joeladickens

TL;DR – It depends on what "better" means

Enlightened despotism, as a totalitarian form of governance that seeks to benefit the public, is a difficult topic to judge. As a whole, despotism, of course, is bad. However, democracy, too, can end up with drastically negative effects for swathes of the population—not to mention individuals in other nations who are affected by trade, war, and the other foreign interactions of democratically-formed governments.

There is not a significant array of examples of enlightened despotism throughout history, at least compared to democracy (or just plain despotism). Moreover, enlightened despotism is by and large a thing of the past—occurring primarily in times when democracy had not yet become a widespread, global form of governance—thus, democracy and enlightened despotism are difficult to compare.

If we assume a fully enlightened despotism (a ruler actually improving the lives of all citizens), it is better from a consequentialist point of view; by definition, here, enlightened despotism will be beneficial. If we assume a full democracy (without many of the modern barriers, like gerrymandering and voter suppression), it may be better from a deontological perspective—though may not have overall beneficial effects for the populace. Enlightened despotism may also eliminate the difficulties of bureaucracy within democracy. Regardless, one is only better than the other depending on an individual's personal view of a better society. Some may say the best society is one without poverty, hunger, or other material ills, others may say the best society is one with equal rights and opportunities.

TL;DR – Nuclear energy has an unfair reputation and is good for society

Nuclear energy has long been demonized. Events like the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters have soured people's views of nuclear energy, which is understandable, but not empirically valid. Nuclear energy is, in fact, the safest form of energy we have. Nuclear energy's environmental impact is, however, less clear-cut—both the pro- and anti-nuclear sides have valid points. Certain aspects of nuclear energy are significantly more efficient than alternatives; in terms of air quality and land usage, for example, nuclear energy far surpasses other (admittedly controversial) methods like gas, oil, and coal. On the other hand, nuclear energy is expensive to employ and has indirect carbon emissions (primarily through the enrichment of uranium)—and, of course, has examples of catastrophic though isolated disasters.

We must look primarily at statistics in order to judge nuclear fairly. Nuclear energy has a similar footprint to solar and wind. Nuclear energy has by far the fewest deaths relative to energy production of the major energy sources. Nuclear accidents are very rare. With these statistics in mind, it is clear that nuclear energy, at the very least, has strong potential. If society invests further into it, it could become even safer and more efficient: a societal good.

TL;DR – Some interventions work, others are catastrophes

Humanitarian intervention is a difficult topic to encapsulate; it involves one state using force against another in order to improve the latter's human rights condition. It is somewhat ambiguous what these human rights violations must be and how the force will manifest. The modern justification for humanitarian interventions primarily comes from Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, adopted by the United Nations in 2005—although, it should be noted, United Nations policies are often quite murky and difficult to enforce.

Both before and after this, there have been many examples of humanitarian interventions. It would be impossible to give an exhaustive list, but there are certain prime examples of both successful and failed interventions which should be noted. The 2011 UN-backed armed intervention to mitigate the alleged war crimes of Libya's Gaddafi is most likely the first example that comes to mind when individuals think of failed interventions (or, possibly, interventions at large). Debatably, this operation was, overall, a failure. While Gaddafi was deposed (a main NATO goal), the intervention led to immense destabilization and the country quickly descended into its bloody Second Civil War; the intervention, to cease civilian deaths and abuses, is widely viewed as having ultimately caused more civilian deaths and abuses.

This example is not to say that all interventions have similar trajectories (although many, particularly the United States', have). More successful interventions often are less publicized as there is little outrage and reason for media attention. The UN Operation in Côte d'Ivoire is widely viewed as successful; although it lasted many years, its goal of ending the violence of the Second Ivorian Civil War and facilitating the removal of would-be dictator Laurent Gbagbo and installation of the democratically-elected Alassane Ouattara was ultimately achieved. Although there was significant violence through the operation's tenure, the UN suppressed it rather than partaking in it, which—as proved by the Libyan case—can result in societal instability.

It is misleading to say humanitarian intervention doesn't work outright, but it is surely an incredibly risky measure in any case. It is also possible that humanitarian interventions are usually taken on in a damaging way (and possibly with poor motives), but they is some potential for them, and it is difficult to argue that the international community shouldn't act when such terrible acts as genocide and war crimes are occurring.

TL;DR – Homeopathy, quite simply, is not a legitimate form of medicine.

Although surprisingly popular, there isn't significant scientific evidence that backs up the medical efficacy of the ingredients—like onions, poison ivy, and crushed bees—that homeopaths use (which are highly diluted to boot). While homeopathics have seen some successes, the uses—even discounting the lack of robust data—are limited. The use of homeopathy as a replacement for modern medicine, particularly in cases of more serious health issues, is incredibly dangerous; most data show that homeopathics function similarly to placebos. Furthermore, homeopathy may present active medical risks (aside from the passive danger of forgoing proper treatment), with the potential for overdose. Altogether, individuals are wasting their money (the actual homeopathic medicine is very inexpensive compared to standard medicine, but seeing homeopathic doctors is still very costly) and risking their health by opting for homeopathic treatment over well-tested and modern medicine.

TL;DR – Affirmative action is one of many small ways to remedy institutional racism

Compared to POC, white people (as a whole) hold significant advantages in nearly every part of society. Slavery, segregation, and other racial injustices have a strong legacy in the US; even disregarding lived experiences, the statistics make it very clear that white people are generally much better off in terms of income, wealth, and education. These are cyclical problems that people pass between generations—wealthy, educated parents are more likely to produce wealthy, educated children. Affirmative action, both in education and employment, is a way of breaking this cycle. At a baseline, racism is entrenched within every level of the education system, and thus affirmative action merely helps to even out an already-imbalanced playing field; it is not about racial favoritism, rather, improving racial equity. It is possible that, at some point, affirmative action won't be necessary—when people of all races have similar odds of ending up successful—but it remains necessary as a way of mitigating institutional and systemic racism.

TL;DR – While fur, leather, and meat all result in animal cruelty and death as well as significant adverse effects on the environment, fur and leather have more utility and worse alternatives than meat

While the utility that comes from the consumer's personal enjoyment of fur, leather, and meat is difficult to quantify, it is clear that a pair of leather shoes has a longer-lasting impact than a steak dinner. Even if we assume that fur, leather, and meat offer the same level of personal enjoyment, these industries have different effects on animals and on the environment. At a baseline, we must recognize that fur, leather, and meat production are all awful for the environment and for animals (there are always certain exceptions, but a meaningful analysis must, instead, focus on industry norms and broader impacts).

Meat and leather are typically produced together and thus have comparable effects on animal wellbeing. Fur is typically produced separately and often critiqued for being wasteful though, ultimately, the animals undergo similarly inhumane treatment and are then killed.

Alternatives like pleather and faux fur aren't exactly ethically sound; they are typically made of plastic, terrible for the environment, and significantly less durable than their real counterparts. Although it has no direct element of animal cruelty (any contribution to climate change is, in fact, harmful to animals but certainly less direct), faux fur's environmental footprint may actually be quantifiably worse than real fur's.

Alternatives to meat like tofu, seitan, tempeh, and the extremely wide range of veggie burgers, sausages, and the like are almost universally better for the environment and for your health than real meat—these direct alternatives to meat, along with nutritional substitutes like pulses more broadly, are globally available and inexpensive.

Regardless of the viscerally negative association people have with fur or the necessity people see in meat (seemingly, the ethics and utility of leather are the most ignored out of this trio), they are all ethically dubious. They can be differentiated by their industries' respective effects on animals and the environment and compared to their individual alternatives. Through this cost-benefit analysis, in my eyes, meat comes out as the worst.

TL;DR – Capitalism is a utopic system that has been improperly applied and corrupted, but can be used for good

Admittedly, capitalism is often reduced to its worst traits without much analysis of its societal benefits. It is not given the same benefit of the doubt that socialism and communism are from the modern left. Where anticapitalists argue that many Marxist projects like the Soviet Union failed not due to their fundamental dogma but because of external pressures and individuals' corruption, capitalism is often portrayed as fundamentally flawed. Arguably, capitalism has seen a similar trajectory but proven to be significantly more robust in its survival; capitalism is fundamentally a utopic idea and thus can only be applied improperly.

Adam Smith, the principal figure of modern capitalism (as Karl Marx of socialism and communism), is an oft misrepresented figure. Smith's ideas have been co-opted by right-wing figures globally while his nuances have been effectively erased. In reality, the capitalism that Smith imagined was far more altruistic and equitable than the corrupted form seen today.

Ultimately, however, capitalism is a simple principle of private ownership that has run amok. Without an inherent (or, at least not very strong) value judgment on this fact, capitalism is inherently exploitative; private ownership of capital means that capitalists will always reap profit from what laborers have rightfully earned by the simple nature of owning the means of production. Some capitalists are fairer to their workers than others, and the accumulation of wealth has led to some of society's greatest feats like rising living standards, decreasing poverty, and mass innovation but rising inequality and the proliferation of billionaires have adverse effects on society, with many areas of the world allowing more and more capital to be privately owned (neoliberalization).

Seemingly, the only viable solution to capitalism's failures—like exploitation and inequality—is a mixture of private and social ownership of capital. This is, essentially, what almost every state on Earth is (imperfectly) doing; the government controls some forms of capital and individuals own others/ Thus far in world history, neither a system of complete social ownership or complete private ownership has proven to be feasible or beneficial. The issue here is, really, the proportion of collectively-owned to privately-owned capital—we have not found the optimal ratio.

TL;DR – Although there are certainly many, many caveats, voluntary, informed euthanasia should be a basic human right.

It is a, if not the, basic ethical principle to prevent human suffering. In many cases, euthanasia is the primary mode of doing so. Autonomy is also held as one of life's most important qualities; the right to die with dignity and under one's own, chosen circumstances soundly fits into autonomy and thus must be protected. It is a blatant violation of this principle to force someone to continue living based on others' desires (however strong), particularly when they are undergoing immense suffering due to, for example, terminal illness or unmitigatable depression.

In the case of terminal illness, it is not a case of if an individual will die an untimely death but when. Avoiding euthanasia does not avoid death, but it may allow the end stages of one's life to be (significantly) more painful and unnecessarily prolongued.

Furthermore, euthanasia is, in essense, just a more humane, safe form of suicide, which around 800,000 people die from each year—"safe" is an odd term here, but contextually it must mean free from complications or undue pain, two very common occurences within suicide and suicide attempts. Creating a medical, legitimate route would not only avoid the complications of self-inflicted, amateur suicide, but could, actually, create an atmosphere where individuals who wanted to commit suicide would receive essential services as a prerequisite. The legalized path may add a sort of checks and balances system which individuals are not able to enact on their own, without help.

TL;DR – White privilege is very real

White privilege is evident in many parts of society. There are both examples of white privilege that are based on the average white person's societal standing, as compared to other races, as well as benefits white people see regardless of their individual circumstances.

Possibly most important is wealth. To focus on the predicament in the United States, the racial wealth gap is immense as well as gradually expanding—the median white family has approximately ten times more wealth than the median Black or Hispanic family.

In the justice system, Black individuals are, in some cities, significantly more likely to be arrested for low-level crimes, significantly more likely to be wrongfully convicted, and, when a murder victim is white, individuals are significantly more likely to face the death penalty.

White people also face systemic advantages in hiring processes, holding better prospects for employment even when compared to similar candidates of other races. In education, Black students are more often suspended than their white peers from as early as the preschool level.

There are countless other examples of white privilege in society—they can hardly be oversold.

You're definitely right about "privilege" often being talked of as not being treated unfairly but I think this possibly misses some key points.

While I think it's important to note that privilege only exists as a relative term when one group is treated better than another (and, often, it is not truly relevant whether or not one group is actually just being treated fairly), I believe your argument rests in the difference between positive (i.e. entitlements) and negative (i.e. liberties) rights.

Were we to exclude negative rights—lack of oppression, in a sense—there would still be positive rights that white individuals enjoy. Positive media bias for white individuals in crime reporting is a particularly salient issue at the moment. If we assume the baseline is fair, unbiased coverage of crime and other events, we notice that not only are POC given treatment below this benchmark but white people are given treatment above it: a positive right. Media coverage is more likely to give excuses for domestic abuse committed by white people and humanize and sympathize with white terrorists, for example.

In the case of George Zimmerman, there is certainly an element of cop privilege, but his main defense revolved around self-defense. Stand Your Ground laws—which Zimmerman's defense employed, though were not able to use to grant him immunity—overwhelmingly favor white-on-Black self-defense homicide claims, which are four times more likely to be ruled as justified than Black-on-white.

There are certainly other examples in which racial bias is a zero-sum game; if there is racism, then there is by nature white privilege. In terms of hiring practices, bias against applicants of color means privilege for white applicants; if one group is treated as less-than, the complementary group is, by nature, treated as more-than and thus holds a privilege or advantage—not simply fair treatment.

TL;DR – The modern American prison system is as ineffectual as it is immoral and should be abolished

Prisons are a tool of oppression and control rather than a means of improving society. Prisons do not have a significant impact on crime as a deterrent to crime or as a rehabilitator for criminals. They do, however, have a significant impact on (specifically, Black) communities, reinforcing systemic disenfranchisement and poverty, and may ultimately increase likeliness of criminality in prisoners' families.

The modern criminal justice system, from policing, to sentencing, to even prison architecture, must be scrapped for its negative effects on society. With deeply entrenched racism, this system reifies some of the worst aspects of society, damaging nearly all individuals who go in and out of it, all at a significant cost to the taxpayer. The criminal justice system needs to be dissolved and fully rethought in a way that is fair and effective.

TL;DR – Opposition to a Jewish state ≠ opposition to Jewish leadership, the Jewish people, or Judaism

The Jewish state must be isolated from the Jewish people. Ethnic nations of any form are debatably harmful, regardless of their origins. Irredentism (a primary justification for Israel—the belief in restoring historic territory to a specific country or ethnic group) has resulted in immense negative consequences across the world. Ethnic groups can be represented (democratically, for example) without their own, exclusive states.

Israel, although the Jewish state, is, naturally, representative of Israel, not the world's Jewish population. Antisemitism comes from religious intolerance; Zionism is not inherent to the Jewish religion, formulated slightly more than a century ago after nearly 4000 years of Judaism as a religion. Many diasporic populations (notably, Haredim, the majority of whom are fundamentally opposed to a Jewish ethnostate) oppose the Israeli state while remaining attached to Judaism itself (myself included). The Jewish religion itself is, debatably, not compatible with nationalism in any form, including Zionism. Opposition to the nationalist movements of, say, the annexation of Crimea, the Rwandan Genocide, or Brexit, does not constitute intolerance of or hatred for the Russian, Hutu, or English nations/ethnic groups.

Ultimately, anti-Zionism, at its core, is purely political and areligious, and thus cannot be conflated with antisemitism.

TL;DR — BDS does not oppose or denounce the Jewish people or Judaism, thus it cannot be antisemitic

BDS does not take any stance against Jews or Judaism. Furthermore, for those that state that anti-Zionism is antisemitism (which is not a universal truth), BDS does not explicitly question the legitimacy of Israel as a state, rather, BDS opposes the ways in which Zionism and the Israeli state has manifested: repeat breaking of international law through forced exodus, annexation, and apartheid.

The goal of BDS is not to harm Jews, it is to compel the Israeli state to treat the Palestinian people equitably. Antisemitism is not a campaign with a clear end goal; BDS is, and any negative effects Israel incurs due to BDS are both temporary and definitively preventable (arguably, without any harm to the Israeli public) through concession to BDS’s demands.

TL;DR – the Jewish state ≠ Jewish leadership, the Jewish people, or Judaism

The Jewish state must be isolated from the Jewish people. Ethnic nations of any form are debatably harmful, regardless of their origins. Barghouti has advocated for Jewish leadership (along with Palestinian—or any other democratically-elected group) within a one-state governmental system.

Israel, although the Jewish state, is, naturally, representative of Israel, not the world's Jewish population. Antisemitism comes from religious intolerance; Zionism is not inherent to the Jewish religion, formulated slightly more than a century ago after nearly 4000 years of Judaism as a religion. Many diasporic populations (notably, Haredim, the majority of whom are fundamentally opposed to a Jewish ethnostate) oppose the Israeli state while remaining attached to Judaism itself (myself included). Furthermore, a majority of American Jews oppose the continued expansion of Israel through (illegal) settlements. Hovering at around half (give or take 10% depending on the year) of Israelis themselves do not approve of the Israeli government and while they are not necessarily opposed to Israel fundamentally, BDS's primary cause is, as well, to oppose current actions by the Israeli government.

Ultimately, BDS's qualms, along with many anti-Zionists', are purely political and areligious, and thus cannot be conflated with antisemitism.

TL;DR - Borders are unnecessary and unjust

Borders themselves are somewhat arbitrary. Throughout centuries, the world's borders have shifted countless times for countless reasons; it is irrational to think that for some reason those we have today are more valid than the innumerable combinations throughout history. Furthermore, many of the "borders" the world has today are not, in fact, defined in the sense of a fence, wall, river, or the like—they are simply accepted by society. Many modern borders were developed through practices now widely considered illegal and immoral, like forced annexation. African borders, for example, were haphazardly drawn by a group of Europeans in Berlin.

Borders bolster nationalism, encourage violence, allow for the death of thousands of migrants annually, and may stifle the economy. Open-border projects like that of the European Union have been largely successful at curbing some of these societal ailments.

Disclaimer: Surely, many of these problems could not be solved simply by abolishing borders, but it may be a start. These ideas are a small facet of antiauthoritarianism and anarchism—topics I will not digress into for this opinion.

TL;DR - Critical Race Theory (CRT), particularly combined with intersectionality, is an absolute necessity in terms of understanding and ultimately remedying many of the pressing problems in (particularly Western) society.

While valuing lived experience—not an uncontroversial practice, it is argued to be purely anecdotal, and thus flawed, evidence—CRT is, in fact, based on data and statutory, material proof. Immense problems such as hate crimes, police brutality, income inequality, unemployment, and workplace discrimination (a non-exhaustive list) are all racially divergent, almost universally disproportionately affecting people of color. CRT originated as a movement to analyze these issues as deliberately upheld by the law and state apparatus. This bold statement comes with evidence from many legal and government experts. It is, arguably, completely intuitive that a society (the United States, specifically) which was built through the enslavement (and quasi-enslavement) of POC (not only Black people but, notably, Chinese) would, now, continue to systemically disenfranchise these demographics. The diverse range of ailments that unevenly affect ethnic minorities prove that, even with certain exceptions to White hegemony (such as higher Asian household income), POC are still unduly harmed by a variety of societal institutions and norms. CRT acknowledges these data, contextualizes them within different public systems, and, if properly valued, may be able to fix or alleviate these plagues.

TL;DR - This classic song normalizes sexually coercive behavior

The lyrics to Baby It’s Cold Outside are very clearly inappropriate for the modern day. Regardless of its playful demeanor, the song, ultimately, shows coercion and manipulation mixed with sexual undertones: broadly disapproved-of themes.

This is not to say everyone listening to the song is going to then replicate this scenario in their own lives, or that every similar scenario is bad—context matters. However, this all still normalizes and trivializes behavior which is often predatory. This song, at least implicitly, teaches that men should not take “No” seriously from women and can try to convince them to do things they, at least initially, do not want to.

TL;DR – “All Lives Matter” is an intentional distraction from the fact that some lives are valued less than others

Yes, all lives matter; no, All Lives do not Matter. “Lives Mattering” as a statement, as it has been popularized, does not exist in a vacuum. Black Lives Matter is not solely a statement of fact, it is (clearly), a movement, a response to the climate Black Americans (not to exclude other nationalities—Black Lives Matter was started in America but has grown to an international scale, addressing a global problem) must face.

The justification for Black Lives Matter and not All Lives Matter is clear from a historical perspective (with the legacy of slavery, segregation, colonization, and other atrocities) as well as statistically. To state making “All Lives Matter” as a political statement ignores the categorically, demonstrably true reality that some lives (those of people of color) are treated as inferior—this occurs through police brutality, explicit bias, and implicit violence, for example, on a societal scale.

As a preface, with the current tax code in the United States, inheritance tax is necessary and shouldn't be scrapped—but that does not mean that inheritance tax is good in and of itself. An annual wealth tax is necessary.

Our current system, which imposes taxes when there is a transfer (such as an inheritance) or a sale of capital, allows for the radically disproportionate accumulation of wealth. Mass-accumulated wealth (such as billionaires') is largely unproductive for society, held in business interests, stock, and real estate (1). Ronald Reagan's "trickle-down economics" predicted that, rather than solely accumulating capital, the upper classes would spend and their wealth would spread (trickle-down) through the economy, helping people of all classes. This has been proven largely false (2). An inheritance tax remedies this to some extent, but a well-functioning government must have consistent tax revenue, rather than one-time windfalls whenever a billionaire dies—were Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, or Bill Gates to die today, the government (both state and federal, in some cases) would see inheritance tax revenues in the tens-of-billions (3).

Currently, politicians like Bernie Sanders (4) and Elizabeth Warren (5) are fighting for a wealth tax and, although neither has advocated it to be an alternative to inheritance tax, per se, there are clear similarities in the two types of tax and a swap between them is imaginable at the very least.

Second,

1. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/chart-assets-make-wealth/
2. https://www.thebalance.com/trickle-down-economics-theory-effect-does-it-work-3305572
3. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/21/average-billionaires-death-means-a-165-million-windfall-for-states.html
4. https://berniesanders.com/issues/tax-extreme-wealth/
5. https://www.warren.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/warren-jayapal-boyle-introduce-ultra-millionaire-tax-on-fortunes-over-50-million

While systemic discrimination against women (among other demographics) is rife, the "gender pay gap" is misleading.

There is no singular gender pay gap; it is widely variable between sectors, careers, and positions (1) and often changes when adjusted for the number of hours worked (as opposed to annual salaries, where applicable). Simplifying the gender pay gap to an economy-wide statistic insinuates specific gender discrimination within companies' salary decision-making processes when this may not be the case.

The gender pay gap often ignores key variables such as degree level, nationality, and race (2). Arguably, focusing on gender discrimination within the workplace is misplaced, when women face broader systemic and cultural issues within education (3), childcare expectations (4), and power gaps (5). Systemic disenfranchisement cannot be addressed under the guise of the gender pay gap, and if the gender pay gap is the main focus, some of these broader issues will not be mitigated—and that may mean, ultimately, that the aspects of the gender pay gap that do exist will not be mitigated either.

1. https://www.statista.com/statistics/760342/
2. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/oct/15/ethnicity-pay-gap-disparities-minority-workers-unemployed-precarious-work
3. https://www.globalpartnership.org/what-we-do/gender-equality
4. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-44767657
5. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kathycaprino/2020/10/22/impostor-syndrome-prevalence-in-professional-women-face-and-how-to-overcome-it/?sh=69bd6e5573cb

The common ethical dilemma, "the trolley problem", gives two options; you can do nothing and the quickly-approaching trolley will kill five people tied to the track or you can pull a lever and the trolley will be diverted to another track, killing only one person.

The core of this is a choice between deontology and consequentialism or utilitarianism. The deontological point of view argues that it is ethically wrong to take any action that kills; to pull the lever would be to take a life, to value one life over another (or another five), which is ethically wrong. Deontology judges morality based on actions, rather than actions' consequences. (1)
The consequentialist or utilitarian (utilitarianism is a branch of consequentialism and relevant to this dilemma) argues that it is ethically wrong to let five people die when it could be restricted to only one as, when valued equally, five lives are more important than one. Consequentialism judges morality based on consequences rather than actions (or the reasoning for those actions) (2), while utilitarianism aims to create the most happiness for the most individuals, valuing all individuals' happiness equally. (3)

The consequentialist argument, to pull the lever and save the five, is clearly preferable. While, in and of itself, taking an action that kills someone is morally wrong, this is patently outweighed by the prospect of saving five lives. To value deontology over consequentialism creates a broken world; the real experiences of individuals, and not the motivation behind the creation of those experiences, structure and affect our lives. We must value the effects of our actions, not solely any moral deliberation behind them if we want to live in a prosperous world.

1. https://ethics.org.au/ethics-explainer-deontology/
2. https://ethics.org.au/ethics-explainer-consequentialism/
3. https://www.thoughtco.com/basic-principles-of-utilitarianism-3862064

TL;DR — Burritos and tacos shouldn't be compared

There is a false equivalence between tacos and burritos that sparks debates about taco or burrito supremacy. Yes, they each originated in Mexico (a vast country encompassing many cultures and cuisines) but it is unclear if they were invented as different versions of the same thing, or completely separately. Additionally, the modern burrito is typically far more Americanized than the modern taco.

The modern taco and burrito are, however, distinct entities with unique traits. While there can be a crossover between the two, their optimal forms contain different ingredients.

A modern burrito, for example, will almost always contain rice, beans, lettuce, and cheese along with a host of other ingredients in a flour tortilla. A modern taco, on the other hand, is typically much simpler, relying heavily on the core meat ingredient and salsa for its flavor profile, and is often served with a corn tortilla. Due to its fewer ingredients, the taco may have much stronger and more punchy flavors. Rarely, if ever, will you find a "burrito" with only two or three ingredients—it simply wouldn't make sense.

To bring in a parallel, can bruschetta and pizza be made with the same ingredients, do they originate in the same place, and could you find them on the same menu? Certainly, but that does not mean they fulfill the same purpose culinarily or can be meaningfully compared as true alternatives to one another. The same can and should be said about tacos and burritos.

TL;DR — Having children is the most basic human (and animal, generally) biological goal, though, under society's current conditions, its ethical cons far outweigh its pros.

There are multiple schools of thought on why having children is unethical. To summarise a few views, first, having a child is the single greatest contribution to climate change an individual can have, dozens of times more environmentally costly than eating a meat-filled diet, driving daily, and flying transatlantic annually. Second, there are millions-on-millions of children waiting to be adopted—nearly half a million children currently in foster care in the United States, many of whom eligible for adoption, for example. Third, and more conceptually, there is an ethical dilemma of bringing a person to life without their consent; this argument is far more divisive and difficult to pin down but must still be considered.

Conclusively, these ethical dilemmas are unmitigable and thus the act of having a child must, as a whole, be seen as unethical and self-serving.

TL;DR — Novels' protagonists' actions are glorified, Lolita is no exception

Humbert Humbert is the novel's protagonist, thus, regardless of Nabokov's intention to show him as a flawed character and unreliable narrator, the bulk of Lolita serves to explain, humanize, and justify Humbert's paedophilia.

There are many interpretations of Nabokov's broader goal for the novel—an extremely detailed work of prose; a test of the reader's tolerance for paedophilia; a long-form and intricate condemnation of paedophilia—the fundamental structure of the book as a novel requires the reader to empathize with the protagonist and his actions.

The glorification of paedophilia is materially evident in the cultural impact Lolita has had. "Lolita", the nickname of the 12-year-old character, as a term has been co-opted into the mainstream as a representation of youthful sexuality and beauty, in pornography (see "Lolicon") and fashion, for example.

Where one's nation may be more salient to them than their class, in reality, it is a much more fickle concept. Class, should we define it as a combination of one's assets and income and as compared to others' nearby, is highly quantifiable and, in fact, fairly static throughout most individuals' lives. Nations, as ethnic categories, are often presented as discrete and homogenous groups, though many of the foremost scholars on the topic such as Ernest Gellner, Rogers Brubaker, and Eric Hobsbawm provide strong counterarguments to this. Individuals often belong to multiple nations, shifting between them throughout their lives. Furthermore, nations, unlike classes, are highly fluid, continuously being redefined by their ingroups as well as outgroups. To apply this to a more tangible, albeit hypothetical, example, it is clear that two impoverished individuals, one American and one British, regardless of any enmity between the two, would almost certainly have more in common with one another than they would with their respective nations' richest person.