jennymagleave

I don’t think that women are necessarily smarter than men, but I think that it can appear that way for a number of reasons:

• Scientists at Newcastle University in the U.K. have discovered that girls tend to optimize brain connections earlier than boys. The researchers conclude that this may explain why females generally mature faster than males during childhood and adolescence. For this reason, I think that females tend to perform better academically in school as they are on the whole, more mature than boys are at that age and are therefore more focused on school work. This achievement at a young age can then lead to a pursuit of academia as they grow up.
• Girls are traditionally encouraged to go down a more traditional academic route after school as due to employment related misogyny, boys are sometimes more encouraged to enter into practical professions such as plumbing or bricklaying when they leave school where there is not always this same option for girls.
• The patriarchy means that girls have to be more self-motivated than boys to become successful
• The patriarchy also means that women learn to critique their surroundings and their actions more as we have to learn more about our society to not only survive but thrive and this enhances our social and emotional intelligence more than boys as they do not have to do this to the same extent

People won't give up their privilege in order for society to be more equal.

While we can hope for a better and more fair society and we can do all that we can to help make this a reality, I think that the people in the ‘good spot’ will never give up what they have. For example, to rectify a lot of social issues that for example racism has caused, white privilege would need to be dismantled. And I think that there are too many white people comfortable in their privilege to want to give it up. There is too much selfishness and self-prioritisation for society to ever be truly fair.

People hide behind biological reasonings to create injustices and perpetuate them.

In March 2016 North Carolina passed a law requiring people to use public toilets that correspond with the sex listed on their birth certificate, with the state's Republicans arguing the measure was necessary to protect women and children. This biological reasoning is an unjust policy.

Morganna Snow, a transgender woman, said in the same year that when she in a nightclub, she was asked to leave the women's toilets by a member of staff who told her she had to use the disabled toilet, even though the lock was broken. This is an unfair, unsafe and dehumanising policy that adds even more to inequalities for people already villainised by society.

The reasoning behind this policy – that it is for the safety of women and children in toilets – is a policy hiding behind biology to justify a policy that clearly doesn’t care about the safety of people in bathrooms as forcing transgender people to use misaligned bathrooms is a far more dangerous prospect.

I think that because of ethnic and racial discrimination, social integration and cohesion becomes much more difficult. But also, there are a lot of cultural differences that create and show differences between ethnic groups in society.

Some examples of discrimination that cause rifts in society between different racial and ethnic groups are:

• During the 2015–2016 school year, Black students represented only 15% of total US student enrolment, but they made up 35% of students suspended once, 44% of students suspended more than once, and 36% of students expelled. The US Department of Education concluded that this disparity is “not explained by more frequent or more serious misbehaviour by students of colour.”
• In New York City, 88% of police stops in 2018 involved Black and Latinx people, while 10% involved white people. (Of those stops, 70% were completely innocent.)
• From 2013 to 2017, white patients in the US received better quality health care than about 34% of Hispanic patients, 40% of Black patients, and 40% of Native American patients.

Repetitive instances like these create alienation between different ethnicities and racial groups and doesn’t allow integration when people aren’t all treated the same.

There are of course cultural differences between different group that create more differences for example religion, food, beliefs and down to hair and fashion that make people’s life experiences different. But I think that discrimination is the main perpetuator of societal differences.

Differences between men and women can be traced through life long sexism and discriminations.

Men and women are discriminated against differently through their whole lives. Sexism affects us from birth all the way through into adulthood and this discrimination creates nurtured differences between men and women.

For example,

• Toys marketed to boys tend to be more aggressive and involve action and excitement. Girl toys, on the other hand, are usually pink and passive, emphasizing beauty and mothering.
• Early primary school is the time where boys begin to distance themselves from girls and from behaviours stereotypically perceived as ‘feminine’ through behaviours of put-downs and bullying.
• A quarter of all secondary school teachers say they witness gender stereotyping and discrimination in their school on a daily basis.

It starts in childhood and in schools, perpetuated through playground talk, friendship groups and language. The product of this is then that men and women emerge out of their youth as very different from each other because of their completely different experiences growing up asa things have been angled against them very differently. This then culminates a more divisive culture on the whole which makes us all the more different.

It is in the nature of the subject to be more aligned with liberals than conservatives.

The liberal to conservative ratio is approximately 50:50 in disciplines such as engineering, computer science, business and technical fields whereas it is estimated that as few as 5 percent of social scientists are conservative. The statistics therefore point to that, yes, the social sciences are biased against conservatives.

However, I think that this bias is in the very nature of the subject. The social sciences often include disciplines such as political critique and women’s studies which focus on more progressive attitudes and therefore appeal more to liberal academics. Furthermore, the study of others and a greater understanding of our society is more likely to lead to increased tolerance and greater empathy which are typical of more liberal attitudes. This is a contrast to disciplines like business and economics that are more aligned with individualistic, conservative laissez faire values.

Therefore this bias is not of ignorance, exclusion or on purpose but is more of an inevitable product of the nature of the study.

The animal lack of self-awareness and consciousness mean than while they are very similar in nature to us, that they find no greater meaning of life behind their actions that humans do find.

In Man’s Search for Meaning, psychiatrist and neurologist Viktor Frankl wrote about his ordeal as a concentration camp inmate during the Second World War. The objective of his writing was to decipher the meaning of life after living in a place surrounded by so much death and suffering.

According to Frankl, meaning in life can be found through:

• Experiencing reality by interacting authentically with the environment and with others.
• Giving something back to the world through creativity and self-expression, and,
• Changing our attitude when faced with a situation or circumstance that we cannot change.

Animal instincts, such as fight or flight responses and animal courtship behaviour, demonstrate that animals, like humans, interact authentically with their environment and with others.

However, I think that while animal actions are comparable to what make human life worth living, they do not find the same meaning of life in it that humans do as they remain more unaware of the wider implications of their actions and their expression.

Yes, but this depends on the extent of suffering…

I agree that suffering builds character because suffering can change you in ways that you could never have imagines. Suffering often makes you a stronger and more empathetic person with more life experience that builds character.

HOWEVER This is relative to my own personal experience and there are obviously experiences of suffering that are far worse and far more severe. Some experiences of suffering are so that it would be insensitive to reduce to as merely ‘character building’.

What we define as wisdom is complex and is something that, in my opinion, you have rather than something you gain.

I personally dislike the idea of the wisdom of elders. I think that there is a perspective and a mindset on life that makes people wise. I see wisdom as more of a natural disposition and a personality trait rather than something that can be acquired or learned over time. Adding to this, I don’t think that there is a specific set of qualities or a specific type of person who is wise either. Society often conflates wisdom with intelligence however as American Psychiatric Associatiate Dilip Jeste says “Wise people are intelligent,” he says, “but not all intelligent people are wise.”

So yes, I do think that there is such a thing as wisdom, but I think that it is a much more nuanced and abstract concept than most of us give it credit for.

The benefits of renationalisation are clear, especially as it is becoming increasingly clear that government intervention is necessary to fight climate change.

These are some benefits for utilities being made public instead of private:
• There is an economic term called a natural monopoly which means that there is only one efficient firm in the industry. This means that there is no competition. When this natural monopoly was in the hands of the government, they are less likely to exploit this monopoly than a private firm.
• Public utilities mean that profits are shared with the taxpayer. For example, if a private train service like Avanti west coast set high prices, then the profit margin between running the service and the charge will go to shareholders. However, if these train services were run by a nationalised government rail line then the profits from train services would enable lower taxes.
• Public transport plays a key role in reducing pollution and congestion. A private firm has less incentive to prioritise and work on these positives, but a government run public transport system could invest more in public transport to help improve the economic infrastructure to support a more sustainable future.
• Gas and water should be considered necessities for basic living standards and not luxuries. Government provision means that groups in need can be looked after and provided with basic necessities without having to pay ever increasing prices.
• Labour unions favour nationalisation because they feel they may be better treated by the government rather than a profit maximising private company.
• For environmental reasons, some industries require long term investment that isn’t profitable in the short term. There would be more government incentive to do this as they are not working for big profits unlike private companies.

Ex-shadow business secretary, Rebecca Long-Bailey, said that the nation’s decades-old privatised system was an “insult and an injustice to our people and our planet”. She added that “Only by taking the grid into public ownership can we decarbonise the economy at the pace needed to secure the planet for our children and grandchildren while ending the rip-off, creating good jobs in local communities and making heating and electricity a human right”.

I don’t think that taxes should be used to necessarily ‘redistribute wealth’ so much as to even out the injustices and inequalities in society.

The Labour party in the UK want to increase taxes and use this increased revenue to increase public spending and the provisions of the state which ultimately help the least fortunate in society and in turn, redistribute wealth.

Ways that labour proposed to even out the societal playing field would all be done via increased taxation and also spending cuts in other sectors like military.

Promises labour made in their 2019 manifesto that I think corroborate the idea that taxes should be used to redistribute wealth were:

• bring the energy bills of nearly 10 million low-income households down by an average of £417 a year and eradicate fuel poverty, benefiting 1.14 million elderly people.
• Overall spending for the NHS increased, paid for by rises in income tax on the highest 5% of earners, plus increasing tax on private medical insurance.
• abolish the benefits freeze, scrap universal credit and put an end to the two-child benefits limit
• bring into public ownership the gas and electricity supply networks and the privatised water and sewerage companies. It has also proposed renationalising the rail operating companies and the Royal Mail.

This is for the benefit of the entirety of society as when everyone is helped to achieve their full potential, society thrives. Therefore, yes, taxes should be used to redistribute wealth but in an indirect and assistive way.

Ignorance is bliss…

My opinion on this is in no way arguing that we shouldn’t be moral citizens and make good choices in aid of our own personal happiness as I think morality and social consciousness are very important virtues.

What I do argue – or maybe I should say what I have observed in my own life and experiences – is that people who are more distanced from or more ignorant to social or environmental issues or less empathetic towards suffering and injustices are more personally happy.

Humans were not designed to know the extent of our own world and society. Through the internet, we are bombarded with so much information and news every day and there is a lot of pressure to be up to date with these things and to be educated on what’s going on in the wider world. However, for the human brain, it is extremely overwhelming and depressing to simultaneously be aware of world hunger, the climate crisis, the migrant crisis, terrorism, disease, labour exploitation, racial injustices, sexual violence, charity issues and everything overwhelming in our own lives and with ourselves and our loved ones. And a lot of moral decisions come with recognising that your life is quite often better or more fortunate than a lot of people’s which can invoke guilt and become an obstacle to your personal happiness when you are almost mentally dragged down by all the bad in the world.

In my opinion, I can’t blame people for taking a step back from such things to priorities themselves.

There is mixed evidence for where the coronavirus came from, put pushing the lab leak narrative creates increased prejudice towards Chinese and people of Chinese appearance of heritage.

There are several theories that have emerged surrounding where the coronavirus came from varying from animal host theory to lab leak theory. And the top and tail of this is that, at this point, it is still impossible to know with any certainty where the virus came from. There is evidence, as proved by the Sars outbreak, that coronaviruses do break out naturally and therefore that understanding their origins is difficult. And on the other hand, lab accidents do happen which means that without further evidence, a lab leak remains a possibility.

But I think that the lab leak theory was propelled forward by the Trump administration that had an overtly hostile relationship with China. And the perpetuation of this narrative and blaming China for the coronavirus has lead to increased racial prejudices against Chinese people. In the United States, for example, the ‘Stop AAPI Hate’ forum has recorded more than 1100 instances of anti-Asian abuse since late March 2020.

So while we cannot rule out the possibility that Covid leaked from a lab, it is dangerous to perpetuate that narrative with limited evidence at the expense of increased social cohesion.

Childcare is extortionate and puts a lot of financial pressures on families and therefore should be free.

Childcare in the UK is extremely expensive:

• The average cost of putting a child in a nursery part-time is over £7,000 in 2021
• A part-time childminder place is on average £6,150 a year in 2021
• Families paying for after-school club five days a week is on average £62.13 per week
• The price for full-time childcare (50 hours) is only slightly lower than twice the costs of part-time childcare (25 hours).

For a lot of people, this kind of money is not feasible to pay for childcare which often leads to children alone much younger than they should be or having to rely on family help which can create tension in families.
In addition to this, for a lot of people who work 9-5 jobs, schooling takes up a lot of the time that they would require childcare. But for a lot of people who would struggle to pay for childcare, their jobs require them to work more unsociable hours like evening, shift or even night work. This then only exacerbates the issues of paying for childcare. For these reasons, I think that childcare should be free.

I support period leave but worry that the patriarchy runs too deep for women to be unscathed after its implementation.

I myself spend a few days a month in extreme agony due to my period. I admit to having to call into school and work sick because of my period pains and am therefore one of many women who would love to have and would extremely benefit from period leave.

My worry is that period leave would lead to a resentment of female workers.
In some Asian countries, including Japan, Indonesia, Taiwan, South Korea and certain Chinese provinces, women are allowed to stay home for a designated part of their monthly periods. Few take advantage of it, though, many citing fear of sexual harassment or perceptions of weakness. And when the Italian parliament considered introducing national period leave in March, many wondered whether eligibility for three paid days a month off risked discouraging employers from hiring women in the first place.

In a perfect, and non-patriarchal, society, yes, women should get period leave. But realistically, I worry that it would just be another setback for women in the fight for employment equity and respect, as awful and backwards as that is.

Companies and billionaires can afford to fly excessively therefore they can afford to pay a tax for their part in further damaging the environment.

This depends on what you define as a ‘frequent flyer’. I think that a frequent flyer tax should be introduced to deter companies and individuals from flying unnecessarily or excessively at the expense of their impact on the environment. I’m going to highlight the extremes of this situation:

• Tracy Krohn (chairman and chief executive of oil-and-gas producer W&T Offshore) flew nearly 200 hours in his own jet at W&T’s expense last year. The company hasn’t disclosed what proportion of that was used on personal trips, but it does say it charters Krohn’s own plane for him to use “for any purpose.” The company reports spending about $1 million just on Krohn’s personal flights last year.

Based on fuel consumption per flight and total fuel emissions, it is estimated that greenhouse gas emissions per hour of flying is approximately a ¼ tonne CO2.

Based on these calculations, Krohn’s yearly flight habits cause 50 tonnes of CO2 to be thrust into the atmosphere. And for this, there should be a tax. A tax for the damage to the environment.

There are so many factors involved in choosing a partner.

This depends entirely on the individual. Patrick Wanis, behaviour expert PhD, cites these 7 main factors of attraction:

• Chemistry and physical attraction
• Proximity and bonding
• Similarity
• Complementarity and personalities create harmony
• Reflection of attachment style
• Subconscious self-modelling
• Similar core values

Funnily enough, none of these specifically mention humour. This goes to show that there are many other qualities that could be seen as the ‘most important quality in a partner’.

Stonehenge was built by humans, it just took them a while.

There are a total of 83 total stones at the Stonehenge site. The large stones are called sarsen stones which were transported 30 miles to the site. Because of the size and weight of these stones, the distance they had to be transported and the fact that this all took place before machinery and metal tools leads people to believe that aliens build Stonehenge. However, it is estimated that it actually took 10 years to get all of the sarsen stones to the monument size and 10 years tor the masons to prepare everything for Stonehenge. And not only this, the earthwork was started in 3000 BC and everything else was done over a timescale of hundreds of years. Around 500 years after the groundwork, the stones were brought to the site and erected. The sarsens were then shaped using sarsen hammerstones. Around 2200 BC the smaller stones were rearranged and around 1750 BC carvings started to be made on the upright sarsens.

There is a more logical conclusion to Stonehenge than aliens, in my opinion.

If there was a god who did create this divine plan, I wouldn’t want any part of him or it.

A divine plan, or any notions of fate and destiny, to me, make life almost pointless. An absence of free will would beg me to ask the question then, why are we here? What is the point in our lives if we cannot choose our own paths?

And how does it work then? This 'divine plan'.

How is it that things can occur without a chain of events and can occur in an already predetermined plan? And why is there such awful crime in the world if not for free will? And if life were down to the divine plan, then why is there so much natural disaster? I would not personally like to believe in a god and his divine plan who is okay with causing that much pain and suffering to merely ‘test’ his people?

For me, this is all just too many questions that come to no meaningful or accurate answer. All I can think to this opinion is no.

This is such a complicated issue but I have to argue that yes, it is wrong to pay for sex. And I argue this for the sake of the:

• 68% of prostitutes that experience PTSD.
• 80% of prostitutes that say they wish to get out of prostitution.
• 40% of prostitutes that are former child prostitutes who were illegally forced into prostitution through human trafficking.
• 60% percent of children who ran away from home and had to become prostitutes for some period of time to survive.
• 58% of American prostitutes who suffered assault at the hands of their clients.

Are there crimes you can never come back from?

There are certain crimes that people commit that I don’t think that people can be rehabilitated from.

For example, mass shooters, child rapists, gang leaders and human traffickers. These people have, in my opinion, crossed the Rubicon of society to a different, darker and more dangerous place. There is something in some crimes that I think you can’t come back from.

The power they have felt, the disregard for human life, the atrocities you have committed are too far for you to ever be part of a regular society or to ever be fully rehabilitated.

Is this an easy out for dealing with an overwhelming and frightening crisis?

Studies say that ‘just _100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions’.

For this reason, I completely sympathise with people disregarding sustainable habits and questioning themselves: does it really make a difference if I buy a new dress for the weekend when oil companies are setting the literal ocean on fire?.

We all feel disengaged with the fight to stop climate change when we hear stuff like this. And so do I, its disheartening and depressing especially when scientists say that in 2019 we only had 18 months to save the planet and it is now 2021 and people are dying as a direct result of climate change.

But we must try, myself included, to try to not use this as an excuse to take our foot off the accelerator in our efforts to reduce our carbon footprints and the impact that we leave our one and only planet with.

The phrase? No. But sentiment can be.

The phrase ‘Man Up’ is outdated and cold and is a bad thing to say. It perpetuates stereotypical expectations of men being emotionless, strong, a brave protector. It indicates that there is a certain way to be a man and that there is a societal expectation of ‘manliness’ for men to live up to which is unrealistic and damaging.

But I think a lot of people, especially older people, do not always think about the meaning behind their words and the implications of using phrases such as this. They could be trying to tell you to be brave, to keep yourself together and push past anxieties/worries to allow yourself to do what you want to do and enjoy yourself.

This is a situation I have never been in and is quite complicated...

I’d like to start this opinion by stating that I think that cheating is awful. I would never and have never cheated and that for me, yes cheating is and instant red flag. I fully agree with @erinosgood that cheating is a gross breach of trust and can cause serious harm to people’s mental health.

However as an unmarried person who has lived a very privileged life, I am unable to put myself in certain people’s shoes and a pair of those shoes belong to unhappy, stressed and distressed married people. Finances, abuse, sexuality, dissatisfaction, mental illness, insecurities, self-esteem and disconnection are some possible reasons for cheating that I cannot imagine dealing with in the complexities of a marriage. And when children and families are involved, the situation becomes even more difficult. I do not condone cheating in any way however an ‘extra-marital affair’ can be just a tiny bit more complicated than that.

What business does a 30 year old have with a 20 year old?

There are obviously exceptions to this opinion. When you are over a certain age, the difference between two people becomes less and less of an issue. Many people believe that anyone over the age of consent can be with whoever they want of whatever age. And obviously, yes they can be with whoever they want. But to me, there is something creepy about even a 20 year old and a 30 year old. Two people of these ages are at completely different stages in their lives. At 20, you could be still in university, or working your first entry level job or doing an apprenticeship. You’re likely to still live at home and still be financially dependent on your parents in some way. You’re likely to still be friends with your school circle and frequent the same places you always have. Whereas a 30 year old could be 9 years out of university or 12-14 years into their working lives. They are likely to be living alone or alone with friends and to be financially independent. They are likely to have travelled more and experience more. These two people, to me, are at completely different stages of their lives.

And when you get to the age of the latter person, in my opinion, you should have more maturity than wanting to be bothered with a 20 year old in a romantic context.

‘Study after study shows that men's sex drives are not only stronger than women's, but much more straightforward’.

• Environment, partner and social context all affect female desire much more than it does men.
• Men think about sex more than women do. In a survey of studies comparing male and female sex drives, Roy Baumeister (a social psychologist at Florida State University), found that men reported more spontaneous sexual arousal and had more frequent sexual fantasies daily.
• In the same study, Baumeister concluded that men also actively crave sex more than women at all stages of relationships. This is also true of gay men compared to lesbian women.
• Baumeister found studies that show that women are more influenced by the attitudes of their peer group in their decisions about sex whereas men are more likely to base decision making on sexual desire alone.
• Edward O. Laumann, PhD is a professor of sociology at the University of Chicago and he found that about two-thirds of men say they masturbate compared to only about 40% of women.
• Laumann explains women’s lower sex drive compared to males through the world of sociobiology. He theorises that men have biological, subconscious incentive to have sex to pass along their genetic material whereas, by contrast, women may be hard-wired to choose partners more carefully because of the possible implications of pregnancy.
• Males prostitutes only account for roughly 20% of all prostitutes meaning that there are more of a market for men who are willing to pay for sex.
• J. Michael Bailey, a Northwestern University sex researcher, says that women have more varied and less directed sexual desire meaning what turns women on is much more nuanced than what turns men on.
• Esther Perel, a New York City psychotherapist says that she ‘hear[s] women say in [her] office that desire originates much more between the ears than between the legs’. She goes on to explain that women are more likely to desire a mental connection than men who see sex as the connection.
• Men react much more dramatically to both hormones and drugs. Testosterone has been linked to sex drive in both men and women but testosterone works much faster in men than women, says Glenn Braunstein. Furthermore, low sexual desire is more easily treated through medication in men eg. Viagra than in women for who a sex-drive increasing drug has proved more elusive.

When people say that everything is about sex, they are talking about the physical aspect of sex that affects a lot of things in our life and in society.

For example, making fictional characters sexually attractive or buying a car that is marketed towards you as ‘sexy’. This is shown by the book ‘Fifty Shade of Grey’ nearing half a billion dollars in gross sales. in its first year after release.

And when people say that sex is actually not about sex at all and is about power, they are referring to the complex power dynamics and the vulnerability of sex. Along with the pleasure and intimacy that comes with sex, the things that also come tied up in sexual relations are letting a wall down, a fear of rejection, going for what you want, getting what you want, feeling empowered and powerful, being validated and the fear of rejection. And sex is also so socially praised, especially with heterosexual men, that ideas of ‘winning’ and ‘success’ are also tied up in sexual power dynamics.
Furthermore, the idea of there being a dominant and a submissive role in sex is very commonplace. And though this is not a physical feeling of power, it is rather that experiences of powerfulness or powerlessness are something that people might be attracted to. Sexual language, pornography and positions all play into this idea of sex being about power.

Steven Hawkins said "I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers.”

This reflects how I feel about the afterlife and/or being reunited with our loved ones - that it is unfathomable. I cannot see that there is something beyond death that defies physics and biology. I think that it is of comfort to people to hope and to believe that we will be reunited with loved ones after we die but there is something too avoidant about death in this for me. The thing that is most precious about life is that it is finite and that we have to savour our loved ones and our special moments.

Sex is too complicated and too personal to reasonably be judged as 'right' or 'wrong'.

I don’t think that it is really fair to say that what anyone chooses to do with their bodies and in their private lives is necessarily ‘wrong’ (obviously excluding any illegal/violent/dangerous activities).

Both waiting for marriage and sex before marriage are viewed differently across the world and across different generations, cultures and religions. In the 1950s, most Brits and Americans held traditional beliefs surrounding premarital sex as back then, society was much more influenced by religion and specifically here, Christianity.

In a 1963 survey, only 11% of men and 7% of women agreed with the statement ‘I believe that full sexual relations are acceptable for the male/female before marriage’ regardless of love, relationships or commitment. But in the last 50-70 years, public opinion has changed and now a majority of people think that premarital sex is okay and even to some extent, good and to be encouraged. And by stark comparison to in 1963, in 2014, 73% of people thought that sexual relations were in no way wrong.

These surveys prove that morality surrounding sex is not at all fixed and is actually fluid and changeable and therefore, in my opinion, it is very hard to say exactly whether such a complex issue as this is indeed ‘right’ or ‘wrong’.

Scientific evidence disproves an existance of the afterlife let alone a Heaven V Hell situation.

The existence of the afterlife would require physics and biology beyond our current understandable model. There isn’t evidence for the afterlife yet there is a lot of scientific fact that points towards the impossibility of heaven and hell existing.

Steven Hawkins said "I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers.”

Even if there was – hypothetically - to be an afterlife, to me it is so doubtable that it would be a classic Heaven V Hell type of set up. In a society that has, for the most part, moved beyond traditional, religious ideas of sin and repentance, the idea of heaven and hell seem outdated and rigid (even when talking about an idea so abstract and beyond our reality).

Data rights should be human rights because in an increasingly globalised and digital world, it is concerning that there could be private and personal information out there about you that is not being stored and used for the good of the individual.

With an increasingly digitalised world where we are trusting a lot of companies with our personal and private information online, there has to be checks and balances on accesses and rights to certain information. This is what the Data Protection rights in the UK aim to do. I believe that anybody has a right to know, request, access, delete and question data that any company/body might have on them.

This is because:

• It requires public bodies to respect the private life of an individual
• Ensures the storage and use of personal information is at the service of people
• Means there must be valid and legal justification for storing or processing of any personal data

And why is having these rights important?

Because they make a difference to peoples lives. This can be seen from the Human Rights Court’s extensive records on data protection-related matters. For example:

• protected a woman whose medical data was collected under powers in an insufficiently clear law
• required adequate and effective safeguards to prevent abuse of states’ spying powers while recognising the need to counter terrorism
• authorities held to account for their use of blanket mobile phone interception devices, the phone-tapping of lawyers and the recording of prison visiting room

From ‘Each Other: What’s Data Protection Got To Do With Human Rights?’

China’s social credit system should not be implemented in China or anywhere else in the world as it is a huge curtailing of the human rights of the people of China and sets a dangerous precedent for and overly powerful and interfering government.

There are many types of credit checks and social-style scores that we are subjected to in the UK and that act as a block or a gateway for accessing certain things ie. your credit score. However, China’s social credit system takes this idea one step further and expands the idea of ‘credit’ to rating a citizens behaviour and ‘trustworthiness’.
Mareike Ohlberg, research associate at the Mercator Institute for China Studies, says that it is "both unique and part of a global trend".

For this reason, people may think that this social credit system is the future of citizenship and almost a natural progression from the way we are currently living our lives which is a very traced and documented way.
BUT there is something very scary and different from not being able to get a loan because you have a poor credit rating and not being able to get on a train or a flight because the government has blacklisted you for travel.

These infractions are not enough to land you in prison or serious trouble with the state but somehow lead to your rights being curtailed. Furthermore, there are pilot schemes in which points can be added or won back for doing things like donating to charity.

Liu Hu, a journalist writing about government corruption and censorship in China, was blacklisted and had this to say to a Canadian newspaper:
“There was no file, no police warrant, no official advance notification. They just cut me off from the things I was once entitled to … What's really scary is there's nothing you can do about it. You can report to no one.”

This is a huge abuse of power, control and surveillance by the Chinese government that threatens a reduction in the human rights of Chinese citizens even more so than they are curtailed already.

Samantha Hoffman, fellow at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, argues this that I think sums up the argument against any wider extension of this system:

“The People’s Republic of China is an authoritarian country, the Chinese Communist Party is responsible for gross human rights violations for decades. There is nothing any liberal democratic society should even think about copying in the social credit system”.

There are countless examples in the bible that suggest that God is not Love that are characterised by violence, crimes and atrocities.

Richard Dawkins opens Chapter 2 of his New York Times bestseller The God Delusion by saying that the God of the Old Testament is "arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction". And, after looking at these quotes below, I would have to agree that God is not, in fact, “Love” at all.

Here are a list of things that God either does, condones or encourages that are reprehensible of modern moral judgement:

Cannibalism:

• "And the king said unto her, What aileth thee? And she answered, This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to day, and we will eat my son tomorrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat him.” (II Kings 6:28-29)
• "I will walk contrary unto you also in fury; and I, even I, will chastise you seven times for your sins. And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat." (Leviticus 26:27–29)

Rape/sexual assault:

• "Hear and give ear; do not be haughty … it is for the greatness of your iniquity that your skirts are lifted up, and you are violated … because you have forgotten me and trusted in lies. I myself will lift up your skirts over your face, and your shame will be seen." (Jeremiah 13:15–26)
• "Therefore the Lord will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the Lord will discover their secret parts." (Isaiah 3:16–17)

Murder of children:

• “If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son … Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city … And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die.” (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)
• "See, the day of the Lord is coming — a cruel day, with wrath and fierce anger … Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives violated." (Isaiah 13:9–16)

Feticide/Infanticide:

• "You shall acknowledge no God but me … The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open." (Hosea 13:4, 9-16)
• "O daughter Babylon, you devastator! … Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!" (Psalm 137:8–9)

Slavery:

• “You may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.” (Leviticus 25:44-46)
• “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5)
• "Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse." (1 Peter 2:18)

Ableism:

• “No one whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off shall be admitted to the assembly of the Lord.” (Deuteronomy 23:1)
• “Whosoever ... hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or anything superfluous, Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, Or crookback, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken ... He shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish.” (Leviticus 21:17-23)

Invasion:

• "And in those days the tribe of the Danites was seeking a place of their own where they might settle … they said to [the priest], 'Please inquire of God to learn whether our journey will be successful.' The priest answered them, 'Go in peace. Your journey has the Lord's approval.' … Then they went on to Laish, against a people at peace and secure. They attacked them with the sword and burned down their city. The Danites rebuilt the city and settled there." (Judges 18:1–28)

Racism:

• “Just then one of the Israelites came and brought a Midianite woman into his family… When Phinehas … saw it, he got up and left the congregation. Taking a spear in his hand, he went after the Israelite man into the tent, and pierced the two of them, the Israelite and the woman ... Therefore say, "I hereby grant him my covenant of peace … because he was zealous for his God, and made atonement for the Israelites.'" (Numbers 25:6–13)

Homophobia:

• “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral … nor men who practice homosexuality … will inherit the kingdom of God.” (Corinthians 6:9-11)

And examples of when God himself commits atrocities:

• "And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord; and the Lord slew him.” (Genesis 38:7-10)
• "Behold with a great plague will the Lord smite thy people and thy children, and thy wives, and all thy goods: And thou shalt have great sickness by disease of thy bowels, until thy bowels fall out by reason of the sickness day by day." (Chronicles 21:14-15)

Obviously, a vast majority of Christians do not believe in the bible word for word and believe it should be used for interpretation. However with all of these things in the bible, I find myself unable to agree with the statement that “God is Love”.

Whites do not need their own country because of the benefits of racially and culturally integrated societies and history of colonialization.

Rather than arguing that this opinion is, to me, a divisive and dangerous one, I am going to highlight all of the ways in which a culturally and racially diverse society/country are of benefit to us. Diversity is overwhelmingly beneficial for our children, our workspaces, our communities and in terms of positive international relations.

Here are just some (for there is a near infinite list I’m sure) of the benefits of whites NOT having their own country:

Economically and in the workplace…

• Diverse cultural perspectives can inspire creativity and drive innovation
• Cultural sensitivity, insight, and specific knowledge makes a business more globally competitive
• Diverse teams are more productive and perform better
• Greater opportunity for personal and professional growth
• Fewer internal disputes and grievances
• Improved accessibility to new and diverse customer markets
• Greater flexibility and adaptability in a globalized world
• Ninety-six percent of major employers, Wells, Fox, and Cordova-Cobo note, say it is “important” that employees be “comfortable working with colleagues, customers, and/or clients from diverse cultural backgrounds.”

For our children…

• Multiracial communities improve race relations and reduce hostility. This feeds through to younger generations and fosters sustained reduced prejudices.
• Students can learn better how to navigate adulthood in an increasingly diverse society
• Improved social cohesion and learning opportunities

Internationally…

• Western dominance and white privilege permeate the field of international relations . “Anti-Japanese racism guided and sustained U.S. engagement in World War II. During the Cold War, racism and anti-communism were inextricably linked in the containment strategy that defined Washington’s approach to Africa, Asia, Central America, the Caribbean, and South America”.

Also the argument for whites having their own country ‘like every other race and colour’ is amusing as by as early as 1914, a large majority of the world's nations had been colonized by Europeans (white people) at some point. Therefore it is factually inaccurate to say that every other race and culture has their own country because likelihood is that at some point, white people invaded it.

No, affirmative action is not racist. If there had never been racism, colonisation, segregation, slavery etc. to begin with, then as society we wouldn’t need it.

Affirmative action is like righting the wrongs of history. And not having affirmative action, would be like turning a blind eye to racist hiring and professional behaviours. There is also a huge difference between racism which is elimination of a racial group from certain elements of society and the increased inclusion of all races into all elements of society which is what affirmative action is aiming to do.

A statistics that proves why affirmative action is necessary is that:

• Compared to white individuals, black individuals are twice as likely to be unemployed, and earn nearly 25 percent less when they are employed.

There was a randomised field experiment that was conducted by Professors Mullainathan and Bertrand that examined the level of racial discrimination in the labour market. They submitted nearly 5,000 resumes in response to over 1,300 newspaper ads for sales, administrative and clerical jobs in Boston and Chicago. Resumes were randomly assigned either a black-sounding name (such as Lakisha Washington or Jamal Jones) or white-sounding name (such as Emily Walsh or Brendan Baker) to imply the applicant's race (the validity of the names' "blackness" or "whiteness" was confirmed by surveys in public areas in Chicago). Resumes with white-sounding names received 50% more interviews and call backs than those with black-sounding names. And startingly, a white-sounding name yielded as many more call-backs as an additional eight years of experience on a black-sounding names resume.

From this data it can be seen that it is the job market that is racist and not affirmative action and that in fact, affirmative action is very necessary to make sure that hiring processes are conducted fairly and without the influences of racial bias.

Pornography objectifies and degrades women and this translates to the real world and makes porn a factor in the issue of violence against women.

Pornography shapes how young people see sex. Porn is often young people’s first time experiencing or being exposed to sex. And the way that porn depicts sexual encounters is often extremely different to how sex is in real life. Overwhelmingly, pornographic content is produced and consumed by men and has extremely consistent themes. The content categories of two of the most popular porn sites reveal a pattern of ‘endless scenarios of male dominance and female subordination’. These are often categorised by specific acts, female body parts, races and ages. This is therefore damaging because of the effects on men, women and society as a whole.

• For instance, in a randomised experimental study among young men in Denmark, exposure to (nonviolent) pornography led to higher levels of hostile sexism.
• Being sexually objectified encourages women to adopt an observer’s perspective of their body (i.e., to self-objectify), which is deleterious to their wellbeing in a multitude of ways.
• Pornography consumption has been found to correlate with men’s sexually coercive behaviour in several cross-sectional surveys
• In 2010, a study conducted by Adult Video News found most of the scenes from 50 top-rented porn films involved the female performer appearing to be physically or verbally abused.

Furthermore, the degradation and objectification of women is not only f=damaging to viewers but also to the female performers themselves:

• Rashida Jones, a producer of porn documentary ‘Hot Girls Wanted’, described the cycle young women face when they start making amateur porn. She says the industry encourages them to participate in more extreme scenes. In an industry where pay rates have continuously declined, extreme acts pay more with the most radical commanding up to $2,500 per scene.

As a society, it might be time to evaluate whether this clear objectification and degradation of women in these ‘fantasy scenes’ is of too much damage to women in the real world.

Because of the systemic racism that black people have experienced throughout history that constitutes centuries of hate, violence, fear and ignorance, the least that white people can do is to educate ourselves in how to tackle white supremacy. There are hundreds if not thousands of books, infograms, documentaries and podcasts - to name a few resources - to educate white people about racism. Black people do not owe us the energy to teach us about their history, frustrations and injustices. Frankly, to educate ourselves about racism and our own privilege is the very least that white people can do.

Link to some educational books here: https://secretmanchester.com/books-educate-systematic-racism/#:~:text=%2010%20Books%20To%20Invest%20In%20Now%20That,in%20all%20parts%20of%20our%20culture%3A...%20More%20

TL;DR – Almost every aspect of society has levels of inequality which make it unfair.

I think that the clearest and most convincing way to argue that the current levels of inequality in society are unfair is to look at statistical fact. Some of the numbers below are just shocking, unignorable and inexcusable and as a society, we must do better to rectify these inequalities.

Inequalities regarding:

GENDER - The gender pay gap among all employees was 17.3% in 2019 in the UK meaning that per hour of work, men earned on average 17.3% more than women did. (1)

RACE - In the UK, BAME workers are paid around £3.2bn less than their white counterparts every year. (2)

CLASS/POVERTY - There is a clear pathway from childhood poverty to reduced employment opportunities, with earnings estimated to be reduced by between 15% and 28%. (3)

ACCESS TO EDUCATION – A study showed that those who grew up privately educated or in selective state grammar schools were 8x more likely to have attended a top Russell Group University and 24x more likely to have gone to Oxford or Cambridge. (4)

NORTH/SOUTH DIVIDE – There is a general health divide that exists in England, with researchers claiming that about 1.2 million more people have died before the age of 75 in the North than in the South since 1965. (5)

SEXUALITY - 86% of secondary school teachers and 45% of primary school teachers say pupils in their schools had experienced homophobic bullying. In addition, 89% of secondary school teachers and 70% primary school teachers have heard the use of homophobic language in their schools. (6)

RELIGION – The number of religion related hate crime offences in the years 2016-17 was 5,949. (7)

(1)https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/bulletins/genderpaygapintheuk/2019
(2) https://gender-pay-gap.service.gov.uk/
(3)https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/uksectoraccounts/compendium/economicreview/february2020/childpovertyandeducationoutcomesbyethnicity
(4) https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/06/29/elit-j29.html
(5) https://news.sky.com/story/line-18-stats-show-huge-north-south-divide-11389007
(6)https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/539682/160719_REPORT_LGBT_evidence_review_NIESR_FINALPDF.pdf
(7)https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/652136/hate-crime-1617-hosb1717.pdf

TL;DR – University strikes use students as pawns in disputes that put students learning in jeopardy. Innocent students paying £9250/year do not need to suffer because of union and university politics.

An interesting case study to look at here would be the current (June-July 2021) marking strike taking place at the University of Liverpool. More than 1,000 staff started a marking boycott on 18 June, the University and College Union (UCU) said and therefore about 1,500 university students have not had their degrees classified. - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-57754901

While myself and other students sympathise with our professors and lecturers reasons for striking and support the aims of the action, I believe that it is unfair to drag innocent students into the disputes as it is disruptive to our studies. This is because of the effects it has on our learning such as:

• Added stress and anxiety regarding exams and assignments
• Delayed feedback exacerbating this
• Having to teach high level content to ourselves despite paying £9250/year for expert teaching
• In addition, international students often pay more than double these fees
• Pressure on students not to cross the picket line despite us wanting to use the facilities we pay for

This happens at least once a year and so it's time for administration to actually do something about it and negotiate effectively so that students can get the learning they deserve and pay for and our teachers can also get the pay and conditions that they also deserve.

TL;DR – Taxation pays for public services that we all use and need and also aides the vulnerable in society and is therefore not theft.

In the UK, taxpayer money is spent on a variety of things including social protection, health, education, net debt interest, defence, transport, public order and safety, social services, housing, the environment, industry, agriculture and employment. https://www.finder.com/uk/tax-statistics

To anyone that argues that taxation is theft it is important to ask: if you suddenly became unemployed or unable to work for some reason, would you expect the government to help provide for you and your family? If the UK was attacked and we had to go to war, would you expect the army to go and fight for you? If you were robbed or attacked, would you expect law enforcement to come to give you aide? This is where our taxes go, this is what our taxes pay for – the institutions, services and aide that every citizen relies on and is entitled to rely on.

As for health and education that people argue should be paid for by the user and not subsidised by the state using taxpayers money, I believe that it is a moral virtue to care for and empathise with those less fortunate than ourselves. And for me, that includes taxation that provides support for people living with illness, disability, in poverty or in any difficult situation that would mean that they would not be able to pay for and access a privatised healthcare or educational system.

TL;DR – Climate change is the biggest crisis human kind has faced in history as if affects absolutely everything and everyone. Therefore it is crucial to halt this change and rectify the damage we have done to our planet virtually any way we can, including increased reliance on nuclear power.

Put simply, through human burning of fossil fuels, there is increased CO2 in our earth’s atmosphere. This increased CO2 causes global warming. This is because:

‘CO2 absorbs radiation and prevents heat from escaping from our atmosphere. The high amounts of atmospheric CO2 collects and stores heat and thus, disrupting weather patterns, causing global temperatures to increase and other climate changes.’ - https://www.viessmann.co.uk/heating-advice/what-are-carbon-emissions-and-why-do-they-matter

The effects of climate change are as follows:

• Ice is melting worldwide, especially at the Earth’s poles. This includes mountain glaciers, ice sheets covering West Antarctica and Greenland, and Arctic sea ice. Much of this melting ice contributes to sea-level rise.
• Rising temperatures are affecting wildlife and their habitats. Vanishing ice has challenged species in Antarctica.
• As temperatures change, many species are on the move to less hospitable environments.
• Precipitation (rain and snowfall) has increased across the globe, on average. Yet some regions are experiencing more severe drought, increasing the risk of wildfires, lost crops, and drinking water shortages.
• Some species—including mosquitoes, ticks, jellyfish, and crop pests—are thriving.
• Hurricanes and other storms are likely to become stronger. Floods and droughts will become more common.
• Less freshwater will be available, since glaciers store about three-quarters of the world's freshwater.
• Some diseases will spread, such as mosquito-borne malaria.
• Ecosystems will continue to change: Some species will move farther north or become more successful; others, such as polar bears, won’t be able to adapt and could become extinct.

(Above facts found here: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/global-warming-effects)

For these reasons, it is an unignorable and critical necessity to reduce our carbon emissions. The biggest contributor of CO2 into our atmosphere is electricity generating powerplants burning fossil fuels. And while there are other way of generating electricity in ways that produce less CO2 (eg. Wind farms, solar power, tidal power etc.) nuclear fission is by far the most efficient way of producing electricity as it is not dependent on the sun, wind or tide and can be running generating electricity 24/7.
Nuclear power undoubtably has its challenges for example radioactive waste disposal, high costs and public perceptions. But the climate crisis has been pushed so far that we are left with few alternatives that allow us to preserve our planet and our ecosystems. 40/50 years ago I think that this would’ve been a choice or a debate but realistically, we are too far gone to not include nuclear fission in our carbon reduction toolset.

Further sources:
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/advantages-and-challenges-nuclear-energy
https://sciencing.com/the-top-10-causes-of-global-warming-12512484.html

TL;DR – Psychology should be considered a legitimate science because it uses the same scientific methodology as the so called ‘legitimate sciences’ and is equally as useful in aiding our understanding of the natural, man-made and social worlds.

I’d like to begin with what a science and what psychology literally are and what constitutes being defined as either one of them.

• The Science Council defines science as ‘the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.’ - https://sciencecouncil.org/about-science/our-definition-of-science/
• The British Psychological Society states that psychology is the ‘study of the mind and how it dictates and influences our behaviour’ and uses ‘observation, measurement, and testing, in order to form conclusions that are based on sound scientific methodology.’ - https://www.bps.org.uk/public/what-is-psychology

By looking at these definitions side by side, I argue that, psychology should be considered a legitimate science because:

• Psychology studies the mind of our own species which means that it teaches us a lot about how the ‘natural and social world(s)’ work in an equally useful and complex way as biology, chemistry and physics do.
• The methods of ‘observation, measurement, and testing’ that legitimise the knowledge of biology, chemistry and physics are also used in psychology which makes the science as factually sound and legitimate as the other sciences.
• In biology, chemistry and physics, the effect of the related area of study is applied to the human body and our society. For example chemical drug use, physical illnesses or the environment. The human mind therefore is something that massively impacts science in general. Because of this, the study of ‘the mind and how it dictates and influences behaviour’ is just as legitimate as the study of for example space as it is so much more impactful on our everyday lives and on our society.
• We are a huge part of the ‘natural world’ and exist ourselves in complex societies that have irreparably altered the natural world. So the study of psychology is crucial as it is key to our understandings of the modern world in which we live.
• The ‘social world’ that “legitimate sciences” are in ‘pursuit … of knowledge’ about faces many issues. Crime, poverty, prejudice, violence, illness, addiction, the list goes on. The science of psychology strives for increased ‘knowledge and understanding’ of all of these things and more in our ‘social world’ which makes its usefulness and legitimacy undeniable.

Regardless of someone’s political and social stance on, for example, homelessness and giving to the homeless, I think that it is an extremely crucial value for a person to have that they at least feel empathy for and spare a second thought for those suffering and less fortunate than ourselves.

Along with many other issues that come with privatised health care in the UK, the main thing that is a concern to me about this is healthcare professionals entering the profession for perhaps the wrong reasons. While I think almost anyone would be lying to themselves not to admit that the earning potential of a career is a significant factor in pursuing it, the main drive to be a doctor for example should be care and compassion for those who are sick or in need. And I think that the privatisation and increased monetisation in the healthcare sector could cloud peoples potential motivation for embarking on a career for which monetary gain should be a lower priority when people’s health and wellbeing is in question.

The thing is that money that provides you with the ability to pay for access to higher standards of medical care also provides you with the ability to rectify all of the above issues you mentioned. MacDonald’s is a quick, cheap and easy meal for someone who may not have the time or money to cook as they are trying to maintain or find a ‘well-paying job’. The ability to pay for a gym membership and go to work out comes from having disposable income, energy and time. And for smoking and drinking, who are we to judge the circumstances under which people alleviate stress and unwind. For some people, to stay as healthy as possible is not quite that simple.

You should not hit a child in the same way that you should not hit your friends, your partner or a stranger who angers you. Both the latter are condemned socially and by law which begs the question of why parents spanking their children is not condemned in the same way? Hitting children teaches them that physical violence is not only an acceptable outlet of anger but also an encouraged one. Children are likely to mirror behaviour demonstrated to them and spanking perpetuates an inability to communicate in disagreements. When you hit a child, you miss an opportunity to teach them life lessons and to emotionally nurture them. This combined with the physical factor of adult body Vs a child’s body makes, in my opinion, hitting children inexcusable.