, may affect decisions.
• Risk of corruption and coercion where healthcare costs can be saved - family or staff could influence decision-making.
• Feelings of guilt and not wanting to burden family with prolonged care may persuade decisions.
• The conditions under which patients are eligible can be difficult to determine.

Ultimately I agree that the West absolutely should not have invaded Iraq, although these observations are much more easily made in hindsight

The West should have invaded Iraq

• The dictatorial regime under Saddam Hussein committed human rights abuses against their own people and invaded other nations in defiance of international law, which it can be argued should be stopped at all costs.
• He terrorized and killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's since he took power in 1978.
• He violated the conditions of the US-led UN cease-fire following his illegal invasion of Kuwait, by firing upon allied planes who were enforcing the agreement, and stopped allowing UN inspections for several years beginning in 1998.
• It is easier to see in hindsight that some of the information was false, but in a post-9/11 environment people were terrified and overly cautious so the threat seemed justified at the time.
• There were reports that Iraq had in fact did have weapons of mass destruction (WMDs): ongoing biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons programs, another violation of the ceasefire.
• The normal diplomatic tools had repeatedly been tried and failed - since 1991, Saddam had ignored 17 different U.N. resolutions.

The West should not have invaded Iraq

• Saddam Hussein had destroyed all WMDs as a part of the initial ceasefire.
• No WMDs were ever found following the US invasion of 2003.
• Economic sanctions placed as a solution to the invasion of Kuwait and the original US intervention severely harmed the country and led to a health crisis in which thousands of children were dying each month.
• It is speculated that Iraq's threat was exaggerated in order for the US to gain control of an important Middle Eastern, oil-producing state.
• The majority of intelligence used to justify the invasion, such as reports of WMDs and links to 9/11 and Al-Queda was completely based upon false pretences.
• The UK chose to join the invasion before peaceful options had been exhausted, as was found in the Chilcott Report.
• The report also determined there was no imminent threat from Saddam -
  Iran, North Korea and Libya were considered greater threats in terms of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons proliferation.
• The invasion was rushed so militaries were ill-equipped for the task leading to many preventable deaths as well as factions having to strike deals with enemy militias.
  -Several governments including the UK had no post-invasion strategy.
• The UK did not achieve its objectives, so the invasion was not considered successful.
• The war was extremely costly, costing £8.4bn in the UK and $2.4 trillion in the US.
• It cost the lives of between 184,382 and 207,156 civilians in just 7 years, compared to 250,000 at the hands of Saddam over 24 years.

Commentary
The following information will be presented neutrally as opposed to specifying whether each point is a pro or a con, since this can be debated.

• Merkel is popular- she is Germany's longest-serving postwar leader, and has been re-elected by the German people 3 times.
• She served as the Leader of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) from 2000-2018, and the chancellor from 2005-2021.
• In 2014 she became the longest-serving incumbent head of government in the European Union.
• Merkel is the first female chancellor of Germany.
• She is a centre-right politician.
• She made Germany more powerful - Merkel has been frequently referred to as the de facto leader of the European Union and the most powerful woman in the world.
• She was the TIME Person of the Year in 2015 for her
• She is considered honest - when approached by personnel of the Ministry for State Security (Stasi) to become an informant, she refused.
• Merkel opened the doors of Germany to over 1 million asylum seekers and refugees during the height of the European migrant crisis.
• This lead to a rise in anti-immigration protests.
• Merkel played a crucial role in managing the global financial crisis of 2007–2008 and the European debt crisis.
• Germany is now the richest country in Europe.
• Her post-war efforts included avoiding conflict for over 16 years.
• Her party (CDU) has lost a considerable amount of votes in the election after she stepped down as the party leader and chancellor.

Whilst Starmer is not my choice of Labour leader, to replace him would require a democratic process

For

• Starmer is damaging to Labour's values and reputation.
• He comes across as unconfident and has been disappointing in not committing to, and even backtracking from policies such as nationalising energy companies.
• He is dishonest and has broken all of his '10 pledges' used in his leadership campaign.
• He is propelling Labour infighting.
• His ideology has taken Labour so far away from its original values.
• Recent polls show the majority feel Starmer should be replaced, and those in support of his position is decreasing significantly.
• His policies are undemocratic, with his advocacy of the introduction of an electoral college

Against

• Starmer was elected not appointed - so his position is legitimate and democratic
• To be replaced he would have to be voted out by the people or stand down of his own will
• There is a lack of viable replacements, and those who are potential candidates may refuse the role and feel they are better placed or can make a bigger difference in their local roles as MPs or mayors

I find there are significantly more reasons to reduce MP's salary to that of an average UK citizen, however there are still some drawbacks

The basic annual salary for an MP from 1 April 2020 is £81,932. MPs also receive expenses to cover the costs of running an office, employing staff, having somewhere to live in London or their constituency, and travelling between Parliament and their constituency.

For

• MP's should be paid around a standard, median worker's wage, which is at present £29,952 p/a for full-time employees.
• This could enable them to understand the life of the average working man in the country.
• There is an issue between the wealth divide of MP's and the average UK citizen which means they make policies that are not in the best interests of the masses and favour those with wealth since they fall into that category.
• Their place in the wealth bracket as well as the fact that high salaries attract those with elite upbringings means there is a huge detachment between MPs and the general public.
• Average wages can also lead to better policymaking as they are less out of touch with the lives of the average citizen.
• They are elected as representatives of the public, so should represent the public in terms of salary and life experience.
• A high, attractive wage means the role might attract those with the wrong intentions, who prioritise money over the citizens and the role itself.
• MP's also receive many royalties in addition to their high wages, meaning their actual income is much higher than their salary.

Against

• This is one of the most important jobs in this country, so it can be argued that high wages will attract the top talent that the country has to offer, similar to the reasons we pay doctors so highly.
• By paying them a comfortably, high wage it could also mean they are less likely to be bribed and corrupted.

Commentary

Background

• On several occasions for decades, the CIA has been accused of drug trafficking in multiple regions including France, Mexico, Venezuela, Laos and more.
• These claims have led to official investigations, but cases were often dropped inexplicably.
• Many now believe the CIA were involved at least in complicity, if not conspiracy in funneling crack cocaine into black communities in the 1980s. This is known as the CIA-Contra-Crack Cocaine Controversy, and is one of the most widely believed conspiracies of drug trafficking in the CIA.
• One allegation that is particularly relevant to recent events regards CIA involvement in heroin trafficking in Afghanistan, which is speculated to be a contributor of their failure to prevent the Taliban's success over Kabul.

Evidence

• The CIA looked the other way while Afghanistan’s opium production grew from about 100 tonnes annually in the 1970s to 2,000 tonnes by 1991.
• Within just a few years, Afghanistan provided over 60% of the US heroin trade and 80% of Europe's.

Motivations

• In the case of the crack epidemic, it is speculated that intelligence agencies deliberately brought the drugs into lower class, black communities for the purpose of preventing their economic and political success and stability.
• In addition to this, those involved were said to have used their drug trafficking profits to help fund the Contra army's war effort against Nicaragua.
• War, politics and money are often the key motivators, and can be noted in the cases of the Korean War and so-called "Secret War" against the communist movement of Laos.

Despite this, no solid evidence has surfaced. The CIA continues to deny claims, yet this does not surprise or change the opinions of those who support the allegations.

Attitudes are already shifting, but policy changes may not be permanent

• From the mid 90s to the 2000s, the US has taken military action to interfere in several countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Libya.

• These interferences have not been considered successful as both short and long term solutions.

• The ongoing Syrian and Libyan civil wars, and the heightened instability in Afghanistan and Iraq caused by a power vacuum further supports the claims of the failure of foreign intervention by the US.

• With the recent advancement of Taliban forces in Kabul after the withdrawal of US troops, this non-success seems more apparent than ever.

• Trump's administration also had plans to withdraw troops from several of these countries including Afghanistan, which shows a shift to a less interventionist US foreign policy.

• This has been continued by Biden, completing the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan making less-interventionist foreign policy-making one of the only common grounds between the two administrations.

• This highlights the continuation of the trend of a change in foreign policy.

• Although the defeat of the Taliban has not been the only reason which will spark the change of US foreign policy, it can be seen as the last nail in the coffin.

• However, it can also be argued that this viewpoint is naive, as the US is one of the biggest military forces in the world, with over 750 bases in more than 80 countries.

• As a result of this it is unlikely such a dramatic shift in foreign policy will result in a permanent change.

• The US has previously had involvement in coups d'etat for example in Latin America which also proved unsuccessful in some occasions yet this had not led to a complete shift in foreign policy.

• The defeat to the Taliban has shifted attitudes towards foreign intervention, and it is quite likely policy changes will occur as a result, but it is perhaps too soon to say in the long term.

Blair is a war criminal in the eyes of the UN albeit not in the eyes of English law

• All war that is not self-defensive is illegal according to Article 2 Section 4 of the UN Charter which states, 'All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State'.
• It has been determined that Blair's use of force in Iraq does not fulfil this condition for Iraq did not pose any immediate threat or use force against the territorial integrity or political independence of the UK.
• The Chilcot Report sets out that the UK had not first exhausted peaceful options for disarmament, where military action should only be used as a last resort according to the law.
• Blair deliberately exaggerated the threat posed by Saddam Hussein to make a case for military action to MPs and the British public in preparation for the invasion of Iraq.
• The argument made by pro-Iraq war advocates that the Iraqi government was an imminent threat to the UK has been disproven by the Chilcot Inquiry.
• "Iran, North Korea and Libya were considered greater threats in terms of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons proliferation".
• The report has been summarised as: “Saddam Hussein did not pose an urgent threat to the UK, intelligence reporting about [Iraqi] weapons of mass destruction was presented with unwarranted certainty, that the war was unnecessary and that the UK undermined the authority of the UN security council. [...] Nothing could be more emphatic than these findings. [...] It was an unlawful war.”
• Ultimately, the high court ruled that Tony Blair should be prosecuted for war crimes for his invasion of Iraq.
• He committed a crime of aggression: A crime of aggression is a specific type of crime where a person plans, initiates, or executes an act of aggression using state military force that violates the Charter of the United Nations.
• He only got away with this crime because crimes of aggression do not exist specifically in English law, but his involvement certainly qualifies him as a war criminal in the eyes of many other legal systems.

The majority would be far better off.

• There are many methods of achieving economic equality, such as higher minimum wages, redistribution of wealth etc.
• In the vast majority of these methods, such as higher taxation, would only result in wealth being taken from the very highest earners such as the top 1%. This means the other 99% of lower earners would not be worse off, but many of them much better off.
• Even if one does not take the term 'everyone' literally, to argue that even the majority would be worse off is statistically impossible.
• If one took the median wealth of all the people as the goal of economic wealth equality, everyone with below that average would benefit from economic equality and gain wealth.
• The world's eight richest people have same wealth as poorest 50%.
• For further comparison, to be in the top 1% of earners in the US one would have an annual wage of over $737,697, compared to the other 99% with an average annual wage of $50,107.
• The top 1%'s average wage is exponentially increasing, unlike that of the bottom 99%.

Whilst Canada is perhaps more ideal than some of its Western counterparts, it is not without its problems

• To call Canada the ideal country ignores all of its substantial problems and appears to be simply an attempt to settle for the better country in comparison to its counterparts such as the USA.
• We should consider its ideality not in comparison to other countries, but take 'ideal' to mean the most perfect country imaginable.
• This wording in itself poses an issue since these ideal standards will not be the same for everybody, hence there might not be one ideal country that is perfect for everyone.
• Regardless, ideal implies there is nothing about it one could improve or would want to change.
• However, I argue there are several areas in which Canada is less than ideal, and I will expand on just a few reasons why:

1. It's treatment of indigenous communities.
   "Canada's treatment of Indigenous peoples fits the definition of 'genocide'"
   In the past couple of years, hundreds of indigenous women and girls faced physical and sexual violence, kidnapping and murder in Canada, but the government of Canada does not investigate enough to satisfy the Human Rights Committee’s standards.
   The British and French invaded indigenous land centuries ago and the indigenous community is still having to fight for their human rights.

2. Justin Trudeau
   From blackface to sexual assault allegations, weapons trade with Saudi Arabia to consistently making false promises to gain votes, Justin Trudeau means Canada is run by a less than ideal leader.
   Whilst Canada is considered a democratic nation, many of Trudeau's 'supporters' advocated for his victory merely as a 'lesser of two evils' due to all the terrible things he has done.

3. Capitalism
   Canada still suffers from many of the problems of capitalism.
   One example is there is significant underemployment in young people, with many holding university degrees still being forced to find work in restaurants and hospitality, due to difficulties finding work elsewhere.

4. Weather conditions
   This may seem like a minor niggle for many, but in reality the extreme cold in Canada can actually be dangerous.
   The ice causes many injuries - in 2018-2019 alone, there were nearly 9,000 hospitalizations due to falls on ice in Canada.
   The road conditions are also extremely hazardous in winter.
   Winters are also very dark, with less than 8 hours of daylight in Calgary in December.
   Citizens die from both extreme cold and extreme heat with the old particularly at risk.

5. Racism and homophobia are still a thing...
   Just because it is 'better' than other countries doesn't make it ideal or non-existent.

6. Student debt
   Canada does not have free tuition, and its debt crisis means many young Canadians are finding it difficult to start their own businesses, buy homes, or set aside money for the future.

Decolonising the curriculum will teach us about colonialism

There are two very different ways in which to interpret this opinion, both of which I have strong but opposing views of.

• I strongly agree with the idea that colonialism should not be removed from the curriculum in that it should be taught to students from a more objective point of view, so as not to glorify the actions of colonizers such as Columbus.

• The atrocities committed by the US and UK and other western countries in the era of colonialism should not be forgotten or hidden.

• However, what I first assumed this question was referring to, is that there is currently a wave across the West which calls for the 'decolonization of the curriculum'.

• This notion does not call for colonialism to be erased from history lessons and forgotten about.

• Rather, it refers to the inclusion of more black and minority ethnic academics in the teaching curriculum both in teaching positions and reading lists.

• In doing so this would avoid the white-washing of history which lead to colonialism being ignored or glamorized in classrooms around the western world.

• It arose from student's concerns over the narrowness of their curriculums in featuring almost exclusively white male scholars and historical figures, which is viewed as a direct consequence and lingering remnant of colonialism still very present in today's society.

• I am a huge advocate for decolonizing the curriculum in this sense, for greater diversity will challenge ideas, power relations, and give us a more accurate and complete picture of the world.

No-platforming presents some challenges, yet we should not allow hate speech to be preached on campuses

• I feel the main issue with no-platforming is who gets to decide.
• Whilst I agree speakers should not be allowed to spew hatred in universities, the policy can be a slippery slope to censoring other speakers too.
• There are arguments against no-platforming which concern the idea that we should not brush those that believe such hateful things under the rug, and preventing them airing there views is a dangerous road to pushing them underground.
• Some say it also stops people being able to respond to their views and potentially change the minds of those who may be influenced by hate speech.
• I do think universities should be given the power to stop Nazi's from giving college tours and the likes, and believe Nazi's and other far-right extremists should not be allowed to come onto campuses and attempt to radicalise students.
• However, there is a big difference between giving someone a platform in a university in the sense of an opportunity to stand on a stage or podium and preach hate speech and propaganda unchallenged, as opposed to allowing someone with those extreme views to debate and discuss ideas with those who oppose them.
• We can stop certain groups or individuals having a 'platform' without ignoring the fact that people with these views do exist in scary numbers, and by hearing their views can learn to challenge them and understand why it is so wrong, as well as prevent early signs of radicalisation.

Pros and cons of nuclear energy

Pros of nuclear energy

• Cleaner and somewhat more renewable than fossil fuels - a zero-emission, carbon-free energy source.
• Low operating costs.
• It has a high energy density.
• Takes up little land space compared to other methods, significantly less compared to solar or wind farms.
• As fossil fuels and traditional non-renewable resources deplete there are few options left if we continue with such high power usage.
• There is sufficient uranium for 80 years, compared to 30-50 for oil, gas and coal.
• It is considered at least a short term solution to the climate crisis.

Cons of nuclear energy

• Negative ethical and environmental impacts of mining and processing uranium & the process of mining, refining, and preparing uranium still uses energy.
• Uranium is still technically non-renewable.
• The 444 nuclear power plants currently in existence provide about 11% of the world’s energy. In order to meet current and future energy needs, the nuclear sector would have to scale up to around 14,500 plants.
• This upscale is unfeasible due to limitations on suitable sites for nuclear plants.
• Dangerous radioactive nuclear waste - in extreme cases can cause a devastating environmental and health catastrophe.
• Because of this they are a potential target for terrorism.
• Workers of and residents near to nuclear plants have significantly higher risks of cancer.
• Very high upfront costs and require many costly safety precautions - governments must spend billions to safely dispose of nuclear waste.
• Poor nations who cannot afford nuclear power may become reliant on rich countries to provide their energy if dependence on nuclear power increases.

It is not necessarily a case of 'working hard' to ensure this, but of allowing all ethnic groups to have equal outcomes.

• Often there are societal standards and legal policies which go out of their way to favour certain ethnic groups, namely white people, and prevent others from succeeding.

• It should not be a case of 'working hard' to stop being discriminatory.

• The obstacles in place preventing equal outcomes of all ethnic groups are unnatural and often deliberate, and must be removed.

• The idea that it would require so much effort and hard work to ensure this feels like an excuse, based on disgusting, false, ingrained racist notions that non-white ethnic groups are naturally inferior and that is what prevents their success.

• If a track star was prevented from winning a race because someone decided to trip them up every time they ran, it would not require people 'working hard enough' for the track star to win, the tripper can just stop tripping them.

• I do feel that there are some areas in which it will take some effort to ensure this, and won't be easy since society has been set up against this for so long.

• It will also realistically not happen overnight, as attitudes must change as well as actions to ensure long-term equality.

Wealth is one of the most important privileges in the modern era, and it unites people of all backgrounds in its abundance or lack of such, however it cannot be considered the only important privilege.

• Three of the main issues of disparity and tension in current society are class, race and gender.
• Wealth privilege concerns class, and in western cultures exists white privilege and male privilege.
• Many individuals are privileged in some areas and not others.
• To have a privilege does not assume one's life was easy or carefree, but that it had not been made significantly harder by having to face systemic obstacles as a direct result of one's class, gender or race.
  -Privileges can also be classified as either positive or negative, depending on how they affect the rest of society.

White privilege

• The term white privilege originated in the US in the 1980s, referring to both the obvious and the hidden advantages afforded to white people by systemic forms of racial injustice.
• It means that there are issues and topics that white people often don’t have to think about, including the realities of racism - something which is an unavoidable part of reality for their non-white counterparts.
• It is important in the modern era to become more conscious of racism as a white person, especially the ways in which white people are contributing to this, often unconsciously.
• To acknowledge this privilege can help eradicate the struggles of those without white privilege.

Male privilege

• Male privilege is the system of advantages or rights that are available to men solely on the basis of their sex.
• In a similar sense to white privilege, this involves men not having to even consider many of the daily struggles that come with being a woman.
• While some argue this also applies to women of men's issues, the difference is the system is set up according to patriarchal standards, meaning men do not face the systemic hardships of women, and women are more aware of male issues due to existing in a society in which men are at the front and centre.
• Acknowledging this privilege is important in order to overcome barriers to gender equality that adversely affect all genders.

Who is Edward Snowden?
Edward Snowden is a former computer intelligence consultant who leaked highly classified information from the National Security Agency (NSA) in 2013 when he was an employee and subcontractor for the CIA.

• This was done as an effort "to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them."
• His controversial actions mean he has been referred to as a traitor, a hero, a whistleblower, a dissident, and a patriot.

What is a patriot by definition?

• "A person who vigorously supports their country and is prepared to defend it against enemies or detractors." - Oxford Languages

Why do some call him a patriot?

• He leaked information to the people of America concerning the state violating their privacy and rights.
• He valued his morals and the people of his country before his job and duty to the CIA.

Why do some disagree?

• Obama said that if Snowden is truly patriotic, he would come back to the United States and respect their legal system, make his arguments in court and leave it up to a jury to decide.
• Debates on the separation of the country, state and its citizens. Must one respect all to be considered a patriot? What if the state is the enemy against which one must defend the country?

It is a highly incorrect and harmful stereotype that feminism exists simply to serve women

How feminism benefits the general population:

• Allowing and encouraging women to enter and advance in traditionally male-dominated fields, particularly the sciences and medical roles, means we are able to utilise the skills, knowledge and minds of half of the world's population, which were previously excluded.
• This means advancement and development in these areas, new theories and discoveries, improved healthcare for all - factors that would improve lives and be good for everyone.
• It also boosts the economy: Goldman Sachs calculates that, leaving all other things equal, increasing women's participation in the labor market to male levels will boost GDP by 21% in Italy, 19% in Spain, 16% in Japan, 9% in America, France and Germany and 8% in Britain.

How feminism benefits men:

• Patriarchy causes harm to both men and women, perpetuating inequality and stereotypes. Feminism works to break down the patriarchy, eradicating the harm caused to men as much as women.
• It helps to destroy the harmful stereotypes of men as aggressive and unemotional compared to quiet and weak women.
• Feminists even overturned discriminatory laws regarding men based on these stereotypes.
• It triggered the FBI to change the definition of r*pe to include male victims, and further lead to prisons being safer for men as part of The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, spearheaded by prominent feminist activist Lovisa Stannow.
• It gives men better working conditions and rights, as well as being able to juggle work and homelife more healthily, by advocating for things such as paternity leave.

Commentary

Background

• Dag Hammarskjöld was the Secretary-General of the United Nations from 1953 until his sudden death in 1961.
• Hammarskjöld was en route to negotiate a cease-fire between United Nations Operation in the newly independent Congo between their republic and Katangese troops under Moise Tshombe when his plane crashed in Northern Rhodisia (now Zambia), killing him alongside all 16 passengers.
• Hammarskjöld backed Congo's elected central authorities, contrary to the support of several UN nations.
• Moise Tshombe's movement was backed by big powers such as the UK, US and Belgium.
• Mr Tshombe was waiting to talk to Hammarskjöld on the night he died to discuss a negotiated solution.

Suspicions

• His death resulted in a succession crisis
• Before passing, one passenger reported [explosions] on the flight.
• The cause of the crash remains unexplained.
• Air traffic control had seen the plane flying overhead and had granted the pilot permission to land, yet minutes before the crash the airport manager decided to close down the airport.
• It took over four hours after daybreak to start a search, despite reports of an explosion in the sky just after midnight.
• The missing aircraft not found for a full 15 hours even though it was but 8 miles from the airport it attempted to land at.
• Six witnesses also recall seeing uniformed personnel near the crash site that morning, even though official reports claim it was not located until after 15:00 that day.
• There were reports of a second plane that appeared to follow Hammarskjöld's aircraft which remains unaccounted for.
• Hammarskjöld had no burns, when the other victims were badly charred.

Explanations and Conspiracies

• In 1992, two men who had served as UN representatives in Katanga wrote a letter to the Guardian claiming to have evidence that the plane was shot down accidentally, by mercenaries.
• In, 1998 South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission, led by Desmond Tutu, published eight letters that suggested CIA, MI5 and South African intelligence were involved in the sabotage of the aircraft.
• In 2005, the head of UN military information in Congo in 1961, Bjorn Egge, told papers he had noticed a [round hole] in Hammarskjold's forehead when he saw the body in the mortuary. It could have been a bullet hole, he said, and it had been mysteriously airbrushed out of official photographs.
• The [photographs of Hammarskjold after his death are either taken in such a way as to conceal the area around his right eye, or, where the eye is visible, they show evidence of having been touched up, possibly to hide a wound.
• A US intelligence officer at a listening station in Cyprus says he heard a cockpit recording from Ndola, in which a pilot talks of closing in on the DC6 - guns are heard firing, and then the words "I've hit it".

"The surplus value, or that part of the total value of a commodity in which the surplus labor or unpaid labor is realized, I call Profit."

• Profit would not exist if workers were paid the full value of their work.
• Profit is not made by simply charging things at a price above their value, but by selling the labour at its real value.
• The 'real value' of commodities is based on the labour-power of the workers.
• They are only paid what the Capitalist sees as the minimum value of their labour and see none of the money generated by the fruits of their labour exchanged on the market.
• The remaining unpaid portion is what is known as 'profit'.
• "[The Capitalist] sells not only what has cost him an equivalent, but he sells also what cost him nothing, although it has cost his workman labor."- Marx
• The market prices of commodities produced by workers rise, thus the profit aka the wages of the Capitalist rise, but workers' wages rarely do.
• The workers contribute to the profits (and losses) of a business yet the majority receive a static wage.
• A worker could one day work 8 hours and produce £500 in value for their company, yet receive a pay of £50 that day and the other 90% would go to the Capitalist.
• Another day the worker could work even harder and produce £1000 for their company yet still receive only £50.
• Often, particularly in the production of 'luxury' goods, workers cannot afford to buy the very products they are producing.
• The worker should be paid proportionally to the items' real value.
• The highest wages should not go to those who have the least hand in the production of the commodities.

Commentary

"God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him."

""Could it be possible! This old saint has not heard in his forest that God is dead!""

• Nietzsche's famous quote appearing in several instances but most famously the two cited above, intends to express his idea that as a result of the Enlightenment period, the possibility of the existence of God has been quashed.

• Western civilisation had been primarily Christian in character since the Roman Empire, up until the Age of Enlightenment.

• This period brought about a huge societal shift from sacred revelation to valuing scientific rationality, and the rise of philosophical materialist and naturalist theories which seemed to disprove any previously regarded evidence of the existence of God.

• It is thought to primarily refer to the Christian notion of a God which was most significantly affected by The Enlightenment, however in later work Nietzsche writes, "Dead are all the Gods".

• In actual fact, Nietzsche was an atheist. The death of God did not refer to a literal belief in a God who was no longer living, but that our idea of a God has now died.

• Nietzsche also referred to the death of God as the sign of an impeding moral crisis. He argues in 'Twilight of the Idols' that "[Christian] morality is by no means self-evident", hence "When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one's feet.".

• Thus by saying 'God is Dead', Nietzsche also meant 'morality is dead', and fears nihilism shall ensue as we find no reason to live.

The significance of our name during our school years can have a significant impact on who we become

• One way in which your name influences who you become that has not yet been commented upon is during school when we are placed alphabetically.
• Curiously, over the years I have noticed a phenomenon that those who I have known for 20+ years, since childhood, have been very close with those whose surnames begin with the same letter.
• I personally know of countless examples of individuals whose closest friends and acquaintances are those who they were placed next to on the first day of the school year, or even on their first ever day of school at the age of 4 years old, because they were alphabetically adjacent on the class register.
• Those who one may meet and form relationships with simply because of their name play a huge part in who they will become, particularly people during their most influential years in early childhood and adolescence.
• Of course, this does not apply everywhere and in every situation, however I think it is an interesting example of how one's name can influence who we become.

Businesses would jump at the chance to further exploit workers and reduce the minimum wage in the name of maximising profit.

• A 'market' has no ability on its own to set automatic standards such as minimum wage. It would be decided by people, business owners, who run the market.
• These people do not have the interests of the people at heart: their priority is money, and could not be trusted to adapt the minimum wage during times of inflation to ensure their workers can afford a good quality of life.
• Rather, they would set it at the bare minimum in order to maximise profits.
• We cannot place the responsibility to determine what would be a fair wage with people who are focused on reducing costs and maximising profits.
• It would lead to slave labour, as businesses would exploit workers and we would not be paid enough to survive in the name of profit.
• Allowing the 'market' to set the minimum wage would only decrease it, never increase it.
• If the minimum wage was determined elsewhere such as in the system we have now, business owners still have the power and freedom to set their own wages: so long as they are above the minimum wage.
• They can still choose to raise their worker's wages during inflation, yet this often does not occur. This is a telling sign that we should not put more power into corporate bodies particularly regarding the determination of a minimum wage.

Commentary

What is a 'Nation-State'?
According to Oxford Languages, the definitions of 'nation' and 'state' are as follows:

• 'Nation' - A large group of people with shared factors such as a common ethnicity, culture, history and language, often inhabiting a particular territory.

• 'State' - A territory considered as an organized political community under one government.

• A 'nation-state' is a political unit where the state and nation are congruent.

• Modern nation-states: "Legitimate states that govern effectively and dynamic industrial economies are widely regarded today as the defining characteristics of a modern nation-state."

• Their attitudes differ compared to non-nation-states in that they tend to be more patriotic, territorial, and oppose immigration policies.

Why was it originally considered fit for purpose?

• It was difficult to distinguish between nation and state.
• Many countries largely consisted of one ethnicity who shared common language, history, culture etc.

Why is it being considered increasingly irrelevant/no longer fit for purpose?

• There are those who consider the notion of a nation-state an outdated concept.
• Globalisation and increased freedom of movement means they find commonalities with those from other cultures and ethnic backgrounds, and countries are becoming increasingly multinational and multicultural.
• Formation of unions of states such as the EU.

Why could it still be considered fit for purpose?

• Despite this, there are still countries like England and France where the vast majority of the population is still formed of one nation of people who speak one language and share a history and culture.
• Some countries have began to tighten border restrictions, often with the aim of preserving one nation within the state.

Before the nation-state

• It is worth noting that during the 18th century, the classic non-national states of Europe such as Austrian Empire, Kingdom of France, Kingdom of Hungary, the Russian Empire, the Portuguese Empire, the Spanish Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the British Empire were multiethnic empires and could not be considered nation-states.
• Their populations belonged to many ethnic groups, and they spoke many languages.
• However, the empire was dominated by one ethnic group, and their language was usually the language of public administration.

Palestine should not only be recognised as a state in the UK and US, but internationally.

• Recognition would advance the peace process and provide a more equal structure in negotiations between the two sides.
• Complications surrounding the determination of borders should not necessarily be a deterrant to international recognition, as Israel’s declaration of independence did not determine borders.
• It was assumed by many European countries that recognition of a Palestinian state would be a component of the final status agreement and an incentive to conclude a peace deal.
• However, following the collapse of the peace process and the diplomatic freeze that has ensued, the issue of recognition has once again arisen, but as a potential diplomatic tool that can be used before an agreement is concluded.
• The 'Two State Solution' would not be sufficient - 2021 studies show a 'growing disillusionment' with the notion, and that Palestinians will likely require international security guarantees for any peaceful resolution.
• Additionally, countries such as the UK which supposedly supports a two-state solution yet does not recognise the state of Palestine is hypocritical.
• The US pays billions of dollars to Israel which is used to oppress Palestinians, as well as millions in aid to Palestinians which is contradictory. If they were to recognise the state of Palestine and stop paying Israel to maintain control over Palestinian territory it would save them billions of dollars. Similar arguments can be made for several other circumstances, including the use of EU aid.

Women should be equally represented in science for the benefit of equity, excellence, efficacy, efficiency and objectivity.

• Equity: gender discrimination is a violation of human rights

• Excellence: the under-representation of women threatens scientific progress and achievement

• Efficacy: the aging population means we have to target both genders.

• Efficiency: wasteful to not utilise the skills and intelligence of half of the human population in the scientific workforce.

Additionally, including women in science produces better, more objective science.

• Despite its aim of producing objective knowledge, according to Helen Longino et al, science is not value-free.
• The scientific method was never intended to remove cognitive values, which "are the source of the rules determining what constitutes acceptable scientific practice or scientific method".
• It is commonly regarded that contextual values (personal, political social and cultural values) have no place in objective science.
• However, Longino holds that "in principle, there is no way of guaranteeing the eliminability of such values from science” since the male-dominated scientific community regulates both types of values thus can lead to a male-bias in scientific research.
• In order to eradicate this, she argues in favour of female inclusion and equal representation in science.
• In particular, adopting feminist valuessuch as ontological heterogeneity and diffusion of power can aid in producing objective knowledge, as well as helping to elucidate gender biases that may have otherwise gone unseen.

Commentary

This commentary shall provide a brief analysis of Socrates' statement, "The unexamined life is not worth living".

• The sentiment behind this quotation is akin to modern adaptations along the lines of 'To survive is not enough. To simply exist is not enough.' which can be famously found in Star Trek.
• It refers to the idea that it is not enough to go through life in 'survival mode', simply eating, sleeping, and procreating, doing the bare minimum to merely exist as if we are on autopilot.
• These practices mean we are almost indistinguishable from animals.
• Socrates notion that life should be examined is essentially telling us to exercise our minds, for it is the ability to think and have a developed consciousness that separates us as humans from other organisms.
• We must take time to stop and examine the world.
• It is important to use our highly developed faculty of thought for both the benefit of society/the human race, but also for personal gain - it betters us in our learning and understanding of life, and allows us to feel joy, hatred and love.
• Without these things, we may struggle to find a reason to exist, and meaning or purpose to life.

Further reading:
Plato’s Apology of Socrates
Is The Unexamined Life Worth Living Or Not?
The Unexamined Life and Surface Pleasures
The Unexamined Life Is Worth Living: A Socratic Perspective

If workers owned the means of production, it would have profound benefits in terms of practicality, economy and democracy

Ethics

• It is undemocratic that one person/very few people can have total control over major parts of the economy and wield such power.
• Most jobs are democracy-free zones - workers have no say in how the business should be run.
• If we are living in a truly democratic society, we should give power to the people who provide the labour day in day out.
• If the means are owned by the workers, there would be better working conditions, better wages, higher job satisfaction and higher job stability.
• Businesses that are owned and run by the workers are not profit-driven: their main priority is simply to provide their customers with the best service, and a non-exploitative social safety net for their workers.

Practicality

• Workplaces run and owned by the workers such as cooperatives are not only fairer, but more productive.
• Additionally, it does not make sense for a business to be controlled by people, usually wealthy investors, who have often never experienced what it is like to work in that environment. The workers often have more insight into how the industry works, how it should be run and what changes need to be made for safety and more efficient production etc.

Economy

• Cooperatives do not have to make risky moves to maximise their profit to please shareholders, meaning they historically have been able to survive during economic turmoil more so than profit-driven businesses.
• Cooperative businesses have lower failure rates than traditional corporations and small businesses.
• About 10% of cooperatives fail after the first year while 60-80% of traditional businesses fail after the first year.
• After 5 years, 90% of cooperatives are still in business, while only 3 - 5% of traditional businesses are still operating after 5 years.

I advocate that we should redistribute both income and assets in order to eradicate injustice and inequalities.

• Redistributing income could come in the form of practices such as increased income taxes for the upper classes and use this extra wealth to form social safety nets for the lower classes.
• Redistributing assets could include wealth tax, confiscation, and land reform.
• The government tax and can refuse council housing to the poorest of society for having so much as an extra bedroom - we can instead implement these policies for those with excessive estate and provide more homes for those in need while hundreds of thousands of homes lie empty.
• Profit is the unpaid wages of the working class.
• Those hoarding wealth, particularly those more wealth than they need/could ever spend in a lifetime, would not find themselves in any hardship from redistribution, but it would be positively life-changing for millions.
• The vast majority who oppose these policies are under the false impression that they would personally lose money, however, the opposite is in fact true.
• Such policies would only need to apply to somewhere around the richest 1%, who own more than half of the world's wealth, in order for enough wealth to be reclaimed and shared to the other 99% of people.

Commentary

This opinion presumably refers to the arguments surrounding whether a small government is desirable. The concept of a 'small government' refers to one that has minimal intervention in matters concerning public policy and the private sector.

Supporters of small governments propose that it would result in:

• more individual freedom as a result of less regulation in areas such as the free-market.
• less government expenditure and debts
• less intrusion on daily life thus more citizen privacy

However, disadvantages include:

• less individual freedom as less intervention can mean no policies in place to protect your freedoms
• it is left to the responsibility of private corporations to tackle important issues such as the environmental and infrastructure problems, meaning they may never get addressed
• profit is the main motive of any private corporation and the benefits and health of the people is at best a secondary priority. There is a need for a regulatory force to ensure, for example, their products are not a threat to public health.
• privatisation of industries such as healthcare
• lack of social safety nets
• government can be incapable or ill-equipt to deal with large scale crises
• less workplace regulations which prevent exploitation such as minimum wage and working in humane conditions

Deep knowledge is beneficial, however Standpoint Epistemology demonstrates the need for broad inputs too.

I believe that on an individual and independent basis, deep knowledge about a topic can be extremely beneficial. However, during collaborative efforts, a broad knowledge with inputs from various people who each have their own speciality or standpoint is superior.

This idea comes from the basic tenets of Harding's Standpoint Epistemology:

• In order to produce the most objective and valuable knowledge, it is vital to have a broad range of input.
• This is especially applicable in areas such as the sciences, which tasks itself in producing knowledge that is accurate and free of bias.
• Harding holds that individuals have access to certain knowledge as a result of their experiences, which can be formed by gender, class, nationality etc.
• As a result of this we should include input from the broadest range of people in our epistemological enquiries in order to gain a more accurate perspective on an issue.
• This can also be applied to involving people with various specialisms and disciplines to gain the most knowledge on a subject.
• One of the reasons the scientific community exists is to broaden an individual scientist's perspective by subjecting his theories to other broader ideas and criticisms, as well as in an attempt to eliminate mistakes and bias according to the scientific method.
• Being subjected to only one's one experiences, and representing only one demographic means one's knowledge is unavoidably limited no matter how 'deep'.
• An example can be used of the scientific community historically made up of men, who were considered experts in their field and had deep knowledge.
• Yet, this male-dominated and male-centredness of science has caused scientific inaccuracies and prejudices around female anatomy, even today, as a result of women's exclusion in science. This shows the importance of a broad epistemological input.

Contrary to belief, certain video games can be beneficial to children's development in both academic and non-academic ways & Minecraft is a good example of such.

Minecraft compliments many core disciplines, including maths, reading and writing and science:

• Minecraft can educate children about elements and compounds, and the way that different materials interact, such as water, sand, wood and dynamite.
• Crafting helps them learn how materials can be made into other objects, and in particular can aid with learning geology, chemistry and the periodic table.
• Farming such as growing crops and harvesting other natural materials from various climates corresponds to practices in the real world and teaches about the conditions in which certain plants can thrive, aiding with both biology and geography.
• Users must calculate how many blocks will be needed to craft or build 3D compound shapes when making buildings.
• Parents have noted immense improvement in their children's vocabulary and language skills, as well as reading and spelling.

However, education is not simply about learning maths, science, literature etc. It is about developing vital life skills such as communication and teamwork/collaboration, as well as enhancing creativity and problem solving, all of which Minecraft encourages.

• Creativity: Minecraft creative mode in particular provides an open world experience where users can create almost anything they can imagine. By playing in survival mode, creativity is certainly still a huge aspect, where users must think creatively to source life-sustaining materials and build shelter to survive.
• Problem-solving: Users must figure out how certain contraptions such as traps can be built and function successfully. In survival mode, they are randomly placed in various -sometimes extreme- environments, and must quickly figure out what they need to survive.
• Communication and collaboration: multi-player mode means when playing with other users teamwork and effective communication is vital.

A good idea for industries, but may lead to an increase in flytipping and criminalise the poor who cannot afford to utilise the scheme

• For large industries, I support the notion of a 'pay to throw' scheme for it may encourage them to reduce excessive waste and be more environmentally conscious.

• Approximately 97% of waste is industrial, and individuals/domestic households are only responsible for 3%.

• Those who cannot afford something as basic as to dispose of their waste will be villainised and scapegoated for a problem that is caused on a drastically larger scale by industries rather than the average individual.

• As a result of not being able to afford to dispose of waste, individuals may resort to fly-tipping which is not only environmentally harmful and an eyesore in local communities, but criminalises the poor.

• Even wealthy individuals and large corporations may be inclined to dispose of their waste improperly as opposed to paying.

• Alternatively, schemes that offer rewards for recycling or reducing waste may provide a better incentive and solution.

Fine-tuning is considered one of the most persuasive arguments in favour of the idea that God created the universe, however opposing explanations mean it cannot be considered definitive evidence.

• Many individuals, including scientists, agree that the universe appears to be fine-tuned to permit and sustain life.

• “The entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge”

• The fine-tuning of the universe describes the observation that the physical values governing the laws of physics happen to be so precise, creating the ideal natural conditions for life to exist.

• When the universe formed these values had the potential to vary infinitely so the probability that, just by chance, they acquired the exact values needed to permit life is incomprehensibly small.

• If any of these values were even fractionally altered, the universe would be entirely different, perhaps non-existent, and certainly the environment would not be fit for life as we know it.

• As a result of this, some consider that it is evidence of God's influence in the creation of the Universe.

• However, this version of the design argument suffers from what is known as 'Puddle Thinking' originating from Douglas Adams' example of fallacious thinking: concluding that if “it fits me staggeringly well, it must have been made to have me in it!”.

• The belief that the universe must have been designed specifically to suit us demonstrates a false sense of self-importance.

• It is more logical to conclude that life is fine-tuned to the universe, rather than the other way around, supporting Darwin's views of evolution that life evolved to suit its conditions.

Commentary

What is Protectionism?

• Protectionism refers to intervention in the form of government policies that restrict and regulate international trade in order to help domestic industries.
• This can appear in the form of tariffs, import quotas, product standards, subsidies, or complete embargoes.

Why is it implemented?

• With the aim of improving economic activity within a domestic setting
• For quality and safety concerns over imported items

Potential benefits

• Protects against the negative impacts of free trade
• Protects certain industries and safeguards jobs. One example of this is Trump imposing a tariff on steel imports to protect jobs in the US steel industry.
• Further, the 'Infant Industry Argument' states that developing countries are justified to put tariffs on imports if they are seeking to develop new industries and diversify their economy.
• Raises government revenue
• Protects against international competition
• Environmental standards and regulations can be imposed on products, as well as benefiting the environment by reducing carbon emissions through discouraging imports

Opposition

Critics argue many of the potential benefits can be directly counteracted by the negatives:

• Retaliation over protectionism can cause higher import/consumer prices
• Lack of competition also can also lead to higher prices by domestic industries and lower quality
• Higher prices may lead to lower overall demand, thus causing job losses
• Those in favour of free trade generally oppose any market intervention

Commentary

The phrasing of this opinion leaves many ambiguities about major factors which may influence whether we are 'for' or 'against'. The following factors should be considered and specified:

1. Time limit

• We should consider whether there should be a time limit on when an abortion may take place on the grounds of disability.
• Currently, in the UK it is legal to terminate a pregnancy up to full term on the grounds of disability under The Abortion Act 19671 (Ground E).
• In comparison, the upper limit is 24 weeks if there is no disability.

2. Definition of 'serious disability'

• The statement does not specify which disabilities we should consider 'serious' enough to abort.
• We should consider how our opinion might change based on different disabilities, and the severity of such.
• We should also consider who would determine which disabilities qualify for abortion, and how this should be determined.

3. Intent

• The opinion does not specify whether we are discussing a hypothetical instance in which the sole reason for abortion is disability.
• An individual could have been planning to terminate their pregnancy regardless of disability.
• We should consider whether the true issue is the termination of the pregnancy, or the intention behind aborting a fetus because they have a disability (whether that is discriminatory or prejudiced towards people with disabilities).

4. Universality

• Those who are against should consider whether they mean 'it is never okay, for anyone in any circumstance' or whether they just personally would not terminate the pregnancy.
• Since there are many variegating factors as seen above, one may believe it is okay in some circumstances, but not in others. Thus they would not be 'neutral' but 'for' or 'against' based on the specific instance.

If one truly cares about preserving nature, national parks should be returned to Native Americans for their influence is more beneficial to the environment

• Aside from the arguments that it is rightfully their land, we must remember the reason national parks were introduced in the first place: to protect and preserve areas of natural beauty. They were created out of care for the environment, and to stop these pristine natural areas from being industrialised or damaged in any way.

• With these interests in mind, national parks should be returned to Native Americans on the grounds that the reason why people saw these areas as something worthy of preserving was due to indigenous stewardship.

• Indigenous ethnobotany, science and thousands of years of knowledge about how to protect and preserve the environment are why those areas were so beautiful and pristine for thousands of years before colonialism, and their involvement is essential to the future preservation of the land.

• In the creation of national parks, Native Americans were left out of the conversations, and stewards were removed from those spaces on the grounds that the land should be left alone of human influence.

• However, as a result of this we find major issues arise which cause the destruction of those areas of natural beauty, both aesthetically, and physically, for example, overgrowth of underbrush and forest fires.

• Native Americans belonged to these areas before anyone else, and are respectful of these spaces. Their practices are sustainable, future-minded and even beneficial to nature.

• After an extensive study, the Cherokee were recently granted the ability to resume foraging sochan in Great Smoky Mountain National Park, because the way they were doing it was actually better for the environment.

• The idea that there have been areas of untouched natural beauty in America that must be preserved from human influence by Natural Parks is at fault. The notion of 'wild spaces' is a myth, and ignorant towards the thousands of years of work of Native Americans to protect and cultivate the land.

• If their practices are sustainable, humans don’t have to be removed to save the environment. This notion is based on the practices of capitalism and colonisers but ignores the truth that indigenous people have been managing their landscapes successfully for millennia.

Commentary

This commentary will provide an interpretation of Simone De Beauvoir's famous quotation.

The elongated section of this quotation reads, "One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman. No biological, psychic, or economic destiny defines the figure that the human female takes on in society; it is civilization as a whole that elaborates this intermediary product between the male and the eunuch that is called feminine." (De Beauvoir, The Second Sex)

• It can be interpreted that De Beauvoir is first emphasising that femininity is a social construct, developed from civilisation rather than something innate in biology or behaviour.
• In The Second Sex's exploration of what it means to be a woman, De Beauvoir recognises that situations shape character, rather than character determines situation.
• This means that the stereotype of femininity arises from a reflection of differences in the situations and experiences of different genders, and not of “essential” differences between men and women.
• A person is born and shaped into a woman by societal expectations and upbringing.
• She differentiates between sex and gender. Gender is the social construct, and sex is biologically determined.
• Infant girls and boys apprehend the world in similar ways; through their senses, not their sexual organs, which De Beauvoir states later in the same paragraph:
  "For girls and boys, the body is first the radiation of a subjectivity, the instrument that brings about the comprehension of the world: they apprehend the universe through their eyes and hands, and not through their sexual parts."
• Hence when we are born we are in a sense genderless, until it has been imposed on us by others. We do not yet perceive ourselves, and the world, according to the conceptions and stereotypes of gender that we are later exposed to.
• These ideas are not something present in us from birth, or based on any biological, psychic or economic predestined account of womanhood.

Commentary

In some countries such as the UK, IVF is included in free healthcare. However, this does not mean everyone is eligible, and there are other complications including extremely long waiting lists. Making a treatment free does not alleviate it of all these practical issues.

• In the UK, IVF is available free on the NHS for women under the age of 43 who have been trying to get pregnant through regular unprotected sex for 2 years, or who have had 12 cycles of artificial insemination (which is also free on the NHS). These guidelines are set by NICE.
• However, the final decision on who is eligible is determined by local clinical commissioning groups (CCGs), and their criteria may be even stricter, including factors such as not having any children already (from both your current and any previous relationships), being a healthy weight, not smoking, falling into a certain age range (for example, some CCGs only fund treatment for women under 35).
• Because of this, many people are not selected, or do not want to go through such stressful and lengthy selection procedures just to be allowed the opportunity to have a child.
• Private costs of IVF vary, but 1 cycle of treatment may cost up to £5,000 or more.

Some call for sex-care to help the disabled find intimacy

• There are several studies that indicate that the experience of sexuality and intimacy contributes to an increased standard of living and reduces depression and loneliness.
• As a result of this, there are some calls for paid sexual services to be available to those with disabilities who are otherwise unable to experience this.
• It is argued this is particularly important for those with diabilities where individuals are unable to satisfy themselves.
• As sex becomes less taboo, it is being accepted that sex care should be considered a normal and even essential part of life, and disabled people can be argued to have a right to this.
• The Netherlands in particular has been working towards a scheme which considers these factors: "The goal of sex care is to provide intimacy and sex to disabled people and also help get rid of the mentality that it’s “weird” for disabled people to be interested in sex or even want to engage in sexual relations with other people. The result of this is an increased standard of living or also improved quality of life, and an improved sense of well-being for disabled persons."
• There are "sexual advocates" available to discuss needs and prevent weak agency, exploitation and corruption.

Commentary

This commentary will seek to explain what these two terms actually mean and involve, the science and the side effects, to avoid misunderstandings informing one's opinions.

Gender Reassignment Surgery

• Gender reassignment surgery is a surgical procedure, or series of such, in which a transgender person's physical appearance and function of their existing sexual characteristics are altered to resemble those socially associated with their identified gender.
• Patients must undergo extensive psychological evaluation prior to surgery to ensure it is the correct decision.
• Surveys report that around 1 in 4 transgender and nonbinary people choose gender affirmation surgery.
• Results are permanent, however in rare cases of extreme regret patients could potentially seek a further reassignment surgery to restore the physical characteristics of their original sex.
• Risks can be high as with any major surgery, for infection, blood clots, lack of sensation etc.
• The results of a 50-year survey published in 2010 of a cohort of 767 transgender people in Sweden found that about 2 percent of participants expressed regret after undergoing gender-affirming surgery.

Hormone Therapy

• Hormone therapy in the context of transgender patients, broadly speaking, is the use of hormones for medical treatment.

• There are 2 key forms of hormone therapy used for transgender patients:

1. Hormone replacement therapy, or HRT, is used to alter hormone levels to match one's gender identity by intaking hormones that induce physical changes in the body similar to that of the puberty corresponding to their gender identity, such as changes in body hair, voice pitch, breast tissue, facial bone structure etc. These changes are permanent.
   Why is it done?

• Make gender dysphoria less severe
• Reduce psychological and emotional distress
• Improve psychological and social functioning
• Improve sexual satisfaction
• Improve quality of life
  However, risks include infertility, weight gain, and blood clots.

2. Puberty blockers are another form of hormone therapy which involves blocking the hormones (testosterone and estrogen) that lead to puberty-related changes in your body, thus delaying puberty. This stops things like periods and breast growth, or voice-deepening and facial hair growth.
   Because of this, ideally treatment should start before puberty /the development of secondary sex characteristics so that teens can go through puberty as their identified gender. This would mean taking hormone therapy under the age of 18.
   The effects of puberty blockers are reversible, not permanent, and the puberty of their biological sex would resume as soon as the hormone medication stops being taken.

• The numbers of those regretting procedures are lowest for nonsurgical transition methods, like taking puberty blockers.

• According to a 2018 study of a cohort of transgender young adults at the largest gender-identity clinic in the Netherlands, 1.9 percent of adolescents who started puberty suppressants did not go on to pursue hormone therapy, typically the next step in the transition process.

• Hormone therapy is a safe, well-researched method and is not new - it is used for the treatment of many other things including cancer, menopause and hypothyroidism.

• Contraceptive pills are also a form of hormone therapy.

The answer lies in whether you believe everyone deserves equality of outcome.

Equality and equity are methods of achieving an outcome.

Equality means each individual is provided with the exact same resources or opportunties as everyone else, whereas equity recognises that in order to reach a truly equal outcome, some individuals have additional needs which means they might need something which another individual may not.

If we all started from the exact same playing field and were given the same resources and opportunities, we would have an equal and just outcome. However, in reality each of us have various unique setbacks which some others may not have that require some extra support. There is equity already existing in many aspects of society such as grants for high achieving economically disadvantaged children or for people with a disability.

Practically, there are often not enough resources or opportunities to offer to everyone, so to advocate for equality over equity in many cases people would be forced to take an 'all or nothing' approach and refuse many opportunities and resources which could have been of great help to those who desperately needed them, yet may have made little difference to others.

To say 'the end result doesn't matter so long as people are treated equally' is contradictory- why advocate for a method of equality if it doesn't result in equality? It is discriminatory to disregard these differences and allow society's inequalities to continue with no support or recognition. In a working society some level of positive discrimination may be necessary to discern who is in need and who is not.

Discrimination can simply mean:
"Recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.

• "discrimination between right and wrong"
  Similar: differentiation, distinction, telling the difference
• the ability to judge what is of high quality; good judgement or taste. " -Oxford Languages Definition source

We do this every single day of our lives. It is a necessary practice in many situations, particulary in the example given: to determine right from wrong.

It is absolutely contradictory to pretend to care about equality, but then say the resulting inequalities ‘don’t matter’.

The aim of a race is not to finish equally. It is a competition. That is a terrible analogy.
We should not treat life like a race; perhaps some people like yourself are, which is fundamentally where things are going wrong.

Further, equity would in no means hold anyone back, only accelerate those unjustly left behind. I’m glad you brought that up as I think it’s one of the main misconceptions.

Precisely why I’m not a fan of capitalism. And why I said we ‘should not’ treat life like a race, but that some people still do.

My version of equity would focus more on alleviating inequalities caused by capitalism/the system, for example socio-economic factors: gender, race, class inequalities etc. None of these inequalities are ‘natural’. They are a product of a system designed to breed inequality, designed to be a competition as you rightly stated. That it exactly what I disagree with and what equity would attempt to alleviate.

There’s no natural reason why certain genders or races should face inequality in factors such as significantly different rates of unemployment, education or incarceration etc. I’m not talking about whether race/gender is a natural characteristic or whether it is social construct. That’s a different argument. I’m saying the inequalities generated have no natural foundation, they are the results of a racist and patriarchal system and a society that is unfortunately designed for certain people to succeed and not others, which is why they may need and deserve extra support in some areas to alleviate unjust and unnatural hinderances.

(Just to clarify, I wrote this ‘opinion’ but I don’t agree with it. I wrote it in a deliberately inflammatory way to represent the views I’ve seen by some commentators online. Happy arguing!)

100% agree.

I find most cishet men aren’t even feminist in name. Unfortunately many people, men especially, are still apprehensive to adopt the term ‘feminist’.

Commentary

• Polygamy refers to the practice or custom of having more than one wife or husband at the same time.

• Under this umbrella-term includes the lesser discussed polyandry, describing specifically a woman having more than one husband at one time. These men involved have no relationship to one another, only with the woman, or else it would describe a polygamous relationship, or a group marriage.

• According to surveys, polyandry is the rarest form of polygamy, and of relationship structure in general.

• Despite its illegality in countries such as Nepal and Tibet, in some rural areas it is standard practice.

• It is believed to limit human population growth and enhance child survival. Because of this, polyandry is more common in societies with scarce environmental resources.

• Scholars say polyandry in Asia "has allowed families in areas of scarce farmable land to hold agricultural estates together. The marriage of all brothers in a family to the same wife allows plots of family-owned land to remain intact and undivided".

• Whilst these factors may not apply everywhere, it is important to consider this question without a purely western, first-world mindset.

Commentary

• The burka is a one piece veil which covers the face and body, worn by female followers of Islam. Not to be confused with the Hijab, which covers only the neck and hair, and Niqab, which also covers the full face but not the body.

• The burka and other Islamic headcoverings have been a particularly controversial issue across Europe.

• As of Thursday, 15th July 2021, the EU's highest court ruled that the burka and other head coverings can now be banned by European companies under the conditions of "A prohibition on wearing any visible form of expression of political, philosophical or religious beliefs in the workplace may be justified by the employer’s need to present a neutral image or to prevent social disputes".

• Whilst this ruling does not at this stage apply to civic roles, it appears to be only a small step further to extend this to a universal workplace ban and ignites the discussion of whether there are any justifications or if it is downright Islamophobia.

• The grounds for the ruling is, as seen in the quote above, to 'prevent social disputes' and allow companies to 'present a neutral image'.

• The court acknowledged such policies have a disproportionate effect on Muslim women: “such a limited prohibition is liable to have a greater effect on people with religious…beliefs which require the wearing of a large-sized sign, such as a head covering.”

• Some proponents of banning the burqa argue its need in favour of security issues and the need for cultural cohesion.

• However, others find burka ban legislations are discriminatory, and even a violation of human rights and freedom of religion and expression.

• Denmark saw the implementation of a ban on Islamic full-face coverings on the basis of the policy aiming to see better integration of Muslim immigrants into Danish society. However, protesters argue the opposite occurs, and legislations limiting the expression of Muslims creates feelings of alienation amongst the Muslim community.

• Whilst proponents of the burka ban including the EU high court ruling aim to prevent disputes and security issues, the ASIO warns banning the burqa will 'fuel extremist recruitment and radicalisation'.

According to Confucianism, rituals serve mainly practical functions, as well as in some sense spiritual by promoting community spirit

• Not everyone finds benefit in practicing rituals, particularly if they associate them with a sense of religiosity which they do not possess or relate to.
• However, we can learn from the Confucian sense of ritual, Li 禮, that rituals are not necessarily religious, but rules of propriety, as well as positive habits and routines that serve to better ourselves and promote social harmony with others.
• Li is described as “a social medium through which we interact with others in order to achieve common values and to turn our society into a harmonious and aesthetic space”. -Nam Kyung-Hee
• Here, we see rituals have practical functions as well as immaterial ones.
• Engaging in rituals with other people solidifies community and communal identity, serving as social cement. This is in some sense a spiritual function of ritual as strengthening community spirit.
• Whilst not everyone may choose to engage in religious rituals, we all engage in social rituals as we are part of society and perform routine communal acts which serve to keep society functioning.

Read more:
Confucius - The Great Learning
Eno - The Analects of Confucius
Liu - The Self and Li in Confucianism

A politician's religious beliefs will inevitably influence their policy making, so to air them publicly is the correct, transparent move.

• To keep one's religious views private can simply mean to be kept entirely to one's self.
• In another sense, to keep one's religious views private may mean to not explicitly speak of them or let them be known to the public, or to media. Yet, the politicians religious values may be publicly displayed as they are reflected in their actions and policies.
• In an ideal world, I believe religion and the state should be kept seperate, or further, religion should be made totally obselete, due to its oppressive and pacifying powers on the people. See my points on "Religion is the opium of the people". However, whilst religious identity is in decline, we are not yet in this position in society.
• Thus, keeping religious views private may not prevent their inevitable influence unto their politics whether the politician is aware of it or not, hence it is more transparent to air all beliefs to the public so they can identify the source of potential biases and prejudices in policy making.
• Although I do not feel it is right to deliberately let personal religious views inform public policy, and they should be private in this sense, shielding these views from the public eye may allow for religion's influence to creep in unnoticed.
• Exposing the inevitable value-ladenness of politics ensures transparency and awareness of religious influence enables the elimination where necessary of the negative impacts of religious doctrine.

Feminism must be anti-capitalist in order to liberate marginalized women.

There are fundamental conflicts between the two.

• Feminists historically want equality and the economic freedom of women, and in more modern versions this equality focuses on equality of all, regardless of gender, race, class or ability. This is not possible nor desired under capitalism.
• Feminism is an ideology based upon eradicating inequalities, whereas capitalism requires inequality for it to thrive and function effectively.
• Capitalism doesn't value people. It values profit.
• Capitalism's goals do not prioritise those of the feminist, often support the opposite, and are even willing to compromise equal rights in the name of profit.
• Encouraging capitalism means promoting individualism over collective action which is another contradictory value.
• A "feminist" who partakes in the capitalist system and profits off the back of it, earning a lot of money, will be likely doing a lot more to harmfully contribute towards the issues feminism tries to eradicate than they could possibly solve using their money.
• Capitalist values were made and upheld by men and this is reflected in the gender pay gap, maternity leave policies etc. Women suffer many obstacles at the hands of capitalist policy in the 21st Century.
• Capitalist governments "...have led to the unequal distribution of resources and opportunities that disproportionately affect the lives and well-being of girls, women, and the poor around the world."

In spite of these points, I feel it would be contrary to the cause to use them as a reason to discourage capitalists to become feminists. Rather, these arguments are intended to encourage capitalists to reevaluate the morality of their economics if they truly value the feminist cause.

1. I’m not sure where your understanding of equity comes from but it is not to be carried out according to ‘irrelevant physical characteristics’, but a variety of relevant socio-economic determinants, and of course some physical factors such as race, sex, disability etc.

2. Social classes are not ‘the direct result of people making decisions when it comes to their labour’. You fail to provide any evidence for this. This is a dangerous mindset which blames the proletariat for their oppression as a result of their own decisions, and is false narrative.

3. Providing people with equal rights does not limit their freedom in any way. Equality of outcome does not imply that everyone will come out as clones of one another, but be provided with the means to equally flourish without being disadvantaged by factors such as their gender in this case. It does not take away a persons right to choose their own path in life and be an individual, but inversely clears that path of obstacles which other groups of people would not have faced.

Religion is a pacifying force which blinds people to oppression, justifies suffering and discourages the need for radical change.

The phrase 'Religion is the opium of the people' refers to the way that religion has not only been historically systematically used by those in power to oppress the workers, but the phenomenon in which religion also made individuals feel better about being oppressed when they couldn't afford real opium.

I believe that to this day religion is still a pacifying force preventing radical change for the following reasons:

• Religion works to pacify its followers with promises of being in a better place when they die, discouraging the drive to change their real world situation.
• Most organised religions share teachings which preach that God gives us only what we can handle, that we should be grateful for what we have no matter how little it is and not yearn for more, and that any misfortunes are all a part of a greater plan, all of which contribute towards this harmful, pacifying rhetoric and justify suffering.
• The 'comfort blanket' of God's love means individuals cannot fathom that he would let anything bad happen to them, so do not recognise their own suffering and oppression let alone stand willing to fight against it.
• The fear factor of religion still plays a major role in many cases where individuals are scared of breaking the status quo or acting in extremes for fear of sinning and going to hell.

Commentary

Theories of Meaning
There are two main schools in which we can classify opinions on this matter.
» Supernaturalism

• Meaning is constituted by a certain relationship to God.
• If you don’t have that kind of relationship, your life is meaningless.
• Nihilism follows from Supernaturalism if there is no supernatural.

» Naturalism

• Meaning is constituted by natural properties.
• Natural properties are things which are part of the physical world, i.e. mind-independent.

Within these schools, meaning can be considered subjective, or objective.

» Subjectivism

• Meaning is found on a personal, individual basis.
• Doing, achieving or caring about something which you deem to be important makes your life meaningful.
  -Pro: don’t have to worry about metaphysics of objective value, or being overly prescriptive.
• Con: what if I found meaning in something such as hurting people? Or simply eating food? Would we not want to appeal to some objective value?

» Objectivism

• Objective in two senses:

1. What makes life meaningful is the same for all people.
2. The value of a meaningful life is external – it does not arise from the self.

• Morality and creativity are candidates for meaning-conferring objective properties (causing pain and drinking tea are not)

However, this means that in both objectivism and subjectivism, one could cite God as their meaning of life. The answer to whether without God life can still have meaning lies in whether you believe we can find meaning in natural properties.

Does 'meaning' = 'value-adding'?
"I have been very much puzzled as to the meaning of the question "What is the meaning or purpose of life?" . . . But at last it occurred to me that perhaps the vague words of this question are often used to mean no more than "What is the use of a man's life?"... A man's life is of some use, if and only if the intrinsic value of the Universe as a whole (including past, present, and future) is greater, owing to the existence of his actions and experiences, than it would have been if, other things being equal, those actions and experiences had never existed.” - G. E. Moore

Further reading:
Stanford Encyclopedia, The Meaning of Life
T. Metz, The Concept of a Meaningful Life
S. Wolfe, Happiness and Meaning
J. Young, Nihilism and the Meaning of Life

The main issue with calling Churchill a hero concerns the standards we set for someone to be regarded a hero.

Without repeating the previous commentary on Churchill's history, I will provide merely more opinions.

• Although many people, myself included, are grateful for his successful fight against Nazism, it does not feel right to call someone a hero who has commited such heinous acts.
• We should not pick and choose which good deeds of his to acknowledge, and equally which bad ones to disregard.
• 'Hero' is a huge word which should be reserved for only the greatest and most inspirational of humanity. To call Churchill a 'hero' implies he is a wholly positive role model and acknowledges only the good and none of the bad.
• Churchill's legacy did leave both very good, and very harmful impacts on the world, which is a frequent consequence of being a ruler and not sufficient or deserving of a hero title.
• To refuse to regard Churchill as a hero is not to disregard the good he did, but to recognise that his darker side do not fit the standards and expectations of what a hero should be.

The fast-fashion industry is particularly problematic for their environmental impact disproportionately affecting BIPOC, their exploitation and systematic racism.
I agree with the arguments already made 'for' so my points will focus on adding to the narrative surrounding racism specifically in fast-fashion, which is one of the largest segments of the fashion industry and one to which we likely all contribute or have done at one point in time.

Environmental impact
• The negative environmental impacts of fast fashion disproportionately affect people of colour, yet the fashion industry knowingly exploits this in order to keep production costs low.
• Reports show that industries knowingly expose their garment workers, which are predominantly BIPOC, not just in China or third-world countries but even the USA, to dangerous conditions including highly unsafe levels of toxic fumes and fabric dust leading to serious health problems.
•In China, 70 percent of the rivers and lakes are contaminated by 2.5 billion gallons of wastewater from the textile and dye industry which has lead to a public health crisis in China India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and Zambia with a high incidence of cancer and gastric and skin issues afflicting those who work in the industry or live nearby.
• Overproduction of clothes which do not sell in the US are shipped to landfills in Africa.

Modern Slave Labour
• Some fashion brands are hiding under the guise of being 'sustainable' brands for having their clothes manufactured in first-world countries such as the USA, giving the impression their workers are paid a fair wage when in reality they are exploiting cheap prison labour and the systemic racism of the legal system. These workers are paid as little as $1 a day to manufacture garments, blurring the lines between prisons and sweatshops.

Stealing Designs
• There have been multiple accounts of fast-fashion companies or white-designers taking advantage of and blatantly stealing the work of BIPOC fashion designers and refusing to pay them, such as Ngoni Chikwenengere and Luci Wilden.

Using Iran as a case study demonstrates both positive and negative impacts of organ market legalisation.

There are several significant pros for a legal organ market that are frequently disregarded by other countries. However, there are also serious moral and practical issues which must also be acknowledged and addressed for such a system to function

• There is a global shortage of organs, causing lengthy and life-threatening waiting times on organ transplants. As a result of this, regardless of the legalisation of the sale of human organs, the trade will still occur on the black market which carries its own risks.

• In an attempt to address this, in 1988 Iran introduced a government-run payment scheme for living non-related donation (LNRD), becoming the first country to legalise the regulated sale and purchase of kidneys.

Pros:
• In Iran it has been an extremely successful in encouraging individuals to donate their organs, completely eliminating waiting times for kidney transplants by 1999. Reports show the number of kidney transplants per year increased from less than 100 in 1986 to 26,259 in 2006, saving thousands of lives. Iran now stands at 3rd in the world for kidney transplantation.
• It discourages the criminal activity and dangerous practices of the black market.
• Desperate individuals are not forced into crime and put their life at risk
• Donors are allowed to receive payment for their own body
• It is our right to use our bodies as we wish
• Shortens waiting times for transplants–reduces recipient’s suffering (physical and mental) and alleviates strain on hospitals and government resources

Cons:
• The World Health Organisation deems organ trade unethical: “The allocation of organs, cells and tissues should be guided by clinical criteria and ethical norms, not financial or other considerations … cells, tissues and organs should only be donated freely, without any monetary payment or other reward of monetary value” .
This is because they argue marketization corrupts the moral value of organ donation.
• Third parties profit from organ trade
• Decline in health of donor
• Coercion and exploitation still occurs
• Increased inequality e.g. wealth divide-The rich get healthy and poor get sick
• Unfair priority to wealthy people needing transplant
• Black markets still operate in Iran

I agree. It seems in some cases it may be a ‘waste of time’, but that can only be determined retrospectively - no one can really predict it until they have tried (and failed repeatedly). Everyone should have the chance to try and be rehabilitated for this reason and not be written off before any attempts at rehabilitation were made, to prevent a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts.

Whilst I agree that elite overproduction may occur, I don't believe it is the 'real driver' of social unrest in the west.

There is no one driver of social unrest, however in the instances referred to by Turchin I argue that the cause would not be elite overproduction itself causing social unrest but the myth of meritocracy.

It is more likely fueled by the disappointment and later, anger, which ensued at the realisation that the promise that a university degree costing tens of thousands of dollars and a good hard working ethic is all you need to succeed was a lie, rather than being fuelled by simply feeling left out and aggrieved that they are not a part of the elite.

Not everyone who get an education do so with the aim of becoming a part of the elite ruling class, but simply want to earn a decent living in an industry that they enjoy, or want to gain more knowledge and experience in a particular sector. Hence they would not be aggrieved by not becoming part of the elite, but may be by not being able to find work in their field after graduating.

Rhodes should not be celebrated, but removing the statue is not sufficient to bring about change. A democratic vote should ensue to decide the fate of the statue

Firstly I would like to acknowledge that I am a white British individual so the following opinions are not intended to speak over the voices of BIPOC.

The Rhodes statue at the University of Cape Town stood as a symbol of oppression which misrepresented history and glorified the life of a racist white supremacist coloniser and a painful reminder of the past.

However for others such as Siya Mnyanda, a student a UCT, the statue should remain as "Removing these symbols of the past does not change the future. So while I believe the statue should stay, what should not go unaddressed are the real issues that have arisen at UCT thanks to its legacy." I feel this is a good argument as removing these symbols is not sufficient to bring about change, and the presence of the Rhodes statue has shown to have brought to light issues which she mentions such as the lack of African philosophy taught in the curriculum, and the still-present colonisation of the curriculum.

On the otherhand, I believe the "generosity" of Rhodes should not be celebrated with so much as a statue since much of his wealth was acquired by despicable methods that often involved forcefully evicting African people from their land and raising the cost of property requirements with disproportionate effect on black people.

The statue of Rhodes in Oxford does not serve to remind us of any of his brutal past, rather it celebrates his donation to the college and to passers-by decorates him as an innocent and generous individual with no mention of the rest of his history, so I would argue that counterarguments such as that preserving the statue prevents us forgetting that part of history do not apply so much here.

I feel the solution going forward, for the remaining Rhodes statues and similar circumstances, is to consult those who his legacy has affected and who must face the statue every day, for example in this case the students at UCT or Oxford, in a democratic vote and/or meeting to discuss the impacts and different views and agree upon an outcome.

Ghibli's deep and diverse themes, superior talent in art and music as well as strong female protagonists are three of the most significant reasons why they are better than Disney

•Themes: Ghibli reigns supreme by releasing films with themes that appeal to both adults and children, often simultaneously, but unlike Disney also releasing films such as Princess Mononoke or Grave of the Fireflies aimed at older audiences. Using Grave of the Fireflies as a good example, their movies also frequently explore historical and political issues, and more serious themes of loss and illness, alongside magical and whimsical themes meaning there is a movie in their collection to suit any mood and occasion.

•Music and Art Style: The majority of Ghibli's all-original soundtracks are scored by the eight-times academy award winning composer Joe Hisaishi. Whilst Disney is notorious for its catchy songs, Ghibli employs some of the best orchestral talent that Japan has to offer, so in that sense it is superior in my opinion. Additionally, maintaining traditional, old-school illustration techniques combined with modern digital animation, Ghibli's art is world-class. Co-founder Hayao Miyazaki believes that “hand drawing on paper is the fundamental of animation”, so every single frame is hand drawn in the majority of Ghibli's films.

•Portrayal of women: One major thing Ghibli gets right, especially juxtaposed with Disney, is its portrayal of women. Ghibli movies are full of strong female protagonists who defied female stereotypes, who are warriors, princesses, or ordinary girls, but were independent, intelligent, strong willed, never sexualised by the studio, and not helplessly in need of a man. Whilst Disney's portrayal of woman has slowly improved with it's recent releases, Ghibli has consistently respected and centred women in its films from its very first movies in the mid 20th Century.

"If a lion could speak, we could not understand him"
I agree with the previous points made 'for'. However I am in favour of a more Wittgenstinian approach to linguistic relativity which advocated for a more reciprocal relationship between language games, culture and cognition, rather than arguing that language has a one-way affect on our world view.

A quote from Wittgenstein comes to mind: "If a lion could speak, we could not understand him".(Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, 1953) To summarise, his theory describes that if a lion, or any other creature for that matter, could speak our language we would have great difficulty comprehending one another as lions do not have ‘any conceivable share in our world’.(ibid) In other words, there exists less in common between our daily lives that we would communicate so that what he might try to say and what we would understand in return would be nonsense. He may try to communicate ideas, concepts and feelings which do not exist to us and vice versa. In this sense we see inversely how our cognition affects our language since it is without a shared frame of reference that we cannot communicate.

On the other hand, looking at this in reverse, we could still say that this example also shows how our language affects our worldview as we struggle to comprehend concepts for which we do not have words, put nicely by another quote of Wittgenstein's, “The limits of my language mean the limits of my world".(Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 1922)

Israel is, by definition, an apartheid state.
First it is important to understand what the term apartheid means. The term apartheid was originally associated with South Africa from the term meaning "apartness" in Afrikaans. The Rome Statute defines the crime of apartheid as: “inhumane acts...committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.” [Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (2002)]

Secondly it is important to establish that Israel are the oppressive power. Every aspect of the lives of the residents in Occupied Palestinian Territories such as the Gaza Strip and the West Bank are under the control of Israeli government forces. Over 2 million Palestinians in Gaza alone were already under the Israeli government's land, air and sea blockade in May 2021, before Israel closed the Palestinians of Gaza's access to the exit and entry of goods such as food, fuel and medicine for 11 days.

There are several practices and policies occuring in Israel which satisfy this definition and the UN criteria for Israel to be declared an apartheid state. Amongst the "inhumane acts" specified by the Rome Statute and the 1973 Apartheid Convention are:
• “arbitrary arrest and illegal imprisonment of the members of a racial group”
• measures “designed to divide the population along racial lines by the creation of separate reserves and ghettos for the members of a racial group or groups”
• “forcible transfer”
• “expropriation of landed property”
• and denial of “the right to leave and to return to their country, [and] the right to a nationality”.

Below are examples of merely a few of the activities the Israeli government systematically engage in corresponding to the above acts.
•arbitrary arrest and illegal imprisonment of the members of a racial group
•measures designed to divide the population along racial lines by the creation of separate reserves and ghettos for the members of a racial group or groups
•forcible transfer
•expropriation of landed property
•denial of the right to leave and to return to their country, and the right to a nationality

To have been sacked would have been preferred
Although I selected ‘Strongly Agree’, for however he leaves his position is ultimately the right outcome, the potential for him to receive a £16,000 severance pay for his resignation seems appalling given he recommended pay cuts to NHS workers who worked tirelessly during the pandemic. After his initial refusal to resign, Hancock should have been fired. Not given another chance to apologise and offered severance payment.

In addition to his political relevancy, Marx still holds relevance in other areas such as history, anthropology and philosophy.

Whilst I am partial to Marx's views, I do agree with many of the points already made in the comments regarding Marx's political influcence regardless of ones affinity to him. Yet my case serves to demonstrate that he also holds relevance outside of being the activist and revolutionary he is known for by the mainstream audience.

Marx was initially trained as a philosopher and his theory of history, or 'historical materialism' is still studied in institutions worldwide and regarded as a highly influencial analysis of human society and the development of economic structures throughout time. This also lead to contributions attributed to Marx in areas such as the philosophy of time .

Marx's theory also involves aspects of the philosophical theory monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance of nature and therefore the driving force in all of world history as opposed to the materialist conception that material reality creates human consciousness.

Whilst the theory is a fundamental aspect of Marx and Engels' scientific socialism, its long-standing interdisciplinary relevance can be acknowledged regardless of one's political leaning.

We should not have to rely on individuals' generosity to look after those in need. We should tax the rich instead.

I looked at this opinion not necessarily in terms of how social security is currently employed within society but rather its potential to be used in a more efficient way to help the genuinely disadvantaged, which I believe is superior to charity. We can assess what is 'better' according to several different factors: what is more ethical, more efficient, helps the most people etc. Yet, if implemented properly, social security has the potential to succeed charity in all of these areas.

First and foremost, charity relies on the generosity of the general public. This already presents a problem in that it can be argued the public have no obligation to give to charity, legal, moral or otherwise, as well as the majority of individuals having a lack of disposable income which they are able to donate to those in need. This combination means charity does not often have the highest yield and to rely on it in often life-threatening circumstances can be disasterous. Data from popular crowdfunding site GoFundMe showed that in 2018 over a quarter of its campaigns were for medical bills. seeking a collective total of nearly $10.3 billion yet raising not even a third of the amount.

I also believe that it is a harmful rhetoric to encourage the idea that the average working-class individual is responsible for donating money in order to solve issues which are frequently caused or at the very least contributed to by the upper class, government and/or big corporations.

Large corporations also abuse charity donation to avoid paying tax, and often donate to fake charities which actually invest back into their own company. This is another issue with charity which should be considered.

I am a firm believer that social security should be paid for by tax increases to the rich and corporations, and invested in free or at least affordable healthcare, childcare, higher minimum wage and social security payments. This is the most ethical solution to reduce economic inequalities and help the genuinely disadvantaged. It is also extremely efficient. Biden announced a plan to raise $1.5 trillion by taxing those earning over $400,000 per year. A similar plan can, and should, be implemented in the UK or most nations.

AI will inevitably, and has already begun, replacing jobs in several key industries. Yet, there are also industries, one in particular being philosophy, in which AI will struggle to assume the roles of due to arguments that machines cannot think, at least in the way humans can.

Mark Cuban, billionaire entrepaneur encompasses this argument, stating: “We are going through the process where software will automate software, automation will automate automation. I would not want to be a CPA right now. I would not want to be an accountant right now. I would rather be a philosophy major. Knowing how to critically think and assess them from a global perspective I think is going to be more valuable than what we see as exciting careers today, which might be programming or CPA or those types of things.” (https://futurism.com/mark-cuban-tech-will-advance-more-in-the-next-decade-than-it-did-in-the-last-three)

We have begun seeing AI and before then machines in general replace manual jobs and their efficiency in these fields has and will continue to leave the role of humans redundant. With the advancement of each new generation of AI, we see that even professions such as doctors, artists, and actors may be at stake, with AI now being able to predict diagnoses, create paintings and music using math and replace actors in movies without the need for them to be present.

However, with one job AI cannot take is that of the philosopher. There are several reasons for this, but essentially all stemming from the premise that a machine cannot think, at least in the way a human can. Philosophy is necessary to exist as distinct from the jobs adopted by AI in order to assess issues of morality concerning AI which AI cannot assess of itself, not simply because it is a conflict of interest but also because philosophy does not give objective answers unlike AI's programming. Additionally, the balance of logic and emotion which AI lacks also impedes its ability to make ethical judgements equivelant in value to that of the philosopher. We are already seeing a rise in these debates with the introduction of self-driving cars creating a 21st Century 'Trolley Problem' of whether we can trust a car's moral judgement on which pedestrian to kill in a case of an accident. AI's lack of consciousness may also prove problematic to a significant number of philosophy's key focus areas.
Whether philosophy as a job may become obselete through some other faction is a different debate, however it will not be due to the advancement of AI, rather the contrary will occur, and I argue we will see a rise in recognition of the importance of the philosopher.

More on the philosophy of 'Can AI Think?':
Turing-Computing Machinery and Intelligence
Searle- Biological Naturalism
Searle- Can Computers Think?