manshakapur

Fear can motivate preemptive attack.

Fearful states will arm themselves in anticipation of war. According to a speech delivered by the UN Secretary General at the time of the 1997 disarmament conference, Kofi Annan, "weapons do not cause war, but excess of arms breeds mistrust, heightens tensions and leads to conflict,,"

• A common example is the militarism and the arms race in 1900s Europe, considered catalysts of the First World War that followed.

Fear that another will attack first, or that the other is "irrational", can lead to a disruption of order through preemptive conflict. A state can interpret its own fear as reason to attack - "attacking first is preferable to being attacked," even when the outcome of war is more costly than its avoidance.

When fearful of oppression or eradication, groups may seek violence as an 'effective' means of protecting themselves. When fear is coupled with a conviction in the efficacy of violence, the consequences are dire.

• Though the cited study particularly focuses on communal violence, these sentiments may be generalisable to groups interacting at an international scale recognising that the fear of "dominion and extinction" that the study cites is akin to concerns that states posses in international power dynamics
• Communal and civil war themselves can disrupt international order. The displacement of targeted groups for example, leads to refugee crises that impact the globe.
• In this light, fear within a state can be manipulated by state actors with malicious intents - politicians can use fear to advance political agendas and potentially cause rifts between ethnic or social groups, as observed on multiple occasions in Hindu-Muslim tensions in India, for example. These internal conflicts impact international relations and politics.

Pashakhanlou, a Swedish Professor of War Studies, presents an interpretation of prominent realist political theory on the role of fear. According to his review, "fear is the prime motivator of war" and a fear of war "overcomes the potential benefit that can accrue from cooperation."

There are several possible 'differences' that we may refer to when evaluating this claim.

Note that this discussion is assuming that 'discrimination' here refers to the unjust treatment of another, as opposed to the neutral definition of discrimination: the mere recognition of distinctions between entities.

What is an ethnic group?
Ethnic groups are defined as communities of people who share in their cultural backgrounds and ancestry. Particular characteristics of these communities, including norms, beliefs, language, history, traditions, etc., set them apart from others.

How can ethnic groups differ ?

Inherent Characteristics

• Ethnic groups, as defined, are distinguishable by their differences. A difference in language between two ethnic groups is a clear example, while subtler patterns of interactions that are defined by a group's cultural norms are not as easy to pinpoint but are equally, if not more, significant to the group's identification.

Treatment by Other Ethnic Groups

• Ethnic groups can differ by the manner in which they are treated by other groups. One ethnic group might be discriminated against, while another is welcomed and more easily integrated.

Treatment of Other Ethnic Groups

• Ethnic groups can differ in how they themselves treat other groups. Their historically and socially informed interactions with other ethnicities can differ from how other ethnic groups choose to engage with the same communities.

It may be argued that differences between ethnic groups can only be ascribed to discrimination when discussing the latter differences - i.e., differences in how groups are treated and received, as opposed to differences in the nature of a group itself. Yet, discrimination may have the potential to cause differences, i.e., by simply impacting the history of a group. When marginalisation by one group leads to the isolation of another, for example, both groups may begin to branch apart in certain characteristics. The same separation, however, could have occurred through geographic phenomena - e.g. the separation of communities by water bodies and/or mountains - and therefore, is not solely a product of discrimination.

Another interpretation is that 'differences' can refer to clashes or disagreements. Ethnic groups can differ in this manner without one enacting the unjust treatment of the other - e.g. disagreements that stem from differences in religious beliefs and practices are not necessarily discriminatory, and can arise simply from irreconcilable notions within the distinct faiths.

Are differences in opportunity and a lack of equity in society caused by discrimination?

Many times, yes. Indigenous Assyrians who resisted conversion to Islam during the Muslim conquest of Persia, for example, were rendered "second class citizens" and subjected to ethnic and cultural discrimination.

In other potential scenarios, no. By virtue of their differences, certain ethnic groups are better equipped to succeed in certain settings. Language barriers, most simply, can often make it difficult for immigrants from new ethnic groups to effectively assimilate and/or climb up the social ladder. Differing social norms can introduce hurdles in an ethnic group's integration as individuals are unable to communicate effectively.

• Are these instances of unjust treatment, or merely consequences of differing perspectives and cultures interacting?
• Is a culture discriminatory if it cannot easily integrate any individual from any alternate ethnic group?

Who was Rasputin and what role did he play in Russian history?

'Rasputin' is believed to be Russian for 'debauched one' . Originally named Grigori Yefimovich Novykh, Rasputin was a Siberian peasant with a penchant for 'sinful' and indulgent activities- stealing, womanizing, and drunkenness. His supernatural powers, or trickery implying such, saw to his rise as a pivotal figure in Russian monarchial rule during the early 1900s.

As a child, he claimed to experience divine visions and possess the ability to heal horses, while other sources lay claim to his committing atrocious acts of cruelty. The remote community he was borne into, Pokrovskeye in southern Siberia, was home to obscure and religious sects whose beliefs in the occult led them to regard Rasputin as a devil-child. From a young age, he developed a reputation for supernatural powers, with some believing him to be clairvoyant.

After years of pilgrimage and other travels, he carried a similar reputation for mystical abilities and healing powers upon his arrival at St. Petersburg, where he was introduced to a desperate Tsar Nicholas II and Tsarina Alexandra to heal their sole haemophiliac heir. Rasputin's influence in the courts began thusly, as he 'healed' young Alexei and claimed that in his absence, the prince would not survive.

After advising the royal couple to reject the advice of Alexei's doctors,
Rasputin's favour with the monarchy continued to grow. These doctors had been prescribing aspirin, a drug known to exacerbate hemophilia by causing gastrointestinal bleeding and interfering with blood clotting and platelet functioning.

Rasputin's favour with the monarchs grew to the extent that he filled prominent positions in the high court with men of his selection, and attracted the antagonistic attentions of those seeking to influence the Tsar as well as those with profound suspicions of his intentions. His eventual assassination, committed in defense of the royals themselves, enraged the peasantry and may have, ironically, catalysed the downfall of Russia's monarchy.

Was Rasputin truly supernatural? There are several additional details in his story that are worth considering:

• Tsarina Alexandra was a believer in the esoteric and was actively seeking mystical solutions to her son's affliction before Rasputin's referral to the palace.

• Rasputin was allegedly punished by the church for sinful sexual promiscuity with the aristocratic ladies. He would lead his followers to commit sin under the pretext that their forgiveness would later "bring them closer to God," and this sin often involved having sex with Rasputin himself. His teachings are considered a perversion of the Khlysty sects.

• Before his assassination, Rasputin predicted that his death would precede the death of the royal family. 15 months after Rasputin perished, the Tsar was killed during the Russian Revolution, alongside his wife and son.

• Rasputin reportedly 'survived' the ingestion of cyanide in his enemies' first assassination attempt. It has alternatively been said that one of the co-conspirators "had a change of heart" and swapped the cyanide for an impotent substance, and that Rasputin therefore ingested no poison.

Begging is an industry that exploits children, and giving money to beggars can unintentionally support a dangerous substance addiction.

Any beggar evokes sympathy in a privileged onlooker. Beggars with children or child beggars themselves, however, are stronger motivators and easily acquire more donations compared to middle-aged individuals.

• This has been directly exploited by human trafficking cartels that kidnap, torture, and/or otherwise force children into street begging as a money-making scheme.
• This means that the money you give a child beggar might instead end up in the hands of a human trafficker.
• Children in the industries undergo devastating torture. They are sedated and drugged into compliance, which explains the common, easily pitiable image of a mother carrying a 'sleepy' child as she solicits money. Some suffer to the extent of being maimed and wounded to draw more sympathy from passersby.
• According to The Indian National Human Rights Commission, 40,000 Indian children are abducted per year and over 25% are unaccounted for. Some parents even sell or drive their children into begging.

The homeless are often victims of substance abuse, and providing them with money is more likely to fuel an addiction than help the individual. In the United Kingdom, 80% of beggars are begging to support an addiction to crack, heroin, cocaine, and/or other substances. The homeless charity Thames Reach, based in London, presents the growing homelessness problem not as one solved by the random donations of naive passersby on the street, but targeted interventions that bring people back on their feet.

Thus, merely handing a a few pence or rupees to a beggar runs the the risk of encouraging the begging industry. There is also little to no guarantee as to whether the money will be productively and healthfully used by the receiving individual, even assuming the individual is begging for their personal need.

Fortunately, there are several more effective ways to make a positive impact in the lives of those in need:

• Directly providing food, such as fresh fruits, to beggars ensures instead that they directly receive something of value, as opposed to any groups that may be exploiting them. It also ensures that the money is not spent on unhealthy, dangerous, or otherwise illicit substances.
  A personal anecdote: my mother likes to purchase extra mangoes from the roadside vendors and hand them out to children in the area. Their happiness at receiving something that, for us, is a common and easily available summer fruit highlights the profound disparity in our food systems.

• Volunteering at shelters and NGOs that directly work to improve the lives of street children by providing food, shelter, and education will allow you to contribute to their independence and development of vocational skills that can, in the future, draw them out of roadside begging. Food and a home will, needless to say, protect them from numerous dangers.

• When volunteering is not an option, donating to registered and legitimate charities is another way to ensure your money goes in the right direction.

• Reporting child beggars to local authoritative bodies can help initiatives working to take down trafficking cartels. Drawing attention to children in need can help other organisations come to their aid, especially in cases wherein they are showing clear signs of abuse.

While policies themselves are not inherently racist, academia in the United States has demonstrated racial bias and prejudice against African Americans in the interplay between policy and resource allocation, as well as in the direct treatment of Black scholars.

Academia is racialised; while not overtly racist, when policies interact with underlying systemic disadvantages, Black scholars and researchers face steeper financial, social, and career hurdles.

• Principle investigators who identify as Black have a lower rate of funding in comparison to white counterparts. As grant supplements are provided to those with active awards, Black scholars are, overall, less able to access such opportunities.

• While employment policies themselves do not necessitate a social component and can be designed to guard against racial discrimination, employment is, in reality, "often linked to social networks within an institution." A smaller representation of Black people in powerful institutional positions can mean reduced opportunities through an inability to access these pipelines as effectively as non-Black colleagues.

• Black and minority ethnicities are under-represented at UK and US universities, less likely to be promoted, and experience a pay gap in comparison to white colleagues - according to statistical analyses.

• Black people continue to experience microaggressions in academic workplaces. Shardé Davis, an assistant professor with a doctorate in Communication Studies at the University of Connecticut, lists "unwanted touches to someone’s hair … being questioned if they’re the janitor if they’re in the lab after hours, being asked for identification when they’re trying to go into the lecture hall," as some of the typical situations.

• Disingenuous attempts to de-racialize academic settings can lead to racialised circumstances. Black graduate studies and faculty are sought out to diversify the ranks of numerous college communities, often resulting in disproportionate demands of their time. Non-black colleagues do not face this "extra burden of time, energy, and distraction".

These are a few examples, both from statistical and experiential sources, of how Black people are especially disadvantaged in academic settings. On a more positive note, dialogues surrounding the mitigation of prejudiced histories and systems are growing, and institutions are being held accountable and/or pushed to de-racialise the academic space.

It is true that differences can lead to conflict, and saying this does not mean that diversity itself is to blame.

Diversity in race and gender can negatively affect workplace performance when prejudiced individuals and systems are at play. A bigoted stance on this claim would invoke the claim:

"Having someone of the opposite sex/a different race is decreasing workplace productivity."

A more progressive viewpoint, on the contrary, would appear as follows:

"Employees with exclusionary and prejudiced perspectives are hampering collaboration and creating a negative workplace environment."

Diversity in race and gender could be having a negative impact in both scenarios, but whether we choose to assign causative blame to diversity or to racism and sexism is another question entirely.

• To answer that question, of course, one merely has to cite the numerous studies demonstrating the positive impacts of welcomed and celebrated diversity on workplace performance to show that, objectively, we should seek to welcome race and gender differences amongst employees.
• On ethical grounds, the cultivation of an equitable society in which all individuals are treated on the basis of controllable factors - i.e., skill as opposed to background or sex and gender - necessitates that we target prejudice as the culprit.

It is worth citing that there have been studies demonstrating nonlinear relationships between diversity and performance. Generally, however, the adoption of inclusive practices and policies complements diversity in the workplace, and we might validly anticipate improved productivity.

Anytime you touch someone or enter their personal space, you should do so with their clear permission.

Hugging involves a complete invasion of the other person's personal bubble. Not only are you assuming that they are comfortable being touched, you are assuming they feel safe being embraced with a large amount of bodily contact.

Why would someone not want to be hugged , and what might happen if you hug them?

• Those with injuries, visible or not, might experience pain when hugged. Hugging could also aggravate an injury.
• People may only be comfortable being hugged by certain individuals, in which case they would take offense or feel uncomfortable because of your advances.
• Germaphobes, individuals who are hyperaware of contamination, fearful of germs, and/or obsessive about cleanliness, might not feel safe being hugged.
• Some people might associate hugging, touching, or closeness with a history of trauma. Hugging them would cause immense stress and might trigger distressing memories. Similarly, they may even associate your appearance with someone from an unpleasant past, again making your proximity a potential source of stress.
• The norms of non-verbal communication differ depending on cultural background - .e.g, kissing someone on the cheek in France is commonplace, whereas the same greeting in India would not be received positively. No-contact cultures, such as China, Japan, Norway, Sweden, and Finland, tend to "maintain more interpersonal distance" and might be more averse to being hugged. A hug could be construed negatively and/or cause offense.

When, for any jubilant motive, you want to hug a stranger, it is highly unlikely you would be aware of any of the above considerations. Asking for consent is the safe, respectful, and polite approach.

Even among friends and family, a person's comfort can change.

• While your relationship with the person can certainly inform how you seek consent - sometimes, for example, it may suffice to indicate your intentions with a wide-arm gesture and a soliciting pause - it is better to ask than to assume.
• As mentioned previously, the other person may not see your relationship as one that warrants hugs, or their preferences may have changed.
• Sometimes, a person may not be in the mood for a hug, and positive experiences with unsolicited hugs in the past would lead you astray; asking for consent is the only way to find out if the person is open to being hugged.

Establishing that hugs require consent in society may also help encourage consent-seeking in other scenarios.

• Children can often be recipients of unsolicited hugs, including those from family members. Adults can take advantage of an infant's helplessness and, while their intentions may only be to appreciate and cuddle an especially endearing chubby child, it is needless to say that even children feel discomfort at being held against their will.
• Encouraging children to ask for permission before hugging, or teaching them that they themselves can grant or refuse permission to be hugged, can emphasise the importance of consent at an early age.
• It may also protect unsuspecting children from abusive advances, as it encourages them to actively recognise, and speak in defense of, the agency they have over their personal space.

For a more contemporary argument, the wake of the pandemic has potentially left people more reserved in their comfort with direct contact. Asking for consent, then, is also important from a public health standpoint.

I agree! There are moments before a hug wherein we pause to see whether the other person is comfortable, often with that indicative open arms gesture. But consent-seeking itself does not always have to come in the form of a 'question'. I'd argue that this pause is just another, non-verbal, approach to obtaining consent.

What is neo-colonialism?

While it may indeed be comparable to colonialism itself, it is worth defining the nuance behind the relatively contemporary 'neo-colonialism' before forming an opinion.

The term 'neo-colonialism' was first coined in Jean Paul Sartre's Colonialism and Neocolonialism, to refer to the continued dependence of newly-independent countries on other states and their former colonisers. Generally considered a negative term, today it broadly refers to the pseudo-colonial exploitation by developed countries, transnational corporations, and other global institutions to cultivate a dependency in underdeveloped states and preserve them as cheap reservoirs of raw materials, land, and labour. Neo-colonialism is a subtle and indirect tactic that forgoes the overt violence and control of colonialism itself, with international trade and capitalist ventures displacing direct rule.

Historical examples of neo-colonialist policies include the European control of Africa and the United States' Truman Doctrine:

• 6 European leaders, convening in Paris in 1957, established what is considered to be a "new form of economic domination over French-occupied Africa and the colonial territories of Italy, Belgium, and the Netherlands." Today, we observe the impacts of these continuing neo-colonialist relationships in African nations' perpetuated dependencies on Western countries for "economic aid, loans, investment, market, and other technical assistance".

• Under the Truman Doctrine, the United States overtly established control over foreign governments on the pretext of providing protection from communism during the Cold War, offering hefty financial rewards to those nations agreeing to the policy. Continued interference in the establishment and deposition of governments to the benefit of the US - and other nations similarly implicated - allowed them to ensure that new regimes would act in their interests.

For the export of waste to come under neo-colonialism, therefore, the practice should involve the exploitation of the accepting state for the benefit of the exporting country, established through indirect means of control.

Wealthier nations are exporting unrecyclable materials to less economically developed countries (LEDCs), transferring the blame and onus of disposal.

"The most unsustainable societies are Western societies, but they make it an Asian problem,” said Chandran Nair, founder of the Global Institute for Tomorrow.

The global waste trade has been attributed to "waste colonialism", a term referring to the movement of waste across borders from areas of greater to lower socioeconomic status and privilege.

Not only is the global waste trade neo-colonialist in the occupation of land, but it is neo-colonialist in the assignment of blame to the LEDCs. Countries such as Vietnam, Malaysia, and Thailand are on the receiving ends of quantities of plastic ranging in the hundreds-of-thousands for recycling purposes.

• However, this recycling is made difficult with mixed and mislabeled imports. These materials often cannot be processed and contribute to dumps and landfills in the country, painting pictures of underdeveloped nations with mismanaged, ineffective waste disposal systems and polluted environments or residential areas.
• The impression thus facilitated is not one of a country shouldering the burden of disposal of another, but of a country with inferior infrastructure, management, and technology. Asian countries have been targeted internationally for their contribution to pollution in the oceans, and criticised for their inability to maintain greener standards on their own land.

"Rich countries will pressure poorer ones to be more sustainable – to conserve forests, clean up their energy sources, and curb polluting industries [...]." (Source)

As a result, LEDCs are perceived as dependent on the knowledge, systems, and resources of wealthier nations as the latter seemingly posses the capacity to keep their own states relatively clean, or are lesser contributors to oceanic waste.

• Attention is effectively derailed from Western consumer and production patterns, which are otherwise incipient sources of the ongoing plastic waste crisis.
• Importing nations are now dependent on Western 'solutions' to a problem that is, artfully, no longer a Western problem.
• Land colonialism is further perpetuated as importing nations now provide access for clean-ups, educational campaigns, and construction of incinerators.

Morality can be a source of happiness.

Morality cannot be an obstacle to personal happiness if there are instances in which it has facilitated happiness. It may be a source of distress in some cases, one of which is admitted below, but we cannot wholly claim that it prevents us from being happy.

Morality establishes social bonds and facilitates community-building.

• We have an evolutionarily rooted drive to belong to and maintain social groups as they conferred a greater likelihood of survival. Prosocial behaviours, those that are performed with the intention of helping others, domainate our moral frameworks and are clear sources of social approval.
• Therefore, following a shared moral code that invokes prosocial behaviours - as is often the case - can facilitate happiness as it allows us to meet "our basic psychological needs for relationships, competence and autonomy."

One might argue that, by establishing an ethical norm, we create a responsibility (you must help someone), restriction (you cannot take what isn't yours), or other potential barrier to an action that has the potential to make you happy.

• With morals come guilt, however. Therefore, by adhering to an ethical framework we are establishing a barrier to personal guilt and shame, two deeply negative and distressing emotions.
• In circumstances wherein one does not experience guilt, they are free to engage in the activity and the moral itself is no longer a barrier.

For the sake of completeness, I recognise that it may also be possible to avoid guilt without experiencing any pride or pleasure in being ethical. Instead, one may even feel frustrated or experience cognitive dissonance in the conflict between their desire and their morals.

Another interesting argument presents morality as a source of happiness by essentially arguing that morality is necessary for equality. Equality facilitates an appropriate evaluation of the self, leading to "self-knowledge." Self-knowledge is necessary for self-respect and self-respect, in turn, is necessary for happiness.

In a more specific case, prosocial behaviours can also guard against the slippery-slopes of greed and self-interest.

• Research has shown that income is a source of happiness only when it fulfills basic needs, implying that the pursuit and acquisition of greater wealth is less likely to yield happiness. As we gain wealth, for example, our social groups often change and with them, our relative perceptions of our status - leading to a chain of dissatisfaction.
• This is the 'Hedonistic Paradox'; those who act solely in the interest of their own happiness are less likely to experience happiness compared to those who are altruistic.
• Though this argument assumes that the moral framework includes selfless behaviours, it demonstrates again that morals themselves are not barriers to happiness.

Childhood experiences are guaranteed to have an effect on later behaviour, as shown in multiple studies and as necessitated by the nature of causality.

There are several empirical examples of childhood experiences informing later decisions and impacting behaviours into adulthood, a few of which are listed below:

• The emotional support one receives as a child, termed 'maternal sensitivity', has been shown to positively affect academic and social competence later in life.
• One's conscientiousness as a child may influence their well-being as an adult, as measured in this study as "health, friendships, and mastery."
• Childhood experiences are predictors of whether or not certain individuals will develop social anxiety in the future. In [this study], babies who were "especially sensitive and distrustful" were more likely to report anxiety in social situations after childhood.
• "Adverse Childhood Experiences" are negatively associated with familial wellbeing in the future, measured in terms of "social and emotional processes" and "family health resources".

Many of these studies, as it appears, do not correlate specific behaviours with specific childhood experiences. They do, however, demonstrate that early experiences are strong predictors of future characteristics that, invariably, impact adult behaviours.

A more general and potentially obvious argument, however, is that the present is invariably contingent on the past in general.

• One might claim that personal autonomy can isolate childhood experiences and, through self-awareness, allow us to make 'our own decisions'.
• Even if we do have control over our behaviours, and even if we change drastically after childhood, however, each of those changes have inevitably been informed by our past.
• In other words, if your behaviour changes today, the circumstances, thought processes, or other factors that motivated the change have all been shaped into existence by the past.
• For example, if I am a highly anxious person today because of certain experiences as a child, I might still be able to change this. However, who I become as a result of that change, and how I choose to make that change, etc., are all influenced by my past. For one, the very fact that I am making a change is a behaviour that is influenced by my anxiousness, which is in turn influenced by my childhood experiences.

Therefore, the question in psychological research today is not whether adult behaviour is determined by childhood experiences, but how and to what extent.

There are several ways to interpret this claim and evaluate Nature's 'health'.

Before we decide whether Nature can heal itself, we need to define what this healing looks like. This involves two possible interpretations:

• Nature can return very closely to a previous state that is deemed optimal.
• Nature can re-establish a balanced and thriving ecosystem.

Now, we can read the claim itself to mean:

• The climate crisis can be resolved without human change or intervention.
  The climate crisis refers to the numerous consequences of climate change and global warming, caused by increasing emissions of 'Nature can heal itself' could be taken to mean that Nature can and will eventually reverse climate change on its own, and that we are not required to make our own attempts at mitigation. In other words, can the climate crisis be resolved while we do nothing about it?

• Nature can return to its pre-Anthropocene state.
  The human species has been credited with widespread environmental degradation and biodiversity loss. We can interpret this claim to mean that global ecosystems can return to their former balance and begin to thrive as though we had not existed, whether with or without our influence. In other words, can Nature ever be as it was before we began to pillage the Earth?

• Nature can re-establish a thriving ecosystem after any disruptive event.
  This interpretation may be the most common, in which we are assuming Nature can bounce back from any arbitrary disaster. Over the course of Earth's tumultuous history, there have been five mass extinction events, after each of which there has been a resumption of live on the planet. Nature did not return to its previous state in these circumstances, but succeeded in establishing new and thriving ecosystems - e.g., the mammalian takeover of the planet in the wake of the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction.

Are there instances in which Nature cannot heal itself, regardless of the chosen interpretation? For example, what if the Earth itself is consumed by the sun? Should we consider these possibilities when forming an opinion, or do they render the discussion redundant?

The Oxford Comma is not always necessary, but it is most definitely not an aberration.

The Oxford Comma is often passionately defended with examples of the following sort:

• The most inspiring figures in my life are my parents, Greta Thunberg and Mahatma Gandhi.

Of course, common sense might dictate that Greta and Gandhi cannot be my parents. It remains, however, that that is what has been implied grammatically, and a less contrived example might result in genuine confusion:

• In 2018, Oakhurst Dairy agreed to a settlement of 5 million USD because the lack of an Oxford Comma in Maine Law's payment exemptions resulted in truck drivers losing out on four years of overtime pay.
• The sentence, reading - "The canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, packing for shipment or distribution of [...]" - describes the exemptions. It omitted a Comma before the final 'or'.
• Did the law exempt payment for hours spent on packing for shipment and distribution, or packing only for shipment alongside the distribution itself of the elements listed later?
• It turns out that the intended meaning was the latter, and the lack of an Oxford Comma allowed readers to assume the former. Drivers, in this manner, could be led to believe that they would be compensated for hours spent on distribution - which they were not.

Interestingly, the amended law still does not include an Oxford Comma. Instead, each comma was replaced with a semicolon - adding an additional semicolon where the Oxford Comma might have been. An alternative solution might have also been to reorganise the list so that 'packing for shipment' and 'distribution of' are separated by commas between elements, and letting a less ambiguous element take the final place.

In this case, one might argue that the Oxford Comma is redundant; however, the existence of more than one way to organise a sentence is not a sign of redundancy, but grammatical variety. There are better ways and preferred ways to order and present information.

• In the Oakhurst case, again, the elements listed after "distribution" are bulleted. Reorganizing the list might have made it more tedious to read.
• Replacing the comma with semicolons served the same purpose as the Oxford Comma, but clashes with the use of semicolons at the ends of the bullet points. This is admittedly a pedantic argument because, again, an educated reader is not likely to assume that the bulleted elements are part of the preceding list. But, again, it remains that the Oxford Comma could have been a better choice stylistically.

In the New York Times, the Oxford Comma is used in "cases where a sentence would be awkward of confusing without it," with its style guide citing the following example:

• Choices for breakfast included oatmeal, muffins, and bacon and eggs.

In this case, the Comma seems to be used more to better organise the listing of elements than to avoid any confusing association between proper and improper nouns (as in the 'parents' example above). It avoids the cumbersome-sounding 'double and' by recognising the compound association in 'bacon and eggs'.
We could alternatively reorganise the sentence and choose to omit the Comma:

• Choices for breakfast included bacon and eggs, oatmeal and muffins.

But what if you really wanted to end a sentence with a certain word? If something had rhymed with 'eggs', we would prefer the Oxford Comma over a reorganisation of the list. If the sentence flowed with a more aesthetic meter with certain words in certain places, the Oxford Comma would allow us to preserve that order.

There are instances in which the Oxford Comma would not be appropriate and might create confusion instead. But the Oxford Comma is still not a "grammatical aberration". Like any other nuanced grammatical element, it simply has to be used correctly.

Nuclear energy is expensive, dangerous, and unsustainable.

The extraction of nuclear fuels - tritium for fusion and uranium for fission - is not renewable. Uranium is mined, and its reserves do not regenerate. Similarly, there are technical limitations to the regeneration of tritium in fusion reactions, in which case we may have to rely on fission reactions to generate more.

Nuclear energy may not emit greenhouse gases, but the construction of nuclear power plants and the extraction of uranium do as fossil fuels are burned to generate the required energy. One may argue for the establishment of a sufficient nuclear energy source, so that nuclear energy fuels the further manufacturing and mining of nuclear technology and raw material, but this in itself would likely require the construction of numerous plants. Likewise, though nuclear is the most efficient energy generator
, it does not generate a surplus and this is not likely to be a feasible solution.

Though the day-to-day casualties associated with nuclear fission - and fusion in theory - are minimal compared to those associated with the fossil fuel industries, the consequences of a nuclear meltdown are propagative. While single individuals can perish in accidents at the coal mine or at the oil refinery, a mishap in a nuclear powerplant will impact generations of individuals in the region and render the location uninhabitable for decades - "melting reactors continue to release large amounts of radiation even today, years after the disaster[s]" in Fukushima and Chernobyl.

Advancements in nuclear energy could be potential advancements in nuclear weapons technology, though it is worth noting that his claim holds little beyond speculation. The necessary pathways in nuclear reactions that can be exploited for the construction of malicious tools are heavily guarded. There is also little historical association between the construction of nuclear power plants and the development of weapons, with the infrastructure for weapons-grade enrichment and plutonium reprocessing often constructed in isolation from energy projects. Yet, if we continue to invest in nuclear energy and resources arguably become more easily accessible, and/or we develop a more complacent attitude towards the technology, proliferation may become a more concerning possibility. A greater availability of nuclear resources may easily present opportunities for diversification into weapons development.

Understanding the deeply nuanced history behind the Partition is essential to understanding its consequences and, in turn, forming an opinion on whether the separation of the two nations should have taken place.

India was a colony in societal tumult prior to its Independence from the British Raj, or British rule, in 1947. Hindu-Muslim tensions were strategically stoked throughout the colony's history; the British implemented the principle of 'divide and conquer' to displace imperial frustrations with religious friction.

The country's independence was the culmination of years of freedom struggle, violent and non-violent alike, with Britain's diminished capacity to control the colony in the aftermath of the Second World War. When Britain finally relinquished its hold over India, it left behind dangerous religious antagonism, economic disadvantage, and a haunting pool of blood.

The passing of the Government of India Act in 1935, whereby the British delegated provincial control within India while maintaining their rule, was incipient in Muhammad al Jinnah's conception of the Partition.

• Jinnah, Pakistan's first prime minister, was a secularist and staunch believer in Hindu-Muslim unity, before the landslide seat victory by the Hindu-dominated Indian National Congress (INC) party presented a threat to Muslim representation in the state. The INC was led by Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, India's first prime minister.

• "We are now very apprehensive and can trust nobody." - the words of Muhammad ali Jinnah, 20 years after he was quoted in support of religious unity, remarking that the notion of Hindu domination is "a bogey, put before you by your enemies to frighten you, to scare you away from cooperation and unity, which are essential for the establishment of self-government.”

• The assignment of seats on the basis of religious identity is one example of the many ways in which the British Raj emphasised religious differences and encouraged identification with a Hindu, Muslim, or Sikh identity.

• Muslims rallied behind Jinnah as he called for the establishment of the Muslim state of Pakistan (Urdu for 'pure land').

After violence broke out between Hindus and Muslims across the country, the British were anxious to depart the state to avoid the responsibility of "refereeing a civil war".

• The Kolkata Killings of 1946 are recalled as one of the most violent and gruesome clashes in human history, with thousands of Hindus and Muslims alike perishing in the mob violence.

Britain's hasty withdrawal from the colony was spearheaded by the final Viceroy of India, Lord Mountbatten.

• With Britain "battered" from the Second World War and unable to maintain its control over India, Mountbatten accelerated the deadline to withdraw by 10 months. In speculation, this move has also been described as an attempt to "shock the quarrelling parties into realizing that they were hurtling toward a sectarian precipice." That date is today hailed as the day of India's Independence: August 15, 1947.
• Mountbatten brokered the final deal between Jinnah and Nehru, both of whom were ultimately dissatisfied with the outcome - Jinnah displeased at the 'slice' of India that was proportioned for Pakistan.
• The man who drew these final borders, Cyril Radcliffe, was a British lawyer who employed outdated maps and census information. He had never set foot in India himself.
• Radcliffe's assignment of land to Pakistan omitted all prominent economic centres - Delhi, Mumbai (Bombay), and Kolkata (Calcutta) - and thus left the newly formed country at an economic disadvantage.

Muslims and Hindus were displaced, and fled across the borders to countries newly defined on the basis of religious identity - Muslims crossing over to Pakistan and others travelling to the secular, Hindu-majority India. The demographics of India changed drastically with, for example, Pakistan's Karachi now housing a negligible proportion of Hindus, when Hindus once constituted 47.6% of the city's population.

• The British 'peacefully' departed India with minimal casualties, while the death count of Indians and Pakistanis remains unconfirmed, ranging between 200,000 to 2 million dead. An estimated 14 million Indians and Pakistanis were displaced.

The Partition is a haunting presence in South Asian society and politics even today. Disputes between India and Pakistan and Hindus and Muslims both within and across borders continue to manifest in death and violence.

• Wars and violent tensions between India and Pakistan have punctuated the nations' history since Independence.
• The Indo-Pakistan dispute over acquisition of Jammu and Kashmir, the sole territory of the Indian subcontinent that was not integrated into either state, remains to be resolved.

The implications of heritable gene modifications are unknown and could have widespread detrimental effects on communities and populations.

Genetically modifying an embryo means that every cell in the baby that grows up will have the modification - including the eventual adult's reproductive system; in other words, the modification will be heritable.

In 2018, Dr. He Jiankui used CRISPR gene editing technology to make a human embryo better equipped to fight HIV. He was the first to genetically edit babies and was sentenced to 3 years in prison for practicing illicit science. The genetically-modified twin girls from his work, protected by their anonymity, are somewhere out there today. According to the New York Times, there may have even been a third child.

What was so wrong about Dr. Jiankui's science? His work involved couples in which the man had HIV while the woman did not, intending to prevent their offspring from contracting the virus.

• Besides the current illegality of the procedure, as well as any social implications of editing out and selecting human traits, genetically modifying an embryo results in an individual whose germ cells, or sex cells, possess the same modifications.
• Heritable human genome editing, or HHGE, has unknown biological consequences as the GM baby's future offspring carry the edits with them. We have no way of knowing what the impacts of these propagated modifications will be on the human population, and this means that any potential dangers won't reveal themselves until it's too late.
• Given the nuance and intricacy of the human genome and the interactions of the innumerous proteins in our cells, there is immense potential for a modification to have unintended consequences.

"Human embryos whose genomes have been edited should not be used to create a pregnancy until it is established that precise genomic changes can be made reliably and without introducing undesired changes - criteria that have not yet been met."
Source: a report from an international commission of the U.S. National Academy of Medicine, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and the U.K.’s Royal Society.

At least until we can ensure the safety of the modifications and iron out the social considerations, the genetic modification of human embryos should not be permitted.

Despite the relative health benefits of one over the other, it ultimately boils down to the individual's psychological and physical needs.

We can compare fasting and calorie counting on multiple levels: health, convenience, and psychology; however, each of these metrics invariably differs between people. Arguing in favour of one over the other, therefore, becomes irrelevant, because the 'best' approach is the one that minimises psychological risk while providing your body with the nutrition and sustenance it uniquely requires.

There are several psychological implications to consider when assessing the dangers and/or benefits of fasting and calorie counting. With even biological advantages and disadvantages often lacking concreteness or generalisability, the psychological aspects are even more so subject to the nuances of lifestyle, psychological history, and genetic make-up.

• Both intermittent fasting and calorie counting can encourage the development of eating disorders and unhealthy relationships with food. For example, fasting is associated with bulimia nervosa, and those with history or family with the disorder are advised to avoid this approach. Studies have also shown that delayed eating is associated with a higher likelihood of experiencing episodes of binge-eating and overeating.

• Similarly, according to Health Counselor Rachel Relkin "counting calories can also be a behavior or symptom of those who suffer from eating disorders, obsessive compulsive disorder, or even anxiety". Much research into the effects of calorie counting apps in particular demonstrates that they " intensify the rigidity associated with calorie counting", with notable proportions of participants reporting an increase in unhealthy behaviours upon using such tools as they track their diets.

It is worth noting here that many of these studies are correlational and rely on self-reported data. It is possible that the converse is true instead - that those with unhealthy relationships with eating are more likely to engage in these behaviours.

Additionally, dieting regimes and strict eating patterns themselves may be aggravating for those at risk of eating disorders, in which case the specifics of the regime should be judged on an individual basis. This again highlights the individuality of the effects of various diets, as it places both fasting and calorie counting on an arguably equivalent pedestal.

• On a more positive note, calorie counting has the potential to improve your awareness of food intake and help you take control of your diet. Understanding the value of your food might prevent you from overeating, or can help you plan your meals and macros.

• At the same time, however, adhering stringently to the tracking regime can detrimentally affect your awareness of your biological satiety and hunger cues, making it difficult to stop counting calories without engaging in other unhealthy behaviours.

• According to this short term study, intermittent fasting can lead to an "increased sense of achievement, reward, pride, and control", as well as "irritability". The effects of the practice on one's mental health are contingent on the individual's self-perception and relationship with the routine; positive and self-empowering attitudes will, needless to say, guard against potential negative and stress-inducing results of the regime.

Overall, calorie counting and fasting can have varying effects on psychological as well as physical health. Whether one is better than the other is arguably more difficult to determine given the subjectivity and correlational nature of studies in health psychology, as well as the numerous factors at play by virtue of our individual tendencies, experiences, and habits.

There is, however, one way we might attempt to establish a hierarchy between the two: statistically establishing that one of the two is less likely to cause psychological or biological harm. Until - and even after - this information can be determined, however, I maintain that the practice of placing diets on podiums does not help the individual and can, instead, perpetuate superficial approaches to dietary change and health. Choosing a diet that works to your advantage involves listening to your own mind and body, and, in this light, no one option is generalisably 'better' than another.

What does the subsidy aim to accomplish?

Theatre and cinema have taken a severe blow in the midst of the pandemic, while ticket sales in the United States and Canada were reportedly already declining. There are a few reasons for this, not all of which can be targeted through a subsidy:

• Theatre declined during the pandemic due to lockdowns and other restrictions on gatherings, as well as the self-governed choice to minimise exposure by the cautious. Price was arguably a minimal factor; a subsidy would not improve the conditions of the in-person theatre industry as a response to the pandemic-associated decline.

• Why have ticket sales declined in previous ('normal') years? According to Bloomberg, a blend of "sequel fatigue, a weak lineup of films and diversions like Netflix" is a strong candidate for a cause. While this highlights the important consideration that specific line-ups will influence standalone statistics, there has been a general downward trend since the early 2000s that suggests there may be more to the situation. In that case, even Netflix and other streaming platforms might not have been the incipient causes.

Instead, according to a survey by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) conducted in 2014, price and convenience were the standout barriers to purchasing movie tickets. This may be reflecting a decline in the value ascribed to the cinema experience, or an increase in the value ascribed to alternative ways to spend one's money (e.g. dinner). Regardless, price was reportedly the primary concern based on the survey's results.

Do we want the subsidy to 'save' theatre? For this to be effective, price has to be a primary barrier to visiting the cinema. While the PwC report supports this, the survey was conducted in a different social climate. After the pandemic, the value ascribed to theatre-going may have increased. Will a subsidy still be relevant when everything goes back to normal?

A subsidy could also be purposed to make theatre more accessible to lower-income communities. In this case, we would not be 'saving' theatre, so much as decreasing socioeconomic barriers to visiting the theatre. There have been charitable initiatives in the past that recognise this barrier, such as the MOME Movie Matinees program, "providing free opportunities for New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) residents to attend a feature film currently in theaters." A subsidy may be a long-term, sustainable approach to increasing access to the cinema experience.

Do these arguments change if we isolate live theatre from cinema?

• Live theatre is more expensive than cinema, and generally viewed as less popular for several possible reasons.

• In the UK, theatre is supported by various grants, lotteries, and Arts Council England. While this financial support must be a significant source of sustenance for the industry, the price comparison remains stark between cinema and theatre. A subsidy does appear to be a valuable avenue in this case.

Overall, there are multiple factors contributing to the decline and/or accessibility of theatre and cinema, and assessing the effectiveness of a subsidy becomes more complicated given the unprecedented social climate in the wake of the pandemic.

What are we intending to achieve with this subsidy?

'Saving' Cinema
Theatre and cinema have experienced a severe blow in the wake of the pandemic, but declines in ticket sales have been underway since the early 2000s. Assuming we want to prevent this decline, whether a subsidy would be the effective approach depends on whether price is a primary barrier.

• Ticket declines due to the pandemic occurred as a result of lockdowns and other restrictions, as well as the self-governed decision to avoid unnecessary exposure. Price does not seem to be a major factor.
• Why have ticket sales declined prior to the pandemic? According to a 2014 survey by PricewaterhouseCoopers (Pwc), price and several notions regarding convenience are standout factors. While Bloomberg describes "Sequel fatigue, a weak lineup of films and diversions like Netflix" to be the blend of causes for drastically low sales in 2017 - the lowest since 1992 - the overall trend hints at the influence of more incipient causes. Netflix, for one, was not a significant competitor in the 2000s.
• Given that price appears to be a strong factor, a ticket subsidy may help 'save' cinema - though reasons such as "Movies are not as interesting", and "Prefer movies “on my own schedule", are not addressed.

If price truly is a barrier to cinema-going, it must imply that the value we ascribe to the experience has decreased relative to how much we're asked to spend on it. In the wake of the pandemic and the unprecedented social and economic landscape that came with it, is it possible that we will begin to value cinema more than before? In this case, will a subsidy still be a relevant consideration?

Accessibility
A subsidy could also be purposed to make theatre more accessible to lower income communities. In this case, we would not be 'saving' theatre, so much as decreasing socioeconomic barriers to visitng the theatre. There have been charitable initiatives in the past that recognise this barrier, such as the MOME Movie Matinees program "providing free opportunities for New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) residents to attend a feature film currently in theaters." A subsidy may be a long-term, sustainable approach to increasing access to the cinema experience.

Do these arguments change if we consider live theatre?

• Live theatre is more expensive than cinema. In the UK, for example, theatre is supported by various grants, lotteries, and Arts Council England. Yet, the price comparison remains stark between cinema and theatre, in which case a subsidy may be effective in increasing theatre popularity. The price comparison, however, may also be due to the perceived sophistication of the theatre experience, and a subsidy cannot target potentially more influential reasons why people choose cinema or streaming over theatre, e.g. the different story-telling experiences possible with cinema that are not possible with theatre.

Overall, since there are numerous factors contributing to the decline and/or accessibility of theatre and cinema, assessing the effectiveness of a subsidy becomes complicated - particularly given that the COVID-19 pandemic has the potential to drastically alter our social choices and activities.

Does God have to exist to intervene in the world?

There are numerous instances of human beings acting at the behest of a deity, on behalf of a deity, in the name of a deity, or to seek the recognition of a deity. These individuals are acting regardless of whether God truly exists. Of course, God exists in their eyes, but whether this is true outside of their belief is, arguably, not relevant to whether those individuals will undertake those behaviours. In other words, so long as they believe God exists, they will act.

Can we claim that the 'idea of God', or the 'concept of God', is intervening in the world? In the form of followers, God is affecting the world.

A balanced assimilation minimises the social stressors associated with immigration.

According to Berry (2005) integration strategies result in the lowest levels of stress. Integration, contrary to complete assimilation, is when an immigrant assumes a 'bi-cultural' presence - preserving their roots while adopting the new culture.

Assimilation and separation, the complete rejection of the new host culture, result in intermediate levels of stress. Marginalization, which is the rejection of the root culture but the inability to assimilate as a result of discrimination from the host culture, results in the highest levels of assimilatory stress.

We can examine these results using social identity theory, a way of viewing how our identities are shaped by our group memberships posited by psychologist Henri Tajfel in 1979. It seems that the more connected an individual feels to a group (whether that is the new culture, the old one or both), the less stress is experienced. This may be due to the protective factor of social support—those with connections to both cultures will have access to more social support than others.

In this light, complete assimilation or complete marginalisation are unadvisable, but it may be beneficial to an immigrant to assimilate to a certain degree, seeking the dual benefit of a balanced integration.

Surprise birthday party?

At the risk of sounding trivial, I wanted to add to the notion that lying is not always a tactic used in negative or conniving circumstances. I'm in the middle of planning a birthday surprise for my mother this week. If, in the process of preserving the surprise, I toss around a couple of white lies, have I broken a fundamental moral code?

• Potentially, yes. If we subscribe to Immanuel Kant's moral imperative, a moral framework that involves deciding that a certain act is fundamentally wrong regardless of circumstance then, yes, my lies are wrong.

• Potentially, no. If we subscribe to moral particularism, we allow ourselves to assess the morality of a deed without the confines of set moral principles.

Depending on the moral framework, therefore, lying can be wrong in its very essence, or I could potentially be spared from spearing judgement for my birthday plans by relying on an individual assessment of the situation.

An additional consideration is whether harm was intended through the lie. Are deeds immoral if the harm was unintentional?

• The Doctrine of Double Effect permits harm as a side effect of a good deed - e.g.. if my lie was intended to make my mother happier and, in the process, confused and slightly stressed out my father, was it immoral? Again, this can be assessed on a relative basis - whether my mother's happiness was worth my father's brief moment of tension.

Apart from being a poor metric of students' intelligences and capabilities, standardised tests also fail to provide accurate measures of the efficacy of an educational institution, or tutor themselves., and comparisons across students, teachers, schools, curricula, and cultures are overly reductionist.

Margaret Pastor, the principal of Stedwick Elementary School in the United States, was once approached by an assistant superintendent regarding the kindergarten teachers at her institution. He remarked on the disparate performance of two classes, one in which the students performed notably better on standardised tests that the other. He suggested that the teacher of the latter class work with the former to help improve the performance of their students. What the superintendent didn't realise, however, was that both teachers were the same person.

Clearly, standardised testing is not a reliable metric for teacher evaluation. Every child learns and demonstrates their learning in individual ways and through diverse forms of intelligence, making rigid measures of intellectual ability highly reductionist assessments. 9 US states have already eliminated the use of test scores as a means of judging teacher performance.

When comparing between schools, states, curriculums, and countries, cultural and content-based differences arise that introduce numerous variables into the picture, making it exceedingly difficult to 'standardise' the learning experience. In turn, it becomes difficult to standardise a teacher's performance, particularly noting that students at different schools and under different schooling systems engage differently with different content. For example, the International Baccalaureate curriculum deviates significantly from the the American public schooling system, or the CBSE (Central Board of Secondary Education) system in India, in how children are taught and how they are made to interact with the content they're taught. Going even broader, cultural differences may also play a role in making test scores incomparable.

Given these issues, standardised tests arguably do not provide the insights that they are often used to obtain. If, based on additional arguments made by other users on this opinion, standardised testing does not hold up to the standards we expect it to, it must not be worth the time, resources, and mental health concerns associated with its administration.

Can we empirically demonstrate the existence of extrasensory perception?

Extrasensory perception is associated with supernatural allure and various personal accounts in its favour. However, scientific evaluations of whether it truly exists have yielded disappointing results.

• This meta-analysis, a comprehensive review of 30 studies on extrasensory perception, is a clear example. Each of the studies attempted to demonstrate whether participants exhibited extrasensory capabilities by comparing the results of their performance in various tasks to results expected by chance. There was no statistically significant conclusion, implying that none of the studies observed a participant with extraordinary sensory capabilities.

Proponents of extrasensory perception might argue that experiments are not be the only source of verification. Extrasensory perception may still exist and simply cannot be observed in the rigorous and predictable manner assumed by the scientific method. If we choose to remain loyal to our current means of understanding the world, however, it appears as though we have more evidence against the reality of extrasensory perception.

Yet, the conclusion of the study cited above is not that extrasensory perception is not real, but that the particular methodology employed to observe it, the Ganzfeld technique, is not an effective way of "producing ESP in the laboratory" (Milton, 1999).

• Other psychologists have since performed similar meta-analyses, such as Storm and Ertel (2001) that, conversely, support the viability of the Ganzfeld method and imply that the studies in their review do indeed demonstrate the potential existence of ESP.

• This paper, Rabeyron (2020), presents the study of psi - mental phenomena which transcend the explanatory limitations of traditional science - as one that could alter how we approach parapsychology. He presents the implication that the human conciousness may interact with the environment in a manner that cannot be observed through our current methods of empirical study.

Rabeyron presents an interesting paradox, assuming we accept the existence of psi on the basis of the experiments that yielded positive results, and the potential for positive results in future replications. If our consciousnesses are capable of directly interacting with the environment, the experimental observer must be capable of subconsciously interfering with the demonstration of ESP by the participant. The researcher would no longer be independent from the data collection, thus introducing an uncontrollable variable that could confound the results. Results both in favour and against psi thus cannot be trusted.

Overall, there are several issues underlying the study of extrasensory perception. These include replicability, general criticisms relating to how the Ganzfeld and Bem methods have been employed, Rabeyron's paradox, whether the setting of an experiment is appropriate for the observation of psi, and the overarching question of whether we can ever observe any parapsychological effects in a controlled laboratory or experimental setting.

Politics is informed by a state's sociocultural climate, which naturally includes religion, and must acknowledge all critical components of human communities to best reflect the community's broader interests.

Religion should not inform politics to the extent that a state enacts discriminatory policies, degrades particular beliefs, or otherwise fails to acknowledge the vast diversity of human faiths. Politics can and often should, however, reflect the social landscape of the state it governs. Needless to say, religion is a critical component of our social and cultural lives and plays, at the very least, a subliminal role in how our communities operate.

In general, then, shouldn't religion play a role in the political sphere? This does not imply that governance itself should be non-secular or undemocratic, but rather that

• Religion is a strong enough force within our societies that political discussions and legislations cannot ignore it.
• Furthermore, equality and neutrality are not incompatible with the acknowledgement (at a political level) that many citizens operate to some degree with religious faiths and practices. Without this acknowledgement, we risk disregarding the beliefs of the citizenry entirely when making nationwide decisions.
• While passing legislation that favours one religion - even if not at the expense of any others - can be perceived as bias, it is often justified within its particular context.

An important distinction to make is that any political decisions that are justified primarily using the rationale of a religion itself are unfair - .e.g. passing a law prohibiting the consumption of pork because God forbids it (Leviticus 11:27). However, laws that are passed with the intention of acknowledging a religious belief are justified and can even be important ways of ensuring fairness - e.g. a bill necessitating that pork as an ingredient be overtly highlighted in packaging, ingredients, and menus to make it easier for those with a religious aversion to identify its presence in any food.

From a wholly practical standpoint, rehabilitation is necessary for society to function sustainably.

Punishment cannot be regarded as more important than rehabilitation. Both play critical roles in the enforcement of law and order that necessitate a balanced implementation.

• To prioritise punishment over rehabilitation, even without considering the psychological implications that have resulted from an increased punitive emphasis over recent years, has the potential to develop a justice system in which criminals remain criminals. A state's resources are impractically distributed towards maintaining a system that only continues to grow.

• While punishment is a necessary deterrent and a cautionary tale for those seeking to break the law, without rehabilitation there is no way to break the cycle that initially propelled the individual to commit a crime.

• And while one may question the fairness of allocating taxpayer funds to provide vocational and educational experiences to criminals, it may be worse to demand increasing funds to incarcerate and maintain increasing numbers of individuals.

For example, we can look to the United States, where over 2 million people reside in prisons - equivalent to one in every 142 US residents. This number has grown rapidly since the late 1900s, when the system transitioned out from its implementation of rehabilitation programs to observe punishment as its main focus. Without rehabilitation, there are rampant concerns regarding prisoners' mental health, including those developed as a result of incarceration. The increase in prisoners alone, however, can speak to the effect of an imbalance in punitive measures and rehabilitation programs.

The bottled water industry is a hazard to local freshwater sources, which are otherwise optimal sources of safe, plastic-free, low-emission water.

Water bottle companies in the United States have been under fire for depleting local water sources and shipping their packaged products across the country. This arrangement involves minimal compensation to the small communities surrounding the aquifers, with large conglomerates such as Nestlé paying a meagre $524 per annum on their pumping rights and raking profits from consumers across the continent.

As of February 2020, states Washington, Maine, and Michigan are either considering or already have anti-bottled water legislation in the pipeline. Washington may be the first to ban companies from tapping into spring-fed water bodies, while the latter states may seek taxation and/or similar restrictions. While these aren't plastic water bottle bans in themselves, the circumstance itself propels the case for this stronger measure.

Water policy specialist at Food and Water Watch Mary Grant succinctly frames the argument: "As water scarcity is becoming a deeper crisis, you want to protect your local water supply so it goes for local purposes. [Bottled water] is not an industry that needs to exist."

A change in how we acquire out water is already necessary given the impacts of plastics, production, and transportation associated with bottled options. This particular concern, regarding small community water bodies, highlights the potential to couple the ban with the empowerment and encouragement of local sourcing initiatives.

• An argument against the plastic water ban is the increase in emissions that would accompany increased purchases of alternative plastic beverages. However, the ban would reduce the industrial and transportation emissions associated with the sale of locally sourced water at a national, plastic-encased level.
• Engaging with city planners on improving public water access and compelling institutions to provide filtered water taps at offices, schools, and other buildings may help curb a sway towards unhealthier bottled beverages, while preventing the increase in emissions anticipated to accompany the increase in the number of hands reaching for sugary alternatives.
• It is also argued that fresh water sources are as safe, if not safer, than bottled water given the enforcement of regulations on the part of the United States' Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). There have been reports of dangerous levels of microplastic content and antimony.
• Finally, establishing a greater awareness and sense of community connection surrounding local sources will better ensure their protection as critical sources of drinkable water. To argue further, an improved connection between a community and its local, natural resources can improve attitudes towards environmental and sustainable living itself as people are more cognizant of the source and its preservation.

A carbon tax in the US would catalyse steps towards climate-positive legislation in other countries, and places less financial pressure on low income, BIPOC communities than a renewable-energy mandate.

• The United States, India, and China were responsible for the greatest carbon emissions in 2018, the US coming in second. As a result, these countries each possess major potential to mitigate the climate crisis and, given evidence in favour of the emission reducing efficacy of the carbon tax, the impact of an effectively implemented carbon tax in the United States would arguably catalyse our progression towards a sustainable human society. Taking steps in the appropriate direction can both fuel the movement and set in motion similar measures across the globe.

• Earlier attempts to implement a carbon tax in the United States have been met with criticism from both democrats and republicans, as well as the business sector itself. Contemporary opposition remains on the part of several democrats even as business leaders and a handful of republicans begin to show their support, citing that market-based approaches to reducing carbon emissions can disproportionately impact low-income, BIPOC communities. Succinctly put, for example, California climate justice advocates have made the accusation that this this approach will occur at the "expense of the health and well-being of California’s communities of color.”. However, studying the impacts of air pollution offset markets and California's carbon market itself has revealed that, over time, these approaches have contrarily decreased the pollution concentration gap between lesser and more privileged communities. Thus, the carbon tax itself may present similar potential.

What are these adults consenting to, and what is the state's interest in the individuals? Are these relevant questions?

• If consenting adults conceive a child within the privacy of their bedroom, can we argue that the state is naturally vested as it legally establishes the identity and parentage of this child? While the specific details of the child's conception are arguably not relevant, is the state already indirectly being implicated?

• If consenting adults, complicit in a crime, are known to have spent incriminating time together in a private bedroom, does the state have a vested interest? Is even one person's potential for guilt, reason enough for the state to seek information regarding their interactions?

• Are there activities that adults can mutually consent to, but that which may yet be illegal? Certain degrees of bodily harm in the UK, for example, cannot be consented to. Similarly, incestuous relations are illegal in many countries. However, legality in itself is not an argument, but merely evidence of state involvement. Is it valid then, for the state to involve itself in consensual harm and consensual incest? In other words, is consent a valid court defense for someone convicted of injuring another individual behind closed doors?

Supernatural clairvoyance aside, there are genuine ways in which educated individuals can predict future outcomes, but almost never to complete degrees of certainty.

While visions and premonitions are easily deposited in a general bundle of wistful, irrational beliefs in pseudoscience, scientific advancements and new technologies are facilitating increasingly precise calculations that allow us to predict future events.

Of course, this particular statement likely refers to the former: prescience, the psychic ability to determine future outcomes. Prediction itself is not 'seeing' the future; there is a degree of uncertainty inherent in a prediction. Knowing that something will definitely occur is much more difficult - particularly recognising that for the sake of reflexivity and deference to random chance and chaos, even the strongest attempts to determine future events are presented as predictions just in case they do not occur. Because there is always some slight uncertainty, are we really 'seeing' the future?

• We can predict the weather using atmospheric simulations based on fluid dynamics and other complex physical equations. If a meteorologist discerns that it will rain tomorrow, based on data acquired on the present state of the skies, are they seeing the future? No, this rain still may not arrive, and the weatherman is not always correct.

• Using physical simplifications and models of the universe, such as Newton's Laws (among other, more , we can determine projectile trajectories, and say with certainty that a ball dropped from a building will fall to the ground. Yet, someone in the building could swiftly open their window and catch the ball before it lands. Of course, this is highly unlikely, but herein lies the argument: outcomes are unlikely, not impossible.

• If I have made a decision that I will bind myself to, can I see myself doing it in the future? If I intend to go grocery shopping no matter what, am I seeing my own future by making this decision? No, I still maintain that I am not. Subliminally, I have no way of knowing whether I will trip on my way out the door and suddenly be unable to walk to the grocery store because of a painfully twisted ankle.

Every statement we make regarding the future, is explicitly or nonexplicitly established in uncertainty.

• Let's say we improve our weather simulations as we continue to advance in our knowledge of physical phenomena; is there a future in which we have the technology to predict the future? Scientists argue against this very possibility, citing the overwhelming number of factors involved in analysing the effect of even a single tiny droplet onto still water. While simulations and physics equations are continuously being optimised to account for various intricacies, long-term predictions are subject to the smallest of deviations in measurements we make in the present; we would be required to determine current parameters to an infinite degree of precision to account for how, as Chaos Theory describes, even a butterfly's wing flap in the Southern Hemisphere could contribute to a tornado in the United States.

For those with anecdotal and/or faith-based reasons to believe in the existence of supernatural precognitive abilities, the most unsatisfying 'justification' often involves ascribing the accurate prediction to coincidence. A more involved explanation is that we have a natural pattern-seeking and associative tendency that allows 'psychics' to make highly intelligent inferences regarding clients' lives. Over time, continuous exposure to the varieties of people and their stories as they approach fortune tellers, allows the fortune tellers to develop a subliminal database of cues and patterns. As this former tarot reader describes, "astrology is one big word association game."

In summary, no one can truly see the future. We can infer highly likely occurrences at a general level - i.e., that the sun will rise tomorrow - but we cannot make long-term, intricate predictions about everyday life without even the minutes degree of uncertainty.

Salt and vinegar chips are tangy, piquant companions to a snacking impulse; they are an exemplary side to a rounded meal, enveloping your taste buds in the indulgence of salty, acidic sumptuousness.

When classic salted lacks that satisfying kick; when creamy, cheesy, onion flavours settle too heavily in your stomach or on your tongue; when spice burns your belly and wackier flavours remain as tastes yet-to-be-acquired, salt and vinegar emerges as an ideal choice.

• Salt and vinegar chips are not only available wrapped and enveloped in plastic and oil; you can emulate this indulgent flavour experience at home, healthy and fresh and equally comforting. Dip kale, sweet potato, and potato chips in vinegar seasoned with salt to taste, guilt-free and easy.

• Any mature, seasoned chef knows that a complete dish calls for the balancing entr'acte of acidity. Pair your umami encrusted and marinated proteins, enveloped in soft, buttery carbs or vegetal, bitter greens, with the biting recess of salt and vinegar chips on the side. Without acidity, a dish is missing a crucial constituent that uplifts heavier tastes (bitter, buttery, bready, umami) and entangles any sweetness and spice with a dramatic, enthralling interplay of brightness and zest.

• Experience the ambrosian sensation of your mouth watering as your tongue responds to the acerbic vinegar and accentuating impact of the accompanying salt. You feel a satisfying burn on your tongue and your lips, tart's equivalent of the rushing, satiating waves of spice that we endure for its gratifying flavour enhancing effects. Even as the flavour burns the softer corners of your mouth, the delicate soreness completes the experience.

Try a handful of salt and vinegar flavoured chips, homemade or otherwise, next time you need a comfort food with a kick of flavour, or an easy addition to round out a homey meal.

We can find that each religion boils down to similar - if not the same - fundamental principles and values.

Religions exist as vessels for the recognition or worship of higher powers, often with underlying explanatory and preaching roles within knowledge and society.

Someone once told me that what distinguishes science from religion, is that if the human race were to begin from a clean slate, science would not change and religion, however, would.

In response to this, I argued that religion will simply not be reincarnated in the same form, i.e., with the very same phenomena, mythologies, and frameworks. But the underlying principles that we interpret in the religions that exist today would remain; they would merely be manifest in alternative gospels and texts and messengers, but the fundamental values that religion serves to teach us will reappear. Just as how we may rediscover the sciences in a novel order, possibly through different experiments and new angles, we would rediscover the fundamentals of spirituality and positive, purposeful living through novel religious vessels.

This anecdote is intended to introduce the idea of viewing religion not as a literal collection of specific deities, rituals, symbols, and texts, but as individual avenues to the inculcation of highly degenerate value systems. Though, for example, Hinduism varies from the Abrahamic religions by a chasm, the metaphorical value of Hindu mythology is highly compatible with the principles that Islam, Christianity, and Judaism encourage in their followers.

• Most simply, each religion preaches the surrendering of one's existence to the almighty, an act of deference to the higher powers at work in the world (whether they be a single God, several deities, or merely the natural world) that inspires humility and dampens the development of an over-active ego
• The Seven Deadly Sins in Christianity overlap with Hinduism's recognition of 6 Enemes of the Mind, the Arishadvargas. Sloth, the seventh Deadly Sin, is recognised as a trait elsewhere in the doctrine.
• Generosity, compassion, and charity are key practices within Buddhism, Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, and Judaism (to name a common few). These religions may refer to this practice in differing manners and forms of scripture, but the art of giving itself is a crucial component in each.

The ideals we must live by and the behaviours we must grow beyond are critical elements of what each religion aims to imbibe in its followers, and these notions are compatible across religions.

It depends on how we pray, and how we choose to measure the efficacy of that prayer; does prayer heal, does it change us as people, does it confer social benefits, or does it bring about precisely that which we pray for?

Does prayer bring about precisely what is being prayed for?

• To answer this, we would have to delve into a deeper discussion on whether the agent of prayer exists, how they are expected to interpret a request, and what manner of request they would be likely to fulfill. Answering these questions would provide a metric for the efficacy of prayer.

Does prayer change us as people?
Let's assume that any change can indicate that prayer 'worked'.

• Prayer demands diligence and concentration which, when practiced regularly, can alter the very structure and wiring of our neural connections to improve our capacity to focus. This phenomenon, known as 'neuroplasticity', is possible by virtue of the brain's ability to be molded and shaped in accordance with the activities it practices - just as one might train their muscles.
• Prayer, intercession, and thanksgiving often inculcate positive values, such as humility, respect, and empathy. Regularly engaging in thoughts of this nature can work to heighten one's compassion and subdue negative outbursts.

Does prayer heal?

• Prayer has not been empirically shown to improve one's health, though the ability to conclusively measure this is also subject to debate - for example, those who pray are often already experiencing hardships and, when compared to those who do not pray, are more likely to demonstrate higher levels of stress and other evidences of negative experiences.
• To make matters more complicated, even intercessory prayer (praying for the benefit of another) has demonstrated mixed results in its effects on the person being prayed for. Benson et al. (2006) found that heart patients who were aware that they were being prayed for experienced greater complications. On the other hand, a review by Hodge (2007) found that subjects of prayer experienced minor health benefits. It is also worth noting that studies of these kinds are predominantly correlational, and cannot provide insight into whether prayer was a primary causational factor.
• At the same time, there are claims to the benefit of prayer on mental health. This study showed that "participants receiving the prayer intervention showed significant improvement of depression and anxiety."

Does prayer bring about social benefits?

• Fincham (2017) demonstrated that an individual who prays for the health of their significant other during a rough patch in their relationship is likely to express greater relationship satisfaction.
• Prayer can arguably bring people together, though this may be a facet of religion itself and its community-building effects.

The efficacy of prayer is also contingent on the nature of the prayer itself. Prayer that involves an antagonistic approach to relating to a higher power (typically a god), in which one directs anger, blame, and/or frustration is less likely to yield the benefits of a prayer that involves a more productive, collaborative approach to relating with the figure.

With this variety of evidence in numerous directions, it appears as though this claim needs to be more concretely defined before it can be evaluated and, in the case of some definitions, more research may be required for a consensus.

A 'high body count' in a woman can actually be a sign of a strong sense of self-esteem, and the desire to seek approval is not the only motivating factor in a woman's desire to have sex.

• There are several studies that demonstrate positive relationships between a high sense of self-worth and a larger number of sexual partners, or a greater sense of comfort with the idea of casual sex. Walsh (1991) conducted a correlational study that found a positive relationship between self-esteem and body count for both men and women. Similarly, Reise and Wright (1996) found that individuals who favourably describe their appearances are also those who are less 'restricted' in their sexual exploits. Studying women specifically, Mikach and Bailey (1999) found little difference between women who have low and high impressions of their desirable traits (known as 'mate value'), and their restrictedness; this was in direct contradiction to the researchers' initial hypothesis that essentially predicted a high body count to be a sign of low self-worth.

• This statement assumes that a woman's self-worth is 'usually' sourced from external factors, and that their engagement in a sexual act is a means of seeking approval from a male partner (here, making the generalisation that this claim is inherently heteronormative). There exist a myriad of reasons for which a women may choose to have sex, and it is safe to say that these are often overlooked; a flippancy and greater freedom of promiscuity are not as easily accepted in a woman as they are in a man. In light of these underlying prejudices, it appears hasty and reductionist to remark that women with highly active sex lives are inherently insecure.

Feminism may be incompatible with certain interpretations or particular elements in specific religions, but is not incompatible with religion itself.

Religion is a set of beliefs, a faith in all-powerful, omnipotent figures (usually gods and goddesses) involving forms of worship and other practices. Feminism is a social movement that calls for the equality of the sexes in all facets of the human condition - political, economical, social, and personal.

While this claim might be sub-textually referring to specific religions and their incompatibility, the statement seems to literally imply a fundamental disagreement - that feminism is incompatible with religion, instead of merely the existing religions.

This is untrue; religion as a framework itself does not require gender inequity. Rather, it is an unfortunate result of the long-standing divide between male and female privileges and places within society that religious rhetoric has favoured men. As a product of human thought, religion naturally reflects the ideas of the society that birthed it. In short, a religion created today can easily be wholly compatible with the feminism that pervades in our current social atmosphere.

Some might still argue, however, that religions will continue to preserve ideals from a society that is incompatible with feminism - recognising that religions are often based on older texts and traditions that have persisted through conservative practice. In this case, we must decide whether religion is inherently rigid, or if it is/can be fluid with the evolving society. Feminist theology, as freyaehope outlines in detail, is evidence to the latter. While tradition and past principles play defining roles in religion, these myths, metaphors, and phenomena can be reinterpreted, and the continuing presence of religious authorities makes this possible - pundits, pastors, and monks born to contemporary societal epochs are likely to emulate more modern ideas in their practice, and ensure that religion is not contingent solely on interpretation by past authorities.

• The reverend at my nearby Episcopal Church, which I visited out of interest in the Sunday sermon, explained the perpetual reinterpretation and varied contextualisation of The Bible as artefacts of the human inability to be the most precise conduits of God's ideas. In her sermon, she used The Bible to give credence to Critical Race Theory while, in the past, The Bible has also been used to give credence to Slavery. In her words, _the Word of God remains just but, we, as flawed beings, can often make flawed interpretations of God's message.

In this particular light, for all we are capable of fathoming, even existing religions may be more feminist than we believe, and we are merely operating on time-honoured but outdated ideas.

While jokes don't necessarily have to avoid all serious and sensitive subjects, under particular social contexts they contribute to the perpetuation of dangerous mentalities.

A common response to limiting the subjects we can be humorous about, is that a joke must be taken in context - i.e., with a grain of salt. It is often argued that jokes are made with colloquial, jovial intentions and should not themselves be used as evidence of a person's beliefs and ideals. If I make a dead baby joke, for example, I am usually not implicated in having violent thoughts against infants.

However, the social context underlining the subject of the joke matters immensely. There is little discordance on harming children, the undesirability of bathroom phenomena, and other 'harmless' humour - but sexist jokes are implicated in an existing and evolving discussion on the equality of the sexes that is undermined by the flippancy of a joke. With a sexist punchline, the narrator is risking:

• The validation of prejudiced individuals. Prejudice is an ugly character, and is often hidden until it receives the indication that it is welcome in a particular space or conversation. Sexist jokes can indicate that a certain prejudiced idea or behaviour is acceptable within that environment, thereby making prejudiced individuals more comfortable voicing and acting on their less desirable idealogies.

• A misinterpretation of poignant humor. Sexist jokes can be made 'ironically', i.e., at the expense of sexism to subliminally highlight its vacuity or irrationality, etc.. The result of this humor, however, is contingent on the ability of the audience to correctly interpret the joke. It has been shown that the more prejudiced an individual, the more likely they are to receive this humor as a satire on those being discriminated, rather than a commentary on the discrimination itself. This interpretation only perpetuates discriminatory and stereotypical ideas, potentially going so far as to normalise the subject of the joke in a sexist light.

• The trivialisation of a critical social concern. Some may argue that jokes do not posses the power to wholly trivialise a sensitive subject, e.g. we might not feel as though we are subliminally diminishing the horror of the Holocaust simply because of a meme. But, when it comes to the inequality of the sexes, there is greater ambiguity surrounding the establishment of the phenomenon as a genuine, critical issue. Even today, there are studies demonstrating existing prejudice, even while large proportions of studied populations believe that sexism is not, or no longer, a valid concern. Making a sexist joke in the midst of this ideological turmoil can detrimentally skew the development of productive outlooks on gender equality, even potentially empowering the notion that sexism is not to be taken seriously.

For these reasons, it is quite enough with the sexist jokes. Until we collectively recognise an adequate degree of equality in society, and the phenomenon of sexism is more concretely established in the majority of minds as a serious, significant, and genuine issue, we should refrain from enveloping it within the flippant and trivialising presentation of humour.

The subjectivity of beauty makes this a difficult claim to defend but, if we interpret it more contextually, there is reason to agree.

The subjectivity of beauty easily lends itself to the human body. Whether an absolute claim can be made for an inherently subjective discussion, however, is another question entirely.

• Let's say we claim that all body types are beautiful, if they are each beautiful to at least one person. What stops us then, from making an equivalent claim to the contrary: that no body types are beautiful simply because there might be someone out there who does not appreciate one of each?

• Deciding that the human body itself is a marvel and an item of beauty, does that make all body types are beautiful by default - i.e., merely because they are human bodies? Again, whether the human body is an item of beauty is itself open to subjectivity, and this argument only adds another dimension to the discussion.

• Some might argue that beauty can be objective, given genetic and cultural bases upon which common traits and items are considered beautiful at a virtually universal degree. The variety of opinions on the beauty of human bodies - collective, conscious, and subconscious - implies that this is not likely to apply here.

The real reason I agree with this statement, however, is because I decided to interpret it less literally. There is a certain social context in which we discuss the implications of appreciating and depreciating diverse human appearances. When we say 'all body types are beautiful', it can be argued that what we're really saying is:

All body types have the potential to be beautiful to someone, and all bodies deserve to appear beautiful to those they belong to.

In other words, when we make this claim, we are often articulating our support for body positivity than establishing a literal absolute. We are claiming that body types should not have to adhere to an objective social standard, thus welcoming and celebrating the subjectivity I highlighted before.

Thus, the claim in its most fundamental form may not be verifiable, but its colloquial cousin can be.

TL;DR - If we define science as a discipline that seeks to understand the world through experiment and observation, psychology must be considered a science.

Psychology does not necessarily present strict and quantifiable conclusions to many of the questions its seeks to answer. What defines it as a science, however, are the methods it employs in the process of answering those questions; a science is defined by its methodology, not its numeracy. Though psychology can appear subjective and overly qualitative at face-value, researchers in the field invoke scientific rigour in their studies.

• Empirical method - psychology directly employs the scientific method with rigour that is arguably equivalent to that observed in several cases under the natural sciences. This is easily observed in the biological level of psychology but equally relevant in social, cognitive, and other branches of the discipline. A few classic examples include Albert Bandura's Bobo Doll experiment (1963), a social psychology study investigating the effect of aggressive role models on child behaviour, and the cognitive psychology study on the Primacy effect in memory by Glanzer and Cunitz (1966). These studies effectively control and manipulate a set of variables to observe and compare an outcome with a prediction (hypothesis), and yield allow inferences of cause and effect relationships.

• Observation and Quasi-Experiments - focus groups, surveys, and acculturative studies are a few observational and quasi-experimental techniques that psychologists employ in their study of human behaviour. While the results of these research efforts are likely qualitative or correlational, they are notably similar to studies conducted in ecology, for example - another discipline in which the strict manipulation or control of variables and the environment is nigh impossible in numerous scenarios. Astrophysics, though mathematically rigorous by virtue of the data involved, is presented with a similar dilemma. These examples serve to illustrate that the scientific method alone is not the defining approach of 'the sciences', and that observation plays a critical role in sub-disciplines. Case studies are often interesting reads and good examples of observational studies, such as Paul Broca's study of the patient 'Tan', a man who lost the ability of coherent speech.

TL;DR - Enlightened Despotism cannot be sustained.

Assuming enlightened despotism is entirely possible, and that the countries in question will respond positively to either form of governance, enlightened despotism is the less ideal option for its inability to last.

Perpetuity is written into the framework of democracy; new representatives and officials are elected as time passes, reflecting not only the shifting ideals of the community but ensuring that governance itself continues.

This is not true for enlightened despotism. In event that the enlightened perishes - either prematurely, or merely upon reaching the end of their life - who remains to take up the mantle? Given one good, enlightened ruler, what guarantee is there for another?

It is necessary for a good government to be able to sustain itself and, while democracy is not always manifest in the most ideal form, its ability to ensure governance exists places it above enlightened despotism. One can also argue that the fluidity inherent in a democratic system ensures that a particularly damaging administration can be replaced and voted out; this is not systematically possible in enlightened despotism.

TL;DR - Artefacts of stigmatization and "hard science" favouritism can be observed in how the social sciences are conducted and/or presented.

This claim already assumes ""Hard science" favouritism" exists, and from there it is not too difficult to show that this mentality is detrimental to how academia views the social sciences; any favouritism is naturally at the expense of the other.

Since user Brandoflores already presents a comprehensive run-down of the academic landscape, however, I decided to jump in with an interesting artefact.

Biologist Joel E. Cohen coined the term "physics envy" to describe attempts by the "softer sciences" and humanities to incorporate mathematical rigour and formal logic.

• In the 19th Century, the marginalist school of economics directly co-opted contemporary physics equations - even likening 'pleasure' to 'energy'.
• Physics envy is also claimed to be observed in historian Alfred Chandler Jr.'s business model of strategy structure

Why do the social sciences, and other less mathematically grounded disciplines, observe a need to emulate the physical sciences? Where does the inferiority complex arise from, surrounding qualitative and less numerical descriptions of theories and phenomena? It arises from the stigmatization of non-mathematical approaches to describing the world, characteristic of the social sciences.

Academia places both stark and subliminal emphases on quantification. Disciplines whose works have not yet achieved the design of the hard sciences are perceived to be in a disciplinary chrysalis; they must be headed for mathematical rigour. A high-school psychology teacher of mine once remarked that, in 100 years, psychology would no longer exist; by then, it would have attained sufficient precision to be absorbed as a science. However,

"The emphasis on quantification and mathematical theorizing that has been so successful in physics may not be so appropriate in sciences dealing with other kinds of subject matter." Source.

By placing greater importance on a singular approach to representing our world, we devalue alternatives that are, arguably, better suited to their particular spheres.

TL;DR - This depends on how you define 'full integration'.

There are several facets to a person's belonging within a country, and the how we rank these factors will result in varying standards for 'full integration' - such as:

• Whether the immigrant is distinguishable as an immigrant in their new country
• Whether the immigrant establishes a comfortable lifestyle for themselves and feels integrated - this can be difficult to assess, but if we allow this measure to remain subjective, it is easy to imagine that many who feel a particular affinity for their new country would defend their full integration.
• Whether the immigrant attains legal nationality - this is more difficult in some countries than others, making it a highly variable metric. If we choose this definition, first generation immigrants in many countries have easily achieved full integration. Several countries have very simple citizenship processes, while others have strict rules and highly tedious systems. This definition is arguably a superficial one, as it ignores more profound considerations regarding 'belonging' - .e.g., social and emotional factors.
• Whether the immigrant is considered an immigrant by non-immigrants, i.e., whether someone known to be an immigrant is considered an outsider - in this case, the country's inhabitants decide, and the verdict is dependent on how welcoming a country is.
• Whether the immigrant is actively participating in the political processes of the country

This is by no means an exhaustive list. 'Full integration' can be defined by any number of the above and more, and the answer to whether first-generation immigrants can achieve it will decidedly differ. An interesting example can illustrate this:

• Sonia Gandhi is the Italian-born widow of India's 6th Prime Minister, leader of the Indian National Congress. While her Italian descent makes her a first-generation immigrant, her work as an Indian politician and her manner of dressing, for example, easily distinguish her image from her heritage. Some might argue (in tones varying from scorn to admiration, depending on political leanings) that she is 'fully integrated' given her impacts on India's politics and the necessary adoption of Indian culture in the process. Others may choose to claim that she is not fully integrated if the populace still regards her as Italian. A remaining question, is whether she herself feels integrated within the country.

TL;DR - The destruction of monuments can be justified when it symbolises society's growth from forgone ideals and practices, but where do we draw the line?

When can the destruction of monuments be justified?

When monuments are destroyed in war-time acts to weaken and wound a nation, the destruction is spiteful and difficult to justify. When monuments are destroyed by natural disasters, well, we don't have much to discuss or justify. When monuments are destroyed in the name of a social movement, however, the deed might be justified for several reasons.

• A monument commemorating an outdated principle can be destroyed to signify the abandonment of old beliefs. The purpose of a monument is to celebrate an individual or event that holds significance in a community's history; upon deciding that it represents ideals that are no longer deemed respectable, its removal is symbolic. It may be argued that this is an erasure of history; however, monuments themselves do not preserve history and their removal in this case is a direct acknowledgement of the history they represent.

• The George-Floyd protests have led to the defacement and destruction of several monuments considered to be associated with racial injustices. The removal of these monuments sent a powerful message and fueled the rhetoric of the movement. We could thus claim that the destruction of a monument, if contributing to a greater good, is justified, if we value the outcome over the memorial.

• Another example is the removal of Christopher Columbus statues, performed in acknowledgement of the explorer's role in indigenous genocide and the establishment of the slave trade.

The last two examples are arguably easier to condone (assuming a generalisation of public opinion). The question remains, however, of when the subject of a monument's flaws 'outweigh' the events it was erected to memorialise. For example,

• A statue of Pablo Picasso exists in his childhood home, La Merced, in Spain. He is celebrated for his artistic brilliance as a pioneer of Cubism and inventor of collage, and for the revolutionary perspectives he invoked in his sculptures and paintings.

• Pablo Picasso was also a serial adulterator. His granddaughter articulately describes his relations with women in her memoir: “He submitted them to his animal sexuality, tamed them, bewitched them, ingested them, and crushed them onto his canvas. After he had spent many nights extracting their essence, once they were bled dry, he would dispose of them.”

The revered painter was a misogynist, and it is difficult to argue that his treatment of the romantic women in his life was anything but deplorable. Should we, then, remove his monument? The statue celebrates a man whose contributions to art were truly commendable, but the man himself was fundamentally flawed.

• Given that human beings are all flawed in some way, does the destruction of monuments as described above set a precedent that prevents us from celebrating most historical figures? If so, is this precedent itself an argument against the justification of monument destruction in general - i.e., if we can't define a limit, does that mean we must refrain entirely?

• Going even further, if we decide to remove Picasso's statue, should we cease to celebrate his art as arguable 'monuments' of his talent?

TL;DR - Nature and Nurture are both important factors in the development of traits, and comparing their contributions does not lead to one winning over the other.

There are a couple of ways in which we can interpret this claim:

1. Nature is more important than nurture overall, i.e., in determining who and how you are.

• Psychological research has shown that this is simply not true. IQ, a common base in nature-nurture studies, has been [shown to observe a nuanced balance between Nature and Nurture] (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4511162/). Children and adolescents with a higher IQ observe a higher environmental influence, while those with a lower IQ demonstrate high heritability (a higher influence of Nature).
• While nature can define a trait, it cannot guarantee that that trait will manifest itself. An easy example of this is that a version of the ACTN3 gene was shown to be more frequent in elite sprint athletes. Though this version (known as the 'R-allele') might enhance your sprinting capability, you cannot tap into this ability without athletic training. The gene is indeed an important factor, but without the complementary Nurture, it does not define your 'nature'.

2. Nature is more important than nurture because it determines the most important characteristics.

• You could make the argument that Nature predefines the characteristics that are considered the most important. It has been [shown that Nature is a stronger determinant of fundamental, lasting traits] (https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/in-the-nature-nurture-war-nature-wins/). Deciding that baseline traits are more important
  in defining a person than their evolving personalities, could lead to the conclusion that Nature is, thus, more important than Nurture. However, this is an entirely subjective basis for the claim, and the valuation of traits can easily vary among individuals and communities such that the principles of one may deem Nature more important, and another may place greater significance on Nurture. More specifically, the claim that Nature is more important than Nurture in the light of the interpretation above is contingent on the belief that certain components of our identity are more important than others. Since this belief can differ, this claim cannot be true.

If we delve further into the nuances of these studies and acknowledge that psychological research - though it can be conducted scientifically - is not always concrete, we cannot decide which of the two is more important. If we cannot yet decide, it is incorrect to state that any one is more important than the other.

The legalisation of an organ market would facilitate the exploitation of underprivileged communities and introduce ethically questionable commercial dynamics to a vital service. The regulations necessary to ensure the market remains ethical will naturally be subject to imperfections in design and enforcement, guaranteeing dangerous consequences that may outweigh the benefits of an increase in transplant availability.

Assuming that the sale of human organs is legalised with the necessary regulations regarding consent, safety, and education, the inadequate enforcement of these regulations is likely to offset any benefits that the market would provide.

• The creation and privitisation of an organ market would require the 'products' to be strictly monitored with regards to their source and means of acquisition. To what extent can the regulations ensure that an organ was safely removed from the seller? To what extent can the regulations ensure that the seller is educated enough to make an informed decision regarding the sale of their kidney, lung, or portion of liver?
• Organisations and corporations will intend to profit on the sale of organs. While the medical industry is not wholly non-profit, allowing organs to become economic commodities would invite the implications of supply-demand dynamics, and the ability of an individual to source an organ will become contingent on their monetary status. The current system through which organs are supplied operates on the basis of need, location, and compatibility - according to the American Transplant Association. While the legalisation of organ sale may not necessarily the eclipse present means of sourcing transplants, the offer of a monetary reward as opposed to pro-bono donation is likely to absorb donors in the commercial realm.
• Will organs be sold based on a database of need that each organisation obtains from its associated hospitals? Or will organs be 'farmed' - i.e., collected and stored - regardless of demonstrated need? Though there are thousands (even hundreds of thousands) of individuals on transplant waitlists at any given time in any country, will the legalisation of organ sale introduce a surplus? Donated lungs cannot last longer than 8 hours post-donation, while kidneys can be preserved for up to 24-36 hours. These numbers, in turn, can vary depending on the donor. This in itself can be presented as an inherent regulatory characteristic of the market; however, it is entirely possible that organs be 'restocked' to ensure the immediacy of 'customer service' if an organ is requested.

Interestingly, while blood donations are completely pro-bono, you can donate plasma to a plasma bank for a monetary reward. However, this has resulted in reports of individuals with diseases and health conditions omitting this information when signing up (e.g. HIV), and health officials are concerned that offering money will similarly invite desperate individuals to provide unviable blood. [https://www.statnews.com/2016/01/22/paid-plasma-not-blood/] This is another clear reason why legalising organ sales would merely introduce innumerous and unfeasible regulatory demands.

Better surveillance technology improves the ease with which we can observe and and peer into the lives of other individuals, but while this technology can be used to identify the guilty, it can also be purposed by the guilty to prey on the public. Both victims and the general innocent could have reason to worry.

Meg_Stalham already, and quite articulately, presented how the use of official surveillance can be subject to the biases of the officials, justifying concern on the part of the innocent along with the guilty [https://www.parlia.com/comment/mKqZrpDXprqDMPPqHpgszVDql] .

Another source of concern, however, arises from the very existence of this technology. If this technology exists for official use, it also exists for potential acquisition by those with criminal intent.

This technology can be - and has been - hacked.

• Police body-cam footage can be doctored, leaving minimal evidence that any tampering occurred. The innocent could be framed, while victims could be left without justice as perpetrators of the crime cover their tracks [https://www.wired.com/story/police-body-camera-vulnerabilities/].
• As recent as March 2021, there have been reports of surveillance equipment being tapped into [https://news.bloomberglaw.com/tech-and-telecom-law/surveillance-camera-hack-raises-legal-risk-of-digital-device-use], including official systems [https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/attack-on-dc-police-security-cameras-had-broad-implications/2018/07/24/7ff01d78-8440-11e8-9e80-403a221946a7_story.html]. It seems plausible that government and policing surveillance can be exploited.

Additionally, just as the electronic age makes official surveillance easier, its existence implies the ease of unofficial surveillance. Beyond hacking, criminals and criminal organisations can also gain direct access to improved technology, and we may have reason to worry as to their increased ability to track and visualise targeted individuals or locations.

It is not possible to increasingly populate a finite space without negatively impacting the environment and its resources. The planet is already facing several crises as a result of our consumption behaviours, and increasing the number of individuals engaging in these lifestyles will only cause further harm.

• The Earth is finite; any continuous growth will cross the limit at which the concerned population can survive without damaging and depleting its environment faster than the environment can heal and regenerate. With its present levels of consumption, the human population is already unsustainable in its carbon emissions, disparate land use, depletion of finite raw materials, and increasing demands for high-convenience lifestyles. Introducing more individuals into an unsustainable global system will only place undue pressure on the planet.

• However, it's worth highlighting that these consumption patterns are not uniform across societies. Wealthier nations are generally more likely to observe higher emissions and levels of consumption per household. Interestingly, it has also been predicted that population growth will primarily occur in communities that practice more sustainable lifestyles [http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160311-how-many-people-can-our-planet-really-support]. The current number of human beings on Earth - and maybe even a higher population - could possibly sustain itself if we adopt more environmentally- friendly lifestyles and systems.

But if we stay true to the main message (and tense) in this opinion, given that our food, transport, and energy systems are not wholly environmentally friendly at present, procreation itself has a detrimental impact on the planet.

• It seems easy to think about with more specific picture. Any child born today will, at the bare minimum, contribute carbon dioxide emissions. If this child feeds, they are contributing to the carbon emissions associated with growing and transporting food. Their consumption of plastic products contributes to the waste crisis. Complementing all of this, is the low likelihood that this individual will manage to offset these negative impacts in their lifetime.

I see that this opinion is referring to moral right or wrong, but to advocate for an alternative explanation: if we don't assume that this opinion concerns morality, I thought it might be interesting to mention that there are evolutionary explanations to disgust. We evolved to feel disgusted by certain materials and phenomena as a protective mechanism against disease vectors. If something is disgusting, it just might be the 'wrong' thing to do with regards to one's personal health.

Returning to morality, however, our capacity to feel disgust has been tapped into by societally and culturally motivated stimuli. Disgust can certainly provide an indication of whether something appeals to one's internalised sense of right and wrong. Whether it is, can be, or should be relied upon in all scenarios is another question. TheMastaDebata gives a good example of where it cannot, as we do indeed refrain from judging sewage work to be 'wrong' despite a virtually universal disgust for it. The infidelity of a romantic partner in an exclusive relationship can also elicit disgust, and is often judged as a wrongful deed. We make our judgements based on numerous factors and, while disgust does not play a singular role, it, it can certainly contribute.

• IN BRIEF: we use disgust as a sociocultural cue as well as an evolutionary mechanism. Though we do not make our final judgements solely upon disgust, it cannot be ruled out as a factor that 'helps you judge […]'.

This response assumes human cannibalism to avoid - for now - the poignant but tangential discussion on how we ascribe human standards of ethics to the animal kingdom.

Trigger Warning: Mild Gorey Imagery

Our species has believed in the medicinal qualities of our own flesh, fluid, and substance throughout history. While it paints a picture of savagery and survival, 'cannibalism' isn't only the barbarous practice of consuming another person's meat for food. There is evidence to suggest that European and Egyptian societies used the skin and blood of the dead to cure the living.

Mummified bodies, stolen from Egypt, were a key source of ingredients for various tinctures. The notion of "like cures like" became prevalent as parts of the head or skull were used to treat ailments of the head. The skin of executed men was once sold to pregnant women, who wrapped it around their bellies in the belief that it would relieve pain. In Rome, the blood of slain gladiators was believed to confer the warrior's strength and vitality to the drinker.

Let's say these medical practices, though pseudoscientific today, are effective and true. In taking from the dead, is medicinal cannibalism so different from organ donation after death? Though we may not be 'drinking' blood, is a blood transfusion today so different from the medicinal cannibalism of the past?

With the right consent, can medicinal cannibalism be ethical?