mlind21

I agree here as well.

I understand why some feel so strongly about organ donation being mandatory. It certainly can (and does) save lives every day. However, a lot of the time folks fail to consider certain factors that keep people from trusting the medical system- particularly Black people who have routinely been shown lower-quality care and experienced multitudes of medical racism.

A study was actually done on this phenomenon and showed that "African Americans had lower scores on the Trust in the Health Care System scale and were more likely to agree that 'if doctors know I am an organ donor, they won't try to save my life’”.

Making organ donation something one can opt-out of takes pressure off and can help those who experience racial discrimination in healthcare feel safer.

Both are good; drink what you want and drink safely!

Personally, I enjoy drinking wine more than beer because I simply like the taste better and it tends to make me feel less bloated afterwards. However, both drinks can contribute to bloating and discomfort. Beer acts like carbonated beverages and releases CO2 into the body. Wine, like beer, contains yeast, which also contributes to bloating and discomfort after excessive drinking. So, there is not much merit to the argument over which is “better” for you considering both effect the body similarly and are similar in calories.

Beer vs. wine pretty much comes down to personal taste, and each drink may have a more fitting place depending on what sort of event or location you are at.

(As a side note I do feel as if I get a “different” kind of effect from wine, but I think that may be psychosomatic, lol.)

Expanding your palate can be a great way to discover new foods that you may love, and it can also help you decide which foods you actually don’t like instead of simply assuming you do not like them because they are what you deem to be “different”.

It’s difficult to say you should always try the weird thing on the menu for a few reasons. For starters, some people are limited by allergies and digestive issues and cannot eat certain foods. But also, the boundaries for what foods are considered “weird” are considerably blurred across cultures. For example, many white Americans startle at foods from other cultures that are not actually “weird”, they’re just unfamiliar.

• A basic example here could be escargot, the cooked snail dish that is particularly popular in France and India. For people in those countries, escargot is probably not as outlandish as it may be in America.
• Dishes such as lengua de vaca (beef tongue), [lutefisk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutefisk#:~:text=Lutefisk%20(Norwegian%2C%20pronounced%20%5B%CB%88l%CA%89%CC%82%CB%90tf%C9%9Bsk,and%20burbot%20are%20also%20used), or even sushi could also be considered outlandish to some eaters, but part of every day life for others.

So, perhaps better advice is not to try the “weird” thing on the menu, because it encourages us to view our own foods and cultures as the “norm”. Instead, we should just encourage one another to expand our palates and try new things. If you like a new food, then great! If you don’t, then at least you tried it and know for sure instead of making assumptions.

To a certain extent, Facebook is dangerous for society due to the loads of misinformation, data breaches, fraud, and negativity present on the site.

For starters, I don’t think Facebook is necessarily an evil force that needs to be banned. It does have its uses. Personally, I use Facebook to keep in touch with relatives and friends who I do not communicate with on a daily basis. It’s pleasant to be able to see what they are up to, their latest accomplishments, and what information they’d like to share. I’ve also used Facebook to keep up-to-date on missing persons cases to events happening in my city.

That being said, Facebook definitely has a “dark side”. The first being Mark Zuckerberg himself. Zuckerberg’s net worth sits at nearly 123 billion USD, and most of Facebook’s revenue comes from advertisements within Facebook and the connected apps Instagram and WhatsApp (fun fact: ads were responsible for 98% of Facebook’s 86 billion dollar revenue in 2020). Zuckerberg’s connection between Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp makes him a dangerous player in the social media game. As shown just recently on October 4th, Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp all experiences outages that effected quite literally the entire world. The danger here is that one company owns all of these essential communication apps, and Zuckerberg has been able to monopolize on all of them to continue gathering insane amounts of wealth.

Additionally, Facebook has become quite the toxic place for misinformation, hate speech, and other nonsense. During the 2016 and 2020 U.S presidential elections, Facebook essentially became a political hellscape that has continued to worsen throughout the pandemic. Tech columnist Jason Aten covers the recent Facebook outage and outlines Zuckerberg’s role in the climate of Facebook in this article, which, though biased, presents some interesting facts about how engagement, even with negative content, creates a higher revenue for Facebook.

So, putting that all together, many people engage with negative content on Facebook, whether that be political, vaccination-related, health-related, or even small differences of opinion. If users are gathering even a part of their information via Facebook, it is indeed bad for society because there is often no scholarly or real-life merit to arguments made on the site. It’s a small window for people to gain insight to slices of life- not the whole picture.

Thousands of scams happen over Facebook, especially money laundering schemes from fake GoFundMe’s or Make-A-Wish posts. Facebook struggles to keep up with all of the fraudulent activity because of the sheer number of users on the site. People, especially of older generations, are more likely to get scammed because of their lack of familiarity with online safety and transactions.

There are several more things I could go on about regarding Facebook, wealth inequality, and the ethics of ads and scams, but I think the more important statement here is, even if Facebook is not the most present danger to society, it doesn’t seem to be overall “good” for us.

Public school sexual education programs may include some necessary information, but often fall short when it comes to comprehensiveness.

I think public school sex education "doesn’t work" in the sense that there very few complete and comprehensive sex ed programs out there. Private school sex education (at least at religious institutions) probably deserves a whole separate conversation.

But, even though public schools are not restricted by religious values/funding as some private institutions are, their sexual education programs are still lacking. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists committee opinion no. 678 outlines what they believe would be included in a comprehensive and effective sex-ed program. Just in the abstract, this document claims: "Current sexuality education programs vary widely in the accuracy of content, emphasis, and effectiveness. Data have shown that not all programs are equally effective for all ages, races and ethnicities, socioeconomic groups, and geographic areas.” It continues on to suggest that all sex ed programs should include the following:

• Medical accuracy and age-appropriateness
• Benefits of abstaining from sex AND the benefits of contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancies and STI’s
• Forms of sexual expression, healthy sexual/nonsexual relationships, gender identity, sexual orientation and questioning, recognizing and preventing sexual violence, consent, and decision making.

Most, if not all sex-ed programs do not have at least one of the above mentioned factors, with a majority missing necessary information on LGBTQ sex ed, consent, and forms of sexual expression.

If we look at some general statistics for unwanted pregnancies, back in 2011, unintended pregnancy rates per 1,000 women were highest among women who: were aged 18-24 years, had low income, had not completed high school, and were non-Hispanic black or African American. This data corresponds with the claims in ACOG Committee Opinion no. 678. More recently, in 2019, the “healthiest state” in regard to unwanted pregnancies was Vermont, with only 20% of pregnancies reported as unintended. The “unhealthiest” state was Mississippi, with 47.1% of pregnancies reported as unintended. These statistics are significant when we compare them to education gaps between Vermont and Mississippi. In overall education, Vermont ranks #15 in the U.S, whereas Mississippi comes in at #43. There seems then to be a direct link between quality of education (which would include sex ed) and complications in life such as unwanted pregnancies.

In an ideal world, every school would re-assess their sex ed programs to include not only the most medically accurate information, but the most inclusive despite religious or moral values that may say otherwise. It simply comes down to a matter of safety and education in order to protect the younger generation from thing such as STI’s, assault, and unwanted pregnancies.

It depends on what standards one uses to measure the “greatest of all time”.

• LeBron is undoubtedly an immensely talented basketball player, but labeling any athlete the greatest of all time is always going to be met with some disagreement. If looking at only stats that @Lucy_P has provided, then LeBron is not technically the greatest basketball player.
• However, if we look at cultural influence, LeBron James has quite a track record. Most recently. he starred in the 2021 Space Jam reboot, along with starting the I Promise School in Akron, Ohio, and earning deals with companies such as Nike, Beats, and Samsung. He additionally has over 50 million twitter followers, over 80 million instagram followers, and a net worth of around $850 million. He didn’t earn those numbers by not playing great basketball and earning himself a hoard of dedicated fans.
• LeBron James is a name that a majority of people recognize, even if they are not basketball fans (I don’t watch basketball and I know a weird amount about him). If we measure the greatest basketball player by skill and cultural influence, James is certainly in the running for greatest of all time.

Overpopulation should not necessarily be celebrated, but from an environmental perspective, the majority of blame should be placed elsewhere.

• When talking about climate change, it won’t get better with more people, but so often the blame is placed on the everyday consumer when companies such as Saudi Aramco, Gazprom, and ExxonMobil have produced over 40 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent since 1965. I absolutely think the average consumer should attempt (within their ability) to consume ethically, but even natural resources are so unevenly divided that it can be hard to do so.
• Overpopulation should not be a cause for celebration, and I think it could eventually be mitigated through things such as improving women’s rights (as mentioned before me), working toward income equality, and funding childcare/fostering/adoption/sex education programs.
• Mainly, before placing too much blame on overpopulation, we need to be holding the top polluters of this earth more accountable for their actions.

You bring up some good points. Although it’s possible that many people view piercing an infant’s ears as a violation of consent because it modifies their body semi-permanently.

You’re right that infants cannot consent to their photos being shared or necessarily to what clothes they wear, but photos can be deleted, and clothes can be changed, whereas, even though piercings can be taken out, some people scar permanently from the needle. Additionally, photos and clothes don’t attach themselves to an infant like piercings do. There’s no actual physical “manipulation" of the body. I think that’s where most of the arguments about consent come in, much like with the issues surrounding circumcision.

If this is true, does it mean we can be absolutely certain that we don’t know anything with absolute certainty?

The arguments made before me still have me mixed on this opinion, as there are good points made on both sides. However, I wonder if this statement could ever actually be 100% true. I think @JenReneeGilley brings up a good point about the word “anything”. If we state that we cannot know anything with absolute certainty, doesn’t that imply that we know for certain that we cannot know anything with certainty?

Toxic femininity does exist, and it affects both women and men.

• For women, toxic femininity pressures them into adhering to female stereotypes (as Katie said before me). Female stereotypes are not always positive, even when we have been socially conditioned to view them as such. For example, it can be good in some situations to be nurturing, passive, and gentle, but these types of traits can also lead to a person being used, manipulated, and taken advantage of.
• Men are then also affected by toxic femininity because their expectations for women are warped by social standards. Many men expect women to be the passive partner in relationships. They may also expect sexual submissiveness, automatic care and concern for their problems, and mothering tendencies. Many women do not act in this way, and men therefore will treat them poorly because of it.
• However, another way in which men are affected by toxic femininity is that they feel they need to enhance their own masculinity in order to be seen as desirable and fitting of their role as the dominant partner. This causes a kind of intermingling between toxic femininity and toxic masculinity.
• Of course, not all femininity and masculinity is toxic, and the performance of either can be practiced by anyone. However, when either is taken to a toxic place, both masculinity and femininity can do more harm than good.

I’d agree here. As an equestrian myself, I dislike the showjumping element of pentathlons. It is the only event where another animal is involved, which potentially can lead to very dangerous situations for both the horses and athletes. The olympic pentathlon this year was a horrendous example of the equestrian sport, and I completely agree with some of the allegations of animal cruelty.

I do think the modern pentathlon could continue to exist with some adjusting, like you said, Erin. It certainly does not all need to be thrown away because of one event, and the showjumping definitely needs modifications in the name of safety and animal wellness before it’s attempted again.

The consciousness of humans and our philosophical studies separates us from animals.

• Though humans are animals, we have evolved into beings that study their own consciousness. There are countless philosophies on how to live our lives, the point of life, who created life, etc. that animals do not concern themselves with. Since the time of Socrates and Aristotle, humans have been examining life further than the average animal.
• Animals and humans are certainly both driven by survival, but humans go a bit beyond survival in the sense that we work to not only survive, but thrive and create a purpose for ourselves.
• Descartes is a good philosopher to think of in moments like these. He was often concerned with our ability to sense the world around us and how accurate our own senses are. This very question seems to separate humans from animals, as animals simply are, and are not concerned with if they are existing authentically. To me, it seems that animals are not so much thinking “I think, therefore I am”, but rather, "I exist, therefore I am.”

QAnon is a conspiracy theory created by the far-right to enable their agenda and justify their fears about society.

• QAnon is the very definition of a conspiracy theory: "a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators.” The QAnon theory essentially says that an elite group of Satanic and wealthy Democrats are controlling the news and media along with running an international child sex ring.
• QAnon believers have named people such as Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, George Soros, Oprah Winfrey, Tom Hanks, the Pope, etc. as part of this cult that, in addition to running a child sex ring, also extract “adrenochrome” from blood. This chemical supposedly acts as a psychedelic and potential immortality to those who use it.
• QAnon is also constantly expanding, with some believers continually adding new rumors and claims about who and what is running American (and global) politics and society. The conspiracy theorists are often staunch supporters of former president Donald Trump and believe he is the saving figure from the Satanic, child-molesting puppeteers.
• QAnon exists because some people cannot accept the current state of political affairs, especially in America. Most of the theories stem from a fear that their way of life is being threatened, and the liberal agenda will soon take over the government. In order to minimize these fears, the QAnon conspiracy theory was created in order to justify the concerns of the far-right, and the theories have spread to other groups as well.
• Of course, nothing surrounding QAnon has been proven, which solidifies its status as a conspiracy theory, but I have no doubt that QAnon supporters will continue to come up with wacky ideas to add to the conspiracy.

Video games can absolutely be art, and many video games display great feats of ingenuity and creativity!

• So much goes into the creation of a video game. Even for short-form games, there’s usually some sort of character design and story arc that requires artistic thinking and processes.
• Video games such as Flower, BioShock infinite, Dear Esther, Minecraft, and many, many more show just how beautiful digital art can be.
• Even video games such as Call of Duty have art within them, from the graphics to the design of the weapons. Though the scenes of Call of Duty are rarely "aesthetically pleasing", they still have a distinct artistic element to them.
• Video games could definitely fall under the category of interactive art. They invoke a reaction in viewers and players, they serve a purpose, and each person experiences a game differently.

Perhaps high divorce rates will lead to less marriages, and the institution of marriage itself will become less common.

• In Norway, there is a phenomenon called “samboerskap” in which "two adults live together without having signed a written legal contract that regulates their relationship.” Cohabitants are usually regarded as complete individuals responsible for their own finances, though if they have joint children or have been living together for 5 years, they can combine their assets.
• Of course, Norway is not the only country where cohabitation exists, but Norway recognizes it as a perfectly normal and common way of living without the presence of a marriage certificate (or even a romantic relationship!)
• Perhaps, if divorce rates remain high or go even higher, marriage will become less desirable to the average couple, and they may choose to be cohabitants instead. This could be easier in a legal sense, and also less expensive if they do decide to end their relationship.
• This article details why the institution of marriage is so desirable, but also becoming more and more obsolete.

It’s certainly a possibility that the lost colony of Roanoke assimilated with the Natives of the land. But there are also several other plausible theories about what happened to them.

• Another theory is that the settlers of Roanoke left a literal message of where they went: Croatoan. When appointed governor of Roanoke John White returned after a three year journey back to England, there was no trace of the colony besides the word “Croatoan” carved into a tree. Some historians posit that the settlers left this message because they traveled to Croatoan island (now known as Hatteras island) and either assimilated or were killed by Natives.
• The settlers of Roanoke could have also attempted to sail back to England on their own due to lack of supplies and died at sea. They may have also been killed by Spaniards who were making their way north from their settlements in Florida. Additionally, there’s a possibility that they succumbed to sickness, although there were no bones ever located on the site.
• New archeological evidence suggests that European settlers did move inland, though they cannot say for certain whether it was the colony of Roanoke or not. Interestingly, John White outlined two forts in invisible ink on a watercolor map he created of the colony. No evidence of the forts were found, but when the locations were examined, English pottery fragments were excavated. Some believe this to be proof of the settlers move and subsequent assimilation with Natives inland, but it hasn’t been ruled out that this pottery was not left behind from residents of Jamestown.
• The lost colony of Roanoke is one of the more interesting tidbits of the history of colonization, but the fact still remains that colonizers from England rarely treated Native Americans well, so the possibility of the settlers being killed by Natives is still quite high.
• I’d suggest watching this video about the Lost Colony of Roanoke. It explains several of the most prominent theories, along with being quite funny.

The so-called “war on Christmas” stems from cultural and religious differences, and it is not the dangerous issue some make it out to be.

• On December 7th, 2004, Fox News host Bill O’Reilly aired an episode where he claimed Christmas was “under siege”. Though there were certainly disagreements about the Holiday season before 2004, this segment really solidified the apparent schism between Christian-Christmas-celebrators and the “other”. In the past 17 years, the holiday season that arrives every autumn/winter has seemed to become more and more controversial.
• A few Christians claim that the term “Happy Holidays” erases the religious nature of the holiday, with some like Dennis Prager claiming, "Of course it's a war on Christianity — or, more precisely, a war on the religious nature of America.”
• The “war on Christmas” is nonsense. There is a necessary separation of church and state in America, meaning no company, TV show, or person has to technically recognize your specific religion in their actions, advertisements, or policies. Of course, in an ideal world, all religions or lack thereof would be treated with respect and dignity. Unfortunately, that is rarely the case. However, this does not mean that Christians get to control the way the holiday season is advertised. If one celebrates Christmas as a religious holiday, they can say “Merry Christmas” and refer to the holiday as a religious time. The fact that others may not say “Merry Christmas” does not mean there is a “war” on Christmas or Christianity and saying so is an extreme overreaction.
• Some people don’t celebrate Christmas at all, instead celebrating Kwanza, Hanukkah, or perhaps no holiday whatsoever. No one is obliged to celebrate the holiday that you choose to, nor should they have to adhere to one’s religious beliefs that they do not practice.
• The term “war on Christmas” is just a way to inflate a cultural difference that has no real significance. Allowing a more inclusive holiday greeting in no way will change the meaning of the holiday for religious celebrators.

Humans and animals have evolved differently, making the meaning of their lives different as well.

• Perhaps from a baseline evolutionary standpoint, all animals exist to a) survive and b) to produce more animals to continue their bloodlines/species.
• However, with humans evolving beyond animals in many ways, the meaning of our lives has likely changed. Many humans wish to make a positive impact on the world; a lot have particular issues that they feel strongly about. However, I do not feel as if the deer that lives in my backyard particularly cares about income inequality or voting rights. This is because, to my knowledge, this deer does not hold a full-time job or vote. The main driving factor in its life is to survive and produce more deer. I think humans go a bit beyond that now.
• Humans certainly have a drive for survival (also known as self-preservation or survival optimization), but we also have a drive for things like happiness, love, financial security, success, etc. One can definitely say that humans do tend to reproduce and die just as any other animal, but there are so many humans that do not reproduce and still attempt to create some sort of meaningful existence in the world.
• Most of the issues that plague humanity today are man-made, and many of the goals in peoples’ lives (happiness, true love, etc.) are more philosophical than instinctual, but I do believe that we exist on this planet for a different reason than animals. This is not to say that animals are not important because they more certainly are vital to our existence, but their existence and consciousness is undoubtedly different.

Perhaps more than science, free will justifies atheism...

• No religion has scientific evidence behind it, which is a large motivating factor for some atheists to become or remain atheists. However, perhaps instead of science “justifying” atheism, it is just a supporting element or it, and the larger encompassing element is free will.
• Whether for better or for worse, free will does allow us to choose whichever belief system suits us best. If one chooses to be Lutheran, for example, it (hopefully) is because of their own free will. Same with Buddhists, Evangelicals, Hindus, agnostics, atheists, and beyond. Of course, family pressure and tradition can cause some to feel forced into a religion, but the point here is that nothing can truly justify a belief system except the fact that someone wants to follow it.
• This argument can, of course, head down a slippery slope because free will can also be used for extremely bad things (ie: murder, rape, theft, etc.) However, when talking about religion or lack thereof, free will may be a good viewpoint for justifying whichever religion you do or do not adhere to.

Fortune tellers are only real in the sense that they exist– not that they can actually see the future.

• Whether it be through palmistry, crystallomancy, or tarot card readings, fortune telling does indeed exist and come in many forms. However, there’s no way to actually predict the future; there are only educated guesses.
• There are many instances where consequences from actions can be predicted. Climate change, for example, has been predicted for years, but it came with scientific and real-world evidence to back it up. Other predictions such as, let’s say, childbearing prospects or potential love, are completely up to coincidence. If a prediction happens to come true, it may strengthen one’s belief in fortune telling, but it more likely comes down to coincidence or a subconscious effort on that person’s behalf to make the prediction happen.
• Fortune telling does not necessarily need to be “debunked” or thrown away on this basis though. For many, palmistry, crystallomancy, tarot, etc. are hobbies and enjoyable activities. For others, it is a deeply-rooted belief system. If one feels inspired by having their future potentially read to them, I don’t personally see a problem with it as long as one does not completely depend on fortune telling for every decision they make in life.

E-sports certainly require a great deal of mental strength and coordination, but perhaps not as much actual athletic prowess as other sports.

• There is an ongoing debate about the amount of skill and/or physical activity that must go into an activity that make it a sport. In fact, even basic dictionaries define sports differently.

1. The Oxford dictionary definition is as follows: "An activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment.”
2. Dictionary.com says sports are: "an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc.”

• The key difference between these two definitions is the use of “and”/“or” between the words skill and physical exertion. Basically: "Choose one definition and esports qualifies as a sport. Choose another, and it’s a harder sell.”
• If we look at sports broadcasting channels such as ESPN, they added e-sports to their official coverage in 2016, but the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) doesn’t include esports on its roster of official sports. There’s clearly not a universal agreement on the status of esports as “real” sports or not.
• E-sports are more intense than casual gaming, and the whole program is rooted in competition, strategy, and mental stamina. The question that probably divided audiences most is one of physical stamina.

Economic status is a huge dividing factor in many countries, and it definitely affects social class and social interactions.

• First off, I don’t believe that one person having a bit more money than another automatically makes them better or worse. However, in America specifically, economic status affects who people interact with, learn from, and look up to. This means that those born into wealth will often find themselves surrounded by other wealthy people in their school systems, hobbies, and social lives.
• Wealthy people have more access to higher education, healthy and organic food, healthcare, childcare, legal assistance, and housing. All of these things affect which social “class” one falls into. Low-income people are less likely to be able to access the same education, diet, and social activities as wealthy people, and this causes a divide in how each group lives.
• The wealthy are often considered the “upper class” whereas low-income folks are often considered “lower class”. Even the terms used to describe these economic groups create an inherent hierarchy, with wealthy at the top and not-wealthy at the bottom. Additionally, there are billionaires in the world that choose to hoard their wealth instead of attempting to balance out income inequality by supporting systems that would work to lessen economic gaps.
• People with more money are often seen as savvy, clever, and hard-working. For some, that may be the case, but for many others, their wealth is generational, which does indeed mean that they are born into a more privileged position that others.
• Overall, economic status dictates so many aspects of life that it would be difficult to say it does not affect our social class whatsoever.

Social media can make communication easier, but it has its downfalls as well.

• Social media apps such as Facebook and Instagram allow us to stay up-to-date on our friends and families’ lives without having to directly interact with them. This can be a positive thing when you do not live in the same state or country as a friend or family member. Being able to like or comment on a photo/status/tweet/etc. shows that you are still engaged with their life despite the distance between you.
• However, social media apps are designed to lure you in, and can cause anxiety, depression, and even physical illnesses in users. More often than not, social media apps are used to represent certain parts of our lives. Celebrities often post about events they attend or new brand deals, activists post about social justice and change, and the average person posts what they want the world to see. The profiles of social media users don’t always show their whole lives, and therefore communication remains base-level if you don’t reach out to further ask about one’s life and activities beyond what they post.
• Social media certainly can have a positive effect on users by strengthening their relationships with others and teaching social skills, but true communication goes beyond a “like” or “comment” on a post.
• Things such as DM’s can aid with more meaningful communication between social media users. Instead of just a comment or like, direct messages can be a way of fostering deepening conversation, like texting. Posts about current world events can also improve communication by simply letting others know what is going on.
• Social media can certainly improve communication by broadening the range of people we can speak to, but it still requires work to make that communication meaningful.

Humankind does not need God. Believers want God.

• Humankind does not rely on God to survive; we rely on things like each other, science, physical resources, nature, etc. To some, this is the work of God, but they want God to be real in order to fulfill their beliefs. I definitely don’t say this in a condescending way, just as general statement.
• Believers want God to be real, and in that sense they need God to bring comfort, guidance, and purpose in their lives, but humankind does not need God overall in order to survive as we have done for thousands of years.

Legalizing incest would not have any positive impact on society at all. It is also completely morally wrong.

• I can’t imagine any ways in which the legalization of incest would benefit us at all. Vincent made a great case for why it should be considered a crime, but I also wonder what the argument for incest would even be.
• Incest can have debilitating effects on any children produced from an that kind of relationship. The Whitaker family is an example of the unfortunate physical and mental conditions that can arise from incest. Additionally, the children born from incest have absolutely no control over it, which places them in uncomfortable and shameful positions that they cannot change.
• Survivors of incest are often victims of abuse and extremely traumatized. Making these types of relationships legal would only worsen these types of abuse cases.
• Incest is a taboo for a reason. The conversations about incest shouldn’t be taboo when supporting victims, but incest needs to remain illegal.

Baby boomers may not have necessarily had it “easier” but they certainly had it different.

• Though the generational line is slightly blurred, we can generally say that baby boomers are currently around 57-75 years old, with a majority being born from 1946-1964. There is no doubt that people in this age group grew up with vastly different social contexts than Gen Z’s or even Millennial’s
• Thinking from a monetary perspective, a purchase of $15,000 in 1970 is equivalent to about $105,037 today, meaning prices are about 7x higher today than they were 51 years ago. For some baby boomers, being raised with lower prices for things such as school, rent, cars, and other amenities makes them completely unaware of how difficult it is to pay rent as a college student these days.
• In fact, the average rent in 1960 was $71/month. In 1980, it was $243/month; in 2000 it went up to $605/month, and in the year 2020 it was up to $1,104/month. The minimum wage average in 1960 was $1. In 1980, it was $3.10, in 2000 it was $5.15, and in 2021 the federal minimum wage is $7.25/hr. A new report from the National Low Income Housing Coalition, "Minimum wage workers can’t afford to rent a two-bedroom home or apartment anywhere in America.” If we consider that the average minimum-wage worker works 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, for 4 weeks per month, they would only make $1,160 a month. If their rent was the national average of $1,104, they would only have $56 to spend on food, utilities, medical necessities, etc.
• Of course, these are generalizations based on the given data, but this proves that it is much harder to earn a livable wage these days than it was back when baby boomers were young.
• Baby boomers also lived in a time where acceptance to colleges and universities was much higher, and the overall cost of living and expenses was lower.
• This is not all to say that baby boomers all grew up in a field of sunshine and flowers. Certainly many experienced economic stress and other obstacles that inevitably occur in life. However, there is definitely a generational divide when it comes to social expectations, money, and particularly jobs and education between Baby Boomers, Millenial’s, and Get Z’s. Baby Boomers definitely had different childhood/teenage/and adult years than those younger than them. Was it easier? Possibly. But it certainly was different.

There are many ways that toughness can be measured. This comparison between sexes is unnecessary.

• I personally do not see the point in this comparison, and a statement such as this erases the uniqueness of each individual person. While I definitely think women are undermined because they’re often thought to be less tough than men, to say that women are tougher than men does not actually advance any sort of feminist movement.
• Toughness can be measured in several forms. Taking pain for a brief example, pain tolerance varies from person to person, not from sex to sex. The American Pain Society found that pain responses can vary depending on biological, psychological, and sociological factors in one’s life. Past traumas, increased emotions, and hypersensitivity can also influence how one experiences pain. Both men and women will have different experiences that may change how they react to pain. Toughness can also be considered when talking about emotions, physical strength, stress management, etc. There are varied reactions to things that happen in life. Toughness is therefore also varied.
• There are definitely sociological factors that cause women to be considered less tough than men, and men are pressured to conceal their emotions and “appear" tough. I certainly believe women have to fight against patriarchal standards and sexism more than men, but comparing sexes often leads to more tension and reinforces the gender binary when it can be avoided.

Private jets greatly harm the environment and are an unnecessary form of travel.

• In just one hour, a single private jet can emit two tons of CO2. The CO2 emissions from private jets are 10x more than those of commercial airlines and 50x more than trains.
• In a survey by Private Jet Card Comparisons, "46% of respondents said they were using private aviation to transport family members, and 45% said they were flying privately to a second home.” These types of trips could easily be made with another mode of transportation that does not negatively impact the environment as much as private jets do.
• The average private jet trip costs $1,300–$3,000 per hour to for a smaller jet plane; $4,000–$8,000 per flying hour for a midsize jet, and $8,600–$13,000 per flying hour for larger private jets. These prices are usually only fathomable for the wealthy, who choose to use private jets mainly for leisure. Private jet trips are a selfish mode of travel due to the disproportionate effects they have on the rest of the world.
• Climate change has already had devastating effects on the environment, and while individuals can do their part to minimize their carbon footprint, corporations and the super-rich need to be held more accountable for their contributions to climate change. Private jets are one of the completely unnecessary forms of travel that prioritize comfort and greed over the wellbeing of the planet.

Period leave should be an option for people working on their periods.

• Period leave could be very helpful for those who experience painful periods. Period symptoms can range from abdominal cramps, bloating, digestive issues, and tender breasts to heavy bleeding, vomiting, migraines, depression, and fainting. Periods can be extremely uncomfortable and affect how well someone works.
• Optional period leave would allow one to decide if they need the time off or not without fear of retribution or judgement. If one doesn’t need the time off, then they don’t need to take it.
• Women who are on birth control may experience less periods or no periods at all, which is another reason to make period leave optional.
• Period leave could include time off work or working from home if one is able. There would need to be some sort of regulation around it, sure, but the idea is overall positive and would help de-stigmatize periods.

Victimhood is not celebrated, but rather the attitudes surrounding speaking up about wrongdoings are slowly changing.

• Like @sarahbakayoko said, we are moving away from the “don’t ask, don’t tell” mentality of the generations before. The age of social media has also made it easier for people to share their stories about times they were wronged or harmed in their lives. When people see others speaking out on issues such as sexual assault, racism, discrimination, or even legal disputes on public platforms, they start to feel more comfortable doing it themselves. When more people begin sharing their stories, it may appear as if victimhood is being celebrated, but in reality, vulnerability and accountability are becoming more normalized.
• Support for victims can also be spread online, and groups of people with similar experiences may drift toward one another in order to feel represented and safe. Again, this may give an image of “celebration” to a more cynical viewer, but it’s actually a coping mechanism and should be respected instead of looked down upon.

Yes, you can wear whatever you would like and still be a feminist, but arguments such as this miss the mark on modern feminism.

• Feminism has come a long way from where it was even just 50 years ago. Intersectional feminism has become more favorable because this lens realizes and acknowledges that not all inequality is created equal. It is, as Kimberlé Crenshaw puts it, “a prism for seeing the way in which various forms of inequality often operate together and exacerbate each other”. Intersectional feminism does not just aim to let girls wear heel and still be “girlbosses” that reject the patriarchy. Instead, it focuses on liberating women from patriarchal standards and challenging racist, ableist, and classist standards that are upheld in multiple societies around the world.
• While being able to wear heels is a small argument that can be made within the framework of feminism, it’s important to realize that feminism has moved far beyond just empowering cisgender (and usually white) women. The movement has slowly but surely begun incorporating and celebrating BIPOC, trans, and disabled people into the framework.
• Wearing heels can be great fun, but does not have as much to do with true feminist work as one might think.

Like you said in your 5th bullet point, many people believe sexuality is something that you are born with and is therefore fixed. However, even things we are born with can change with time.

• For example, hair color, skin pigmentation (as in moles and freckles), eye color, and other things like accents change over the course of time, even when some are pre-determined by biology.
• So, if someone were to argue against sexual fluidity in favor of believing sexual orientation is a genetically predetermined, perhaps thinking of sexual orientation as one of the many things that can change in the human mind and body could reverse their argument.

The amount of tests and the kinds of tests given in school negatively impact children’s mental health.

• The points made before me laid out great statistics and facts surrounding how tests impact child mental health. In addition to the sheer number of tests, the kinds of tests given also need to be considered.
• Standardized testing, for example, implies that every child should have a certain amount of general knowledge and should possess the ability to fill out the answers to a set of questions. While there are sometimes accommodations for children with learning disabilities, standardized tests suggest that there is an average intelligence-level that students should be achieving. These types of tests put pressure on students to perform well, lest they be considered less intelligent than their peers.
• Tests are often conducted in silent classrooms under observation. This type of environment can be extremely anxiety-producing for certain children. Talking out loud can actually help individuals learn and possibly perform better on tests. The environment in which tests are usually taken is hostile to different learning types, even for students without learning disabilities.
• Physical tests, such as the FitnessGram PACER test, the mile run, and the shuttle run test can be extremely isolating to children who may not participate in sports or simply happen to be slower runners than others. These tests can also worsen children’ body image.
• Testing should be limited in both numbers and variety to promote a safer and more comfortable environment for children to learn in.

Each vegan practices their diet by following their own personal rules. For some vegans, this may fall under their definition of veganism. For others, it may not.

• Vegans generally abstain from eating all animal products, which means eliminating meat, poultry, dairy, and fish and focusing instead on plant-based foods. However, each vegan may practice this lifestyle for a different reason.
• For example, some vegans have dietary restrictions that make a vegan diet a more reasonable choice for their health. Others may be seeking to reduce their carbon footprint and consume more ethically-sourced foods. Either way, there’s going to be some nuance to every vegan’s point of view. One vegan may be strictly against all animal products, no matter the cause of death. Another may argue that the process of slaughtering animals is unhealthy and immoral, but natural death is not, and therefore they may eat a naturally deceased animal.

The gender stereotypes of the 1950s were reinforced by popular media, making them seem “natural”, but they actually just reflect deep-rooted sexism.

• Companies embraced the gender stereotypes of the time, even going so far as to center their advertisements around them. For example, large corporations such as Budweiser, Hardee’s, Heinz, Van Huesen, and Chase & Sunborn Coffee show blatantly sexist scenes in their advertisements. These ads were so commonplace that the gender roles they enforced were often perceived as normal. Just as we become desensitized to certain things when they are exposed in media today, the same happened back then.
• This does not excuse this behavior, but does show how intrinsic sexism was just a few decades ago. Sexism still remains a huge problem today, but there would be much more backlash if an ad such as the ones above were published in modern times.
• The gender stereotypes of the 1950s were heavily enforced, not just through advertising, but through social expectations and, unfortunately, domestic violence. Women were expected to submit to their husbands, which harms the women themselves, but also made no room for anything that didn’t fall into the heteronormative standard of the time.
• Nothing is natural about the gender stereotypes of the 1950s because they had to be so strictly enforced. Any straying from the norm could lead to consequences for whoever tried it, meaning there was no "natural" order of the sexes, but rather a socially created order.

The idea of reunification with loved ones is very comforting. While the likelihood of a reunion after death may be low, perhaps the idea is more important than the result. In other words, if there is nothing after death, there’s still no harm in believing you may see a loved one again when you die. In fact, the thought of reuniting with loved ones after death helps many people through the process of grief. It can make goodbyes seem less permanent, and provide comfort during some of the most difficult times in our lives.

Because there is no way to prove a Divine Plan exists, it must rely on individuals' faith. There are also too many potential Divine Plans to narrow it down to a simple statement such as this.

• There are many religions and beliefs in the world. It is limiting to apply just one Divine Plan to all of humanity. This statement could be referencing any number of belief systems, even just within Christianity.

• Living according to the Divine Plan could go two different ways:
  ⋅The Divine Plan simply informs the decisions and paths one takes in their life.
  ⋅The Divine Plan is already laid out for each individual and their decisions are actually predetermined by the deity which created their Divine Plan.

• Therefore, it depends on the person and their beliefs about whichever Divine Plan they may believe in.

• Ultimately the belief in a Divine Plan comes from faith alone; there are no scientific studies proving its existence. If one believes they live according to a Divine Plan, that is their decision. One should absolutely live according to their beliefs, but also must recognize that they are hardly ever universal.

The term “power” is so broad that it’s hard to definitively say that it is an aphrodisiac for everyone. Power can come from money, social status, physical and emotional strength, determination, etc. It varies from person to person. Aphrodisiacs are usually foods or substances that increase sexual desire, arousal, behavior, or performance whereas power is more of a psychological and social phenomenon rather than a substance. In order to claim power is an aphrodisiac, one would have to specify what kind of power and expand the definition of what an aphrodisiac is.

There is no way to prove the existence of the incorporeal soul, but the idea of a soul can be a positive guiding force in life.

• I think the idea of a soul has been overinflated. Souls are often referred to as "the immaterial essence and totality of who you are at a core level” and they give us "the mental abilities of a living being”. But, based on these definitions, the idea of a soul can be boiled down to evolution and personality.
• From an evolutionary standpoint, humans are very complex and we definitely develop unique personalities, traits, and habits that make us individuals. The soul, however, is a spiritual concept. There is no way to extract one’s “soul” as if it were their appendix or gall bladder. A soul is incorporeal and therefore impossible to definitively locate and identify in the human body.
• We cannot prove the true existence of a soul. Rather, the concept of a soul can be a positive force in people’s lives that drives them to pursue their passions. In other words, the soul can be a real spiritual concept, but not a real object.

There is no hard scientific evidence that proves there is an afterlife. The concept of an afterlife is a human coping mechanism for death.

• There have been some instances in which people have claimed they have seen heaven or a sort of afterlife. In some cases, the stories were admitted to be fake, but in other cases, people really did believe they saw a glimpse of the afterlife.
• These visions of heaven/afterlives are likely due to the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems acting cooperatively during death. Usually, the sympathetic nervous system is responsible for excitement or arousal whereas the parasympathetic nervous system acts to settle those nerves. During death, both systems are working at once, which means that visions of heaven are likely merely chemical and neurological events that occur during death.
• Humans have feared death for a very long time. The lack of understanding of what comes after has lead to the creation of myths and legends surrounding the afterlife in order to comfort us when we lose someone. I personally have found the concept of an afterlife to be extremely comforting when I lost family members, or my beloved dogs. I have no idea if it exists, and the rational part of me suspects there is no afterlife possible. However, the idea of an afterlife, whether it be real or not, can bring peace of mind to many.

Sex can be best for some people in committed relationships, but not all sex is better just because it’s within a relationship.

• Some people prefer to have an intimate emotional connection to their partner before having a physical connection. The presence of that personal bond can strengthen communication between partners, and lead to better sex for certain individuals. [Demisexuality] (https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/327506#what-is-demisexual) could also be a factor in peoples’ relationships– in which they require a deeper emotional connection before experiencing sexual attraction.
• However, just because some people may experience what they consider “better” sex in a committed relationship, the general statement that all sex is better in a committed relationship is too broad to apply universally.
• The parameters by which people measure sex differ widely depending on who you ask. It’s perfectly possible that someone in a relationship can be completely dissatisfied with their sex life while someone who is single is satisfied. In the end, it all comes down to personal preference. Consenting adults should pursue sexual relations that make them feel the best, whether that be with a romantic partner or not!

A woman can wear whatever she chooses because she is never deserving of any sort of harassment, assault, or discrimination.

• This opinion is terrifying for many reasons. First, it implies that rape, harassment, assault, or discrimination are consequences that arrive from bad behavior. This could not be further from the truth. No one ever deserves to be put through any of that simply because of an outfit choice. Women go outside every day in crop tops and they also go out every day fully covered and still will be catcalled, harassed, or even assaulted.
• Every 68 seconds, an American is sexually assaulted. Those age 65 and older are 92% less likely than 12-24 year olds to be a victim of rape or sexual assault, and 83% less likely than 25-49 year olds. The fact that children are raped speaks to the fact that revealing clothing has nothing to do with rape– it is the rapist’s actions that cause rape.
• 6,053 military members reported experiencing sexual assault during military service in FY 2018. Military uniforms are the same for men and women, and yet there are still hundreds of instances of sexual assault, many of which go unreported. If a woman is wearing a military uniform and still gets assaulted, there is no base to the claim that a more revealing outfit would increase her chances of being attacked.
• Consequences come from mistakes or bad behavior. A woman dressing how she is comfortable is neither a mistake nor bad behavior and definitely does not deserve any sort of negative consequence.

Men are just as affected by toxic masculinity because the dominant social ideas surrounding masculinity discourage empathy, emotion, and openness

• Both men and women are responsible for toxic masculinity. There is a disturbingly present idea in many societies that men should not cry, be affectionate with one another, or open up about their emotional state. These ideas are unfortunately encouraged by both men and women.
• There is no one sex to blame because both men and women are affected by toxic masculinity. For women, they often are victims of abuse, manipulation, and are undermined in workplaces. For men, they often feel forced to perpetuate ideals of manliness that can harm their personal lives and relationships, and when they are victims of abuse, they may not report it for fear of being seen as weak. Toxic masculinity certainly is not an excuse for abuse or sexism, but it is a large contributor.
• Terms such as “grow a pair”, “man up”, “you throw like a girl”, and “be a man” are tossed around in every day language that imply that men are meant to present masculine traits in their every day lives, lest they be compared to the inferior sex, women. These phrases also negatively affect men who do not wish to adhere to dominant male stereotypes.
• However, while toxic masculinity is not a “man-only” problem, it will take an overwhelming social change largely led by men in order to change how masculinity is thought of. If more men definitively choose to be confident in their masculinity while practicing empathy and expressing emotion, and if more women who find themselves adhering to binary gender stereotypes can release their expectations for men, perhaps masculinity can become less dangerous and something to be celebrated instead.

A person’s decision to have sex does not need to rely on their marital status unless they so choose

• If a person chooses to wait until they are married to have sex, whether it be due to religious reasons, personal choice, etc., that’s perfectly fine. However, it does not make premarital sex wrong. There is no universal law stating that someone needs to be married in order to engage in physical intimacy with another person.
• Marriage, simply put, is a legal status. There is really no difference between a couple that is married and a couple that is not besides a marriage certificate and perhaps some other financial assets. The presence of a ring on someone’s finger or a marriage ceremony is not a “ticket to have sex”, and that mindset is both sexist and outdated.
• Sex is a natural human desire and does not always lead to procreation. Some people cannot physically have children, others do not want to. Sex simply existing for procreation can be a reality for some, but it is not a universal reality and it never will be. In fact, several species of animals have been observed engaging in sex for pleasure, such as bonobos, short-nosed fruit bats, chimpanzees, macaques, and dolphins. The argument that sex should wait until marriage to produce offspring is often tied to religious or traditional beliefs that are not universally adhered to. It comes down to personal decision.
• To label someone else’s adult, consensual sex life as “wrong” is pointless and frankly, it’s no one else’s business.

Jewish people have been painted as villains for centuries, and this problem continues today.

• @Oliviabooth9 brought up great historical examples of the discrimination Jewish people have faced based on nothing but their identity as Jews. Jewish people were not only used as scapegoats, but as villains in stories of morality– they were often represented as a people no one should want to emulate.
• Taking Geoffrey Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales for example, the Prioress’ Tale in particular exemplifies medieval antisemitism. The Prioress uses the superstitious anecdote of a blood libel to make Jewish people the villain of the story. The very first lines of her tale describe a ghetto that lies in a city in Asia, where Jewish people are hateful to Christ and his company. A young boy is murdered by Jews who are angered by the sound of him singing the Alma Redemptoris. His throat is cut, and his body is thrown in a pit, which is meant to link Jewish people to uncleanliness and sin.
• Stories such as the Canterbury Tales, which have been studied for hundreds of years, show just how common antisemitism was and continues to be, hence why it is often referred to as the “oldest hatred in the world”.
• Jewish people being tied to a lack of morality can be seen in modern examples too, such as the alt-right conspiracy theory that Harvey Weinstein’s sexual harassment cases are tied to his Jewish identity. The anti-Semitic argument made is that Jewish people are at the heart of Hollywood, running sex scandals and money laundering schemes.
• Jewish people have long been unfairly considered immoral people, and the centuries of hate they have endured are just as prominent today.

Instead of making hormone therapy and gender affirming surgery unavailable to anyone under 18, there should be more resources offered to trans youth to help them make medical decisions.

• Studies have shown that children who do not conform to the gender binary do indeed have a strong sense of who they are, despite the common worry that a child is not old enough to decide to undergo hormone therapy/gender affirming surgery.
• Instead of banning hormone therapy/surgery for under-18’s, there should be more focus on supporting them and offering safe spaces for them to express their gender identity until they can definitively choose to undergo therapy or not. The Trevor Project led a National Survey on LGBTQ Youth Mental Health and found that 60% of trans and non binary youth have engaged in self harm. More than half of trans and non binary youth have heavily considered suicide. Banning hormone therapy or gender affirming surgery would not help with either of these statistics and would instead likely raise them.
• Licensed therapists can be gender specialists: "A licensed therapist who has a VAST amount of knowledge about gender dysphoria, gender identity, gender nonconformity, transphobia (and how it works in real life) and how to help clients with transition (in its variety of forms).” These types of therapists should be more accessible and popularized in order to help trans youth and also to relieve some of the stigma transgender people experience. These therapists can also help young people make decisions surrounding their medical transition.
• Banning hormone therapy and gender affirming surgery is focusing on the wrong problem. The problem is the way that trans and non binary youth are treated, and medical and emotional support is the answer– not bans on potentially life-saving treatments.

The same amount of paid parental leave will help families with stress, parenting, and emotional connection to their child and each other.

• Fathers and mothers should take equal amounts of responsibility in raising their children. Having the same amount of paid parental leave could help some fathers/mothers take more of an active role in parenting rather than having to return to work.
• Paid parental leave has positive impacts on the health of children because parents can monitor their child’s health more closely, stay up-to-date on immunizations, and their engagement with the child increases during this time.
• Fathers who are offered paid paternity leave have been shown to feel closer to their child and couples’ divorce risk dropped and remained low for years to come.
• The physical and emotional toll of pregnancy and giving birth can lead to multiple postpartum disorders in mothers. If their partners are offered the same amount of paid parental leave, they can offer support, resources, and aid to mother’s that may experience postpartum stress.

I agree, and I’m glad you brought up the fact that some languages have words for feelings that do not translate to other languages. For example, the German word Waldeinsamkeit can really only be described in English as “the feeling of solitude and connectedness to nature when being alone in the woods.” The Norwegian word “Forelsket” describes “the euphoria experienced as you begin to fall in love.” English speakers have to put together multiple words to form a sentence to describe these phenomena, whereas other languages simply have a term for it. I believe that this simple difference in language causes people to experience these phenomena in unique ways.

Absolutely. The words “consenting adults” make this statement complete as well. If the word consent weren’t there, that is the only situation where I would argue that the state (as in a court, medical personnel, and support systems) should be involved. Sexual assault cases are widely unreported because a large majority of rapists do not serve jail time. However, activities occurring between consenting adults can and should be enjoyed without the threat of exposure.

My initial reaction to this statement is to definitely agree. Pornography exposes people to sexual situations that are neither appropriate nor necessary to see before the age of 18. However, I wonder if placing stricter bans on porn for under-18’s would just make more underage kids try to find loopholes to discover that sort of content. I also wonder about people who are engaging in sexual activity before the age of 18. This is quite a common phenomenon in America. It brings about the question of if people who are engaging in sexual activity before 18 be banned from viewing porn. Or, is porn the reason they are choosing to engage in sexual activity? There’s a lot of questions and concerns in my mind that cause me to personally be mixed on this issue. I’d definitely want to see what others have to say.

I think this statement is too general.

• Immigrants can respect a country’s laws and customs without completely assimilating.
• No one should have to sacrifice their own culture in order to blend in with the dominant culture of a country they move to. A connection to one’s homeland can be extremely important to their mental health, familial ties, and overall wellbeing.
• Cultural diversity can make a country more interesting, inclusive, and safe.

TL;DR: Openness about sex will help it become safer, normalized, and less taboo.

In order to make something less taboo, we must normalize open conversations about the subject. There is a large difference between being “open" about sex and revealing intimate details of your sex life without the consent of whomever you are speaking to. The latter would be inappropriate, but speaking more frankly about sex is not always vulgar. In fact, it can be wonderfully fascinating and philosophical [1].

Sex education, particularly in the United States, is severely lacking in clarity and depth, which can lead to elevating the stigma around sex and also dangerous sexual practices by those who may not know any better such as unplanned pregnancies, unhygienic sex, or lack of consent. Because the shame surrounding sex goes back hundreds of years, it will take a large and intentional cultural shift to undo the notion that sex is always inappropriate.

Openness about sex should mean explaining procreation accurately, providing information about contraception, including LGBTQ+ sex practices in sex education, and accepting that human beings have sexual desires and drives that are okay to explore in a safe and consensual environment.

If we can make sex more of a “normal” subject that can be discussed in schools, with family, and beyond, it will inevitably become less taboo and perhaps even more safe when people are not afraid of asking questions.

[1] A History of Erotic Philosophy Alan Soble is an interesting example of an open philosophical take on eroticism and sex.

TL;DR: Sex is biological and gender is a social construct and performance. Sex should not be the only thing that determines how one lives or presents themselves in the world.

When talking about sex, it is scientifically proven that all human eggs contain an X chromosome, but the combination of XX or XY chromosomes determines whether the fetus will be a female (XX chromosome combination) or a male (XY chromosome combination). Of course, there are other situations where a person may be born [intersex] (https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/001669.htm) and the combination of chromosomes is different. But overall, sex is a widely understood biological component of life. However, the legitimacy of sex is hardly ever what trans folks are trying to dispute.

Instead, transgender people are usually challenging the “normal" idea of gender. Gender and sex are not the same because gender is an outward performance of femininity, masculinity, or anything in between. It is less about adhering to the sex assigned at birth and more about the lived experience of that person. If a trans woman chooses to live her life as a woman, identifies as a woman, and feels affirmed as a woman, then yes, she is a woman. The same goes for trans men. There currently exists no to-do list for someone to “qualify” as a certain gender; the only thing that exists are societal expectations for the performance of gender.

While it is often argued that one should perform the traits usually associated with their assigned sex, there is no overarching reason why sex is the be-all-end-all of man or womanhood. If we look at animals that undergo sequential hermaphroditism, we can easily understand that animals adapt and even change their sex depending on environmental and evolutionary factors. It becomes obvious then that the concepts of manliness and womanliness are entirely man-made.

Sex should not be the component that determines how one must act, present themselves, or be viewed in the world. Instead, we should work harder to widen our perspectives on gender and perhaps even analyze how we outwardly perform ourselves just to appear “man” or “woman”.

TL;DR: Everyone should be provided a safe space, even if there is a safe space for people we disagree with. Though there are complications with safe spaces it does not inherently make them absurd/dangerous.

• In theory, safe spaces are definitely not dangerous. The concept of a safe space is to provide a, well, space, for people to express themselves, their feelings, and their beliefs without fear of retribution. I do not see anything inherently wrong with this concept. Let’s take BIPOC students in predominantly white institution (PWI) for example. Many students of color may not feel comfortable or welcome in spaces that are largely inhabited by white people. Therefore, there should be spaces where they can gather without the constant demand of adhering to white standards. The same goes for people in the LGBTQ+ community, women, and yes, men too. This does mean that, technically, everyone should be provided a safe space, even if there is a safe space for people we disagree with.

• However, I do see the fears that can arise with safe spaces. How can we tell if safe spaces are going “too far” or becoming too exclusionary? When does a safe space no longer become safe? There are definitely nuances to safe spaces, but I don’t believe labeling them dangerous and absurd is a correct observation.

TL;DR: Equal rights have not gone far enough seeing as people still do not have equal rights. Simple as that.

• What exactly are “equal rights”? Can equity truly be summed up by this simple blanket statement? How can human rights ever go too far? People are still out fighting for things such as paid maternal leave, housing equity, clean water, the right to adopt children, healthcare, etc., etc. It does not make sense to say “equal rights have gone too far” when the movement toward equity is truly still beginning.

TL;DR: God’s approval is only important to those who believe in Christianity, and there is no true way to know what God would approve of.

• For me personally, God, or any gods' approval of my actions is not important, as I do not follow a religion. However, I understand that considering the approval of God can be important to those who practice Christian religions and use their faith as a part of their daily lives. The approval of God, in whatever form they may take it in, can be affirming and comforting.
• However, even if God’s approval is part of your decision making process, it’s quite difficult to pinpoint exactly what God as an ethereal deity, would truly think of every decision. Does God change their stances and opinions as the world changes? Do the parameters of God’s "right and wrong" warp as time moves on and social contexts transform?
• As a quick last point, no one should be able to make decisions for other people based on their religion that another person may not follow.

Just because some abstract art strays away from strict visual references does not mean that it does not represent something. I have fallen victim to this mindset before, though. I’ve seen art, such as Piet Mondrian’s ‘Composition A’ or Robert Delaunay’s ‘Le Premier Disque’ and thought “Anyone could make this, so why is it famous art?”

I think it boils down to the fact that just because someone else could make something, they didn’t. There was an intention by the artists that in itself can be considered art. Sometimes it’s less about the end product and more about the process of creating something that draws a reaction from the viewer, whether it be positive, negative, or perhaps completely neutral.

To claim that something is not art at all is a strong stance, and to label something “not art” that was created using a distinct artistic process, whatever that may be, seems to discredit the range of reactions, emotions, and discussions that can come from abstract art.

I absolutely agree. There are concerning statistics about the numbers of arrests made for marijuana use or possession and who is getting arrested more often. White people have been able to profit off of the legalization of weed while [Black people and other non-white people are more likely to be arrested for possession or distribution] (https://www.aclu.org/gallery/marijuana-arrests-numbers). Marijuana dispensaries are becoming more and more popular in states where marijuana is legalized, and the atmosphere of a lot of these dispensaries are incredibly gentrified with stark white walls, expensive furnishings, and high prices (See West Coast Cannabis Club in CA, Apothecary farms in CO, or Verilife Marijuana Dispensary in IL for a few examples). I do not believe it is right that someone can walk into a dispensary in one state and be arrested in another for the same drug with the same effects. The marijuana industry brings some great profit while others are still in prison (a disproportional amount of black men, by the way), even in states where it has been legalized. The over criminalization of weed and, as TheMastaDebata said, drug testing of employees for weed should both be banned.

I definitely agree with this statement. Sex work has been around for thousands of years, meaning that the market for sex work has hardly diminished at all throughout history. From a basic supply and demand perspective, sex work provides a supply for the demand of, well, sex. However, it’s important to note that a lot of sex work is unregulated and can be particularly dangerous for the sex workers themselves. So, I’d say that sex work is absolutely valid, but the negative attitudes and stigmas surrounding sex work are what is keeping it from becoming a safer job.

I understand why some may believe that sex work is not a valid way to earn money, but I personally view it as physical labor– in other words, using your body to provide a product. In many ways, this is similar to physical labor jobs such as construction, roofing, trade jobs, etc. Just because a job such as sex work may have more “blurred” morals to some does not mean it is any less valid. I find it hypocritical to argue that sex work should be banned on a moral basis considering that some of the most trafficked websites on the internet are related to pornography. In America, millions of people visit pornography websites every single day; they are indulging in the sex work industry even if they are unaware of it. Do I think that all pornography is ethical? Absolutely not. However, to label a product immoral in the public eye while possibly indulging in it in private is textbook hypocrisy.

At the end of the day, sex work has been so stigmatized from a moral, political, and religious standpoint that it has become more unsafe as the years go on. I do think it is possible to change the public view of sex work. If we can find ways to regulate it, normalize it, and educate others, hopefully we can make sex work safer for both the workers and consumers.